Trends in formation energies and elastic moduli of ternary and quaternary transition metal nitrides
Abstract
The paper deals with characteristics of a wide range of ternary and quaternary metal nitrides (M = Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb or Ta) of various compositions obtained by ab initio calculations. We focus on the formation energies (E_{form}), bulk moduli (B), shear moduli (G) and a difference of B and G from the weighted average of B and G of binary metal nitrides (∆B and ∆G). We show numerous monotonous dependencies, and identify exceptions to them. For elastic moduli of M^{1}M^{2}N we find that ∆B decreases (down to −19 GPa) and ∆G increases (up to 20 GPa) with increasing difference between atomic radii of M^{1} and M^{2}. In parallel, low ∆B and high ∆G correspond to high E_{form} and |E_{form}|, respectively. E_{form} of M^{1}M^{2}N increases with increasing difference between atomic radii and electronegativities of M^{1} and M^{2}. The lowest E_{form} values were observed for Ta-containing compositions, and the difference between E_{form} of TaM^{1}M^{2}N and M^{1}M^{2}N is more significant for lower atomic radius and higher electronegativity of M^{1} and M^{2}. Overall, we present trends which allow one to use fundamental arguments (such as atomic radii and electronegativities) to understand and predict which compositions form (nano)composites, which compositions form (stable) solid solutions, and which materials exhibit enhanced elastic moduli. The phenomena shown can be tested experimentally, and examined for even wider range of materials.
Introduction
Thin films of binary early (IIIB–VIB) transition metal nitrides (MN), most often TiN or CrN, are of great importance as hard protective coatings (see e.g. Ref. [1] for a review). They exhibit high hardness, wear resistance, high melting point and high chemical and thermal stability. The MN structure is usually fcc (rock salt), with two partial exceptions. The first includes TaN and NbN which exist in both cubic and hexagonal modification. Although the hexagonal modification has lower energy, the cubic modification can be experimentally stabilized [2] and is frequently theoretically considered as well [3]. The other exception is cubic-to-orthorhombic transition resulting from a low-temperature antiferromagnetic spin ordering in the case of CrN (in terms of unpaired spin density followed by VN [4]).
To further increase the hardness, wear resistance, thermal stability or oxidation resistance of the binary nitrides, other elements are incorporated. This leads to at least three classes of ternary (or higher) nitride phases (let alone multiphase nanocomposites). First, part of N can be replaced by C, to improve the shear modulus and consequently the hardness [4, 5]. Second, part of transition metal atoms can be replaced by Al, to further improve their mechanical and tribological properties and high-temperature performance [1, 6]. Third, two transition metal elements can be present in the metal sublattice, leading to M^{1}M^{2}N phases. Experimental examples include TiZrN [2, 7, 8], TiTaN [2], TiCrN [7], TiMN (M = Zr, W, Hf, Nb, Ta, Mo) [9], TaMN (M = Zr, W) [9] and TiAlTaN [10] (with cubic—not hexagonal—structure of the ternary Ta-containing compounds). Several of these materials were also studied theoretically, including TiZrN [8, 9] and Ti(Al)TaN [9, 10]. In addition to optimizing the mechanical properties, the ternary compositions allow one to tailor the color of TiVN, ZrVN or ZrCrN decorative coatings [11].
However, there are large gaps in the available knowledge. First, many M^{1}M^{2}N systems (e.g. V, Hf or Nb-based) have been studied (both experimentally and theoretically) very little or not at all. Second, many M^{1}M^{2}N solid solutions were empirically observed in a wide compositional range (see e.g. Ref. [9]), without an experimental test of their (meta)stability. Third, there even seems to be a disagreement concerning the stability of some of these materials. For example TiZrN solid solution is expected to be stable (due to the same valence electron configuration of Ti and Zr) in Ref. [9], it is largely metastable according to ab initio calculations in Ref. [8], it can be experimentally prepared according to Ref. [2] and it could not be prepared without simultaneous formation of binary TiN and ZrN in Ref. [12].
