2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.commatsci.2009.04.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Surface energies of hcp metals using equivalent crystal theory

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
7
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This range is higher 160 than the 12 − 16% range of FCC metals [18], suggesting the surface energy of HCP metals are generally more anisotropic. This comparatively higher anisotropy in HCP metals is also reported from some other computational methods [25,26,9], but the 15 − 21% range calculated in this work is much lower than a typical > 30% range suggested in other theoretical works. presented in all figures.…”
contrasting
confidence: 36%
“…This range is higher 160 than the 12 − 16% range of FCC metals [18], suggesting the surface energy of HCP metals are generally more anisotropic. This comparatively higher anisotropy in HCP metals is also reported from some other computational methods [25,26,9], but the 15 − 21% range calculated in this work is much lower than a typical > 30% range suggested in other theoretical works. presented in all figures.…”
contrasting
confidence: 36%
“…The datasets were drawn from literatures [24,2,[30][31][32][33][34][35] and presented in Table 1. The dataset includes the cohesive energy (DE), vacancy formation energy (E f ), bulk modulus (B) and lattice parameters (a and c) as the descriptors while generally accepted experimental surface energies (E s ) were used as the targets [36].…”
Section: Description Of the Datasetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Relatively perfect correlation exists between relative surface energies (of different crystal facets) and the number of broken bonds in many fcc metals [23]. Meanwhile, recent review on theoretical models shows that the models that are dominant in calculating surface energies of metals include embedded atomic method (EAM) and equivalent crystal theory (ECT) [24] which was further extended to analytical equivalent crystal theory (AECT) in order to cater for the major challenge that arises in finding the root of ECT equations. EAM is a semi-empirical method that usually based on approximations to nearest neighbors.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This kind of symmetry [45,46], is consistent with the symmetry of hcp lattice. The calculated surface energy relies on the accuracy of the atomistic potential used in MD simulations as well as computational methods, such as geometric methods and some semi-empirical approaches [45][46][47][48]. However, the atomic simulations provide reasonable surface energies and their variation regarding surface orientations, which are important for determining the model parameters in the mesoscale phase-field model.…”
Section: Surface Energiesmentioning
confidence: 99%