Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Unveiling potential candidates for rare-earth-free permanent magnet and magnetocaloric effect applications: a high throughput screening in Fe-N alloys

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read High-throughput DFT screening of FexN1-x identifies 15 rare-earth-free permanent-magnet candidates and 40 magnetocaloric-effect candidates.

desk verdict Solid DFT screening of 49 Fe-N compounds with one standout candidate, but the abstract's '15 compounds above 1 MJ/m3' overstates the data (only 4) and needs fixing before it can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01607 v1 pith:4ILRN3F7 submitted 2025-01-03 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Qiang Gao , Ergen Bao , Ijaz Shahid , Hui Ma , Xing-Qiu Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords permanentmagnetmagnetocrystallineanisotropyenergysaturationmagnetizationmagnetocaloriceffectironnitridehigh-throughputdensityfunctionaltheoryrare-earth-freemagnetsFe-Nalloys
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

These calculations argue that the Fe-N alloy system, built from abundant iron and nitrogen, can supply both rare-earth-free permanent magnets and giant magnetocaloric materials. High-throughput density functional theory on 49 ferromagnetic $\mathrm{Fe}_x\mathrm{N}_{1-x}$ structures finds 15 compounds with at least one magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy above 0.4 MJ/m³, four of them above 1 MJ/m³, which the paper says fills the application gap between expensive high-performance magnets and cheap ferrites. The best candidate, triclinic $\mathrm{Fe}_{16}\mathrm{N}_{3}$, shows an out-of-plane MAE of 1.751 MJ/m³ and saturation magnetization of 1603 emu/cm³, approaching Nd-Fe-B in magnetization. The same list yields 40 compounds with magnetic deformation above 1.5%, the proxy for giant magnetocaloric response, and four of the strongest permanent-magnet candidates also appear there. A sympathetic reading is that Fe-N is a promising, earth-abundant playground for both applications, though many candidates are energetically metastable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy (MAE) computed as the total-energy difference between magnetization orientations, $K_{\hat{n}_1-\hat{n}_2}=E_{\hat{n}_1}-E_{\hat{n}_2}$, evaluated for the three crystal directions [001], [010], and [100]; the paper's headline quantity is the largest absolute value $|K_{\max}|$ among these. Candidate selection combines three filters: thermodynamic stability (negative formation energy and hull energy below 0.075 eV/at), mechanical and dynamical stability from the prior structure search, and an anisotropy threshold of 0.4 MJ/m³. For magnetocaloric screening it uses the magnetic deformation proxy $\Sigma_M=\frac{1}{3}\sqrt{\eta_1^2+\eta_2^2+\eta_3^2}\times 100$, with $\boldsymbol{\eta}=\frac{1}{2}(\boldsymbol{P}^T\boldsymbol{P}-\boldsymbol{I})$ the Lagrangian finite strain between non-magnetic and magnetic states, and the 1.5% threshold from the literature. Magnets are then labelled by the dimensionless hardness parameter $\kappa=\sqrt{K_1/(\mu_0 M_S)^2}$, with $\kappa>1$ hard and $0.1<\kappa<1$ semi-hard.

What would settle it

Synthesize phase-pure triclinic $\mathrm{Fe}_{16}\mathrm{N}_{3}$ or orthorhombic $\mathrm{Fe}_{2}\mathrm{N}$ by low-temperature nitriding and measure the easy-axis anisotropy and magnetization; if the measured MAE comes out below 0.4 MJ/m³, or the phase decomposes into $\mathrm{Fe}_{4}\mathrm{N}$/$\mathrm{Fe}_{3}\mathrm{N}$ and Fe on the timescale of the measurement, the screening's headline prediction is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's terms, the central discovery is that nitrogenation of iron yields a family of usable anisotropic magnets rather than a single accidental phase. From 49 ferromagnetic $\mathrm{Fe}_x\mathrm{N}_{1-x}$ structures, 15 have at least one computed magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy above 0.4 MJ/m³, with four above 1 MJ/m³; $\mathrm{Fe}_{2}\mathrm{N}$ is classified as a hard magnet ($\kappa>1$) and the other 14 as semi-hard ($0.1<\kappa<1$). The largest out-of-plane anisotropy, 1.751 MJ/m³ for $\mathrm{Fe}_{16}\mathrm{N}_{3}$ (#2111), is more than twice that of $\alpha''$-$\mathrm{Fe}_{8}\mathrm{N}$ and comparable to L1₀ MnAl and FePd, while its saturation magnetization of 1603 emu/cm³ approaches $\mathrm{Nd}_{2}\mathrm{Fe}_{14}\mathrm{B}$. The same screening, using the magnetic deformation proxy, flags 40 compounds as potential giant magnetocaloric materials, with $\mathrm{Fe}_{7}\mathrm{N}$ showing a 9.36% deformation, and places the set in the application gap between high-performance and widely used permanent magnets.

Load-bearing premise

The candidate list assumes that the 49 Fe-N structures inherited from the earlier structure search are real, synthesizable phases, even though many sit slightly above the energy of competing phase mixtures; if any of them cannot be made, its computed anisotropy and magnetization values cease to matter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fifteen Fe-N compounds become concrete synthesis targets for rare-earth-free permanent magnets aimed at the gap between ferrites/AlNiCo and Nd-Fe-B/Sm-Co.
  • $\mathrm{Fe}_{2}\mathrm{N}$ is predicted to be a hard magnet ($\kappa>1$), meaning its coercivity is less shape-dependent than the semi-hard candidates.
  • $\mathrm{Fe}_{16}\mathrm{N}_{3}$ offers a computed MAE (1.751 MJ/m³) more than twice that of $\alpha''$-$\mathrm{Fe}_{8}\mathrm{N}$ and a saturation magnetization close to $\mathrm{Nd}_{2}\mathrm{Fe}_{14}\mathrm{B}$, making it the flagship candidate.
  • Forty Fe-N compounds pass the magnetocaloric proxy ($\Sigma_M>1.5\%$), and the four strongest permanent-magnet candidates also appear on the MCE list, suggesting dual-use materials.
  • Saturation magnetization rises approximately linearly with Fe content, giving a simple composition rule for tuning $M_S$ in $\mathrm{Fe}_x\mathrm{N}_{1-x}$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implicit extension the authors do not develop: because most candidates sit 0.02–0.066 eV/at above the hull, the realistic synthesis routes are epitaxial growth or low-temperature nitriding, not bulk metallurgy; the list functions as a target library.
  • MAE is an intrinsic upper bound, not actual coercivity; if microstructural reversal mechanisms dominate, the hard/semi-hard labels should be read as intrinsic-crystal classifications, not device guarantees.
  • The magnetic-deformation proxy selects magnetoelastic coupling, but a working magnetocaloric refrigerator also needs the transition near the operating temperature; Curie temperatures for the new candidates are not computed here, so the 40-name list is a starting set.
  • A cheap falsification route would be to grow $\mathrm{Fe}_{16}\mathrm{N}_{3}$ on a lattice-matched substrate and measure ferromagnetic resonance; agreement with 1.75 MJ/m³ would validate the entire chain.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a high-throughput density functional theory screening of FexN1-x compounds, using 49 ferromagnetic structures previously predicted by the authors via USPEX. For each candidate the authors compute the magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy (MAE), saturation magnetization, and a magnetic-deformation proxy for the magnetocaloric effect (MCE). They identify 15 compounds with MAE larger than 0.4 MJ/m3 as potential rare-earth-free permanent magnets, with Fe16N3 having the largest out-of-plane MAE of 1.751 MJ/m3, and they report 40 (or 41) potential MCE candidates with magnetic deformation greater than 1.5%. The results are compared with known α''-Fe8N and ε-Fe3N data as validation.

Significance. If the predictions are reliable, the work would expand the family of rare-earth-free permanent-magnet candidates and identify new magnetocaloric materials in a chemically simple alloy system. The authors correctly use established computational proxies (MAE from total-energy differences with spin-orbit coupling, and the magnetic-deformation criterion introduced by Bocarsly et al.) and they validate two known phases against experiment and prior theory. The screening is systematic and the data tables are extensive. However, the abstract overstates the number of compounds with MAE above 1 MJ/m3, the MCE candidate counts are inconsistent, and the MAE values lack convergence tests or error estimates. These issues currently prevent the central claims from being assessed as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Table A1] The abstract states that '15 compounds are potential permanent magnets with a magneto-crystalline anisotropy energy more than 1 MJ/m3', but Table A1, which lists compounds with MAE larger than 0.4 MJ/m3, contains only four entries above 1 MJ/m3 (1.751, 1.384, 1.300, and 1.047 MJ/m3). The remaining eleven entries have MAE values between 0.42 and 0.94 MJ/m3. The conclusion correctly uses the 0.4 MJ/m3 threshold, so the abstract's headline number is inconsistent with the paper's own data and should be corrected before publication.
  2. [Section 3.2, Table A2, and Conclusions] The MCE candidate counts are inconsistent: Section 3.2 first says 'We have found 40 newly potential MCE candidates', then 'Overall, we have found 41 compounds with a magnetic deformation ΣM > 1.5%', while the Conclusions state '40 newly potential giant magnetocaloric effect candidates'. Table A2 includes α-Fe, ε-Fe3N, and γ'-Fe4N among the listed entries, so it is unclear whether the counts refer to new candidates, all candidates, or compounds excluding known references. The text should state the exact counting convention and reconcile the 40/41 discrepancy.
  3. [Section 2 and Section 3.1] The MAE values are presented without convergence tests or error estimates, which is a serious concern because many of the key values (0.4-1.7 MJ/m3) are small energy differences obtained from total energies with spin-orbit coupling. The authors should provide at least a convergence check of the MAE with respect to k-point density and plane-wave cutoff for representative compounds (e.g., Fe16N3, Fe2N, and α''-Fe8N), and ideally estimate numerical uncertainties or compare results obtained with different exchange-correlation functionals.
  4. [Section 2 and Table A1] All 49 ferromagnetic structures are taken from the authors' own USPEX prediction (Refs. [27,28]) and are filtered by a convex-hull cutoff of 0.075 eV/at. Many candidates in Table A1 have hull energies of 0.02-0.066 eV/at (e.g., Fe16N3: 0.0464, Fe2N: 0.0511, Fe4N: 0.0519), meaning they are metastable with respect to decomposition. The manuscript should explicitly discuss the synthesizability and kinetic stability of these phases, since the application-relevant claims depend on the candidates being experimentally accessible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1] In the introduction to Section 3.1, the text refers to 'an enhanced MAE in the order of 700-800 eV/at' for Fe-Co systems; this appears to be a typo, as the reported MAE values for tetragonal Fe-Co are on the order of 0.7-0.8 meV/atom, not hundreds of eV/atom.
  2. [References [27] and [28]] References [27] and [28] refer to the same manuscript (one arXiv, one SSRN). The authors should cite the published version or, if neither is peer-reviewed, state clearly that the parent structure prediction is a preprint and describe its availability in the main text.
  3. [Table A1] The tables use 'TRI', 'HEX', 'ORT', etc. as structure-type abbreviations, but the caption defines them only in a list. This is adequate, but the MAE units in Table A1 (MJ/m3 and meV/Fe) should be explicitly separated in the header, as the current format '1.7509 (0.1389)' may be ambiguous without the long caption.
  4. [Figure 1] The figure caption states 'The filled blue diamond and red circle symbols represent the data sets of well-known permanent magnets and the predicted FexN1-x alloys, respectively', but it does not identify which symbol corresponds to which data set in the figure itself. Please ensure the legend is readable in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the MAE and magnetic-deformation values are first-principles outputs computed from an independently produced structure set; the sole self-citation is sequential input, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the paper's target claims. The 49 ferromagnetic candidate structures come from the authors' prior USPEX crystal-structure search (Refs. [27] and [28]), but that search did not assume or optimize the target quantities reported here: the prior work selected structures by formation energy, convex-hull distance, mechanical stability, and dynamical stability, whereas the magneto-crystalline anisotropy energy, saturation magnetization, and magnetic deformation are newly computed DFT outputs in the present paper. The screening thresholds are taken from prior literature (MAE > 0.4 MJ/m3 from Refs. [22,23]; magnetic deformation proxy with Sigma_M > 1.5% from Ref. [26]) and are not fitted to the present data. No equation defines a predicted output in terms of that same output, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The MAE values are calculated from the energy difference between magnetization directions, and the MCE proxy is computed from non-magnetic and magnetic lattice constants; both are independent first-principles quantities. The reliance on the authors' own structure prediction is sequential rather than circular, because the structure search does not incorporate MAE or MCE criteria and the present calculations do not reduce to the citation. The abstract's statement that 15 compounds have MAE larger than 1 MJ/m3, while Table A1 lists only four entries above 1 MJ/m3, is an internal consistency and reporting issue, not a circularity, and therefore does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The screening depends on hand-chosen thresholds (0.075 eV/at hull cutoff, 0.4 MJ/m3 MAE, 1.5% deformation) that come from prior papers or the authors' earlier work, not from fits to the present data.

