Special WC/Co orientation relationships at basal facets of WC grains in WC–Co alloys

Theory of ultrathin films at metal–ceramic interfaces

“…We choose to model the WC/Co and VC/Co interfaces in the same geometry as the WC/VC interface, which means that we are effectively modeling Following the preceding argument, we do not expect the particular choice of Co orientation to influence ∆γ VC in any decisive way, although existing experimental observations of this orientation between WC and solid Co [31,32] do motivate its use as model geometry. At high temperatures, the motion of liquid Co atoms will constantly change the atomic structure at the interface.…”

A computational study of thin cubic carbide films in WC/Co interfaces

“…The films have been seen especially in VC-doped WC/Co [3][4][5][6][7][8], where they have been associated with the cubic VC phase [5]. Thin films in WC/Co interfaces have also been imaged in Cr 3 C 2 -doped [9], TiC-doped [10] and undoped [11] WC/Co. It has been suggested that cubic films in WC/Co interfaces hinder the WC grain growth by forming a diffusion barrier for dissolving and/or reprecipitating W atoms [6].…”

First-principles study of an interfacial phase diagram in the V-doped WC-Co system

“…This difference would increase further if adding the environmental term γ env to reflect the effect of a lower C potential [ μ C 0 in Eq. (8) 64), which yields a special semicoherent WC/Co interface. For that orientation, partially C-terminated configurations with lower energy than the completely Wterminated interface do exist and are associated with regions of the interface being either W-or C-terminated.…”

“…Due to the many calculations needed to fit the CEs, it is for computational reasons preferable to use as small a supercell as possible, yet still keep the strain needed to create a commensurate carbide/Co interface minimal to retain a realistic atomic density in the interface. We choose to use a (0001) WC 64 It is thus a realistic interface geometry, although our particular choice of rotation state of Co with respect to the (0001) WC (111) Co interface normal was not found in the TEM study of Ref. 64 (there denoted OR2).…”

“…We choose to use a (0001) WC 64 It is thus a realistic interface geometry, although our particular choice of rotation state of Co with respect to the (0001) WC (111) Co interface normal was not found in the TEM study of Ref. 64 (there denoted OR2). In an earlier study, 65 we found that calculated WC(0001)/Co interface energies for (111) and (001) Co surfaces are similar.…”