The equations of state and phase stabilities of high-entropy alloys (HEAs) under high-pressure and high-temperature conditions are of paramount importance for engineering applications. However, few reports exist on the high-pressure–temperature properties of the HfNbMoTaWV HEA system. Herein, we synthesized a NbMoTaW HEA using the vacuum arc melting method and measured its Hugoniot up to 143 GPa and ∼6200 K. A linear relationship [US = 2.61 (7) + 1.59 (5) UP] between the shock (US) and particle (UP) velocities was observed for UP > 0.7 km/s, suggesting that the NbMoTaW HEA is likely stable within the pressure–temperature range of the current study. Using the Debye–Mie–Grüneisen model and Birch–Murnaghan equation of state (EOS), we discussed the EOS of the NbMoTaW HEA. The bulk modulus (K0) and its pressure derivative (K0′) were determined to be 238 GPa and 3.3, respectively. We also found that the Hugoniot compression curve of the NbMoTaW HEA could be evaluated using the mixture rules with the Hugoniot data of the compositional elements.

High-entropy alloys (HEAs) are a class of alloys that contain multiple principal elements, in contrast to traditional alloys, which are based on one principal element with small amounts of additions to improve their mechanical or chemical properties. In HEAs, the elements form single-phase solid solutions other than intermetallic compounds owing to their high configurational entropy. HEAs typically contain four or more metallic elements; each has an atomic percentage between 5% and 35%. The high-entropy effect, lattice distortion effect, hysteresis diffusion effect, and “cocktail” effect endow HEAs with excellent mechanical and chemical properties, such as high hot hardness, high wear resistance, high corrosion resistance, low-temperature ductility, high thermal stability, and good oxidation-resistant at high temperature. Due to their unique characteristics, HEAs are poised to be used in a diverse range of applications, especially in extreme service conditions.1–5 

The equations of state (EOSs) and phase stabilities of HEAs under high-pressure–temperature conditions are of paramount importance for engineering applications. Some studies have been published in this field including both static and dynamic high-pressure studies.6–15 Most studies focused on Cantor's alloy (equiatomic CoCrFeMnNi), a prototype face-center cubic (fcc) structured HEA, and related materials. A fcc to hexagonal-close packing (hcp) structure transition was identified in Cantor's alloy by static compressions, the low- and high-pressure phases have extremely similar compressibility, and volume change is not observed at the phase transition. Transition pressures reported by different groups vary significantly (7–49 GPa), depending on the hydrostaticity of the pressure transmission media, sample grain size, and alloying elements.6,7 Using the plane-impact method, Jiang et al. measured the Hugoniot of Cantor's alloy and a body-center cubic (bcc) structured equiatomic NiCoFeCrAl HEA up to 11 GPa.12 Recently, the Hugoniots of fcc structured CoCrFeNiCu,11 Al0.1CoCrFeNi,9 and FeMnCrNi15 HEAs were measured up to 19.3, 19.5, and 9.5 GPa, respectively, and no shock-induced phase transitions were identified. These dynamic compression experiments were designed to investigate the strength properties and deformation mechanisms of HEAs under high-speed impact; therefore, the shock pressure generated in the experiments was relatively low.

The HfNbMoTaWV system is another class of HEAs that normally exhibit a bcc structure; they were completely composed of refractory metal elements. The first equiatomic refractory HEAs NbMoTaW and NbMoTaWV were synthesized by Senkov et al. They were found to have compressive strengths comparable to or higher than those of Ni-based superalloys, particularly at high temperatures.16 The compressive strength of NbMoTaW is 1211 MPa at room temperature and 405 MPa at 1600 °C. At temperatures exceeding 600 °C, the strengths of both materials decrease at a gradual rate with increasing temperature. Moreover, their single-phase BCC structure remains stable even at 1400 °C. These features render them potential candidates for structural applications in the aviation, aerospace, metallurgical, and nuclear energy industries. Recent studies have shown that incorporating a small amount of non-metallic elements, such as C or Si, into NbMoTaW HEA can further enhance its strength and plasticity.3,17 Until now, few reports exist on the high-pressure–temperature properties of the HfNbMoTaWV system HEAs.

In this study, we synthesized the NbMoTaW HEA using the vacuum arc melting method and measured the elastic–plastic transition and Hugoniot data of the NbMoTaW HEA up to ∼143 GPa, using the planar-plate impact method. Subsequently, we studied the phase stability and EOS of the NbMoTaW HEA based on the measured data. It was found that the Hugoniots of CoCrFeNiCu and Al0.1CoCrFeNi can be approximately reproduced by a simple interpolation model with the Hugoniot parameters of the compositional elements;9,11 our experimental data enable us to verify the applicability of this model in a much wider pressure range. It should be noted that this is the first time that the Hugoniot of a HEA has been measured to pressures higher than 100 GPa.

The NbMoTaW HEA sample was synthesized by mixing equiatomic element powders in a planetary ball mill and melting them in a vacuum arc melting furnace. The sample was remelted four times to improve its uniformity, with each melting lasting approximately 15 min. Disks with a diameter of approximately 12 mm and thickness of 3 mm were cut from the sample button and prepared for shock experiments. The compositions of two randomly selected sample disks were analyzed using inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES), and the results, listed in Table I, indicate good uniformity. Figure 1 shows the x-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern of the sample; all the peaks could be assigned to the NbMoTaW solid solution with a single bcc phase, and no indication of ordering was observed. The longitudinal (Cl) and shear (Cs) sound velocities of the sample were measured using the pulse-echo method, yielding values of 4.077 (7) and 2.181 (6) km/s, respectively. The bulk sound velocity (Cb) and Poisson’s ratio (σ) calculated from Cl and Cs are 3.206 (7) km/s and 0.3, respectively. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) backscatter images showed micropores with sizes ranging from several to tens of micrometers, indicating that the samples had some porosity. The average density of the samples (ρ00) was measured using the immersion method and found to be 12.02 (1) g/cm3, which was smaller than the neutron diffraction density16 (ρ0) of 13.77 g/cm3, suggesting a porosity of m = 1.146 (m = ρ0/ρ00).

FIG. 1.

XRD pattern of the synthesized NbMoTaW HEA.

FIG. 1.

XRD pattern of the synthesized NbMoTaW HEA.

Close modal
TABLE I.

Composition of sample in at. %.

ElementNbMoTaW
Sample 1 23.42 25.55 25.90 25.13 
Sample 2 22.98 25.49 26.10 25.44 
ElementNbMoTaW
Sample 1 23.42 25.55 25.90 25.13 
Sample 2 22.98 25.49 26.10 25.44 
Hugoniot data of NbMoTaW were obtained using a two-stage light gas gun at the Wuhan University of Technology.18 For low shock pressures (shots 1 and 2), where an elastic–plastic two-wave structure was expected, the Hugoniot data were measured using a multichannel displacement interferometer system for any reflector19 (DISAR), as shown in Fig. 2. Three DISAR probes were mounted uniformly on the driver plate to determine the arrival time of the shock wave on the front surface of the driver plate (t0) and monitor the inclination angle (α) of the shock wave. A single DISAR probe was set at the center of the sample surface to determine the arrival time of the shock wave on the sample surface (t1) and measure the free-surface velocity. The velocity of the elastic wave was calculated using the following equation:
U S 1 = H t 1 t 0 ,
(1)
and that of the following plastic wave is calculated by
U s 2 = H + U f s 1 ( t 2 t 1 ) t 2 t 0 .
(2)
FIG. 2.

Experimental configuration for shots Nos. 1 and 2.

FIG. 2.

Experimental configuration for shots Nos. 1 and 2.

Close modal

In Eqs. (1) and (2), H= H/cosα and H the sample thickness; t2 is the arrival time of the plastic wave on the sample surface; and Ufs1 is the free-surface velocity at the Hugoniot elastic limit (HEL). The latter two parameters can be obtained from the measured free-surface velocity profiles.20 The in-material particle velocity of the elastic wave was approximated using the free-surface approximation (UP1 = Ufs1/2), and the final particle velocity was calculated using the impedance-matching method.21 The wave interactions between elastic and plastic waves were neglected. For higher shock pressures (shots 3–6), where the elastic wave was overdriven, the shock velocities were measured using the electrical pin method described in detail in our previous study.18 Shock pressures and densities were calculated using the Rankine–Hugoniot conservation laws.21 The impact speeds were measured using an electromagnetic method with an accuracy greater than 0.5%. We used Ta, Cu, and Al as the flyer/driver plates; their Hugoniot parameters and HEA component materials are listed in Table II.

TABLE II.

Hugoniot parameters of related materials. ρ0 is the ambient density. C0 and S are parameters of US and UP relationship: US= C0 + SUP.

Materialρ0C0S
Al22  2.784 5.386 1.339 
Cu22  8.935 3.933 1.500 
Ta22  16.654 3.293 1.307 
Nb21  8.587 4.46 1.20 
Mo21  10.208 5.14 1.22 
W23  19.230 4.137 1.242 
Materialρ0C0S
Al22  2.784 5.386 1.339 
Cu22  8.935 3.933 1.500 
Ta22  16.654 3.293 1.307 
Nb21  8.587 4.46 1.20 
Mo21  10.208 5.14 1.22 
W23  19.230 4.137 1.242 
The measured free-surface velocity profiles for shots 1 and 2 are shown in Fig. 3. Two-wave structures are observable, indicating the presence of both elastic and plastic waves. The Hugoniot elastic limit (HEL) of the sample was determined to be 1.3–1.4 GPa, which is comparable to that of Mo (1.6 GPa) but smaller than that of Nb (2.07 GPa), Ta (2.3–2.8 GPa), and W (3.2–3.9 GPa).24 The HEL is the normal stress at which a material yields under uniaxial strain conditions. The yielding strength of an isotropic material under shock compression can be calculated from the HEL as25,
Y = σ HEL 1 2 σ 1 σ .
(3)
With Eq. (3), the yielding strength of the sample is calculated as ∼0.8 GPa, which is comparable to the 1.1 GPa compressive strength measured by Senkov et al.16 We note here the HEL, so as the yielding strength of a material depends on its microstructure and the presence of impurities. The peak particle velocities in Fig. 3 were noisy due to the effects of the micropores and the brittleness of the samples. All measured Hugoniot data for the NbMoTaW HEA are listed in Table III and plotted in Fig. 4. The relationship between the shock (US) and particle (UP) velocities for the upper five points can be fitted with a linear relationship: US = 2.61 (7) + 1.59 (5) UP. For shot No. 1, the Hugoniot point was below the fitted curve owing to strength23 or porosity26–29 effects.
FIG. 3.

Measured free-surface velocities for shot Nos. 1 and 2. HEL: Hugoniot elastic limit.

FIG. 3.

Measured free-surface velocities for shot Nos. 1 and 2. HEL: Hugoniot elastic limit.

Close modal
FIG. 4.

Measured Hugoniot data for NbMoTaW HEA. (a) Shock velocity (US)–particle velocity (UP) and (b) compressed density (ρ)–shock pressure (PH) relations for NbMoTaW HEA. Cl and Cb in (a) represent the longitudinal and bulk sound velocities, respectively. The dashed lines are linear fittings to the Hugoniot data.

FIG. 4.

Measured Hugoniot data for NbMoTaW HEA. (a) Shock velocity (US)–particle velocity (UP) and (b) compressed density (ρ)–shock pressure (PH) relations for NbMoTaW HEA. Cl and Cb in (a) represent the longitudinal and bulk sound velocities, respectively. The dashed lines are linear fittings to the Hugoniot data.

Close modal
TABLE III.

Hugoniot data of NbMoTaW. W, UP, US, PH, and ρ are the flyer speed, particle velocity, shock velocity, Hugoniot pressure, and density, respectively. The numbers in parentheses are uncertainties.

Shot No.Flyer/driverW (km/s)UP (km/s)US (km/s)PH (GPa)ρ (g/cm3)
Al/Al 1.631 (8) 0.028 (1) 4.150 (42) 1.40 (5) 12.10 (1) 
0.517 (5) 3.068 (61) 19.4 (4) 14.42 (7) 
Cu/Cu 1.684 (8) 0.027 (1) 4.150 (42)a 1.32 (5) 12.10 (1) 
0.739 (7) 3.813 (76) 34.0 (8) 14.90 (8) 
Cu/Cu 2.599 (13) 1.270 (8) 4.607 (46) 70.4 (8) 16.60 (8) 
Ta/Ta 2.630 (13) 1.505 (15) 4.936 (98) 89.3 (20) 17.29 (17) 
Ta/Ta 3.221 (16) 1.848 (11) 5.511 (55) 120.2 (14) 17.92 (11) 
Ta/Ta 3.633 (18) 2.034 (12) 5.863 (59) 143.3 (17) 18.41 (12) 
Shot No.Flyer/driverW (km/s)UP (km/s)US (km/s)PH (GPa)ρ (g/cm3)
Al/Al 1.631 (8) 0.028 (1) 4.150 (42) 1.40 (5) 12.10 (1) 
0.517 (5) 3.068 (61) 19.4 (4) 14.42 (7) 
Cu/Cu 1.684 (8) 0.027 (1) 4.150 (42)a 1.32 (5) 12.10 (1) 
0.739 (7) 3.813 (76) 34.0 (8) 14.90 (8) 
Cu/Cu 2.599 (13) 1.270 (8) 4.607 (46) 70.4 (8) 16.60 (8) 
Ta/Ta 2.630 (13) 1.505 (15) 4.936 (98) 89.3 (20) 17.29 (17) 
Ta/Ta 3.221 (16) 1.848 (11) 5.511 (55) 120.2 (14) 17.92 (11) 
Ta/Ta 3.633 (18) 2.034 (12) 5.863 (59) 143.3 (17) 18.41 (12) 
a

Measurement failed, assuming equal to the elastic wave velocity of shot No. 1.

To discuss the stability of NbMoTaW HEA under high-pressure–temperature conditions, we first calculated the shock temperature (TH). TH was estimated using the following differential equation:30,
d T H d V + γ V T H = 1 2 C V [ P H + ( V 00 V ) d P H d V ] ,
(4)
where V =1 (V00 =100) is the specific volume and PH is the shock pressure. γ is the Grüneison parameter and is described by
γ = γ 0 ( V V 0 ) n ,
(5)
where γ0 is the Grüneison parameter at ambient conditions. γ0 values of Nb, Mo, Ta, and W were 1.7, 1.8, 1.8, and 1.7, respectively,21 and that of NbMoTaW HEA was estimated to be 1.77 by the rule-of-mixture, γ 0 = i m i γ 0 i, with mi the mass fraction of each component. The specific heat Cv is described by the Debye model,31,
C V = 9 N k B x D 3 0 x D x 4 e x ( e x 1 ) 2 d x ,
(6)
with xD = θ/TH, and θ, N, and kB are the Debye temperature, the number of atoms per mole, and the Boltzmann constant, respectively. Following the Grüneison approximation, γ depends only on volume and is represented by30 
γ = d ln θ d ln V .
(7)
Combing Eqs. (5) and (7), the Debye temperature at high pressure is given as
θ = θ 0 e γ 0 n [ ( V V 0 ) n 1 ] ,
(8)
where θ0 is the Debye temperature at standard conditions; for NbMoTaW HEA, θ0 is 296 K.32 The value of n is typically approximately 1, we calculated TH with different n, the results of which are shown in Fig. 5. It was identified that the value of n has a very small effect on TH, at 143 GPa, the highest shock pressure in this study, TH = 6090 K for n = 1.5, 6200 K for n = 1, and 6380 K for n = 0.5. Combining the uncertainty of Hugoniot data, the total uncertainty of TH is estimated to be 6%. The melting temperature (Tm) of a HEA at high pressure has never been studied; it is typically calculated using a mixture role based on the molar specific weight,33,34
T m = i C i T m i ,
(9)
with Ci being the molar fraction of each element. At atmospheric pressure, Tm of Nb, Mo, Ta, and W are 2740, 2890, 3247, and 3690 K, respectively.35 With Eq. (9), Tm of NbMoTaW HEA was calculated as 3142 K, this is close to the 3000–3100 K value predicted by the first-principle molecular dynamic study.36 We assume Eq. (9) also applies to high pressure, Tm of Nb, Mo, Ta, and W, at 143 GPa are approximately 5140, 6100, 7600, and 7700 K, respectively.37–40 The Tm of NbMoTaW HEA was subsequently estimated to be ∼6600 K at 143 GPa, which is higher than TH at the same pressure, suggesting shock-induced melting does not occur. The melting temperature of transition metals under high pressure is still highly controversial, and we have used data with high confidence here. Most materials exhibit near-linear, slowly varying US–UP relationships if shock-induced phase transitions are absent.41 Thus, the linear Hugoniot curve observed herein suggests that the NbMoTaW HEA is possibly stable up to 143 GPa and ∼6200 K along the shock adiabatic. We emphasize that a linear Hugoniot does not necessarily imply the absence of a structural transition. If the volume change corresponding to the phase transition is minimal and the compressibility of the parent and new phases are relatively close, the Hugoniot line does not exhibit observable discontinuity.
FIG. 5.

Calculated shock temperatures for NbMoTaW HEA with different values of n.

FIG. 5.

Calculated shock temperatures for NbMoTaW HEA with different values of n.

Close modal
To study the EOS of the NbMoTaW HEA, correcting the porosity of the measured Hugoniot data was necessary. Following the Mie–Grüneisen approximation, the Hugoniot compression data for porous and nonporous materials can be linked by28,
P H ( V ) = 1 1 2 γ V ( V 0 V ) 1 1 2 γ V ( V 00 V ) P H ( V ) ,
(10)
where PH′ and PH are the shock pressures for the porous and nonporous materials at volume V, respectively. The efficiency of Eq. (4) has been proven in previous studies.42,43 Considering the value of n has a tiny effect on the calculated shock temperature as discussed above, we only consider the n = 1 case in the following discussions. The Hugoniot compression data, both with and without corrections, are shown in Fig. 6. After the correction, the shock pressure shifted downward, and the offset increased as the pressure increased. Given that the shock velocity is linearly related to the particle velocity, the relationship between the shock pressure and specific volume can be written as
P H = C 0 2 ( V 0 V ) [ V 0 S ( V 0 V ) ] 2 .
(11)
FIG. 6.

Hugoniot compression data of NbMoTaW HEA. The original experimental data are represented by the red open circles, while the corrected data due to porosity are shown by the blue open circles. The blue solid line represents the fitted curve of the corrected data to Eq. (11). The blue dashed line is the calculated 300 K isothermal and the black dotted line represents a Birch–Murnaghan fitting curve.

FIG. 6.

Hugoniot compression data of NbMoTaW HEA. The original experimental data are represented by the red open circles, while the corrected data due to porosity are shown by the blue open circles. The blue solid line represents the fitted curve of the corrected data to Eq. (11). The blue dashed line is the calculated 300 K isothermal and the black dotted line represents a Birch–Murnaghan fitting curve.

Close modal
The Hugoniot parameters for the dense NbMoTaW HEA were determined as C0 = 4.2 (3) and S = 1.1 (2) by fitting the corrected data to the above equation. The 300 K isotherm can be deduced from the Hugoniot compression curve by
P T = 300 K = P H γ C V V ( T H 300 K ) .
(12)

The calculated result is indicated by the blue dashed line in Fig. 6. Fitting the 300 K isothermal to the third-order Birch–Murnaghan equation44 results in a bulk modulus K0 = 238 GPa and its first-order pressure derivative K0= 3.3. The bulk modulus obtained in this study aligns well with those obtained via first-principles calculations (247 or 236 GPa).45 

Different mixture models have been used to predict the Hugonoit of a mixture. In the studies of Zhang et al.9 and Li et al.,11 it was found that the Hugoniot of CoCrFeNiCu and Al0.1CoCrFeNi can be approximately reproduced by a simple interpolation model: C o = i m i C o i and S = i m i S i. Another commonly used method is the volume addition model, in which the volume of a mixture at a specific shock pressure PH is calculated by V ( P H ) = i m i V i ( P H ). We have calculated the Hugoniot of NbMoTaW HEA with both models using the parameters listed in Table II and the results are shown in Fig. 7. It is found that the calculated results by both models are in good agreement with the Hugoniot of the NbMoTaW HEA within the experimental uncertainty. This consistency indicates that these simple mixture models can be used to predict the EOS of HEAs over a wide pressure range, although high-entropy alloys are solid solutions rather than mixtures.

FIG. 7.

Comparing the Hugoniot compression data with those predicted by mixture models.

FIG. 7.

Comparing the Hugoniot compression data with those predicted by mixture models.

Close modal

To summarize, we measured the Hugoniot of a NbMoTaW HEA up to 143 GPa and ∼6200 K. We observed a linear relationship between the shock and particle velocities of the HEA under high shock pressures. This observation suggests that the NbMoTaW HEA possibly remains stable within the pressure–temperature range examined in our study. This high stability makes HEA a potential important structural material that can be used under extreme conditions. Based on the measured data, we analyzed the EOS of the nonporous NbMoTaW HEA. We estimated the bulk modulus and pressure derivative to be K0 = 238 GPa and K0= 3.3, respectively. We found that the Hugoniot compression curve of NbMoTaW could be aptly described using the mixture rules, a principle that may also be applicable to other HEAs.

We acknowledge the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41974099).

The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Yu Hu: Formal analysis (lead); Investigation (equal); Visualization (equal); Writing – original draft (equal). Yishi Wang: Formal analysis (equal); Visualization (equal); Writing – original draft (equal). Gang Yang: Data curation (equal); Formal analysis (equal). Xun Liu: Data curation (lead); Funding acquisition (lead); Investigation (equal); Methodology (lead); Project administration (lead); Writing – original draft (equal); Writing – review & editing (equal). Haijun Huang: Methodology (equal); Supervision (lead); Writing – review & editing (lead).

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

1.
Y. F.
Ye
,
Q.
Wang
,
J.
Lu
,
C. T.
Liu
, and
Y.
Yang
, “
High-entropy alloy: Challenges and prospects
,”
Mater. Today
19
(
6
),
349
362
(
2016
).
2.
A.
Behera
,
Advanced Materials: An Introduction to Modern Materials Science
(
Springer International Publishing
,
Cham
,
2022
).
3.
K.
Kang
,
X.
Wang
,
W.
Zhou
,
P.
Li
,
Z.
Huang
,
G.
Luo
,
Q.
Shen
, and
L.
Zhang
, “
Eutectic MoNbTa(WC)x composites with excellent elevated temperature strength
,”
Metals
13
(
4
),
687
(
2023
).
4.
D.
Bridges
,
D.
Fieser
,
J. J.
Santiago
, and
A.
Hu
, “
Novel frontiers in high-entropy alloys
,”
Metals
13
(
7
),
1193
(
2023
).
5.
E. P.
George
,
D.
Raabe
, and
R. O.
Ritchie
, “
High-entropy alloys
,”
Nat. Rev. Mater.
4
(
8
),
515
534
(
2019
).
6.
F.
Zhang
,
H.
Lou
,
B.
Cheng
,
Z.
Zeng
, and
Q.
Zeng
, “
High-pressure induced phase transitions in high-entropy alloys: A review
,”
Entropy
21
(
3
),
239
(
2019
).
7.
F.
Zhang
,
Y.
Wu
,
H.
Lou
,
Z.
Zeng
,
V. B.
Prakapenka
,
E.
Greenberg
,
Y.
Ren
,
J.
Yan
,
J. S.
Okasinski
,
X.
Liu
,
Y.
Liu
,
Q.
Zeng
, and
Z.
Lu
, “
Polymorphism in a high-entropy alloy
,”
Nat. Commun.
8
(
1
),
15687
(
2017
).
8.
A. S.
Ahmad
,
Y.
Su
,
S. Y.
Liu
,
K.
Ståhl
,
Y. D.
Wu
,
X. D.
Hui
,
U.
Ruett
,
O.
Gutowski
,
K.
Glazyrin
,
H. P.
Liermann
,
H.
Franz
,
H.
Wang
,
X. D.
Wang
,
Q. P.
Cao
,
D. X.
Zhang
, and
J. Z.
Jiang
, “
Structural stability of high entropy alloys under pressure and temperature
,”
J. Appl. Phys.
121
(
23
),
235901
(
2017
).
9.
N. B.
Zhang
,
J.
Xu
,
Z. D.
Feng
,
Y. F.
Sun
,
J. Y.
Huang
,
X. J.
Zhao
,
X. H.
Yao
,
S.
Chen
,
L.
Lu
, and
S. N.
Luo
, “
Shock compression and spallation damage of high-entropy alloy Al0.1CoCrFeNi
,”
J. Mater. Sci. Technol.
128
,
1
9
(
2022
).
10.
Y.
Qiao
,
Y.
Chen
,
F.-H.
Cao
,
H.-Y.
Wang
, and
L.-H.
Dai
, “
Dynamic behavior of CrMnFeCoNi high-entropy alloy in impact tension
,”
Int. J. Impact Eng.
158
,
104008
(
2021
).
11.
L. X.
Li
,
X. Y.
Liu
,
J.
Xu
,
S. C.
Hu
,
Y.
Cai
,
L.
Lu
,
J. C.
Cheng
,
Y.
Tang
,
C.
Li
,
N. B.
Zhang
, and
S. N.
Luo
, “
Shock compression and spall damage of dendritic high-entropy alloy CoCrFeNiCu
,”
J. Alloys Compd.
947
,
169650
(
2023
).
12.
Z. J.
Jiang
,
J. Y.
He
,
H. Y.
Wang
,
H. S.
Zhang
,
Z. P.
Lu
, and
L. H.
Dai
, “
Shock compression response of high entropy alloys
,”
Mater. Res. Lett.
4
(
4
),
226
232
(
2016
).
13.
M. C.
Hawkins
,
S.
Thomas
,
R. S.
Hixson
,
J.
Gigax
,
N.
Li
,
C.
Liu
,
J. A.
Valdez
, and
S.
Fensin
, “
Dynamic properties of FeCrMnNi, a high entropy alloy
,”
Mater. Sci. Eng. A
840
,
142906
(
2022
).
14.
A.
Ehler
,
A.
Dhiman
,
T.
Dillard
,
R.
Dingreville
,
E.
Barrick
,
A.
Kustas
, and
V.
Tomar
, “
High-strain rate spall strength measurement for CoCrFeMnNi high-entropy alloy
,”
Metals
12
(
9
),
1482
(
2022
).
15.
J. C.
Cheng
,
J.
Xu
,
X. J.
Zhao
,
K. W.
Shi
,
J.
Li
,
Q.
Zhang
,
J. W.
Qiao
,
J. Y.
Huang
, and
S. N.
Luo
, “
Shock compression and spallation of a medium-entropy alloy Fe40Mn20Cr20Ni20
,”
Mater. Sci. Eng. A
847
,
143311
(
2022
).
16.
O. N.
Senkov
,
G. B.
Wilks
,
J. M.
Scott
, and
D. B.
Miracle
, “
Mechanical properties of Nb25Mo25Ta25W25 and V20Nb20Mo20Ta20W20 refractory high entropy alloys
,”
Intermetallics
19
(
5
),
698
706
(
2011
).
17.
Z.
Wang
,
H.
Wu
,
Y.
Wu
,
H.
Huang
,
X.
Zhu
,
Y.
Zhang
,
H.
Zhu
,
X.
Yuan
,
Q.
Chen
,
S.
Wang
,
X.
Liu
,
H.
Wang
,
S.
Jiang
,
M. J.
Kim
, and
Z.
Lu
, “
Solving oxygen embrittlement of refractory high-entropy alloy via grain boundary engineering
,”
Mater. Today
54
,
83
89
(
2022
).
18.
X.
Hu
,
G.
Yang
,
B.
Zhao
,
P.
Li
,
J.
Yang
,
C.
Leng
,
H.
Liu
,
H.
Huang
, and
Y.
Fei
, “
Shock compression behavior of a mixture of cubic and hexagonal boron nitride
,”
J. Appl. Phys.
123
(
17
),
175903
(
2018
).
19.
J.
Weng
,
H.
Tan
,
X.
Wang
,
Y.
Ma
,
S.
Hu
, and
X.
Wang
, “
Optical-fiber interferometer for velocity measurements with picosecond resolution
,”
Appl. Phys. Lett.
89
(
11
),
111101
(
2006
).
20.
X.
Liu
,
T.
Mashimo
,
N.
Kawai
,
T.
Sano
, and
X.
Zhou
, “
Isotropic phase transition of single-crystal iron (Fe) under shock compression
,”
J. Appl. Phys.
124
(
21
),
215101
(
2018
).
21.
M. A.
Meyers
,
Dynamic Behavior of Materials
, 1st ed. (
Wiley
,
1994
).
22.
W. J.
Nellis
,
A. C.
Mitchell
, and
D. A.
Young
, “
Equation-of-state measurements for aluminum, copper, and tantalum in the pressure range 80–440 GPa (0.8–4.4 Mbar)
,”
J. Appl. Phys.
93
(
1
),
304
310
(
2003
).
23.
T.
Mashimo
,
X.
Liu
,
M.
Kodama
,
E.
Zaretsky
,
M.
Katayama
, and
K.
Nagayama
, “
Effect of shear strength on Hugoniot-compression curve and the equation of state of tungsten (W)
,”
J. Appl. Phys.
119
(
3
),
035904
(
2016
).
24.
S. S.
Batsanov
, “
Features of solid-phase transformations induced by shock compression
,”
Russ. Chem. Rev.
75
(
7
),
601
616
(
2006
).
25.
N. K.
Bourne
,
J. C. F.
Millett
,
M.
Chen
,
J. W.
McCauley
, and
D. P.
Dandekar
, “
On the Hugoniot elastic limit in polycrystalline alumina
,”
J. Appl. Phys.
102
(
7
),
073514
(
2007
).
26.
L.
Boshoff-Mostert
and
H. J.
Viljoen
, “
Comparative study of analytical methods for Hugoniot curves of porous materials
,”
J. Appl. Phys.
86
(
3
),
1245
1254
(
1999
).
27.
K.-H.
Oh
and
P.-A.
Persson
, “
Equation of state for extrapolation of high-pressure shock Hugoniot data
,”
J. Appl. Phys.
65
(
10
),
3852
3856
(
1989
).
28.
D. K.
Dijken
and
J. T. M.
De Hosson
, “
Shock wave equation of state of powder material
,”
J. Appl. Phys.
75
(
2
),
809
813
(
1994
).
29.
Q.
Wu
and
F.
Jing
, “
Thermodynamic equation of state and application to Hugoniot predictions for porous materials
,”
J. Appl. Phys.
80
(
8
),
4343
4349
(
1996
).
30.
T.
Mashimo
,
A.
Nakamura
,
M.
Kodama
,
K.
Kusaba
,
K.
Fukuoka
, and
Y.
Syono
, “
Yielding and phase transition under shock compression of yttria-doped cubic zirconia single crystal and polycrystal
,”
J. Appl. Phys.
77
(
10
),
5060
5068
(
1995
).
31.
C.
Kittel
,
Introduction to Solid State Physics
, 8th ed. (
Wiley
,
Hoboken
,
NJ
,
2005
).
32.
F.
Körmann
and
M.
Sluiter
, “
Interplay between lattice distortions, vibrations and phase stability in NbMoTaW high entropy alloys
,”
Entropy
18
(
8
),
403
(
2016
).
33.
A. K.
Singh
and
A.
Subramaniam
, “
On the formation of disordered solid solutions in multi-component alloys
,”
J. Alloys Compd.
587
,
113
119
(
2014
).
34.
X.
Yang
and
Y.
Zhang
, “
Prediction of high-entropy stabilized solid-solution in multi-component alloys
,”
Mater. Chem. Phys.
132
(
2–3
),
233
238
(
2012
).
35.
E. J.
Tonkov
and
E. G.
Ponjatovskij
,
Phase Transformations of Elements Under High Pressure
(
CRC Press
,
Boca Raton
,
FL
,
2005
).
36.
S.
Mishra
,
K.
Guda Vishnu
, and
A.
Strachan
, “
Comparing the accuracy of melting temperature prediction methods for high entropy alloys
,”
J. Appl. Phys.
132
(
20
),
205901
(
2022
).
37.
T. D.
Cuong
and
A. D.
Phan
, “
Modification of the statistical moment method for the high-pressure melting curve by the inclusion of thermal vacancies
,”
Vacuum
179
,
109444
(
2020
).
38.
H. K.
Hieu
,
H.
Hoang
,
P. T. M.
Hanh
, and
T. T.
Hai
, “
Revisiting the melting curves of vanadium and niobium metals under pressure
,”
Vacuum
206
,
111507
(
2022
).
39.
C.
Dai
,
J.
Hu
, and
H.
Tan
, “
Hugoniot temperatures and melting of tantalum under shock compression determined by optical pyrometry
,”
J. Appl. Phys.
106
(
4
),
043519
(
2009
).
40.
S.
Baty
,
L.
Burakovsky
, and
D.
Preston
, “
Topological equivalence of the phase diagrams of molybdenum and tungsten
,”
Crystals
10
(
1
),
20
(
2020
).
41.
M.
Millot
,
S.
Hamel
,
J. R.
Rygg
,
P. M.
Celliers
,
G. W.
Collins
,
F.
Coppari
,
D. E.
Fratanduono
,
R.
Jeanloz
,
D. C.
Swift
, and
J. H.
Eggert
, “
Experimental evidence for superionic water ice using shock compression
,”
Nat. Phys.
14
,
297
302
(
2018
).
42.
R. R.
Boade
, “
Compression of porous copper by shock waves
,”
J. Appl. Phys.
39
(
12
),
5693
5702
(
1968
).
43.
B. M.
Butcher
,
M. M.
Carroll
, and
A. C.
Holt
, “
Shock-wave compaction of porous aluminum
,”
J. Appl. Phys.
45
(
9
),
3864
3875
(
1974
).
44.
F.
Birch
, “
Finite elastic strain of cubic crystals
,”
Phys. Rev.
71
(
11
),
809
824
(
1947
).
45.
Y. L.
Hu
,
L. H.
Bai
,
Y. G.
Tong
,
D. Y.
Deng
,
X. B.
Liang
,
J.
Zhang
,
Y. J.
Li
, and
Y. X.
Chen
, “
First-principle calculation investigation of NbMoTaW based refractory high entropy alloys
,”
J. Alloys Compd.
827
,
153963
(
2020
).