Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Investigation reveals Ti/Zr substitution impacts magnetic properties in melt-spun Y/Ce-Co alloys, suggesting optimization strategies.
The effects of Ti/Zr substitution, annealing temperature, annealing time, and wheel speed on the phase evolution and magnetic properties of YCo 12‐x Ti x ( x = 0.9, 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, 2.1, and 2.4) and CeCo 12‐z Ti z ( z = 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7) melt‐spun ribbons were systematically investigated using scanning electron microscopy, X‐ray diffraction, and vibrating sample magnetometer. The results demonstrate the following: (1) For YCo 12‐x Ti x alloys, increasing Ti content stabilizes a single‐phase ThMn 12 ‐type structure at x = 1.8, with melt‐spun ribbons (35 m/s) exhibiting optimal magnetic properties (H cj = 0.37 kOe, B r = 3.03 kGs, μ 0 M s = 6.43 kGs). Excess Ti ( x > 1.8) triggers secondary phases Co 2 Ti(h) and YCo 3 , degrading their magnetic performance. Zr substitution (Y 0.75 Zr 0.25 Co 10.2 Ti 1.8 ) stabilizes the ThMn 12 structure, but enhances the formation of Co 2 Ti(h). (2) Annealing Y 0.75 Zr 0.25 Co 10.2 Ti 1.8 ribbon at 400°C for 30 min optimizes magnetic performance (H cj = 0.69 kOe, B r = 2.71 kGs, μ 0 M s = 5.47 kGs) by balancing crystallinity and grain boundary density. Prolonged annealing (>1 h) or higher temperatures (600–800°C) reduces H cj due to grain coarsening and excessive precipitation of Co 2 Ti(h). (3) For CeCo 10.7 Ti 1.3 ( z = 1.3) and CeCo 10.6 Ti 1.4 ( z = 1.4) ribbons, a wheel speed of 30 m/s maximizes the 1:12 phase fraction in a nanocrystalline/amorphous composite, achieving peak performance (H cj = 0.30/0.22 kOe, μ 0 M s = 8.20/7.69 kGs). Low speeds (20–25 m/s) yield coarse grains and low H cj , while high speeds (35–40 m/s) increase amorphous content, disrupting magnetic order. Optimal magnetic properties of YCo 12‐ x Ti x ribbons with x = 1.8 annealed at 400°C/30 min as well as CeCo 12‐z Ti z ribbons with z = 1.3 (30 m/s wheel speed) were realized, providing insights for designing rare‐earth cobalt‐titanium magnetic materials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: