Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 75 references

High-Temperature Deformation Behavior of Co-Free Non-Equiatomic CrMnFeNi Alloy

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A cobalt-free CrMnFeNi high-entropy alloy is claimed to retain higher strength than the Co-bearing Cantor alloy at elevated temperatures.

desk verdict Solid characterization package, but the central superiority claim over the Cantor alloy is contradicted by the paper's own Table 1. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.00619 v3 pith:3BWZKF2K submitted 2026-01-02 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.comp-ph

F. J. Dominguez-Gutierrez , M. Frelek-Kozak , G. Markovic , M. A. Strozyk , A. Daramola , M. Traversier , A. Fraczkiewicz , A. Zaborowska
show 3 more authors
T. Khvan I. Jozwik L. Kurpaska
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.comp-ph
keywords high-entropyalloycobalt-freeCrMnFeNistacking-faultenergydeformationtwinningtensilepropertiesmoleculardynamicsEBSD
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to show that removing cobalt from the canonical CrMnFeCoNi high-entropy alloy does not degrade—and may improve—strength at elevated temperatures. Through tensile tests, molecular dynamics simulations, and EBSD mapping of a non-equiatomic Cr14.2Mn12.5Fe39.7Ni33.6 alloy from room temperature to 700 °C, it identifies stacking-fault formation, mechanical twinning, and grain-boundary activity as the carriers of plasticity and strain hardening. The central message is that a Co-free face-centered-cubic alloy can deliver the deformation mechanisms that make the Cantor alloy strong, while avoiding the long-lived Co radioisotopes that disqualify Co-bearing alloys for nuclear service.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the generalized stacking-fault energy (the energy cost of shearing the {111} plane) and its temperature dependence. It sets the dissociation width of dislocations, the propensity for twin nucleation (quantified by a twinnability parameter), and the transition from twinning-dominated to recovery-dominated flow; the authors compute it with an embedded-atom-method potential and cross-check the resulting twin activity against EBSD and molecular-dynamics polycrystals built from measured grain orientations.

What would settle it

A matched-microstructure tensile test of HEA-1 and the Cantor alloy at 400–700 °C, using identical grain size, specimen geometry, and strain rate, would settle the claim: if the Co-bearing alloy still shows higher ultimate tensile strength under those identical conditions, the paper's headline conclusion fails. Recomputing the stacking-fault energy with an independent ab initio method would also check the potential-dependent input the mechanism rests on.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper reports that HEA-1 (Cr14.2Mn12.5Fe39.7Ni33.6) remains a single fcc phase up to 700 °C and has a low intrinsic stacking-fault energy that falls from 32 ± 9 mJ/m² at 25 °C to 22 ± 6 mJ/m² at 700 °C. This favors partial-dislocation dissociation and mechanical twinning, quantified by a twinnability parameter of 1.22 (compared with 1.0 for pure Ni). Tensile yield strength falls from ~220 MPa to ~127 MPa and ultimate strength from ~500 MPa to ~300 MPa as temperature rises, with EBSD and MD in agreement that twin-boundary fraction peaks at 400–550 °C and gives way to dynamic recovery and grain-boundary sliding at 700 °C. On this basis the authors conclude that the absenc

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on treating the literature data for the Cantor and other alloys as directly comparable to the miniaturized-specimen tensile results for HEA-1, even though grain size, specimen geometry, and strain rate are not matched.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, this Co-free composition could substitute for the Cantor alloy in high-temperature nuclear structural components, eliminating Co activation without sacrificing strength.
  • The predicted drop in stacking-fault energy with temperature marks 400–550 °C as a twinning-favorable window where strain hardening is strongest, matching the observed twin-boundary fraction peak.
  • MD and EBSD both show grain orientation controls slip and twinning, so texture engineering could further tune strength and ductility in this alloy.
  • The higher Ni content in HEA-1 raises its SFE relative to a Fe-richer variant, which the authors link to stronger dislocation pinning and a higher yield strength.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A matched-microstructure tensile test—same grain size, sample dimensions, and strain rate—for HEA-1 and the Cantor alloy would directly test the headline claim; the paper's own comparison table shows the Cantor alloy with higher absolute UTS at every overlapping temperature, so the 'enhanced strength' conclusion currently depends on how the reference data are normalized.
  • The same finite-temperature free-energy method used here could map stacking-fault energy across a range of Ni and Co contents, giving a design chart for twinning propensity in Co-free alloys.
  • Because the paper links low SFE to both twinning and irradiation response, a further testable prediction is that HEA-1's reduced SFE alters radiation-induced defect clustering; ion-irradiation experiments would probe this.
  • A cryogenic tensile test would reveal whether the twinning mechanisms active at 400–550 °C also operate at low temperatures, projecting the Cantor alloy's famous low-temperature toughness onto this Co-free system.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental and molecular-dynamics study of a Co-free non-equiatomic Cr14.2Mn12.5Fe39.7Ni33.6 alloy (HEA-1). Tensile tests were performed at 25, 400, 550, and 700 °C on miniaturized specimens; EBSD was used to quantify twin-boundary fractions after deformation; and MD simulations with an EAM potential were used to compute stacking-fault energies, twinnability, and deformation mechanisms. The central claim, stated in the abstract and conclusions, is that removing Co leads to enhanced high-temperature ultimate tensile strength compared with the Cantor alloy CrMnFeCoNi, with mechanistic support from twinning at intermediate temperatures.

Significance. If the central claim were valid, the paper would be a valuable step toward a Co-free fcc HEA suitable for nuclear service. The experimental dataset for HEA-1—UTS and YS at four temperatures, EBSD twin fractions, and MD microstructural evolution—is useful and generally well presented. The authors are transparent about several MD limitations (nanoscale grains, 10^9 s^-1 strain rate, suppression of thermally activated processes) and use ten independent polycrystalline configurations for statistics. The MD polycrystals are seeded from experimental EBSD orientations, which is a strength. However, the headline conclusion is contradicted by the paper's own Table 1, and the cross-alloy comparison is not controlled for microstructure or specimen geometry. The mechanistic interpretation additionally rests on an SFE calculation that the authors themselves state is unconfirmed. These issues are load-bearing, not cosmetic.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; §3.2; §4; Table 1] The central claim is internally inconsistent with the reported data. Table 1 gives HEA-1 UTS = 499.64 MPa at 25 °C and 421.17 MPa at 400 °C, while the Cantor alloy is listed at 590.64 MPa and 490.84 MPa at the same temperatures. Thus at every overlapping temperature the Co-containing Cantor alloy is stronger. No Cantor data are reported at 550 °C or 700 °C, so the §3.2 statement that HEA-1 'surpasses' Co-containing alloys up to 550 °C cannot be read from Table 1; in fact, at 400 °C all three Co-containing references are stronger. The abstract and §4 claim that Co removal leads to 'enhanced high-temperature strength' / 'an increase in ultimate tensile strength at high temperatures compared to the canonical Cantor alloy' is therefore unsupported and contradicted by the matched 400 °C point. The only comparison actually supported by the data is normalized UTS retention (Fig. 6), which is a
  2. [§3.2; Tables 1–2; Fig. 6] The absolute-strength comparison against Co-containing reference alloys is not controlled. HEA-1 was tested as miniaturized specimens with a 5 mm gauge length and 0.8×0.6 mm cross-section at 10^-3 s^-1, while the literature values for CoCrFeNi, CoFeNiMn, Cantor, NiFeCrMn18, and Fe45Mn15Cr15Ni25 are drawn from Refs. [1–4,54,55] without any statement of their grain size, specimen geometry, or strain rate. Since UTS and YS in fcc alloys depend strongly on grain size and specimen dimensions, the comparison conflates composition with microstructure. The normalized retention curves in Fig. 6 are less affected by this problem, but they do not support the paper's absolute-strength claims.
  3. [§3.1; Eq. (2); Fig. 3(d)] The mechanistic narrative depends on SFE and twinnability values that are not yet confirmed. The SFE of 32 ± 9 mJ/m² and twinnability τ_a = 1.22 are computed with the EAM potential of Daramola et al. [39,40,43], a potential co-authored by one of the present authors and fitted partly to experimental/DFT data of the same alloy family. The paper itself states 'Ongoing work will perform more detailed SFE calculations to confirm these estimates' (§3.1). The intermediate-temperature twinning mechanism is therefore built on unconfirmed potential predictions. There is also an internal inconsistency in §3.1: HEA-1 is first described as having a 'lower SFE' than Ni, but the twinnability discussion says the increase in τ_a 'reflects ... its slightly higher stacking-fault energy.' Clarify which comparison is intended.
  4. [§2.2; §3.4; Fig. 10] The MD simulations operate at a strain rate of 10^9 s^-1 and with 6–8 nm grains, conditions that artificially favor partial-dislocation glide and twinning while suppressing climb, recovery, and recrystallization. The authors acknowledge this in §3.4, but they still use MD twin ratios (TR values at ε = 0.06 and 0.10) to 'confirm' the experimental trend of enhanced twinning at 400–550 °C. Given the order-of-magnitude gap in strain rate and grain size, the MD evidence is at most suggestive; it cannot by itself validate the temperature dependence of twinning or its role in the macroscopic strength response.
  5. [Tables 1–2; §3.2] Even the yield-strength comparison does not support the high-temperature claim. At 25 °C, HEA-1 YS (220.17 MPa) is higher than the Cantor value (210.77 MPa), but at 400 °C the Cantor YS (172.01 MPa) is higher than HEA-1 (167.00 MPa). Thus the paper's own data show that the Co-free alloy does not improve high-temperature strength in absolute terms; at best it retains strength comparably. This reinforces the need to re-scope the conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table numbering] The composition table is labeled 'Table 1' and the UTS comparison table is also labeled 'Table 1'; the YS table is labeled 'Table 2'. Renumber to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [Figure numbering] §3.2 refers to 'Figure 6' for normalized UTS/YS, but later says the values are 'used to derive the normalized UTS trends presented in Fig. 5(a)' and 'Figure 5' is also discussed. The figure/table cross-references need to be made consistent.
  3. [Eq. (2)] The twinnability expression appears as a blank equation with only the number '(2)'. The formula for τ_a must be displayed.
  4. [Units; typographical errors] The MD strain rate appears as '109 s−1' in §2.2; this should be 10^9 s^-1. The lattice constant is given as 0.359 nm in §2.2 and 0.359 Å in §3; these are inconsistent by three orders of magnitude. Also, 'non-equatomic' in the abstract should be 'non-equiatomic.'
  5. [Reference formatting] Refs. [1] and [2] are review articles (George/Curtin/Tasan; Miracle/Senkov), not primary tensile-test sources. The data in Tables 1–2 should be cited to the original experimental papers, not to reviews.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the SFE/twinning mechanism is generated by a same-group EAM potential fitted to stacking-fault energetics, then presented as an estimate; the headline Cantor comparison is internally questionable but not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [§2.2 (Computational Methods) and §3.1 (Nickel effects on plasticity mechanisms), including Eq. (2) and refs [39,40,43]]
    "We employ a recently developed embedded atom method (EAM)-based interatomic potential that was specifically tailored for the plasticity-oriented behavior of the CrFeMnNi quaternary HEA [40,43]. The potential, derived through an extensive fitting process involving experimental data, DFT calculations, and thermodynamic modeling, accurately captures critical crystallographic properties such as elastic constants and stacking fault energy [18,19] ; "We estimated an SFE of 32 ± 9 mJ/m² for HEA-1" ; "Ongoing work will perform more detailed SFE calculations to confirm these estimates.""