In this paper we partially fill the aforementioned gaps using ab initio calculations. They constitute a fast and reliable technique for scanning of properties of many different and well-defined compositions (contrary to not necessarily stoichiometric experimental compositions). Our first aim is to provide an overview of formation energies (E_{form}) and elastic moduli, namely bulk modulus (B) and shear modulus (G), for selected ternary and quaternary metal nitrides. The selected metal elements include Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb and Ta. In addition, we study the difference of B and G from the weighted average of B and G of the corresponding binary metal nitrides (∆B and ∆G). Note that there are engineering quantities which largely depend on these moduli, including indentation hardness (~G) and ductility (~B/G). Our second aim is to correlate the aforementioned quantities with known characteristics of the metal elements, namely atomic radii and electronegativities.
Methodology
All calculations use the density functional theory [13, 14] as implemented in the Plane-wave self-consistent field (PWscf) code [15]. Atom cores and inner electron shells were represented by the Vanderbilt-type ultrasoft pseudopotentials [16]. Valence electrons were described using the Kohn–Sham equations, and the exchange and correlation (xc) term was treated using the Perdew–Burke–Ernzerhof (PBE) functional [17]. Valence electron wavefunction was expanded using a plane-wave basis set with an energy cut-off of 30 Ry. The integration in the reciprocal space was performed using Marzari–Vanderbilt (“cold”) smearing [18], and a Monkhorst–Pack grid of k-points (12 × 12 × 12 in the case of 8-atom cell). All systems studied are nonmagnetic (see e.g. Ref. [4]), thus at even number of electrons in the simulation cell the spin polarization was not taken into account.
The materials considered include six binary systems (Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb and Ta nitride), 15 corresponding ternary systems (three compositions per each of them, i.e. 45 ternary compositions) and ten selected quaternary systems. In line with the aim of this work (i.e. to identify trends valid for all these materials rather than to study one material in detail), the calculations were performed using (only) 8-atom periodic cell in the case of binary metal nitrides, and 16-atom periodic cell in the case of ternary or quaternary metal nitrides. In the latter case the distribution of atoms in the metal sublattice, as well as the atomic coordinates, were optimized to minimize the total energy. Although even lower formation energies (and consequently slightly different properties) may be, in principle, obtained for a special arrangement of atoms [19] in a larger metal sublattice (particularly so-called “special quasirandom structure” or SQS—a phenomenon which was reported for TiAlN [20, 21, 22, 23], and which may be possibly expected for some other MAlN materials), this is obviously beyond the scope of the present study. Moreover, a comparison with available literature provided in “Results and Discussion” section does not support validity of this phenomenon in the M^{1}M^{2}N case. Instead, the comparison shows that our results are in full qualitative agreement with literature (in fact E_{form} is even below literature values in some cases), at much smaller quantitative differences compared to the differences reported for TiAlN [21] (possibly due to the much more similar valence electron configuration of M^{1} and M^{2} compared to M and Al).
Deformation tensor used for calculations on tetragonal (1–6) and cubic (1, 4 and 5) cell
Deformation | ΔE/V | |
---|---|---|
1 | e_{1} = e_{2} = x | (C_{11} + C_{12})x^{2} + O[x^{3}] |
2 | e_{1} = e_{2} = x | (C_{11} + C_{12} + 2C_{33} − 4C_{13})x^{2} + O[x^{3}] |
e_{3} = −x(2 + x)/(1 + x)^{2} | ||
3 | e_{3} = x | C_{33}x^{2}/2 + O[x^{3}] |
4 | e_{1} = [(1 + x)/(1 − x)]^{1/2} − 1 | (C_{11} − C_{12})x^{2} + O[x^{4}] |
e_{2} = [(1 − x)/(1 + x)]^{1/2} − 1 | ||
5 | e_{4} = e_{5} = x | C_{44}x^{2} + O[x^{4}] |
e_{3} = x^{2}/4 | ||
6 | e_{6} = x | C_{66}x^{2}/2 + O[x^{4}] |
e_{1} = e_{2} = (1 + x^{2}/4)^{1/2} − 1 |
A polycrystalline (isotropic) material is defined by B and G only, while the other elastic moduli, such as Young’s modulus (E) and Poisson’s ratio (ν), can be calculated using the relationships E = 9BG/(3B + G) and ν = E/2G − 1.