free parameters (3)
  • Convex hull energy cutoff = 0.075 eV/at
    Chosen in the authors' prior structure search [27] to define stable Fe-N phases; many candidates in Tables A1 and A2 sit 40 to 65 meV/at above the hull, so this cutoff directly controls which compounds are screened.
  • MAE screening threshold = 0.4 MJ/m3
    Hand-chosen cut-off from prior gap-magnet literature; determines the 15 permanent-magnet candidates in Table A1.
  • MCE proxy threshold = 1.5% magnetic deformation
    Threshold taken from Bocarsly et al. [26]; determines the 41 magnetocaloric candidates in Table A2.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption DFT with PAW accurately predicts saturation magnetization and magnetocrystalline anisotropy of Fe-N compounds
    The entire screening rests on DFT energies and forces; validated only against alpha''-Fe8N and epsilon-Fe3N in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Magnetic deformation Sigma_M > 1.5% is a valid proxy for giant magnetocaloric effect
    Borrowed from Bocarsly et al. [26]; the paper does not compute entropy change or verify against experimental MCE for Fe-N.
  • domain assumption The 49 Fe-N structures from Ref. [27] are physically realizable phases
    The structures come from an evolutionary search filtered by convex hull < 0.075 eV/at, mechanical and dynamical stability; no experimental synthesis of the new low-symmetry phases is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unveiling potential candidates for rare-earth-free permanent magnet and magnetocaloric effect applications: a high throughput screening in Fe-N alloys." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ILRN3F7

@misc{pith2026250101607,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unveiling potential candidates for rare-earth-free permanent magnet and magnetocaloric effect applications: a high throughput screening in Fe-N alloys},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ILRN3F7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01607}
}
read the original abstract

Based on high-throughput density functional theory calculations, we have found 49 ferromag-netic cases in FexN1-x (0<x<1) compounds, focusing especially on permanent magnet and giant magnetocaloric effect applications. It is found that 15 compounds are potential permanent mag-nets with a magneto-crystalline anisotropy energy more than 1 MJ/m3, filling in the gap of appli-cation spectrum between high-performance and widely used permanents. Among the potential permanent magnets, Fe2N can be classified as a hard magnet while the other 14 compounds can be classified as semi-hard magnets. According to the calculations of magnetic deformation proxy, 40 compounds are identified as potential giant magnetocaloric effect candidates. We suspect that Fe-N compounds provide fine opportunities for applications in both rare-earth free permanent magnets and magnetocaloric effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01607 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The application spectrum of maximum absolute magneto-crystalline anisotropy (Kmax) vs. saturation magnet￾ization (MS) for ferromagnetic FexN1-x (0<x<1) alloys. The filled blue diamond and red circle symbols represent the data sets of well-known permanent magnets and the predicted FexN1-x (0<x<1) alloys, respectively. The solid black lines correspond to the magnetic hardness of the compounds given by 𝜅 = √𝐾1/(𝜇0𝑀S) 2… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. for FexN1-x (0<x<1) intermetallic compounds. Obviously, the saturation magnetization in￾creases approximately linearly with the increasing of the content ratio of Fe. On the other hand, the different chemical environment can induce different magnitude of saturation magnetization for com￾pounds with the same content ratio of Fe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gutfleisch, M.A

    O. Gutfleisch, M.A. Willard, E. Brück, C.H. Chen, S.G. Sankar, J.P. Liu, Magnetic Materials and Devices for the 21st Century: Stronger, Lighter, and More Energy Efficient, Advanced Materials 23 (2011) 821–842. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201002180

    doi:10.1002/adma.201002180 2011

  2. [2]

    Coey, Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, Cambridge University Press, 2010

    J.M.D. Coey, Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, Cambridge University Press, 2010

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Montzka, E.J

    S.A. Montzka, E.J. Dlugokencky, J.H. Butler, Non-CO2 greenhouse gases and climate change, Nature 476 (2011) 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10322

    doi:10.1038/nature10322 2011

  4. [4]

    Ramanathan, Y

    V . Ramanathan, Y . Feng, Air pollution, greenhouse gases and climate change: Global and re- gional perspectives, Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.at- mosenv.2008.09.063

    work page doi:10.1016/j.at- 2009

  5. [5]

    Coey, Hard Magnetic Materials: A Perspective, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 47 (2011) 4671–4681

    J.M.D. Coey, Hard Magnetic Materials: A Perspective, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 47 (2011) 4671–4681. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.2011.2166975

    arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    Coey, Perspective and Prospects for Rare Earth Permanent Magnets, Engineering 6 (2020) 119–131

    J.M.D. Coey, Perspective and Prospects for Rare Earth Permanent Magnets, Engineering 6 (2020) 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2018.11.034

    work page doi:10.1016/j.eng.2018.11.034 2020

  7. [7]

    Coey, Permanent magnets: Plugging the gap, Scripta Materialia 67 (2012) 524 –529

    J.M.D. Coey, Permanent magnets: Plugging the gap, Scripta Materialia 67 (2012) 524 –529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2012.04.036

    doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2012.04.036 2012

  8. [8]

    Müller, S

    K.-H. Müller, S. Sawatzki, R. Gauß, O. Gutfleisch, Permanent Magnet Materials and Applica- tions, in: J.M.D. Coey, S.S.P. Parkin (Eds.), Handbook of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021: pp. 1369 –1433. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-63210-6_29

    doi:10.1007/978- 2021

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Pecharsky, K.A

    V .K. Pecharsky, K.A. Gschneidner, Jr., Giant Magnetocaloric Effect in Gd 5 ( Si 2 Ge 2 ), Physical Review Letters 78 (1997) 4494–4497. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.4494

    1997 doi

  2. [10]

    Gutfleisch, A

    O. Gutfleisch, A. Yan, K.-H. Müller, Large magnetocaloric effect in melt-spun LaFe13−xSix, Journal of Applied Physics 97 (2005) 10M305. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1847871

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    J. Liu, T. Gottschall, K.P. Skokov, J.D. Moore, O. Gutfleisch, Giant magnetocaloric effect driven by structural transitions, Nature Mater 11 (2012) 620 –626. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3334

    2012 doi

  4. [13]

    Crangle, G.M

    J. Crangle, G.M. Goodman, The Magnetization of Pure Iron and Nickel, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 321 (1971) 477–491. https://www.jstor.org/stable/77809 (accessed November 20, 2024)

    1971

  5. [14]

    Kübler, Theory of Itinerant Electron Magnetism, OUP Oxford, 2000

    J. Kübler, Theory of Itinerant Electron Magnetism, OUP Oxford, 2000

    2000

  6. [15]

    Gao, High-throughput screening of multifunctional magnetic materials, Ph.D

    Q. Gao, High-throughput screening of multifunctional magnetic materials, Ph.D. Thesis, Tech- nische Universität Darmstadt, 2020. https://doi.org/10.25534/tuprints-00014194

    2020 doi

  7. [16]

    https://iop- science.iop.org/article/10.1088/2516-1075/abbb25&title=iopscience.iop.org (accessed No- vember 20, 2024)

    High-throughput design of magnetic materials - IOPscience, (n.d.). https://iop- science.iop.org/article/10.1088/2516-1075/abbb25&title=iopscience.iop.org (accessed No- vember 20, 2024)

    2024 doi

  8. [17]

    Burkert, L

    T. Burkert, L. Nordström, O. Eriksson, O. Heinonen, Giant Magnetic Anisotropy in Tetragonal FeCo Alloys, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 027203. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.027203

    2004 doi

  9. [18]

    Andersson, T

    G. Andersson, T. Burkert, P. Warnicke, M. Björck, B. Sanyal, C. Chacon, C. Zlotea, L. Nordström, P. Nordblad, O. Eriksson, Perpendicular Magnetocrystalline Anisotropy in Tetrag- onally Distorted Fe -Co Alloys, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 037205. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevL...

    2006 doi

  10. [19]

    Yildiz, M

    F. Yildiz, M. Przybylski, X. -D. Ma, J. Kirschner, Strong perpendicular anisotropy in ${\text{Fe}}_{1\ensuremath{-}x}{\text{Co}}_{x}$ alloy films epitaxially grown on mis- matching Pd(001), Ir(001), and Rh(001) substrates, Phys. Rev. B 80 (2009) 064415. https://doi.org/10.1103...

    2009 doi

  11. [20]

    Reichel, L

    L. Reichel, L. Schultz, S. Fähler, Lattice relaxation studies in strained epitaxial Fe-Co-C films, Journal of Applied Physics 117 (2015) 17C712. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4908031

    2015 doi

  12. [21]

    Reichel, L

    L. Reichel, L. Schultz, D. Pohl, S. Oswald, S. Fähler, M. Werwiński, A. Edström, E.K. Delczeg- Czirjak, J. Rusz, From soft to hard magnetic Fe-Co-B by spontaneous strain: a combined first principles and thin film study, J Phys Condens Matter 27 (2015) 476002. https://doi.org/1...

    2015 doi

  13. [22]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2019.12.049

    Designing rare-earth free permanent magnets in heusler alloys via interstitial doping, Acta Ma- terialia 186 (2020) 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2019.12.049

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    C. Shen, Q. Gao, N.M. Fortunato, H.K. Singh, I. Opahle, O. Gutfleisch, H. Zhang, Designing of magnetic MAB phases for energy applications, J. Mater. Chem. A 9 (2021) 8805 –8813. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0TA11026D

    2021 doi

  15. [24]

    Zhang, I

    H. Zhang, I. Dirba, T. Helbig, L. Alff, O. Gutfleisch, Engineering perpendicular magnetic ani- sotropy in Fe via interstitial nitrogenation: N choose K, APL Materials 4 (2016) 116104. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4967285

    2016 doi

  16. [25]

    Saito, H

    T. Saito, H. Yamamoto, D. Nishio-Hamane, Production of Rare-Earth-Free Iron Nitride Mag- nets (α″-Fe16N2), Metals 14 (2024) 734. https://doi.org/10.3390/met14060734

    2024 doi

  17. [26]

    Bocarsly, E.E

    J.D. Bocarsly, E.E. Levin, C.A.C. Garcia, K. Schwennicke, S.D. Wilson, R. Seshadri, A Simple Computational Proxy for Screening Magnetocaloric Compounds, ACS Publications (2017). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.6b04729

    2017 doi

  18. [27]

    E. Bao, J. Zhao, Q. Gao, I. Shahid, H. Ma, Y . Luo, P. Liu, Y . Sun, X.-Q. Chen, The Fe-N system: crystal structure prediction, phase stability, and mechanical properties, (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.17193

    2024 doi arXiv

  19. [28]

    E. Bao, J. Zhao, Q. Gao, I. Shahid, H. Ma, Y . Luo, P. Liu, Y . Sun, X.-Q. Chen, The Fe-N System: Crystal Structure Prediction, Phase Stability, and Mechanical Properties, (2024). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5020769

    2024 doi

  20. [29]

    Lyakhov, A.R

    A.O. Lyakhov, A.R. Oganov, H.T. Stokes, Q. Zhu, New developments in evolutionary structure prediction algorithm USPEX, Computer Physics Communications 184 (2013) 1172 –1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2012.12.009

    2013 doi

  21. [30]

    Glass, A.R

    C.W. Glass, A.R. Oganov, N. Hansen, USPEX —Evolutionary crystal structure prediction, Computer Physics Communications 175 (2006) 713 –720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2006.07.020

    2006 doi

  22. [31]

    Oganov, A.O

    A.R. Oganov, A.O. Lyakhov, M. Valle, How Evolutionary Crystal Structure Prediction Works—and Why, Acc. Chem. Res. 44 (2011) 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1021/ar1001318

    2011 doi

  23. [32]

    A. Togo, L. Chaput, T. Tadano, I. Tanaka, Implementation strategies in phonopy and phono3py, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 35 (2023) 353001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-648X/acd831

    2023 doi

  24. [33]

    Togo, First-principles Phonon Calculations with Phonopy and Phono3py, J

    A. Togo, First-principles Phonon Calculations with Phonopy and Phono3py, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 92 (2023) 012001. https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.92.012001

    2023 doi

  25. [34]

    Kresse, J

    G. Kresse, J. Furthmüller, Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total -energy calculations using a plane -wave basis set, Phys Rev B Condens Matter 54 (1996) 11169 –11186. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevb.54.11169

    1996 doi

  26. [35]

    Kresse, D

    G. Kresse, D. Joubert, From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method, Physical Review B 59 (1999) 1758–1775. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.59.1758

    1999 doi

  27. [36]

    Mohapatra, X

    J. Mohapatra, X. Liu, P. Joshi, J.P. Liu, Hard and semi-hard Fe-based magnetic materials, Jour- nal of Alloys and Compounds 955 (2023) 170258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jall- com.2023.170258

    2023

  28. [37]

    Jain, S.P

    A. Jain, S.P. Ong, G. Hautier, W. Chen, W.D. Richards, S. Dacek, S. Cholia, D. Gunter, D. Skinner, G. Ceder, K.A. Persson, Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation, APL Materials 1 (2013) 0110 02. https://doi.org/10.10...

    2013 doi

  29. [38]

    Zieschang, J.D

    A.-M. Zieschang, J.D. Bocarsly, M. Dürrschnabel, L. Molina-Luna, H.-J. Kleebe, R. Seshadri, B. Albert, Nanoscale Iron Nitride, ε-Fe3N: Preparation from Liquid Ammonia and Magnetic Properties, Chem. Mater. 29 (2017) 621–628. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.6b04088

    2017 doi

  30. [39]

    K. Oda, T. Yoshio, K. Oda, Preparation of Fe-N films by r.f. sputtering, J Mater Sci 25 (1990) 2557–2561. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00638058

    1990 doi

  31. [40]

    Park, Y .K

    J.H. Park, Y .K. Hong, S. Bae, J.J. Lee, J. Jalli, G.S. Abo, N. Neveu, S.G. Kim, C.J. Choi, J.G. Lee, Saturation magnetization and crystalline anisotropy calculations for MnAl permanent magnet, Journal of Applied Physics 107 (2010) 09A731. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3337640

    2010 doi

  32. [41]

    Shima, K

    H. Shima, K. Oikawa, A. Fujita, K. Fukamichi, K. Ishida, A. Sakuma, Lattice axial ratio and large uniaxial magnetocrystalline anisotropy in L 1 0 -type FePd single crystals prepared under compressive stress, Phys. Rev. B 70 (2004) 224408. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.70.224408

    2004 doi

  33. [42]

    J. Cui, M. Kramer, L. Zhou, F. Liu, A. Gabay, G. Hadjipanayis, B. Balasubramanian, D. Sellmyer, Current progress and future challenges in rare -earth-free permanent magnets, Acta Materialia 158 (2018) 118–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2018.07.049

    2018 doi

  34. [43]

    Coey, New permanent magnets; manganese compounds, J

    J.M.D. Coey, New permanent magnets; manganese compounds, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 26 (2014) 064211. https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/26/6/064211

    2014 doi

  35. [44]

    L. Yin, R. Juneja, L. Lindsay, T. Pandey, D.S. Parker, Semihard Iron-Based Permanent-Magnet Materials, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15 (2021) 024012. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevAp- plied.15.024012. Appendix A. Summaries of predicted permanent magnets and potential giant magnetocaloric...

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.