    The paper presents the EAM-computed SFE (and hence the twinnability parameter τa = 1.22 and the 'lower SFE promotes twinning' mechanism) as a result, but the potential was developed in the same group, fitted to stacking-fault energetics of the CrFeMnNi family, and is cited as already capturing 'stacking fault energy.' Recovering a fitting target from the same potential and labeling it an estimate is circular-by-construction for the SFE claim; the authors' own admission that 'ongoing work' must confirm the estimates acknowledges that the value is not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The only reduction-by-input I can exhibit is the SFE/twinning chain: the EAM potential from refs [39,40,43] (author overlap: Daramola, Fraczkiewicz) was fitted with stacking-fault energy among its targets, and §3.1 uses it to produce the SFE values (32±9 mJ/m² for HEA-1, 26±6 for Y3-HEA) and the twinnability τa=1.22 that carry the mechanistic interpretation. That is a fitted-input-called-prediction step, though it is supporting rather than the whole central claim. The central claim about enhanced high-temperature strength compared with Cantor rests on the experimental tensile data and Table 1, not on the SFE fit; however, that claim has an internal-data problem (at 400°C Table 1 lists Cantor UTS 490.84 MPa vs HEA-1 421.17 MPa, and no Cantor row exists at 550/700°C), which is a correctness/comparability issue, not circularity. The MD polycrystals seeded with experimental EBSD orientations are a modeling choice, not circularity, because twin formation is emergent from the simulation. I therefore rate partial circularity (4), not higher: the load-bearing experimental comparison is independent, albeit disputed, and no explicit theorem is imported from self-citation to forbid alternatives.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, phases, or conserved quantities are postulated. L1₀-like local structures are mentioned only as a possible consequence of previously reported short-range order, not introduced as a new entity. The main entries the reader 'pays for upstream' are the EAM potential behavior, the random-alloy assumption despite known SRO, the 12-decade strain-rate bridge, and the uncontrolled literature comparison.

free parameters (3)
  • MD strain rate = 10^9 s^-1
    Computationally forced; 12 orders of magnitude above the experimental 10^-3 s^-1. The mechanism claims (twinning, DRX-related stress drops) are read off simulations at this rate and transferred to the experimental regime by assumption (§3.2, §3.4, Fig. 5).
  • Schmid-factor threshold m_s for the D_s metric = 0.46
    Hand-chosen cutoff ('proportion of atoms with m>0.46', §3.4). The quantitative D_s trend claims are not tested against other thresholds, so the reported trend is conditional on this choice.
  • MD polycrystal grain size (RVE) = 6–8 nm (up to 12 grains)
    Chosen for computational tractability; orders of magnitude below the experimental grain size. The transfer of MD twin-ratio trends to the EBSD observations rests on the RVE argument being valid across the scale gap (§2.2, Fig. 11).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Daramola EAM potential ([39,40,43]) correctly predicts CrFeMnNi stacking-fault energetics and deformation mechanisms
    Used for all GSFE, SFE, twin-nucleation, and stress-strain results (§2.2, §3.1). Benchmarked on pure Ni and a 316SS proxy, but the 4-element HEA-1 predictions (SFE 32±9 mJ/m²) are not independently confirmed; the paper says confirmation is 'ongoing work' (§3.1). Potential authors overlap with this paper's authors.
  • ad hoc to paper Random solid-solution atomic arrangement in MD cells
    The paper states atomic configurations 'are assumed to be random' in both single-crystal and polycrystalline models, then immediately notes 'pronounced short-range order tendencies have been reported [23,24]' (§3.1). If Ni–Mn SRO alters the SFE, the MD-derived mechanism picture shifts.
  • domain assumption Schmid law remains valid in chemically disordered HEAs
    Applied in §3.4: 'the geometric relationship described by the Schmid factor remains valid' despite lattice distortions. The slip-activity and D_s interpretations depend on this validity.
  • domain assumption Deformation mechanisms are transferable across 12 decades of strain rate
    Normalized MD yield/UTS trends are compared with experimental data taken at 10^-3 s^-1 (§3.2, Fig. 6). The paper concedes in §3.4 that thermally activated processes (climb, recovery, recrystallization) are suppressed at MD rates, undercutting mechanism transfer.
  • domain assumption Literature reference strengths are directly comparable to HEA-1 measurements
    Tables 1–2 compare miniaturized-specimen data (5 mm gauge, 0.8×0.6 mm cross-section) with published UTS/YS values [1–4,54,55] without matching grain size, specimen geometry, strain rate, or heat treatment. The headline claim is built on this comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-Temperature Deformation Behavior of Co-Free Non-Equiatomic CrMnFeNi Alloy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3BWZKF2K

@misc{pith2026260100619,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-Temperature Deformation Behavior of Co-Free Non-Equiatomic CrMnFeNi Alloy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3BWZKF2K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.00619}
}
read the original abstract

Cobalt-free high-entropy alloys (HEAs) have garnered interest for nuclear structural applications due to their good mechanical performance, thermal stability, and resistance to radiation-induced degradation, while avoiding long-lived Co radioisotopes. This study presents an experimental and computational investigation of the plastic deformation behavior of a non-equatomic CrMnFeNi alloy, designed to maintain a stability of fcc phase in a large domain of temperatures and to balance stacking fault (SF) energies for enhanced strain hardening and ductility. Tensile tests reveal a temperature-dependent reduction in mechanical strength, attributed to thermally activated deformation mechanisms and microstructural evolution. Molecular dynamics simulations of single- and polycrystals capture dislocation activity, SF formation, and twin nucleation as a function of strain and temperature. Electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) confirms twin formation and grain boundary activity. The Schmid factor mapping is drawn to interpret local slip activity and anisotropic deformation behavior. The absence of Co leads to enhanced high-temperature strength compared to the Cantor alloy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.00619 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. EBSD maps and corresponding grain size of HEA-1 alloy (a) in a as forged condition, and (b) as recrystallized condition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. XRD patterns of the experimental and simulated samples at room temperature in recrystalized condition, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E. P. George, WA Curtin, CC Tasan. Acta Materialia 188 (2020), 435