The electronic density of states (EDOS), i.e. the energies of Kohn–Sham states, was obtained at the previously optimized a_{0} value using the same PWscf code.
Part a shows calculated characteristics of binary metal nitrides: lattice constant (a_{0}; line 1), bulk modulus calculated using Birch equation or elastic tensor (B; lines 2 and 3, respectively), shear modulus (G; line 4), Young’s modulus (E; line 5), Poisson’s ratio (ν; line 6) and elastic tensor (C_{ij}; lines 7–9)
TiN | ZrN | HfN | VN | NbN | TaN | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(a) | ||||||
a_{0} (Å) | 4.249 | 4.596 | 4.534 | 4.122 | 4.422 | 4.413 |
B (GPa) − Birch eq. | 271 | 248 | 265 | 311 | 304 | 328 |
B (GPa) − C_{ij} | 272 | 250 | 268 | 314 | 308 | 333 |
G (GPa) | 185 | 151 | 161 | 157 | 130 | 119 |
E (GPa) | 453 | 378 | 402 | 403 | 342 | 318 |
ν (−) | 0.22 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.29 | 0.31 | 0.34 |
C_{11} (GPa) | 565 | 531 | 585 | 616 | 644 | 699 |
C_{12} (GPa) | 126 | 110 | 110 | 163 | 139 | 149 |
C_{44} (GPa) | 165 | 121 | 123 | 122 | 81 | 62 |
(b) | ||||||
M radius [from a_{0}] (Å) | 1.475 | 1.648 | 1.617 | 1.411 | 1.561 | 1.556 |
M radius [25] (Å) | 1.76 | 2.06 | 2.08 | 1.71 | 1.98 | 2.00 |
M elneg.: Allred–Rochow | 1.32 | 1.22 | 1.23 | 1.45 | 1.23 | 1.33 |
M elneg.: Pauling | 1.54 | 1.33 | 1.30 | 1.63 | 1.60 | 1.50 |
Results and discussion
Binary nitrides
Table 2a shows selected calculated characteristics of binary metal nitrides. The purpose of these calculations was to validate the technique used, and to provide raw data (total energies, B and G) used in “Ternary nitrides - formation energies” Section (and “Quaternary nitrides” Section) for calculations of E_{form}, and in “Ternary nitrides: mechanical properties” Section for calculations of ∆B and ∆G. The other elastic moduli are added for completeness, and to facilitate a comparison with literature. The table allows us to conclude that the calculated data on binary metal nitrides are fully consistent with available literature—see e.g. Ref. [3] (and Refs. therein) for a recent review. Comparison of the results obtained for IVB and VB metal nitrides confirms known trends [3, 24] (which are however valid for nonmagnetic materials only [4]), namely increasing B, C_{11}, C_{12}, ν and decreasing G, E, C_{44} with increasing number of valence electrons per atom. Comparison of the second and third line reveals that the B values obtained from the Birch equation (used below) and from C_{ij} are practically same (average difference 3 GPa—or 1 %—only, and always in the same direction).
Table 2b summarizes selected characteristics of the corresponding metal elements. Also these quantities serve as input data for the following sections. The first characteristic is an (effective) radius of metal elements, calculated as a difference of a_{0}/2 and nitrogen radius (taken as 0.65 Å [25]). Literature atomic radii are provided for comparison. While both sets of metal radii exhibit the same trends, the differences between the radii calculated from a_{0} are significantly below the differences between the literature radii. The other characteristic is electronegativity according to Allred and Rochow and according to Pauling. The following figures use the former one (X_{AR}), while the latter one is provided for comparison (despite the large difference especially in the case of Nb, the trends shown below are qualitatively same for both electronegativities).
