Local structure investigation of Co–Fe–Si–B ribbons by extended X-ray absorption fine-structure spectroscopy

Deshmukh, A.A.; Srivastava, A.P.; Singh, J.P.; Kumar, M.; Chae, K.H.; Asokan, K.; Palikundwar, U.A.

doi:10.1107/S1600577520015131

research papers

JOURNAL OF
SYNCHROTRON
RADIATION

ISSN: 1600-5775

Volume 28| Part 1| January 2021| Pages 240-246

https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600577520015131

Local structure investigation of Co–Fe–Si–B ribbons by extended X-ray absorption fine-structure spectroscopy

A. A. Deshmukh,^a,^b ^* A. P. Srivastava,^c J. P. Singh,^d Manish Kumar,^d K. H. Chae,^e K. Asokan ^f and U. A. Palikundwar ^a ^*

^aX-ray Research Laboratory, Department of Physics, Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, MS 440033, India, ^bDepartment of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, Odisha 769008, India, ^cMechanical Metallurgy Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, MS 400085, India, ^dPohang Accelerator Laboratory, Pohang University of Science and Technology, Pohang 37673, Republic of Korea, ^eAdvanced Analysis Center, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, Seoul 2792, Republic of Korea, and ^fInter-University Accelerator Centre (IUAC), Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi 110 067, India
^*Correspondence e-mail: akdeshmukh9@gmail.com, uapali@yahoo.com

Edited by G. Grübel, HASYLAB at DESY, Germany (Received 22 July 2020; accepted 13 November 2020)

In the present work, extended X-ray absorption fine-structure (EXAFS) investigations of Co₆₉Fe_xSi_21–xB₁₀ (x = 3, 5, 7) glassy ribbons were performed at the Co K-edge. The magnitude of the first peak of the Fourier transforms of the EXAFS signals is found to increase monotonically with increasing Si concentrations indicating the formation of the localized ordered structure at the atomic scale. The Co–Si coordination number (CN) increases at the expense of the CN of Co/Fe. Smaller interatomic distances are observed in the glassy phase compared with that in the crystalline phase which promotes the stability of the glassy phase. Calculations of the thermodynamic parameter (P_HSS), cohesive energy (E_C) and the atomic radius difference (δ) parameter show that the alloy composition Co₆₉Fe₃Si₁₈B₁₀ has a good glass-forming ability (GFA) with the highest CN of Si compared with other compositions. A linear correlation of CN with that of the GFA parameter (P_HSS) exists and the CN also plays a crucial role in the GFA of the glassy alloys. This parameter should be considered in developing different GFA criteria.

Keywords: Co-rich glassy ribbons; EXAFS; coordination number; thermodynamic parameter.

1. Introduction

Cobalt (Co) based glassy alloys were found to have low magnetostriction and low coercivity, high initial and maximal permeability (Babilas et al., 2012 ; Vojtanik, 2006 ; Zakharenko et al., 2006 ; Bednarcik et al., 2004 ). These glassy alloys have applications in various fields which include magnetic wires, magnetic sensors, band-pass filters and magnetic shielding (Babilas et al., 2012; Vojtanik, 2006; Zakharenko et al., 2006; Bednarcik et al., 2004). Earlier, numerous Co-based ternary alloys such as Co–Si–B (Kulik et al., 1984 ; Hagiwara et al., 1982 ; Baczewski et al., 1984 ; Barquin et al., 1994 ; Inoue et al., 1995 ; Wexler & Emr, 1997 ; Wang et al., 2007 ), Co–Ta–B (Yu et al., 2014 ), quaternary alloys such as Co–Fe–Si–B (Babilas et al., 2012; Bednarcik et al., 2004; Kulik et al., 1984; Liu et al., 2012 ; Janotová et al., 2014 ; Srivastava et al., 2016 ), Co–Fe–B–Nb (Gupta et al., 2012 ), Co–Fe–Ta–B (Taghvaei & Eckert, 2016 ), quinary alloys such as Co–Fe–Si–B–Nb (Janotová et al., 2014; Sidorov et al., 2014 ; Man et al., 2010 ; Dong et al., 2012 ; Liao et al., 2019 ), Co–Fe–Si–B–Ni (Srivastava et al., 2012 ) and hexenary alloys such as Co–Fe–Si–B–Nb–Ga (Hosko et al., 2012 ) were investigated for different magnetic and mechanical properties. Nevertheless, the glass-forming ability (GFA) of Co-based bulk metallic glasses (BMGs) was found to be inferior in comparison with Pd, Zr and Cu-based BMGs (Wang et al., 2007) because of the requirement of the higher cooling rate of about 10⁵ K s⁻¹ (Shen et al., 2007 ) to form a glassy alloy. This results in smaller sample thickness, limited to 50 µm or less in Co–Si–B alloy (Shen et al., 2007) achieved by the melt spinning method, and 1 to 6 mm in diameter for Co–Fe–Si–B–Nb alloy achieved by copper mould casting method (Sidorov et al., 2014; Man et al., 2010; Dong et al., 2012). However, very little attention has been given to understanding the local structure influencing the thermal stability and GFA of the Co-based alloys.

On the other hand, there are different experimental techniques such as X-ray scattering (Matsubara et al., 1989 ; Antonowicz, 2010 ; Saporiti et al., 2010 ), neutron diffraction (Hsieh et al., 1990 ), electron diffraction (Li et al., 2009 ) and extended X-ray absorption fine-structure (EXAFS) spectroscopy (Saksl et al., 2005 ; Zalewski et al., 2009 ) which are very useful to study the glassy phase and the local atomic structure in metallic glasses (MGs). Among them, EXAFS is element-selective and probes the local environment such as coordination numbers (CNs), bond distances (R), and their distribution around the absorbing atomic species such as transition metal (TE) and rare earth (RE) (Xiong et al., 2019 ; Dziegielewski et al., 2020 ). Earlier, EXAFS investigations were performed for different families of MGs such as Al-based (Li et al., 2009; Saksl et al., 2005; Zalewski et al., 2009; Xiong et al., 2019), Cu–Zr (Dziegielewski et al., 2020), Co-based (Fdez-Gubieda et al., 1992 ; Fdez-Gubieda et al., 1995 ), Pd-based (Kumar et al., 2011 ) and Ti-based (Kim et al., 2007 ) MGs to investigate the local order influence of glass formation. This has motivated us to evaluate the glass formation ability in Co₆₉Fe_xSi_21–xB₁₀ (x = 3, 5, 7) glassy ribbons in terms of the local structure around Co by investigating EXAFS associated with the Co K-edge.

2. Experimental details

In an earlier report (Srivastava et al., 2016), complete details about the synthesis of Co₆₉Fe_xSi_21–xB₁₀ (x = 3, 5, 7) glassy ribbons have been presented. Compositions Co₆₉Fe₃Si₁₈B₁₀, Co₆₉Fe₅Si₁₆B₁₀ and Co₆₉Fe₇Si₁₄B₁₀, hereafter referred to as SA, SB and SC, respectively. X-ray absorption spectroscopy experiments at the Co K-edge were performed at beamline 7D XAFS, PL-II synchrotron source, Pohang Accelerator Laboratory (Pohang, South Korea) in fluorescent mode at room temperature using a Si(111) double-crystal monochromator. The energy resolution (ΔE/E) of the monochromator is approximately 2 × 10^–5 in the energy range studied in the present work. Due to the higher thickness of the ribbon (20 µm), the simultaneous measurement of standard Co foil was not possible. Therefore, Co foil was measured before measuring the actual samples. The absorption coefficient has been determined by using an ionization chamber, filled with a nitrogen (N) and argon (Ar) gas mixture, to record the flux intensity before the sample (I₀), and a passivated implanted planar silicon (PIPS) detector was used to record fluorescence intensity (I_F). Two absorption scans were collected for each sample at the Co K-edge to ensure the consistency of the spectra. The energies of absorption K-edges corresponding to Si (1839 eV) and B (188 eV) lie below the energy range (4–21 keV) of beamline 7D XAFS of the PL-II synchrotron source. On the other hand, a small at.% of Fe discouraged considering the Fe K-edge in the present investigation. Therefore, the EXAFS associated with these edges have not been considered. The orthorhombic crystallographic information of Fe₃Si_0.4B_0.6 glassy alloy (Wirginia & Jacek, 2013 ) was considered for fitting the EXAFS data.

3. Data analysis

In the present work, EXAFS spectra have been processed and analysed using the IFEFFIT version 1.2.9 software package (Ravel & Newville, 2005 ). The energy calibration was carried out for the Co K-edge by assigning an energy equal to 7709 eV to the first inflection point of the main edge in Co metal foil. Further, the spectrum of all the samples on the same scale was aligned and the maxima of the first derivative of the experimentally measured absorption coefficient μ(E) was considered as the threshold energy (E₀) for all the measurements. The EXAFS function χ(k) was obtained by subtracting a linear function obtained by fitting the pre-edge region (−200 eV to −50 eV concerning the edge) from the entire raw spectra and free atom background simulated by fitting a cubic spline function to the post-edge region (50–1000 eV beyond the edge). The standard software package Athena/Artemis (Ravel & Newville, 2005) was used to transform the measured EXAFS spectra into k-space (3.0–10.0 Å⁻¹). In this, it is assumed that there is no difference between Co and Fe ions as backscatters because of their very similar atomic number. Further, data have been fitted using the crystallographic information of the Fe₃Si_0.4B_0.6 alloys (Table 1) from an earlier report (Wirginia & Jacek, 2013). The software (Ravel & Newville, 2005) computes the theoretical spectrum from the given model using the ATOM and FEFF6 subroutines (Rehr & Albers, 2000 ; Rehr et al., 2009 ). Information on the coordination number (CN), interatomic distances (R) and mean squared relative displacement of the effective interatomic distances (σ²) have been extracted using a single-shell model. The amplitude reduction factor (s₀²) was set to 0.23 for all the samples. The fitting was performed for the first peak in Fourier-filtered R space with the fittings range 1.05–2.915 Å. The number of independent points according to the Nyquist criterion was always greater than 6 for all the samples. The spatial resolution defined as ΔR = π/2(k_max − k_min) (Stern et al., 1995 ) for the present measurement was found to be ∼0.22 Å. The complete processing and analysis procedures of the data are described in the following steps.

Table 1
Orthorhombic model of Fe₃Si_0.4B_0.6 glassy alloy (Wirginia & Jacek, 2013)

Final orthorhombic model (Pnma) (62): a = 4.845 Å, b = 7.058 Å, c = 4.4370 Å
Atoms	x	y	z
Co/Fe	0.2116	0.0675	0.6180
Si	0.0287	0.25	0.6180
B	0.4578	0.25	0.5782

Step 1. Firstly, data of the sample SA (Co₆₉Fe₃Si₁₈B₁₀) was processed using Athena software (Ravel & Newville, 2005) by setting the k-range to 3.5–10 Å⁻¹ and the R range to 1.4−2.78 Å with an Rbkg value of 1.7. Further, self-absorption correction to the data was performed using the Booth function. The sample thickness (20 µm) and the composition formula for sample SA, i.e. Co₆₉Fe₃Si₁₈B₁₀, were given as input parameters. It was observed that the Rbkg value sets back to 1.0 and becomes frozen with all other parameters except the k and R range values. A similar procedure was followed for other samples: SB (Co₆₉Fe₅Si₁₆B₁₀) and SC (Co₆₉Fe₇Si₁₄B₁₀), respectively. After processing all the samples, data were saved for further analysis using Artemis software (Ravel & Newville, 2005).

Step 2. Data of sample SA were imported to the Artemis (Ravel & Newville, 2005). Further, the crystallographic information of Fe₃Si_0.4B_0.6 (Wirginia & Jacek, 2013) was provided for the fitting of the data. A single scattering path such as Co–Co/Fe, Co–Si, Co–B was considered for the analysis. The default values of the coordination number (CN) for the Co–Co/Fe, Co–Si, Co–B pair are 2, 1, and 1, respectively.

Step 3. Amplitude reduction parameter (s₀²), enot (ΔE₀), interatomic distance (R) and mean squared relative displacement of the effective interatomic distances (σ²) were set as `guess' parameter initially with s₀² = 1, ΔE₀ = 0, ΔR = 0 and σ² = 0.003. Earlier (Fdez-Gubieda et al., 1992), it was reported that Co-based metallic glasses give the CN in the range 7–11 at the Co K-edge.

Step 3.1. Initially CN of Co was set to 7 and that of Si and B to 1 and fitting was performed. Further, CN of Co was varied from 7 to 11 in steps of 1 with constant CN of Si and B. The k-range was set to 3.0–10.0 Å⁻¹ and the R range to 1.05–2.915 Å. The observations for the best fit were noted.

Step 3.2. CN of Si was increased to 2 by keeping CN of B at a constant value of 1. Again CN of Co was varied from 7 to 11. CN of Si was varied from 1 to 4. The k and R range was fixed as in Step 3.1. The observations for the best fit were noted.

Step 3.3. CN of B was increased to 2 and CN of Si was kept constant at 1. Again CN of Co was varied from 7 to 11. CN of B was varied from 1 to 4. The k and R range was fixed as in Step 3.1. The observations for the best fit were noted.

From Step 3.1 to Step 3.3 only one CN was allowed to vary at a time so that the effect of that particular CN could be analyzed on the data. Fitting parameters such as s₀², ΔE₀, ΔR, and σ² were allowed to vary during each fitting. The best fit for sample SA was obtained at s₀² = 0.230.

Step 4: Step 3.1 to Step 3.3 has been used for the sample SB (Co₆₉Fe₅Si₁₆B₁₀) and sample SC (Co₆₉Fe₇Si₁₄B₁₀), respectively, with s₀² = 0.230 (fixed). Further, all the fitting parameters obtained are given in Table 2.

Table 2
Coordination number (CN), interatomic distances (R) and mean squared relative displacement of the effective interatomic distances (σ²) of the EXAFS analysis for Co–Fe–Si–B glassy ribbons at the Co K-edge

Compositions	CN			R (Å)						σ²
	Co–Co/Fe	Co–Si	Co–B	Co–Co/Fe		Co–Si		Co–B		Co–Co/Fe	Co–Si	Co–B
				R_eff	R_fit	R_eff	R_fit	R_eff	R_fit
Co₆₉Fe₇Si₁₄B₁₀	9.28 (0.02)	4.00 (0.02)	4.00 (0.02)	2.443	2.466 (0.023)	1.563	1.633 (0.070)	1.764	1.683 (0.080)	0.011 (0.003)	0.029 (0.007)	(0.010) (0.004)
Co₆₉Fe₅Si₁₆B₁₀	9.24 (0.02)	4.04 (0.02)	4.00 (0.02)	2.443	2.454 (0.011)	1.563	1.708 (0.145)	1.764	1.762 (0.001)	0.011 (0.008)	0.035 (0.019)	0.013 (0.013)
Co₆₉Fe₃Si₁₈B₁₀	9.20 (0.02)	4.08 (0.02)	4.00 (0.02)	2.443	2.470 (0.027)	1.563	1.666 (0.102)	1.764	1.711 (0.053)	0.011 (0.005)	0.024 (0.008)	0.007 (0.006)

4. Results and discussion

The Fourier transforms (FTs) of the EXAFS signals weighted by k³ for SA, SB and SC samples at the Co K-edge are shown in Figs. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c), respectively, with the corresponding fits. A similar qualitative appearance exists in all of these three samples in the figures. From these figures, it is evident that one peak exhibits near R = 2 Å for samples SA, SB and SC whereas beyond R = 2.9 Å there is no appreciable change in the structural features. This indicates the lack of long-range order around Co in all these samples. These observations are identical to that of Fe–Co–Si–B as reported by Fdez-Gubieda et al. (1992). It can be seen that with an increase in Si concentration there is a corresponding increase in the magnitude of the peak for SA, SB and SC. A very small change in the peak position of all the three samples has been observed with decreasing Si concentration. From Table 2, it can be observed that with a decrease in Si concentration there is a corresponding decrease in CN around the Co atom. The CN of B remains constant around the Co atom. Interatomic distances between the Co and Co/Fe atom are small compared with that of the Goldsmith radii [R_Co–Co = 2.502 Å, R_Co–Fe = 2.482 Å (Dolan et al., 2006 )]. Similarly, interatomic distances between Co and Si/B atoms are small compared with their atomic radii [R_Co–Si = 2.404 Å, R_Co–B = 2.071 Å (Dolan et al., 2006)]. The formation of the stable glassy phase can be presumed if the first neighbour distances are smaller compared with that of the crystalline distances as it enables the atoms to occupy the position in the short-range order (SRO) region (Galván-Colín et al., 2015 ). This supports the formation of the stable glassy phase in the present quaternary Co–Fe–Si–B glassy ribbons. For the Co–Co/Fe pair, the interatomic distance (R) is found to decrease from 2.466 Å to 2.454 Å with increasing Co–Si CN from 4.0 to 4.04. This is followed by a further increase in R to 2.470 Å with an increase in CN from 4.04 to 4.08. On the other hand, for the Co–Si pair, R first increases from 1.633 Å to 1.708 Å with an increase in CN of Si from 4.0 to 4.04 and then decreases from 1.708 Å to 1.667 Å with an increase of CN of Si from 4.04 to 4.08. A similar trend has also been observed for Co–B pairs. Fig. 2 shows the FT of EXAFS oscillations in R space and Fig. 3 shows k³-weighted EXAFS oscillations for SA, SB and SC at the Co K-edge. From Fig. 2, it can be seen that with increasing Si concentration the magnitude of the first peak corresponding to nearest neighbours around Co increases indicating the formation of the stable glassy phase with the favourable ordered structure at the atomic scale. In order to rationalize these findings, thermodynamic and topological parameters such as enthalpy of mixing ( $[{\Delta H}_{\rm{alloy}}^{\,\rm{mix}}]$ ), atomic size difference resulting in mismatch entropy (ΔS_σ/k_B) and atomic arrangements leading to configurational entropy (ΔS_C/R) and P_HSS were calculated. Details of these parameters are given in the supporting information. Earlier, Chattopadhyay et al. (2016 ) reported that for Co-based glasses $[{\Delta H}_{\rm{alloy}}^{\,\rm{mix}}]$ ranges from −30 to −10 kJ mol⁻¹ and the ΔS_σ/k_B range is in a wide window of 0.2–0.8. In the present work, the values of $[{\Delta H}_{\rm{alloy}}^{\,\rm{mix}}]$ (−17.19 to −18.72 kJ mol⁻¹) and ΔS_σ/k_B (0.213 to 0.215) falls within the above range. Further, a correlation between CN of Si and P_HSS is illustrated in Fig. 4. This figure shows that, with a decrease in Si concentration, P_HSS of the alloy becomes more positive (i.e. less negative). Ramakrishna Rao et al. (2013 ) have successfully used the P_HSS parameter for Fe-based MG where they reported that the model incorporating $[{\Delta H}_{\rm{alloy}}^{\,\rm{mix}}]$ , ΔS_σ/k_B, ΔS_c/R are more effective in the selection of the compositions in multicomponent systems with good GFA (Ramakrishna Rao et al., 2013). They showed that a large negative $[{\Delta H}_{\rm{alloy}}^{\,\rm{mix}}]$ may favour the glass formation. Besides, a large atomic size difference may allow the smallest of the species to occupy interstitial positions without inducing much strain in the lattice, resulting in glass formation with higher GFA (Ramakrishna Rao et al., 2013). The multiplication of $[{\Delta H}_{\rm{alloy}}^{\rm{mix}}]$ , ΔS_σ/k_B, ΔS_c/R has been performed to acquire the most negative value of P_HSS thereby increasing the GFA. This helped to increase the viscosity of the alloy and restricts the atomic mobility thereby having efficient atomic packing (Ramakrishna Rao et al., 2013). Restricted atomic mobilities help to suppress the nucleation which stabilizes the liquid at low temperatures and thereby it turn into a glass upon cooling (Ramakrishna Rao et al., 2013). Fig. 4 shows the variation of CN of Si with that of P_HSS. This suggests that a higher negative value of P_HSS, which is indicative of a higher GFA of the alloy, is related to the increase in the CN of Si. Additionally, the cohesive energy (E_C) of the Co–Fe–Si–B alloy has also been calculated in the present investigation and compared with that of other Co-based MGs from the literature and illustrated in Fig. 5. From this figure and Table 3, it can be seen that E_C increases as P_HSS becomes more negative. This trend is also followed by other Co-based MGs which compliment the present observations. Therefore, the increase in CN of Si can be correlated to an increase in E_C and this may be attributed to the covalent bonding nature of the Si. In the present work, SA has the most negative P_HSS (−3.63 kJ mol⁻¹) and highest cohesive energy (441.33 kJ mol⁻¹). On the other hand, SC has a less negative P_HSS (−3.48 kJ mol⁻¹) and smallest cohesive energy (440.01 kJ mol⁻¹). Further, to understand the P_HSS dependence of Si, the correlation between the atomic radius difference parameter (δ) and that of P_HSS has also been evaluated. Details of the δ parameter are given in the supporting information. Fig. 6 shows the variation in δ and P_HSS. A similar trend as observed with E_C can be noticed for δ and P_HSS for different Co–Fe–Si–B glass-forming compositions. It has been reported earlier that the large atomic mismatch increases the free energy in an alloy and lowers the stability of the solid solution thereby promoting the glassy phase formation in the alloy (Zhang et al., 2008 ; Guo & Liu, 2011 ). Besides, a local elastic strain is produced due to the atomic differences (Guo & Liu, 2011). The numerical value δ ≥ 9 supports the glassy phase formation in the liquid melt after quenching. In the present work, a value of δ > 10 suggests the initiation of atomic stress and an increase in free energy with an increase in CN of Si around the Co atom. This endorses the observation of an increase in GFA with increased Si concentration in the present quaternary Co–Fe–Si–B glassy ribbons. Therefore, it is presumed that the addition of Si to Co–Fe–B is significant and the Co–Si CN plays an important role in enhancing the GFA of the alloy.

Table 3
Thermodynamic ( $[{\Delta H}_{\rm{alloy}}^{\,\rm{mix}}]$ ), topological (S_σ/k_B, S_C/R) parameters, cohesive energy (E_C), atomic radius difference (δ × 100) of Co–Fe–Si–B glassy ribbon

Composition	$[\Delta{H}_{\rm{alloy}}^{\,\rm{mix}}]$ (kJ mol⁻¹)	S_σ/k_B	S_C/R	E_C (kJ mol⁻¹)	δ × 100	Reference	P_HSS (kJ mol⁻¹)
Co_65.7Fe_4.3Si₁₇B₁₃	−19.63	0.271	0.978	442.11	12.138	Hagiwara et al. (1982)	−5.20
Co_68.2Fe_4.3Si_12.5B₁₅	−19.07	0.307	0.941	446.83	12.947	Liao et al. (2019)	−5.51
Co₆₉Fe₃Si₁₈B₁₀	−18.72	0.215	0.900	441.33	10.821	Present work	−3.63
Co₆₉Fe₅Si₁₆B₁₀	−17.98	0.214	0.929	440.67	10.813	Present work	−3.59
Co₆₉Fe₇Si₁₄B₁₀	−17.19	0.213	0.947	440.01	10.802	Present work	−3.48
Co₇₀Fe₅Si₁₅B₁₀	−17.61	0.214	0.914	440.45	10.810	Hagiwara et al. (1982)	−3.45
Co_70.3Fe_4.7Si₁₀B₁₅	−18.18	0.307	0.906	446.23	12.956	Inoue et al. (1995)	−5.06
Co_70.3Fe_4.7Si₁₅B₁₀	−17.61	0.214	0.906	440.48	10.811	Hagiwara et al. (1982)	−3.42
Co_75.3Fe_4.7Si₄B₁₆	−16.15	0.324	0.779	446.28	13.354	Hagiwara et al. (1982)	−4.08

Figure 1
Fourier transforms of EXAFS oscillations in R space for (a) SA, (b) SB and (c) SC at the Co K-edge.

Figure 2
Fourier transforms of EXAFS oscillations in R space for SA, SB and SC at the Co K-edge.

Figure 3
k³-Weighted EXAFS oscillations for SA, SB and SC at the Co K-edge.

Figure 4
Variation in coordination number (CN) of Si with P_HSS.

Figure 5
Variation in cohesive energy (E_C) with P_HSS.

Figure 6
Atomic radius mismatch (δ) with P_HSS.

5. Conclusions

According to the EXAFS fitted data, the local structure of Co is found to be concentration-dependent. The nearest-neighbour CN of Si around the Co atom increases at the expense of the Co/Fe CN with an increase in Si concentrations in the alloy composition. It is also noticed that Co₆₉Fe₃Si₁₈B₁₀ (SA) has the best glass-forming ability with the highest CN of Si compared with other compositions. The interatomic distances between the Co and Fe/Si/B atoms are small compared with their atomic radii thereby promoting the atoms to occupy the position in the SRO regime in Co–Fe–Si–B alloy. A linear correlation of CN of Si around the Co atom with the GFA parameter P_HSS shows that the CN also plays an important role in the GFA of the glassy alloys. Additionally, an increase in cohesive energy and atomic radius mismatch with an increase in CN is found to significantly contribute to the good glass-forming ability in SA. Therefore, while developing different GFA criteria, CN should be considered.

6. Related literature

The following references, not cited in the main body of the paper, have been cited in the supporting information: Bhatt et al. (2007); Gallego et al. (1990); Khond et al. (2018).

Supporting information

Supporting Information. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600577520015131/gb5113sup1.pdf

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to the Pohang Accelerator Laboratory, Pohang, South Korea, to carry out the synchrotron XRD and EXAFS measurements.

Funding information

The following funding is acknowledged: University Grants Commission [(UGC, New Delhi, India, scholarship to AAD, Basic Science Research (BSR) fellowship to carry out this research work].

References

Antonowicz, J. (2010). J. Mater. Sci. 45, 5040–5044. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Babilas, R., Nowosielski, R., Dercz, G., Stokłosa, Z. & Głuchowski, W. (2012). Arch. Mater. Sci. Eng. 54, 37–44. Google Scholar
Baczewski, L. T., Kaczkowski, Z. & Lipiński, E. (1984). J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 41, 346–348. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Barquin, L. F., Gomez Sal, J. C., Barandiarin, J. M., Bermejo, F. J. & Howells, W. S. (1994). J. Phys. Condens. Matter, 6, 164–1652. CrossRef Google Scholar
Bednarčík, J., Kováč, J., Kollár, P., Roth, S., Sovák, P., Balcerski, J., Polanski, K. & Švec, T. (2004). J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 337, 42–47. Google Scholar
Bhatt, J., Jiang, W., Junhai, X., Qing, W., Dong, C. & Murty, B. S. (2007). Intermetallics, 15, 716–721. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Chattopadhyay, C., Satish Idury, K. S. N., Bhatt, J., Mondal, K. & Murty, B. S. (2016). Mater. Sci. Technol. 32, 380–400. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Dolan, M. D., Dave, N. C., Ilyushechkin, A. Y., Morpeth, L. D. & McLennan, K. G. (2006). J. Membr. Sci. 285, 30–55. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Dong, Y., Wang, A., Man, Q. & Shen, B. (2012). Intermetallics, 23, 63–67. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Dziegielewski, P., Mathon, O., Kantor, I., Pascarelli, S., Shinmei, T., Irifune, T. & Antonowicz, J. (2020). High. Press. Res. 40, 54–64. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Fdez-Gubieda, M. L., Barandiarán, J. M., Plazaola, F., Hernando, A. & Mobilio, S. (1992). J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 151, 51–58. Google Scholar
Fdez-Gubieda, M. L., Orue, I., Plazaola, F. & Barandiarán, J. M. (1995). Physica B, 208–209, 365–366. Google Scholar
Gallego, L. J., Somoza, J. A. & Alonso, J. A. (1990). J. Phys. Condens. Matter, 2, 6245–6250. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Galván-Colín, J., Valladares, A. A., Valladares, R. M. & Valladares, A. (2015). Physica B, 475, 140–147. Google Scholar
Guo, S. & Liu, C. T. (2011). Prog. Nat. Sci.: Mater. Int. 21, 433–446. CrossRef Google Scholar
Gupta, P., Ganguli, T., Gupta, A., Sinha, A. K., Deb, S. K., Svec, P. Jr & Franco, V. (2012). J. Appl. Phys. 111, 113518. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Hagiwara, M., Inoue, A. & Masumoto, T. (1982). Mater. Sci. Eng. 54, 197–207. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Hosko, J., Janotova, I., Svec, P., Janickovic, D., Vlasak, G., Illekova, E., Matko, I., Svec, P. Sr (2012). J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 358, 1545–1549. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Hsieh, H. Y., Toby, B. H., Egami, T., He, Y., Poon, S. J. & Shiflet, G. J. (1990). J. Mater. Res. 5, 2807–2812. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Inoue, A., Katsuya, A., Amiya, K. & Masumoto, T. (1995). Met. Trans. JIM, 36, 802–809. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Janotová, I., Švec, P., Mater'ko, I., Janičkovič, D., Švec, P. Sr (2014). J. Alloys Compd. 615, S198–S202. Google Scholar
Khond, A., Babu, D. A., Smaran, S., Deshmukh, A., Majumdar, B., Bhatt, J. & Srivastav, A. K. (2018). J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 500, 191–195. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Kim, Y. C., Chang, H. J., Kim, D. H., Kim, W. T. & Cha, P. R. (2007). J. Phys. Condens. Matter, 19, 196104. CrossRef Google Scholar
Kulik, T., Matyja, H. & Lisowski, B. (1984). J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 43, 135–142. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Kumar, V., Fujita, T., Konno, K., Matsuura, M., Chen, M. W., Inoue, A. & Kawazoe, Y. (2011). Phys. Rev. B, 84, 134204. CrossRef Google Scholar
Li, G., Borisenko, K. B., Chen, Y., Nguyenmanh, D., Ma, E. & Cockayne, D. J. H. (2009). Acta Mater. 57, 804–811. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Liao, W. B., Jiang, C., Xu, S., Gao, L., Zhang, H., Li, P., Liu, Z. & Lu, Y. (2019). Mater. Res. Expr. 6, 106565. CrossRef Google Scholar
Liu, J. S., Cao, F. Y., Xing, D. W., Zhang, L. Y., Qin, F. X., Peng, H. X., Xue, X. & Sun, J. F. (2012). J. Alloys Compd. 541, 215–221. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Man, Q., Sun, H., Dong, Y., Shen, B., Kimura, H., Makino, A. & Inoue, A. (2010). Intermetallics, 18, 1876–1879. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Matsubara, E., Waseda, Y., Inoue, A. & Masumoto, T. (1989). Z. Naturforsch. 44, 814–820. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Ramakrishna Rao, B., Srinivas, M., Shah, A. K., Gandhi, A. S. & Murty, B. S. (2013). Intermetallics, 35, 73–81. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Ravel, B. & Newville, M. (2005). J. Synchrotron Rad. 12, 537–541. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Rehr, J. J. & Albers, R. C. (2000). Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 621–654. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Rehr, J. J., Kas, J. J., Prange, M. P., Sorini, A. P., Takimoto, Y. & Vila, F. (2009). C. R. Phys. 10, 548–559. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Saksl, K., Jóvári, P., Franz, H. & Jiang, J. Z. (2005). J. Appl. Phys. 97, 113507. CrossRef Google Scholar
Saporiti, F., Boudard, M. & Audebert, F. (2010). J. Alloys Compd. 495, 309–312. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Shen, B., Koshiba, H., Inoue, A., Kimura, H. & Mizushima, T. (2007). Mater. Sci. Forum, 42, 2136–2139. Google Scholar
Sidorov, V., Hosko, J., Mikhailov, V., Rozkov, I., Uporova, N., Svec, P., Janickovic, D., Matko, I., Svec Sr, P. & Malyshev, L. (2014). J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 354, 35–38. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Srivastava, A. P., Das, N., Sharma, S. K., Sinha, A. K., Srivastava, D., Pujari, P. K. & Dey, G. K. (2016). J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 49, 225303. CrossRef Google Scholar
Srivastava, A. P., Srivastava, D., Sudarshan, K., Sharma, S. K., Pujari, P. K., Majumdar, B., Suresh, K. G. & Dey, G. K. (2012). J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 324, 2476–2482. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Stern, E. A., Newville, M., Ravel, B., Yacoby, Y. & Haskel, D. (1995). Physica B, 208–209, 117–120. CrossRef Web of Science Google Scholar
Taghvaei, A. H. & Eckert, J. (2016). J. Alloys Compd. 675, 223–230. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Vojtanik, P. (2006). J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 304, 159–163. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Wang, Q., Zhu, C., Li, Y., Wu, J., Dong, C., Qiang, J., Zhang, W. & Inoue, A. (2007). Mater. Sci. Forum, 561–565, 1275–1278. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Wexler, D. & Emr, M. (1997). Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 226–228, 1064–1068. CrossRef Google Scholar
Wirginia, P. & Jacek, P. (2013). Solid State Phenom. 203–204, 386–389. Google Scholar
Xiong, X. Z., Yi, J. J., Kong, L. T., Jiang, Z., Huang, Y. Y. & Li, J. F. (2019). Intermetallics, 111, 106505. CrossRef Google Scholar
Yu, P. F., Feng, S. D., Xu, G. S., Guo, X. L., Wang, Y. Y., Zhao, W., Qi, L., Li, G., Liaw, P. K. & Liu, R. P. (2014). Scr. Mater. 90–91, 45–48. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Zakharenko, M., Babich, M., Yeremenko, G. & Semen'ko, M. (2006). J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 304, e525–e527. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Zalewski, W., Antonowicz, J., Bacewicz, R. & Latuch, J. (2009). J. Alloys Compd. 468, 40–46. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Zhou, Y. J., Lin, J. P., Chen, G. L. & Liaw, P. K. (2008). Adv. Eng. Mater. 10, 534–538. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar

© International Union of Crystallography. Prior permission is not required to reproduce short quotations, tables and figures from this article, provided the original authors and source are cited. For more information, click here.

JOURNAL OF
SYNCHROTRON
RADIATION

ISSN: 1600-5775

Volume 28| Part 1| January 2021| Pages 240-246

https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600577520015131

Format		BIBTeX
		EndNote
		RefMan
		Refer
		Medline
		CIF
		SGML
		Plain Text
		Text

Format		BIBTeX
		EndNote
		RefMan
		Refer
		Medline
		CIF
		SGML
		Plain Text
		Text

Search IUCr Journals		doi		Advanced search
Author		volume	page

research papers\(\def\hfill{\hskip 5em}\def\hfil{\hskip 3em}\def\eqno#1{\hfil {#1}}\)

Local structure investigation of Co–Fe–Si–B ribbons by extended X-ray absorption fine-structure spectroscopy

1. Introduction

2. Experimental details

3. Data analysis

4. Results and discussion

5. Conclusions

6. Related literature

Supporting information

Acknowledgements

Funding information

References

research papers