    2020

  2. [2]

    D. B. Miracle, ON Senkov. Acta Materialia 122 (2017), 448

    2017

  3. [3]

    Cichocki, K., Bala, P., Kwiecien, M, K Muska. Archiv. Civ. Mech. Eng 24 (2024), 81 https://doi.org/10.1007/s43452-024-00888-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s43452-024-00888-8 2024

  4. [4]

    Metall Mater Trans A 53 (2022), 1749–1760

    Cichocki, K., P Bała, T Kozieł, G Cios, N Schell, K Muszka. Metall Mater Trans A 53 (2022), 1749–1760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-022-06629-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11661-022-06629-x 2022

  5. [5]

    Strong and Ductile Non-equiatomic High-Entropy Alloys: Design, Processing, Microstructure, and Mechanical Properties

    Li, Z., Raabe, D. Strong and Ductile Non-equiatomic High-Entropy Alloys: Design, Processing, Microstructure, and Mechanical Properties. JOM 69 (2017), 2099–2106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-017- 2540-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11837-017- 2017

  6. [6]

    W. Lu, C. H. Liebscher, G. Dehm, D. Raabe, Z. Li, Adv. Mater. 30 (2018), 1804727. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201804727

    work page doi:10.1002/adma.201804727 2018

  7. [7]

    Chowdhury, Kalidindi S

    P. Chowdhury, Kalidindi S.. Materials Science and Engineering: R: Reports 122 (2017), 1-28 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mser.2017.09.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mser.2017.09.002 2017

  8. [8]

    Wilczynski, M

    M. Wilczynski, M. Fedorov, T. Khvan, F. J. Dominguez-Gutierrez, and J. Jagielski, Physica Status Solidi (RRL) – Rapid Research Letters 0, e202500438 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1002/pssr.202500438

    work page doi:10.1002/pssr.202500438 2025

Show all 75 references
  1. [10]

    Gali, E.P

    A. Gali, E.P. George. Intermetallics 39 (2013), 74

    2013

  2. [11]

    F. Otto, A. Dlouhý, Ch. Somsen, H. Bei, G. Eggeler, E.P. George. Acta Materialia 6, 5743 (2013)

    2013

  3. [12]

    Materials & Design 249 (2025), 113556

    Jiajia Shen, RE Kim, J He, J Yang, JG Lopes, Z Zeng, N Schell, HS Kim, JP Oliveira. Materials & Design 249 (2025), 113556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2024.113556

    2025

  4. [13]

    Materials & Design 119 (2017), 141

    Igor Moravcik, Jan Cizek, Jozef Zapletal, Zuzana Kovacova, Jozef Vesely, Peter Minarik, Michael Kitzmantel, Erich Neubauer, Ivo Dlouhy. Materials & Design 119 (2017), 141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.01.036

    2017 doi

  5. [14]

    Hong, J Moon, SK Hong, HS Kim

    S. Hong, J Moon, SK Hong, HS Kim. Materials Sci. and Eng: A 682 (2017), 569

    2017

  6. [15]

    Liang, JTM De Hosson, MX Huang

    Z. Liang, JTM De Hosson, MX Huang. Acta Mater. 129 (2017), 1

    2017

  7. [16]

    In a nutshell [Internet]

    INNUMAT Consortium. In a nutshell [Internet]. INNUMAT – Innovative Structural Materials for Fission and Fusion; [cited 2025 Aug 8]. Available from: https://www.innumat.eu/

    2025

  8. [17]

    Zaddach, C Niu, CC Koch, DL Irving , JOM, 65 (2013), 1780-1789,

    2013

  9. [18]

    Yao, KG Pradeep, CC Tasan, D Raabe

    M.J. Yao, KG Pradeep, CC Tasan, D Raabe. Scripta Materialia 72 (2014), 5

    2014

  10. [19]

    Oliveros, A Fraczkiewicz, A Dlouhy, C Zhang, H Song, S Sandfeld, M Legros

    D. Oliveros, A Fraczkiewicz, A Dlouhy, C Zhang, H Song, S Sandfeld, M Legros. Chem. Phys. 124955 (2021), 0254

    2021

  11. [20]

    Jin, C Lu, LM Wang, J Qu, WJ Weber, Y Zhang, H Bei

    K. Jin, C Lu, LM Wang, J Qu, WJ Weber, Y Zhang, H Bei. Scr. Mater. 119 (2016), 65

    2016

  12. [21]

    Frydrych, M Pecelerowicz, R Alvarez, FJ Dominguez-Gutiérrez, F Rovaris

    K. Frydrych, M Pecelerowicz, R Alvarez, FJ Dominguez-Gutiérrez, F Rovaris. Materials 14 (2021), 5764

    2021

  13. [22]

    Lu, L Niu, N Chen, K Jin, T Yang, P Xiu, Y Zhang, F Gao, H Bei, S Shi, MR He ., Nat

    C. Lu, L Niu, N Chen, K Jin, T Yang, P Xiu, Y Zhang, F Gao, H Bei, S Shi, MR He ., Nat. Commun. 7 (2016), 13564

    2016

  14. [23]

    Fedorov JS Wróbel, A Fernández-Caballero, KJ Kurzydłowski, D Nguyen-Manh

    M. Fedorov JS Wróbel, A Fernández-Caballero, KJ Kurzydłowski, D Nguyen-Manh. Phys. Rev. B 101 (2020), 174416

    2020

  15. [24]

    M. Fedorov. JS Wróbel, W Chromiński, G Cieślak, M Płocińska, KJ Kurzydłowski. Acta Materialia 255 (2023), 119047

    2023

  16. [25]

    Journal of Alloys and Compounds 10 (2025), 177553 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2024.177553

    Mathieu Traversier, Emmanuel Rigal, Xavier Boulnat, Franck Tancret, Jean Dhers, Anna Fraczkiewicz. Journal of Alloys and Compounds 10 (2025), 177553 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2024.177553

    2025

  17. [26]

    Materials Science and Engineering: A 804 (2021), 140725

    Mathieu Traversier, Pierre Mestre-Rinn, Nathalie Peillon, Emmanuel Rigal, Xavier Boulnat, Franck Tancret, Jean Dhers, Anna Fraczkiewicz. Materials Science and Engineering: A 804 (2021), 140725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2020.140725

    2021

  18. [27]

    Wei, K Zhang, L Chen, Z Han, T Wang, C Chen, J Jiang, T Hu, F Li

    R. Wei, K Zhang, L Chen, Z Han, T Wang, C Chen, J Jiang, T Hu, F Li . Journal of Materials Science 18 & Technology 57 (2020), 153 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmst.2020.05.010

    2020 doi

  19. [28]

    Y. L. Zhao, T Yang, JH Zhu, D Chen, Y Yang, A Hu, CT Liu, JJ Kai. Scripta Materialia 148 (2018),

    2018

  20. [29]

    Fan, L Fu, Y Sun, F Xu, Y Ding, M Wen, A Shan

    J. Fan, L Fu, Y Sun, F Xu, Y Ding, M Wen, A Shan. Journal of Materials Science & Technology 118 (2022), 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmst.2021.11.058

    2022 doi

  21. [30]

    Yoshida, T Ikeuchi, T Bhattacharjee, Y Bai, A Shibata, N Tsuji

    S. Yoshida, T Ikeuchi, T Bhattacharjee, Y Bai, A Shibata, N Tsuji. Acta Materialia 171 (2019), 201 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2019.04.017

    2019 doi

  22. [31]

    Basu, JTM De Hosson

    I. Basu, JTM De Hosson. Scripta Materialia 187 (2020), 148 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2020.06.019

    2020 doi

  23. [32]

    Materials & Design 238 (2024), 112662 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2024.112662

    Jiajia Shen, W Zhang, JG Lopes, Y Pei, Z Zeng, E Maawad, N Schell, AC Baptista, RS Mishra. Materials & Design 238 (2024), 112662 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2024.112662

    2024

  24. [33]

    Z. Han. Journal of Alloys and Compounds 791 (2019), 962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2019.03.373

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    Wu, H Bei, GM Pharr, EP George

    Z. Wu, H Bei, GM Pharr, EP George. Acta Materialia 81 (2014), 428 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2014.08.026

    2014 doi

  26. [35]

    Liu, Y. Wu, H.T. Wang, J.Y. He, J.B. Liu, C.X. Chen, X.J. Liu, H. Wang, Z.P. Lu, Intermetallics 93 (2018), 269-273, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intermet.2017.10.004

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    Acta Mater

    Smith MS Hooshmand, BD Esser, F Otto, DW McComb, EP George, M Ghazisaeidi. Acta Mater. 110 (2016), 352-363, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2016.03.045

    2016 doi

  28. [37]

    Frelek-Kozak, K Mulewska, M Wilczopolska, D Kalita, W Chromiński, A Zaborowska

    M. Frelek-Kozak, K Mulewska, M Wilczopolska, D Kalita, W Chromiński, A Zaborowska. Mat. Characterization 203 (2023), 113060 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2023.113060

    2023

  29. [38]

    Kamaya AJ Wilkinson, JM Titchmarsh

    M. Kamaya AJ Wilkinson, JM Titchmarsh. Acta Materialia 54 (2006), 539 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2005.08.046

    2006 doi

  30. [39]

    Daramola, Giovanni Bonny, Gilles Adjanor, Christophe Domain, Ghiath Monnet, Anna FraczkiewiczCompt

    A. Daramola, Giovanni Bonny, Gilles Adjanor, Christophe Domain, Ghiath Monnet, Anna FraczkiewiczCompt. Mat. Sci. 203 (2022), 111165

    2022

  31. [40]

    Daramola, Anna Fraczkiewicz, Giovanni Bonny, Ghiath Monnet

    A. Daramola, Anna Fraczkiewicz, Giovanni Bonny, Ghiath Monnet. Compt. Mat. Sci. 211 (2022), 111508

    2022

  32. [41]

    Kumar, C Li, KJ Leonard, H Bei, SJ Zinkle

    N.A.P.K. Kumar, C Li, KJ Leonard, H Bei, SJ Zinkle. Acta Mater. 113 (2016), 230

    2016

  33. [42]

    Naghdi, F

    A. Naghdi, F. J. Dominguez-Gutierrez, K. Karimi, W Huo. Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024), 116101

    2024

  34. [43]

    Nuclear Materials 592 (2024), 154959

    A Daramola, Anna Fraczkiewicz, Giovanni Bonny, Gilles Adjanor, Ghiath Monnet, Christophe Domain. Nuclear Materials 592 (2024), 154959

    2024

  35. [44]

    Frydrych, F

    K. Frydrych, F. J. Dominguez-Gutierrez, M. Alava. Mechanics of Materials 181 (2023), 104644

    2023

  36. [45]

    Materials & Design 244 (2024), 113101 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2024.113101

    Zihan Zhang, L Xu, G Qin, Y Ma, X Wu, F Yuan. Materials & Design 244 (2024), 113101 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2024.113101

    2024

  37. [46]

    Menou, I Toda-Caraballo, PEJ Rivera-Díaz-del, C Pineau, E Bertrand, G Ramstein

    E. Menou, I Toda-Caraballo, PEJ Rivera-Díaz-del, C Pineau, E Bertrand, G Ramstein. Materials & Design 143 (2018), 185 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2018.01.045

    2018 doi

  38. [47]

    Toda-Caraballo

    I. Toda-Caraballo. Scripta Materialia 127 (2017), 113 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2016.09.009

    2017 doi

  39. [48]

    Guénolé, WG Nöhring, A Vaid, F Houllé, Z Xie, A Prakash, E Bitzek, Comput

    J. Guénolé, WG Nöhring, A Vaid, F Houllé, Z Xie, A Prakash, E Bitzek, Comput. Mater. Sci. 175 (2020), 109584

    2020

  40. [49]

    Kurpaska, F

    L. Kurpaska, F. Dominguez-Gutierrez, Y. Zhang, K. Mulewska, H. Bei, W. Weber, A. Kosinska, W. Chrominski, Mater. Des. 217 (2022), 110639

    2022

  41. [50]

    F. J. Domínguez-Gutiérrez, A. Olejarz, M. Landeiro Dos Reis, E. Wyszkowska, L Kurpaska. J. Appl. Phys. 135 (2024), 185101

    2024

  42. [51]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2018.01.028

    2018 doi

  43. [52]

    A. P. Thompson, H. M. Aktulga, R. Berger, D. S. Bolintineanu, W. M. Brown, P. S. Crozier, P. J. in 19 ’t Veld, A. Kohlmeyer, S. G. Moore, T. D. Nguyen, R. Shan, M. J. Stevens, J. Tranchida, C. Trott, and S. J. Plimpton, Comput. Phys. Commun. 271 (2022), 108171. https://doi.org...

    2022

  44. [53]

    Pierre Hirel, Comput. Phys. Comm. 197 (2015), 212

    2015

  45. [54]

    S. C. Li, C. Y. Guo, L. L. Hao. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 759 (2019), 624

    2019

  46. [55]

    Wu, H.Bei

    Z. Wu, H.Bei. Mat. Sci. and Eng. A 640 (2015), 217

    2015

  47. [56]

    D. Liu, X. Jin. Metals 13 (2023), 1885

    2023

  48. [57]

    M. D. Peng, J. Shi, B. Cui, T. Sun. Steel Res. Int. 88 (2017), 1700069

    2017

  49. [58]

    Zhang, M

    C. Zhang, M. Sun, R. Ya, L. Li. Materials 16 (2023), 2888

    2023

  50. [59]

    Science Advances

    Ma K, Guo L, Dartois A, Meslin E, Ophus C, Décamps B, Fraczkiewicz A et al. Science Advances. 11 (2025), 4070

    2025

  51. [60]

    Modelling Simul

    S P Coleman. Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 21 (2013), 055020

    2013

  52. [61]

    Results in Materials 17 (2023), 100364

    Ivan Lobzenko, Daixiu Wei. Results in Materials 17 (2023), 100364

    2023

  53. [62]

    Traversier, E

    M. Traversier, E. Rigal, X. Boulnat, F. Tancret, J. Dhers, A. Fraczkiewicz. Journal of Alloys and Compounds 10, 177553 (2025)

    2025

  54. [63]

    Materials Chemistry and Physics 272, 124955 (2021)

    Daniela Oliveros, Anna Fraczkiewicz, Antonin Dlouhy, Chen Zhang, Hengxu Song, Stefan Sandfeld, Marc Legros. Materials Chemistry and Physics 272, 124955 (2021)

    2021

  55. [64]

    Meric de Bellefon and J.C

    G. Meric de Bellefon and J.C. van Duysen. J. Nucl. Materials 475, 168 (2016)

    2016

  56. [65]

    Cichocki, F

    K. Cichocki, F. J. Dominguez-Gutierrez, E. Wyszkowska, L. Kurpaska, and K. Muszka. Archives of Mechanics, 1-23 (2025). https://doi.org/10.24423/aom.4611

    2025 doi

  57. [66]

    Carter C.B., Holmes S.M. Phil. Mag. A, 35, 1161 (1977)

    1977

  58. [67]

    Antonsson, Mikael Grehk, Wei Li, Levente Vitos, Ardeshir Golpayegani

    Jun Lu, Lars Hultman, Erik Holmström, Karin H. Antonsson, Mikael Grehk, Wei Li, Levente Vitos, Ardeshir Golpayegani. Acta Materialia 111, 39 (2016)

    2016

  59. [68]

    Swinburne and Marinica. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2018

    2018

  60. [69]

    Namakian et al. Comput. Mater. Sci. 218, 111971 (2022)

    2022

  61. [70]

    Kibey, J.B

    S. Kibey, J.B. Liu, D.D. Johnson, H. Sehitoglu. Acta Materialia 55, 6843 (2007)

    2007

  62. [71]

    Tadmor and Bernstein. J . Mech. Phys. Solids 52, 2507 (2004)

    2004

  63. [72]

    Shayuan Weng, Weina Han, Gang Chen, Tao Fu. J. Appl. Phys. 135, 205103 (2024)

    2024

  64. [73]

    Mechanical properties of AlCoCrCuFeNi high-entropy alloys using molecular dynamics and machine learning

    Nguyen, Hoang -Giang, Thanh -Dung Le, Hong -Giang Nguyen, and Te -Hua Fang. "Mechanical properties of AlCoCrCuFeNi high-entropy alloys using molecular dynamics and machine learning." Materials Science and Engineering: R: Reports 160 (2024): 100833

    2024

  65. [74]

    Molecular dynamics study of microscopic deformation mechanism and tensile properties in AlxCoCr FeNi amorphous high -entropy alloys

    Jiang, Jun, Weifu Sun, and Ning Luo. "Molecular dynamics study of microscopic deformation mechanism and tensile properties in AlxCoCr FeNi amorphous high -entropy alloys." Materials Today Communications 31 (2022): 103861

    2022

  66. [75]

    AlCoCrCuFeNi high entropy alloy cluster growth and annealing on silicon: A classical molecular dynami cs simulation study

    Xie, Lu, Pascal Brault, Anne -Lise Thomann, and Jean-Marc Bauchire. "AlCoCrCuFeNi high entropy alloy cluster growth and annealing on silicon: A classical molecular dynami cs simulation study." Applied surface science 285 (2013): 810-816

    2013

  67. [76]

    See Supplemental Material at [url] for the d etailed description of the MD simulations methods and results

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.