Ternary nitrides—formation energies
Figure 1 shows E_{form} of ternary metal nitrides from the 15 systems considered (M^{1,2} = Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb or Ta). The compositions include that M_{0.25}^{1}M_{0.75}^{2}N, M_{0.50}^{1}M_{0.50}^{2}N and M_{0.75}^{1}M_{0.25}^{2}N. It can be seen that in most cases the absolute value |E_{form}| is the largest for the M_{0.50}^{1}M_{0.50}^{2}N composition. The (relatively) most significant exception in terms of absolute differences is HfVN, where E_{form} of Hf_{0.25}V_{0.75}N is 3.8 meV/at. (5 %) larger compared to E_{form} of Hf_{0.50}V_{0.50}N. The most significant exception in terms of relative (percentage) differences is HfTaN, the only system which exhibits more than one extreme and spans (at, however, very close proximity of zero) both positive and negative E_{form} values. For simplicity, in the following figures we show only E_{form} of compositions M_{0.50}^{1}M_{0.50}^{2}N.
The formation energies of M_{0.50}^{1}M_{0.50}^{2}N materials are summarized in the complementary Fig. 2. The left part of the figure shows stable solid solutions, starting with TaTiN. The right part of the figure shows metastable solid solutions, starting with VZrN and TiZrN. There is not only qualitative but also good quantitative agreement with available literature, particularly for the most often studied systems TiZrN and TaTiN. Ti_{0.50}Zr_{0.50}N has largely positive E_{form} of 96 meV/at. in Ref. [8], approx. 73 meV/at. in Ref. [26] and 75 meV/at. in our case. Ta_{x}Ti_{1−x}N has negative E_{form} of down to (depending on code used) −50 meV/at. at x = 0.5 in Ref. [27], approx. −10 meV/at. at x = 0.5 and −30 meV/at. at x = 0.75 in Ref. [10], −49 meV/at. at x = 0.4 and 0.6 in Ref. [28] and −40 meV/at. at x = 0.5 in our case. Ref. [10] is the only one where the most negative E_{form} of Ta_{x}Ti_{1−x}N was not reported at or close to x = 0.5. Apart from Ref. [10] (which seems to be contradicted by more recent Ref. [28] published by the same laboratory), the largest spread of E_{form} was found for Ti_{0.50}Zr_{0.50}N where our E_{form} is in full agreement with Ref. [26], but more than 20 meV/at. lower compared to Ref. [8] (possibly because of energetically more favorable distribution of metal atoms in their sublattice in our case). Overall, the Figs. 1 and 2 predict which experimentally prepared M_{x}^{1}M_{1−x}^{2}N materials will decompose to M^{1}N and M^{2}N upon annealing (a temperature dependence of Gibbs energy—see Ref. [8] for an example—has to be taken into account in the case of annealing up to very high temperatures). This is one of predictions of our calculations which can be, e.g. for VZrN, tested experimentally.
Figure 3a shows the relationship between E_{form} of M_{0.5}^{1}M_{0.5}^{2}N and the ratio of M^{1} and M^{2} radii (r^{1} and r^{2}; the ratio is shown with the higher radius in numerator as r^{higher}/r^{lower}) calculated using a_{0} (see Table 2). It can be seen that on the average the E_{form} increases with increasing r^{higher}/r^{lower}. The materials TaTiN and TaVN have to be considered as exceptionally stable in this sense, as their E_{form} values are below the dependence formed by the other 13 materials (possibly due to stronger covalent features upon Ta incorporation, see “Quaternary nitrides” Section for details). This dependence can be considered as linear (correlation >0.9) or slightly faster than linear (mainly due to VZrN). One of the quantitative conclusions which the figure leads to is that close r^{1} and r^{2} guarantee low E_{form} (stable materials), e.g. E_{form} < 14 meV/at. for r^{higher}/r^{lower} < 1.06.
While the simple argument that the solubility is supported by the same valence electron configuration [9, 29] is far from a full story (see the positive E_{form} of TiZrN despite the same d^{2}s^{2} configuration of Ti and Zr), we examine the effect of electronic properties and structure in a broader sense in Figs. 3b and 4. Figure 3b shows that E_{form} grows not only with increasing difference between sizes of metallic atoms, but also with increasing difference between their electronegativities (X_{AR}). Again, the lowest (TaTiN and TaVN) and highest (VZrN and in this case also TiZrN) E_{form} values are below and above, respectively, the almost linear dependence formed by the other materials. The similarity of dependencies of E_{form} on r (Fig. 3a) and X_{AR} (Fig. 3b) is not surprising as X_{AR} is a function of electron-nucleus distance. The dependence in Fig. 3a is clearer probably due to the fact that it uses the actual r (based on true lattice constants), while that in Fig. 3b uses theoretical X_{AR} calculated from ideal(ized) radii. The figure indicates that very close electronegativities guarantee low E_{form} (stable materials), e.g. E_{form} < 14 meV/at. for X_{AR} difference ≤10^{−2}.
Figure 4 compares E_{form} of materials M_{0.5}^{1}M_{0.5}^{2}N with the correlation of EDOS of the corresponding binary nitrides M^{1}N and M^{2}N. The EDOSs are shown as an inset in Fig. 4. Only the highest occupied bands (formed predominantly of nitrogen p and metal d orbitals) between left side of the inset and the Fermi energy were taken into account. A straightforward calculation of the correlations is possible only for materials where M^{1} and M^{2} have the same number of valence electrons (the triplets connected by dashed lines). The figure shows for both IVB and VB ternary nitrides that they are actually stabilized by non-correlating EDOSs (distant energies of electronic states) of the corresponding binary nitrides which the ternary nitrides are formed of.
Note that the materials (systems) which (i) have the lowest E_{form} values (see Fig. 2) and (ii) which have E_{form} below the dependencies formed by the other materials (see Fig. 3) are formed by the heaviest metal element considered, Ta, and the lightest metal elements considered, Ti and V. A hypothesis which generalizes this finding is examined in “Quaternary nitrides” Section.
Ternary nitrides—mechanical properties
- (1)
∆B (Fig. 5a) is mostly negative, between −19 and +3 GPa. This increases the application potential of two-phase materials M^{1}N + M^{2}N (assuming that they can be either deposited or prepared by annealing—for a direct relationship between ∆B and E_{form} see below).
- (2)
∆B decreases with increasing ratio of metal radii, r^{higher}/r^{lower}. This is particularly pronounced for r^{higher}/r^{lower} above approximately 1.08 where the decrease of ∆B is practically linear. On the other hand, ∆B is close to zero (±3–4 GPa) for r^{higher}/r^{lower} < 1.08.
- (3)
B values themselves (Fig. 5b), provided for completeness, do not constitute any significant dependence on r^{higher}/r^{lower}. Instead, Fig. 5b mostly follows the aforementioned relationship which predicts higher B for higher density of valence electrons. Three highest B values were found for VB materials TaVN, NbTaN (which may be however difficult to prepare in cubic form) and NbVN, and two lowest B values were found for IVB materials TiZrN and HfZrN. However, due to the non-zero ∆B values, this relationship (well pronounced for binary materials—see Table 2 and Refs. [3, 24]) is much less pronounced for ternary materials: TaTiN (IVB–VB) has almost as high bulk modulus as NbVN (VB), and HfTiN (IVB) has higher bulk modulus than VZrN (IVB–VB).
Results shown in this figure are also in agreement with avaliable literature, including positive ∆B of TaTiN [27] and negative ∆B of TiZrN [26].
- (1)
∆G (Fig. 6a) is positive, between 0 and 20 GPa. This increases (i) the application potential of solid solutions M_{0.5}^{1}M_{0.5}^{2}N (assuming their stability) when it comes to hardness (proportional to G) and (ii) the application potential of two-phase materials M^{1}N + M^{2}N (assuming that they can be either deposited or prepared by annealing) when it comes to ductility (proportional to B/G).
- (2)
∆G increases with increasing ratio of metal radii, r^{higher}/r^{lower}. On the one hand, contrary to ∆B (see the previous figure), this trend takes place already at low values of the r^{higher}/r^{lower} ratio. On the other hand, at high values of the r^{higher}/r^{lower} the trend becomes less clear mainly because of high ∆G of materials TaTiN and TaVN. Thus, the same materials which exhibit the highest stability of the solid solutions exhibit also unusually enhanced G of these solid solutions.
- (3)
G values themselves (Fig. 6b), provided for completeness, exhibit slight but insignificant increase with increasing r^{higher}/r^{lower} (mostly due to low G of NbTaN). The highest G (i.e. probably the highest hardness) among all solid solutions exhibits HfTiN. The highest G among stable solid solutions (negative E_{form}) exhibits TaTiN.
Figure 7a shows the relationship between ∆B and E_{form}. It can be seen that ∆B decreases with increasing E_{form} (linear correlation >0.9). This is one of our findings which can be tested for a wider range of materials. It is particularly clear for positive or close-to-zero E_{form} (linear correlation 0.94). On the other hand, materials with the lowest E_{form}—TaTiN and TaVN—exhibit ∆B “only” close to zero, i.e. below the rest of the linear dependence. This phenomenon constitutes a fortunate situation from an application point of view: stable solid solutions have approximately the same B as the constituent binary nitrides (in parallel to the advantages discussed in the Introduction), while in the case of metastable solid solutions their decomposition (due to annealing) is predicted to improve their B.
Figure 7b shows the relationship between ∆G and E_{form}. In this case there is no single monotonous trend. Instead, the figure shows that (i) close-to-zero or slightly positive E_{form} leads to relatively low ∆G, while (ii) the highest values of ∆G were obtained at extremal values of E_{form}, (namely for TaTiN and TaVN—largely negative E_{form}, and for HfVN and VZrN—largely positive E_{form}). From an application point of view (and if we let alone the other reasons for individual ternary nitrides—see the Introduction) the figure has two main consequences. First, it confirms (see also Fig. 6) that TaTiN and TaVN are particularly interesting for applications where high hardness (i.e. high G) is of importance. Second, in the case of using (especially) HfVN and VZrN for applications where high ductility (i.e. low G) is of importance, their preparation in the form of two-phase materials is recommended.
- (1)
Indeed, both the B/G ratio and the Cauchy pressure are almost equivalent (linear correlation >0.95) when predicting the ductility. The datapoints corresponding to binary and ternary materials form a single dependence.
- (2)
The ductility monotonously increases with increasing number of valence electron per (metal) atom (and thus with an increasing amount of metallic bonding). This is in agreement with trends shown previously for other materials, namely in Ref. [3] for binary nitrides and in Refs [31, 32] for MMoN and MWN (M = Ti, V) ternary nitrides.
- (3)The B/G ratio and in most cases (except TaVN and NbVN) also the Cauchy pressure of materials M_{0.5}^{1}M_{0.5}^{2}N are between properties of the constituent binary nitrides. However, similarly as for B and G, the B/G ratio and the Cauchy pressure can be far from the average of properties of the corresponding binary nitrides (not shown as a separate figure).
- (3a)
In particular, mostly negative ∆B and mostly positive ∆G (see the previous figures in this section) lead to lower B/G (lower ductility) compared to the average of the constituent binary nitrides for most of the solid solutions (including all largely metastable solid solutions with high E_{form}). For example, the Fig. 8 predicts that a two-phase mixture of VN and ZrN (stable configuration) is more ductile than V_{0.5}Zr_{0.5}N solid solution (metastable configuration according to Fig. 2).
- (3b)
However, there are exceptions, most clearly HfZrN, where close-to-zero ∆B and ∆G lead to practically same ductility of the two-phase mixture and the solid solution.
- (3a)
Quaternary nitrides
- (1)
Indeed, the Ta (the heaviest element considered) incorporation in all cases decreases the formation energy.
- (2)
The difference in E_{form} is almost negligible if both M^{1} and M^{2} = Zr, Hf or Nb, while it is significant if M^{1} or M^{2} = Ti or V (the lightest elements considered). This is consistent with the low E_{form} of TaTiN and TaVN.
Figure 10a shows the dependence of ∆E_{form} = E_{form}(Ta_{0.25}M_{0.375}^{1}M_{0.375}^{2}N) − E_{form}(M_{0.5}^{1}M_{0.5}^{2}N) on the radii of the constituent elements. Despite the high |∆E_{form}| of TaVZrN (which is an artifact of the extremely high E_{form} of VZrN) it can be seen that ∆E_{form} generally decreases (|∆E_{form}| increases) with increasing ratio of (i) Ta radius and (ii) average radius of M^{1} and M^{2}. Similarly, Fig. 10b shows that ∆E_{form} generally increases (|∆E_{form}| decreases) with increasing ratio of (i) Ta electronegativity and (ii) average electronegativity of M^{1} and M^{2}. Higher importance of the discussed phenomenon at closer Ta and M electronegativities is consistent with the aforementioned statement concerning directional covalent-like bonding between Ta and M upon Ta incorporation. Collectively, these findings constitute a formalized version of the phenomenon discussed above: Ti and V are not only the lightest metals considered but also, more importantly, metal elements with the smallest radius and (together with tantalum itself) highest electronegativity (see Table 2).
Conclusions
We systematically studied characteristics of ternary and quaternary metal nitrides (M = Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb or Ta) of various compositions by ab initio calculations. The modeling approach allowed us to obtain their formation energies and elastic moduli. Moreover, we found numerous trends for these quantities.
E_{form} of M^{1}M^{2}N increases with increasing difference between atomic radii and electronegativities of M^{1} and M^{2}. The lowest E_{form} values were observed for Ta-containing compositions, and the difference between E_{form} of TaM^{1}M^{2}N and M^{1}M^{2}N is more significant for lower atomic radius and higher electronegativity of M^{1} and M^{2}.
For elastic moduli of M^{1}M^{2}N we found that ∆B decreases (down to −19 GPa) and ∆G increases (up to 20 GPa) with increasing difference between atomic radii of M^{1} and M^{2}. Mostly (i) negative values of ∆B and (ii) positive values of ∆G lead to mostly lower ductility (predicted using the B/G ratio) of solid solutions compared to the corresponding two-phase mixtures. In parallel, low ∆B corresponds to high E_{form} and high ∆G corresponds to high |E_{form}|.
Consequently, from an application point of view we predict that decomposition of the metastable solid solutions (mainly VZrN, TiZrN, HfVN and NbVN) or direct preparation of the corresponding two-phase materials improves their B and ductility (~B/G) and decreases their hardness (~G). On the other hand, we identified stable solid solutions (mainly TaTiN and TaVN) with higher hardness (~G) and approximately same B compared to the corresponding two-phase materials.
The presented results allow one to understand and predict which materials form (stable) solid solutions, and to tailor characteristics of hard, ductile, wear-resistant and/or oxidation-resistant ternary metal nitrides of required elastic, electronic or adhesive characteristics for various protective, decorative, tribological or other advanced applications. The phenomena shown can be tested experimentally, and examined for a wider range of materials.
Notes
Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic GACR under Project No. P108/12/0393, and by the European Regional Development Fund under Project “NTIS—New Technologies for Information Society”, European Centre of Excellence, CZ.1.05/1.1.00/02.0090. Computational resources were provided by Metacentrum Czech Republic.
References
- 1.Mayrhofer PH, Mitterer C, Hultman L, Clemens H (2006) Prog Mater Sci 51:1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Abadias G, Koutsokeras LE, Dub SN, Tolmachova GN, Debelle A, Sauvage T, Villechaise P (2010) J Vac Sci Technol, A 28:541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Holec D, Friak M, Neugebauer J, Mayrhofer PH (2012) Phys Rev B 85:064101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Houska J, Klemberg-Sapieha JE, Martinu L (2009) J Phys 21:285302Google Scholar
- 5.Jhi SH, Ihm J, Louie SG, Cohen ML (1999) Nature 399:132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.PalDey S, Deevi SC (2003) Mater Sci Eng A 342:58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Aouadi SM, Chladek JA, Namavar F, Finnegan N, Rohde SL (2002) J Vac Sci Technol B 20:1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Hoerling A, Sjölen J, Willmann H, Larsson T, Odén M, Hultman L (2008) Thin Solid Films 516:6421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Matenoglou GM, Koutsokeras LE, Lekka CE, Abadias G, Kosmidis C, Evangelakis GA, Patsalas P (2009) Surf Coat Technol 204:911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Rachbauer R, Holec D, Mayrhofer PH (2010) Appl Phys Lett 97:151901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Beck U, Reiners G, Kopacz U, Jehn HA (1993) Surf Coat Technol 60:389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Niu EW, Li L, Lv GH, Chen H, Li XZ, Yang XZ, Yang SZ (2008) Appl Surf Sci 254:3909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Hohenberg P, Kohn W (1964) Phys Rev B 136:864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Kohn W, Sham L (1965) Phys Rev A 140:1133Google Scholar
- 15.Giannozzi P et al. (2009) J Phys Condens Matter 21:395502, www.pwscf.org Google Scholar
- 16.Laasonen K, Car R, Lee C, Vanderbilt D (1991) Phys Rev B 43:6796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Perdew JP, Burke K, Ernzerhof M (1996) Phys Rev Lett 77:3865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Marzari N, Vanderbilt D, De Vita A, Payne MC (1999) Phys Rev Lett 82:3296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Wei SH, Ferreira LG, Bernard JE, Zunger A (1990) Phys Rev B 42:9622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Alling B, Ruban AV, Karimi A, Peil OE, Simak SI, Hultman L, Abrikosov IA (2007) Phys Rev B 75:045123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Alling B, Karimi A, Abrikosov IA (2008) Surf Coat Technol 203:883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Mayrhofer PH, Music D, Schneider JM (2006) J Appl Phys 100:094906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Tasnadi F, Oden M, Abrikosov IA (2012) Phys Rev B 85:144112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Grossman JC, Mizel A, Cote M, Cohen ML, Louie SG (1999) Phys Rev B 60:6343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.see e.g. www.webelements.com
- 26.Abadias G, Ivashchenko VI, Belliard L, Djemia P (2012) Acta Mater 60:5601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Djemia P, Benhamida M, Bouamama K, Belliard L, Faurie D, Abadias G (2013) Surf Coat Technol 215:199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Holec D, Zhou L, Rachbauer R, Mayrhofer PH (2013) J Appl Phys 113:113510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Patsalas P, Abadias G, Matenoglou GM, Koutsokeras LE, Lekka CE (2010) Surf Coat Technol 205:1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Pugh SF (1954) Philos Mag 45:823Google Scholar
- 31.Sangiovanni DG, Chirita V, Hultman L (2010) Phys Rev B 81:104107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Sangiovanni DG, Hultman L, Chirita V (2011) Acta Mater 59:2121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Matenoglou GM, Lekka CE, Koutsokeras LE, Karras G, Kosmidis C, Evangelakis GA, Patsalas P (2009) J Appl Phys 105:103714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Rachbauer R, Holec D, Mayrhofer PH (2012) Surf Coat Technol 211:98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Mehl MJ, Klein BM, Papaconstantopoulos DA (1994) Intermetallic compounds: principles and practice. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar