Computational Materials Science 189 (2021) 110259

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computational Materials Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/commatsci

A new criterion for predicting the glass-forming ability of alloys based on

machine learning
Baiyu Ren , Zhilin Long *, Ruijie Deng
College of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan 411105, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this paper, the dimensionless component weights of 37 characteristic temperatures are analyzed based on the
Amorphous alloys neighborhood principal component analysis method of feature selection. Dimensionless parameters with higher
Characteristic temperature weight coefficients than others are combined to form a new glass-forming ability (GFA) criterion. A criterion to
Machine learning
represent correlation between characteristic temperature and GFA is derived by machine learning (ML) algo­
GFA criterion
Tg ×Tx ×Tl ×(Tx − Tg )
rithmic routine as k = (Tl − Tx )4
(wherein Tg is glass transition temperature, Tx is onset crystallization
temperature and Tl is liquidus temperature), which exhibits correlation (coefficient of determination R2 = 0.43)
between criterion k with Dmax is better than other eleven criteria. The linear correlation between k and Dmax that
can be expressed as: Dmax = (0.35432 ± 0.05664) + (0.16200 ± 0.00712)k. Finally, based on classical nucleation
theory, the reliability of criterion has been analyzed, which proves the feasibility of ML in the research on GFA.

1. Introduction ML.
In this study, a new function between GFA and characteristic tem­
The mechanical properties of amorphous alloys have proven both peratures was suggested as
Tg ×Tx ×Tl ×(Tx − Tg )
by a new ML method, where
(Tl − Tx )4
scientifically unique and potential application value [1–3]. However,
Tg is glass transition temperature, Tx is onset crystallization temperature
there are still many problems remained to be solved, as how to evaluate
and Tl is liquidus temperature. The comparison shows that correlation
GFA by a simple and reliable standard or expression [4–6]. Critical
between criterion k with Dmax is better than 11 other criteria, it exhibits
cooling rate (Rc) or critical diameter (Dmax) are usually used to assess
intelligent algorithm is of significant effect to the research of GFA.
GFA. Generally, a lower Rc or a bigger Dmax means a greater GFA of
BMGs [2], but it is a tedious and costly process to measure the Rc or Dmax.
2. Methods
According to the experimental results, Rc of most alloys is more than 10
K/s, and different casting methods have a major influence of Dmax [7,8],
2.1. Machine learning
which means it is hard to test the parameters of BMGs because of
technical limited [9]. Therefore, it is necessary to suggest an expression
ML is a computer algorithm that is improved automatically through
that consists of some easily measurable parameters to calculate the
experiences. In this paper, the process of compiling a ML algorithmic
values of Rc or Dmax, and which can be used to express GFA [10,11].
routine can be divided into four steps. As shown in Fig. 1, the four steps
With the rapid development of artificial intelligence, the application
of creating a ML routine are data collection, data processing, algorithm
of machine learning (ML) in material research is increasing [12]. Several
learning and results prediction.
researchers’ works have linked ML with amorphous alloys, Ward et al
At the first step, collecting enough data for ML algorithms, all data of
[7] developed a model which can predict the metallic composition
amorphous alloys in this paper were collected from some recent litera­
whether it can be formed into amorphous ribbon. Sun et al [13] studied
ture and listed in Appendix A. The second step is processing the data and
the GFA of binary alloys by support vector machines (SVM). Tripathi et
creating a sample set with features and expectations [15]. The next step
al [1] suggested a symbolic regression technique to establish the func­
is using a ML routine to learn the algorithm through the training data.
tional relationship between GFA and characteristic temperatures. The
Finally, the results were predicted by the algorithm routine.
above research showed a great potential of predicting GFA of alloys by

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: 734074966@qq.com (B. Ren), longzl@xtu.edu.cn (Z. Long).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2020.110259
Received 25 November 2020; Received in revised form 17 December 2020; Accepted 18 December 2020
Available online 6 January 2021
0927-0256/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
B. Ren et al. Computational Materials Science 189 (2021) 110259

2.2. Data collection and treatment Table 1

Feature numbers and the corresponding formulas of feature.
2.2.1. Data collection No. Feature No. Feature No. Feature
In this work, a criterion expression of Dmax is obtained by using
1 Tx /Tl 14 Tg /(Tl − Tx ) 27 (Tx − Tg )/(Tl + Tx )
characteristic temperature based on neighborhood component analysis.
2 Tx /Tg 15 Tg /(Tl + Tx ) 28 (Tx + Tg )/(Tl − Tg )
According to the previous literature [1–3,14–24], 667 data of charac­
3 Tx /(Tx − Tg ) 16 Tl /(Tx − Tg ) 29 (Tx + Tg )/(Tl + Tg )
teristic temperature and Dmax are collected, which consist of Fe-based, ( )
4 Tx / Tx + Tg 17 Tl /(Tx + Tg ) 30 (Tx + Tg )/(Tl − Tx )
Cu-based, Zr-based, La-based, Mg-based and also included partial trace
5 Tx /(Tl − Tg ) 18 Tl /(Tl − Tg ) 31 (Tx + Tg )/(Tl + Tx )
elements as the main base as shown in Appendix A. The characteristic
6 Tx /(Tl + Tg ) 19 Tl /(Tl + Tg ) 32 (Tl − Tg )/(Tl + Tg )
temperatures of the critical diameters of these amorphous alloys is ob­
7 Tx /(Tl − Tx ) 20 Tl /(Tl − Tx ) 33 (Tl − Tg )/(Tl − Tx )
tained by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) or differential thermal
8 Tx /(Tl + Tx ) 21 Tl /(Tl + Tx ) 34 (Tl − Tg )/(Tl + Tx )
analysis (DTA) at a heating rate of 20 K/s. Most of Dmax values were
9 Tg /Tl 22 Tl /(Tx + Tg ) 35 (Tl + Tg )/(Tl − Tx )
obtained by copper mold casting method or water quenching method
10 Tg /(Tx − Tg ) 23 (Tx − Tg )/(Tx + Tg ) 36 (Tl + Tg )/(Tl + Tx )
[5].
11 Tg /(Tx + Tg ) 24 (Tx − Tg )/(Tl − Tg ) 37 (Tl − Tx )/(Tl + Tx )
12 Tg /(Tl − Tg ) 25 (Tx − Tg )/(Tl + Tg )
2.2.2. Data treatment
13 Tg /(Tl + Tg ) 26 (Tx − Tg )/(Tl − Tx )
To get the criterion of the GFA, the collected characteristic temper­
atures are composed of 37 dimensionless features to form a sample
database, as shown in Table 1. Dimensionless features are chosen as the
basic data set for normalization to ensure that the obtained GFA crite­ where wr is the weight coefficient of the rth eigenvector, k is a kernel
rion expression is dimensionless. The obtained samples are divided into function, k(z) = exp( - z/σ ), σ stands for the width of the kernel. And
a training set to train the model and a test set to evaluate the fitting this σ value affects the probability that each data point is selected as a
accuracy. In order to make the results precise and without error due to reference point. The probability that point xj is the reference point of
the sample division, the method of random division is used, 10% of the point xi is shown in Eq. (4) considering the random classifier with one
data from samples are randomly selected to fill in the training set and method cross validation.
90% fill in the test set. ⃒ k(dw (xi , xj ))
pij = p(Re f (xi ) = xj ⃒S) = ∑n , if i ∕
=j (4)
=i k(dw (xi , xj ))
j=1,j∕
2.3. Neighborhood components analysis
The probability pi of observation sample i can be expressed by:
{
Neighborhood components analysis (NCA) is an algorithm to reduce ∑ n
1, (yi = yj )
pi = pij yij = (5)
dimension without changing factor, which has a good classification j=1,j∕
=i
0, otherwise
performance without specific assumptions about the sample space dis­
tribution. Set a sample space SD : The average probability F(w) value of correct classification with
random classifier depends on the weight vector w. The goal of NCA is
SD = {(xi , yi ), i = 1, 2, 3, 4, ⋅⋅⋅, n } (1) maximum F(w):

where xi is the input sample, yi (1, 2, 3, ⋅⋅⋅, c) is the category labels. In this ∑
n p
∑ ∑
n
F(w) = pi − λ w2r = Fi (w) (6)
study n = 667 (the sample number), D = 37 (number of features), c = i=1 i=1 i=1
Dmax . We pick a random point Re f(x) from S as a reference point for x.
The reference point is the nearest neighbor of point x. The distance λ is the regularization parameter, to verify system reliability, the
between two points is represented by the distance function dw (xi , xj ) can lambda value after iteration can be used as an important indicator of
be expressed by: NCA prediction classification [24].

∑
n ⃒ ⃒
dw (xi , xj ) = w2r ⃒xir − xjr ⃒ (2) 2.4. Feature selection
r=1

The probability that the point xj from S is the closest point to xi can The NCA model is established to train the prediction to calculate the
⃒ loss function corresponding to λ. The original 37 features were selected
be expressed by P(Re f(xi ) = xj ⃒S):
and constitute a new subset of key features. To evaluate the performance
⃒ k(dw (xi , xj )) of results, the regularization parameters λ of NCA were adjusted by using
P(Re f (xi ) = xj ⃒S) = ∑n (3)
j=1 k(dw (xi , xj ))
10-fold cross validation, which means repeated the process 10 times and
take the average value to improve the accuracy of test results, as shown

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of ML algorithms.

2
B. Ren et al. Computational Materials Science 189 (2021) 110259

in Fig. 2.
The obtained regularization parameters λ are shown in Fig. 3, the
value of λ with the lowest error value is selected and substituted into the
algorithm. In order to prevent the result of particularity and random­
ness, features with feature weight more than 1.5 are selected instead of
features with maximum feature weight. Calculated results show that the
four features with the largest feature weight are (7) Tx /(Tl − Tx ), (14)
Tg /(Tl − Tx ), (20) Tl /(Tl − Tx ) and (26) (Tx − Tg )/(Tl − Tx ) as depicted
in Fig. 4.
Therefore, these four features are used as the representational factors
of GFA in this paper. In order to obtain an accurate expression, the
product of four features is proposed as Tg Tx Tl (Tx − Tg )/(Tl − Tx )4 .

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Criterion validation

According to the above results, a new criterion for predicting the

glass-forming ability of alloys, which is named as k, is defined by Fig. 3. Regularization parameter lambda value selection.
k = Tg Tx Tl (Tx − Tg )/(Tl − Tx )4 (7)

The linear relationship between criterion k and Dmax can be proxi­

mately expressed as:
Dmax = (0.35432 ± 0.05664) + (0.16200 ± 0.00712)k (8)
According to previously reported literature, eleven criteria between
characteristic thermal temperature (Tg, Tx and Tl) and Dmax are listed in
Table 2. For separating the criterion β = Tx /Tg +Tg /Tl from β =
Tx ⋅Tg /(Tl − Tx )2 , they have been designated as β1 and β2, respectively.
In order to compare the efficiency of the new criterion k proposed in
this study with other GFA criteria reported in Table 2, the linear fitting
curves between Dmax values and criteria were plotted. All plots are
presented in Fig. 5. A larger value of R2 represents a higher correlation
coefficient of the linear fitting curve. The full line is the linear fitting
result of the data, and pink region is the predicted error band. And the
coefficient of determination R2 are listed in Table 2.
R2 value of new criterion k is 0.4368, as shown in Fig. 5 (l). According
to the comparison results of 11 criteria in Table 2, new criterion k has
better correlation with Dmax. Meanwhile most of values of Dmax can be
predicted by new criterion k which means new criterion k have better Fig. 4. The feature weight results of each feature.
predictive ability.

3.2. Criterion analysis Table 2

Formulas of GFA criteria expressed by Tg, Tx and Tl reported in the literature and
R2 of linear fitting curves.
In order to verify the reliability of the criterion k, it is necessary to
analyze the physical significance of the corresponding parameters in the No. GFA parameter Formula [References] R2-Dmax
expression. 1 Trg Tg /Tl [25] 0.06878
According to classical nucleation and growth theory, the uniform 2 γ Tx /(Tg + Tl ) [30] 0.24179
nucleation rate(I) and the growth rate (U) of a crystalline phase formed 3 ΔTrg (Tx - Tg )/(Tl − Tg ) [26] 0.28807
by the undercooled liquid can be expressed by [15]: 4 β1 Tx /Tg + Tg /Tl [27] 0.25481
[ ] 5 ϕ Tg /Tl (ΔTx /Tg )0.143 [28] 0.22005
1030 − 16π α3 ΔSf T 2
I= exp 2
(9) 6 β2 Tx ⋅Tg /(Tl − Tx )2 [3] 0.27671
η(T) 3 R(T1 − T)
7 ω Tl ⋅(Tl + Tx )/[Tx ⋅(Tl − Tx )] [14] 0.27743
[ ( )] 8 γc (3Tx − 2Tg ) − Tg /Tl [29] 0.28208
102 ΔSf (T1 − T)
U= 1 − exp − (10) 9 ′
Tg /Tx − Tg /(1.3Tl ) [16] 0.24066
η(T) RT β
10 Gp Tg ⋅(Tx − Tg )/(Tl − Tx )2 [2] 0.39525
where η is the viscosity at temperature of T, f is the fraction of nucleation 11 χ (Tx − Tg )/(Tl − Tx )⋅[Tx ⊖ /(Tl − Tx )] 1.47
[1] 0.41708
sites at the growth interface,α is a factor which depends on the

arrangement of atomic at the interface and has a value close to unity,

ΔSf is the change in entropy per mole of alloy due to melting and R is the
universal gas constant. The homogenous nucleation rate and growth rate
of crystal are usually based on the function of growth driving force
(degree of undercooling, ΔT = Tl − Tx ). It can similar to deduce the
Fig. 2. Adjustment of λ values.

3
B. Ren et al. Computational Materials Science 189 (2021) 110259

Fig. 5. The correlation plots for Trg, γ, ΔTrg, β1, φ, β2, ω, γc, β’, Gp, χ and k with respect to Dmax for BMGs (Training and testing data).

conclusion as follows:
Tg × Tx × Tl
GFA∝ (14)
(Tl − Tx )2 (Tl − Tx )3
I∝ (11)
T2
During the transition from undercooled liquid phase to amorphous
Tl − Tx phase, GFA is highly correlated with the stability of undercooled liquid
U∝ (12) phase. In general, the wider undercooled liquid region (ΔTx = Tx − Tg )
T
is, manifests the better stability of the undercooled liquid, which denotes
From the analysis of molecular dynamics, the formation of amor­
a better GFA. Meanwhile, to maintain GFA be dimensionless, degree of
phous phase can be facilitated by restraining the formation and growth
undercooling should be introduced as a denominator, and the relation­
of crystal nuclei, therefore GFA must be inversely proportional to U and
ship between GFA and stability of undercooled liquid phase can be
I. Therefore, the relationship between GFA and characteristic tempera­
described as:
ture can be as follows:
Tx − Tg
T2 T GFA∝ (15)
GFA∝ × (13) Tl − Tx
(Tl − Tx )2 Tl − Tx
By combining Eqs (14) with (15), the expression can be deduced as
According to the correlation results (see Fig. 4) between GFA and follows:
characteristic temperature, Tg × Tx × Tl will be used to replace T 2 × T in
Eqs (13) , and it can be written as follows:

4
B. Ren et al. Computational Materials Science 189 (2021) 110259

Fig. 5. (continued).

Tx Tg Tl (Tx − Tg ) Tx × Tg × Tl × (Tx − Tg ) curation. Zhilin Long: Funding acquisition, Writing - review & editing.
GFA∝ × × × =
Tl − Tx Tl − Tx Tl − Tx Tl − T x (Tl − Tx )4 Ruijie Deng: Data curation.
(16)
Declaration of Competing Interest
Based on Eq. (16), the criterion k has significant physical signifi­
cance, it proves the feasibility of ML in the research on GFA. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
4. Conclusions the work reported in this paper.

A new criterion with the highest relevance to GFA selected by ML Acknowledgements

from dimensionless composed of characteristic temperatures, expressed
as k = Tg Tx Tl (Tx − Tg )/(Tl − Tx )4 . Compared with the 11 reported
criteria, the new criterion k has a better ability to predict GFA. It was
also predictive of various BMGs. At the same time, k criterion can be
obtained simply by Tg, Tx and Tl of metallic glasses. It can be anticipated
that the k criterion will be well used to develop new BMGs with better
GFA.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foun­
dation of China (Grant Nos. 51971188 and 51071134), the Science and
Technology Major Project of Hunan Province (Grant No. 2019GK1012),
Huxiang High-Level Talent Gathering Program of Hunan Province-
Innovative team (Grant No. 2019RS1059) and the Degree and Post­
graduate Education Reform Project of Hunan Province (Grant No.
CX20190493). All these supports are acknowledged.

Baiyu Ren: Writing - original draft, Software, Methodology, Data

5
B. Ren et al. Computational Materials Science 189 (2021) 110259

Appendix A. Tg, Tx, Tl and Dmax for 667 reported metallic glasses.

Alloy composition/at./[References] Tg/K Tx/K Tl/K Dmax/mm Alloy composition/at.%[References] Tg/K Tx/K Tl/K Dmax/mm

Ag30.8Ca30.8Mg23.1Cu15.4[1] 413 432 803 2.5 Ag30.8Mg30.8Ca30.8Cu7.7[1] 407 427 809 2

Ag38.4Mg30.8Ca30.8[1] 394 426 805 0.5 Ag38.4Mg38.4Ca23.2[1] 391 425 796 1.1
Ag38.5Ca30.8Mg23Cu7.7[1] 384 416 854 2 Ag38.5Mg30.8Ca23.1Cu7.7[1] 387 420 833 3
Ag38.5Mg38.5Ca15.4Cu7.7[1] 405 436 842 0.5 Ag46.2Ca30.5Mg15.4Cu7.7[1] 414 445 805 0.8
Ag46.2Ca30.7Mg23.1[1] 399 426 765 0.7 Ag46.2Ca38.4Mg15.3[1] 407 439 809 0.3
Ag46.2Mg23.2Ca23Cu7.7[1] 398 430 825 2 Ag46.2Mg30.7Ca23.1[1] 393 427 880 0.5
Ag50Ca30.8Mg11.5Cu7.7[1] 452 487 809 1 Ag50Ca30.8Mg19.2Cu7.7[1] 426 466 797 1.2
Ag53.8Ca30.5Mg7.7Cu7.7[1] 428 488 843 0.3 Ag53.8Mg15.4Ca23.1Cu7.7[1] 433 463 831 0.5
Ag53.8Mg15.4Ca30.8[1] 444 498 812 0.8 Ag53.8Mg23.1Ca15.4Cu7.7[1] 407 463 877 0.5
Ag53.8Mg23.1Ca23.1[1] 451 488 887 0.7 Ag61.5Ca23.1Mg15.4[1] 486 526 920 0.7
Ag61.5Mg23.1Ca15.4[1] 440 485 919 0.5 Au46Cu29Si20Ag5[15] 395 420 664 1
Au49Cu26.9Si16.3Ag5.5Pd2.3[15] 401 459 644 5 Au52Cu29.2Si16.5Pd2.3[15] 393 427 651 2
Au55Cu25Si20[15] 348 383 654 0.5 Ca40Cu35Mg25[18] 399 436 680 4
Ca40Mg30Cu30[18] 395 430 694 0.5 Ca45Cu30Mg25[18] 400 438 678 6
Ca45Cu36Mg19[18] 399 428 714 0.5 Ca45Mg30Cu25[18] 401 436 717 1
Ca47Cu27Mg19Zn7[3] 393 440 676 6 Ca47.5Cu30Mg22.5[18] 399 440 673 6
Ca50Cu25Mg15Zn10[3] 395 434 678 10 Ca50Cu25Mg20Zn5[3] 399 441 654 10
Ca50Cu25Zn15Mg10[3] 395 427 702 2 Ca50Cu27.5Mg22.5[18] 400 442 663 10
Ca50Cu30Mg20[18] 401 442 690 8 Ca50Mg25Cu25[18] 400 439 655 9
Ca50Mg25Zn15Cu10[3] 383 430 723 8 Ca50Mg30Cu20[18] 402 439 731 2
Ca53Cu24Mg23[18] 406 439 655 7 Ca55Cu23Mg11Zn11[3] 379 430 717 1
Ca55Cu25Mg20[18] 399 426 720 2 Ca55Cu30Mg15[18] 397 437 706 3
Ca55Cu35Mg10[18] 397 422 770 0.5 Ca55Mg25Cu20[18] 398 428 668 8
Ca55Mg25Zn20[3] 375 418 751 1 Ca55Zn25Mg20[3] 383 428 702 2
Ca55Zn27Mg18[3] 389 419 671 0.5 Ca55Zn30Mg15[3] 387 419 696 0.5
Ca58Cu24Mg18[18] 388 426 667 6 Ca60Al30Ag10[3] 483 531 868 2
Ca60Mg20Cu20[18] 387 412 678 4 Ca60Mg20Zn20[3] 378 415 660 4
Ca60Mg25Cu15[18] 390 416 676 2 Ca60Mg25Zn15[3] 377 409 744 1
Ca60Zn22.5Mg17.5[3] 383 421 650 10 Ca60Zn25Mg15[3] 379 427 650 6
Ca60Zn30Mg10[3] 380 400 666 0.5 Ca62.5Zn20Mg17.5[3] 375 412 640 10
Ca63Al32Cu5[3] 512 523 831 2 Ca65Cu20Mg15[18] 383 409 682 4
Ca65Cu25Mg10[18] 388 420 711 2 Ca65Cu30Mg5[18] 403 424 757 0.5
Ca65Mg20Cu15[18] 386 405 679 2 Ca65Mg20Zn15[3] 380 405 668 5
Ca65Mg25Cu10[18] 405 429 691 0.5 Ca65Mg25Zn10[3] 387 405 759 0.5
Ca65Zn20Mg15[3] 377 410 630 6 Ca65Zn25Mg10[3] 377 412 659 2
Ca66.4Al33.6[3] 528 540 873 1 Ca70Cu20Mg10[18] 385 407 713 1
Ca70Mg15Zn15[3] 371 397 688 0.5 Ca70Mg20Cu10[18] 356 385 702 0.5
Ca70Zn20Mg10[3] 367 399 657 0.5 (Ce60La40)65Co25Al10[2] 425 448 789 12
(Ce70La30)65Co25Al10[2] 416 436 778 9 Co40Fe27B24Zr3Ti3Mo1.5Si1.5[15] 811 856 1379 1.5
Co43B31.5Fe20Ta5.5[3] 910 982 1526 2 Co48Cr15C15Mo14B6Er2[3] 848 933 1394 10
Co50Cr15C15Mo14B6[3] 819 895 1417 2 [(Co60Fe40)75B20Si5]96Nb4[15] 823 865 1418 4
[(Co70Fe30)75B20Si5]96Nb4[15] 820 860 1430 3.5 [(Co80Fe20)75B20Si5]96Nb4[15] 813 853 1445 2.5
[(Co90Fe10)75B20Si5]96Nb4[15] 803 843 1457 2 Cu33.3Mg33.3Ca33.3[1] 391 406 731 3
Cu35Zr30Ag25Ti10[3] 677 706 1138 2 Cu36Zr36Al8Ag8[2] 670 771 1146 25
Cu36.4Ca36.4Mg27.2[1] 383 412 706 8 Cu36.4Mg31.8Ca31.8[1] 388 400 742 8
Cu36.4Mg36.4Ca27.2[1] 382 400 750 5 Cu38Zr38Al8Ag8[2] 690 784 1148 20
Cu40Ca35Mg25[1] 386 429 748 3.5 Cu40Zr30Ag20Ti10[3] 677 708 1125 3
Cu40Zr40Ag10Al10[15] 710 765 1273 3 Cu40.9Ca31.8Mg27.3[1] 391 430 745 4
Cu40.9Ca36.4Mg22.7[1] 396 432 719 5 Cu40.9Ca40.9Mg18.2[1] 393 431 717 3
Cu40.9Mg31.8Ca27.3[1] 392 414 785 3 Cu40.9Mg36.4Ca22.7[1] 394 414 821 1.5
Cu42.5Ti41.5Ni7.5Hf5Zr2.5Si1[3] 685 720 1206 2 Cu42Zr42Ag16[15] 685 757 1232 2
Cu42Zr42Al8Ag8[15] 710 762 1234 12 Cu43Zr40Ti10Ag7[15] 656 707 1095 7
Cu43Zr43Ag7In7[15] 704 748 1135 5 Cu43Zr43Ag7Ti7[15] 670 714 1118 5
Cu43Zr43Al7Ag7[15] 710 797 1125 8 Cu43Zr43Al7Be7[15] 710 813 1126 12
Cu44Zr40Al8Ag8[15] 702 772 1166 15 Cu44Zr44Ag12[15] 684 764 1156 4
Cu44Zr44Ag6Al6[15] 698 790 1144 10 Cu45Ca30Mg25[1] 387 430 798 2.5
Cu45Zr15Ag10Hf30[15] 712 799 1275 2 Cu45Zr25Ag10Hf20[15] 698 783 1218 3
Cu45Zr30Ag10Ti10Ni5[3] 710 738 1160 5 Cu45Zr30Ag15Ti10[3] 687 717 1121 5
Cu45Zr35Ag10Hf10[15] 690 769 1171 4 Cu45Zr45Ag10[15] 683 756 1159 6
Cu45Zr45Ag3Al7[15] 708 786 1177 8 Cu45Zr45Ag5Al5[15] 697 783 1147 9
Cu45Zr45Ag7Al3[15] 688 768 1151 7 Cu45.5Ca31.8Mg22.7[1] 388 427 793 3
Cu45.5Ca36.4Mg18.1[1] 397 426 735 3 Cu45.5Mg27.3Ca27.2[1] 395 410 831 1.5
Cu45.5Mg31.8Ca22.7[1] 389 410 843 1.3 Cu45.5Mg36.4Ca18.1[1] 391 420 851 2
Cu46Zr37Al7Y10[18] 665 743 1118 4 Cu46Zr42Al7Y5[18] 672 772 1113 10
Cu46Zr45Al7Y2[18] 693 770 1143 8 Cu46Zr46Ag8[15] 677 745 1167 4
Cu46.4Zr35Ag11.6Ti7[3] 689 732 1119 6 Cu47Zr30Ni13Ti10[3] 727 754 1251 1
Cu47Ti33Nb11Ni8Si1[3] 710 732 1265 0.5 Cu47Ti33Zr11Ni8Si1[3] 720 757 1157 4
Cu47Ti33Zr11Ni6Sn2Si11[3] 720 765 1140 6 Cu47Ti33Nb8Ni8Zr3Si1[3] 708 731 1228 1
Cu47Ti33Ni8Nb6Zr5Si1[3] 712 739 1187 2 Cu47Ti33Ni8Zr7Nb4Si1[3] 713 736 1172 5
Cu47Ti33Zr9Ni8Nb2Si1[3] 728 762 1159 5 Cu47Ti34Zr11Ni8[3] 698 727 1169 4.5
Cu47Zr43Al7Ag3[3] 716 795 1156 5 Cu47Zr43Al7Be3[3] 715 798 1139 6
Cu48Zr48Ag4[15] 681 743 1199 3 Cu48Zr48Al4[19] 410 470 918 2
Cu49Hf42Al9[3] 778 863 1249 10 Cu49Zr36Ag10Ti5[15] 691 737 1130 8
(continued on next page)

6
B. Ren et al. Computational Materials Science 189 (2021) 110259

(continued )
Alloy composition/at./[References] Tg/K Tx/K Tl/K Dmax/mm Alloy composition/at.%[References] Tg/K Tx/K Tl/K Dmax/mm

Cu50Ca27.3Mg22.7[1] 392 410 864 1.5 Cu50Ca31.8Mg18.2[1] 392 421 828 2

Cu50Zr30Ag10Ti10[15] 694 726 1130 4 Cu50Zr42.5Ti7.5[15] 677 717 1152 5
(Cu50Zr42.5Ti7.5)98.8Sn0.6Si0.6[15] 682 734 1141 7 (Cu50Zr42.5Ti7.5)99Si1[15] 683 731 1141 6
(Cu50Zr42.5Ti7.5)99Sn1[15] 683 730 1140 6 Cu50Zr43Al7[1] 713 781 1205 10
(Cu50Zr43Al7)98Si2[1] 740 800 1256 3 (Cu50Zr43Al7)98.5Si1.5[1] 737 798 1243 4
(Cu50Zr43Al7)99Si1[1] 720 797 1226 12 (Cu50Zr43Al7)99.5Si0.5[1] 719 791 1214 10
Cu52.5Hf40Al7.5[3] 779 833 1250 3 Cu52.5Zr40Ga7.5[18] 744 777 1218 1.5
Cu52.5Zr42.5Ga5[18] 733 777 1187 2 Cu54Zr33Ag6Ti7[3] 709 738 1135 6
Cu54Zr36Ag10[15] 719 759 1146 6 Cu54.5Ca27.3Mg18.2[1] 401 423 884 1
Cu54.5Mg27.3Ca18.2[1] 402 419 921 0.5 Cu55Zr30Ti10Ag5[3] 704 733 1149 3
Cu55Zr30Ti10Ni5[3] 717 750 1204 2 Cu55Zr40Ga5[18] 736 779 1193 2
Cu55Zr42.5Ga2.5[18] 709 762 1199 1 Cu57.5Zr37.5Ga5[18] 745 785 1241 1
Cu57Zr36Ag7[15] 712 755 1156 4 Cu60Hf20Ti20[3] 740 767 1211 4
Cu60Hf25Ti15[3] 730 790 1177 4 (Cu60Hf25Ti15)92Nb8[3] 745 783 1198 2.5
(Cu60Hf25Ti15)94Nb6[3] 745 785 1190 4 (Cu60Hf25Ti15)96Nb4[3] 747 789 1188 4
(Cu60Hf25Ti15)98Nb2[3] 746 792 1184 4 Cu60Ti22.5Hf17.5[3] 732 755 1229 3
Cu60Zr30Ti10[3] 713 750 1151 4 (Cu60Zr30Ti10)90Be10[3] 720 762 1130 5
(Cu60Zr30Ti10)98Y2[3] 707 757 1122 5 (Cu60Zr30Ti10)99Sn1[3] 730 776 1155 5
Cu60Zr33Ti7[3] 740 768 1191 3 Cu64Zr36[15] 787 833 1230 2
Fe25Co25Ni25(P30B30C20Si20)25[1] 719 752 1257 1 Fe25Co25Ni25(P40Si30B20C10)25[1] 725 758 1264 1
Fe25Co25Ni25(P40B30Si20C10)25[1] 720 759 1263 1.5 Fe25Co25Ni25(P40C20B20Si20)25[1] 705 745 1233 2
Fe25Co25Ni25(P40C30B20Si10)25[1] 676 714 1276 1 Fe25Co25Ni25(P50B20Si20C10)25[1] 707 746 1227 2
Fe36Co36B19.2Si4.8Nb4[1] 817 856 1359 2 Fe39Cr15C15Mo14Co9B6Y2[19] 838 888 1466 10
Fe40Co20Ni15P10C10B5[1] 675 735 1255 2.5 Fe40Co35P10C10B5[1] 704 760 1267 2
Fe40Ni35P10C10B5[1] 643 698 1220 1.5 Fe41Cr15C15Mo14Co7B6Y2[19] 838 875 1436 16
Fe41Cr20C15Mo10W6B6Y2[1] 881 918 1518 6 Fe43Cr15Mo14C15B6Co5Y2[19] 835 872 1442 9
Fe43Cr20Mo10C15B6W4Y2[15]7 858 920 1503 8 Fe45Cr15Mo14C15B6Co3Y2[19] 834 880 1446 8
Fe45Cr20Mo10C15B6W2Y2[1] 856 913 1500 6 Fe46Co30Mo4(P45C20B20Si15)20[19] 734 775 1233 3
Fe47Cr20Mo10C15B6Y2[1] 854 909 1494 5 Fe48Cr15C15Mo14B6Y2[1] 839 886 1464 7
Fe48Cr15C15Mo14Er2B6[19] 844 880 1446 8 [(Fe50Co50)72B24Mo4]94Dy6[19] 831 912 1365 2
[(Fe50Co50)75B20Si5]96Nb4[19] 820 870 1397 5 Fe55.8B24Co14.2Nb6[1] 821 868 1477 2
Fe56Co16Y6B22[15] 882 927 1494 2.5 Fe56Co20Mo4(P0.45C0.2B0.2Si0.15)20[3] 736 778 1220 5
Fe56Cr7Mo12C12B6Mn5Er2[3] 793 832 1401 8 Fe56.05B25Co13.45Nb5.5[1] 821 879 1510 2.5
Fe56.8B24Co14.2Nb5[1] 823 868 1496 2 Fe58B22Co14Y6[15] 880 925 1485 2.5
Fe58Mo14C15B6Cr5Er2[3] 793 829 1416 6 Fe60B22Co12Y6[15] 881 924 1498 2.5
[(Fe60Co40)72B24Mo4]94Dy6[19] 847 927 1366 2 [(Fe60Co40)75B20Si5]94Nb4Gd2[19] 833 894 1452 1.5
[(Fe60Co40)75B20Si5]96Nb4[15] 825 875 1407 4 {[(Fe60Co40)75B20Si5]96Nb4}96Cr4[15] 833 874 1481 3
{[(Fe60Co40)75B20Si5]96Nb4}97Cr3[15] 831 874 1474 3.5 {[(Fe60Co40)75B20Si5]96Nb4}98Cr2[15] 830 873 1469 4
{[(Fe60Co40)75B20Si5]96Nb4}99Cr1[15] 827 871 1462 4 [(Fe60Co40)75B20Si5]94Nb4Y2[19] 833 891 1432 1.5
[(Fe60Co40)75B20Si5]95Nb4Mo1[19] 818 859 1414 2 [(Fe60Co40)75B20Si5]95Nb4Y1[19] 826 882 1410 1.5
[(Fe60Co40)75B20Si5]95Nb4Zr1[19] 825 866 1396 2 [(Fe60Co40)75B20Si5]96Nb4[19] 821 860 1421 1.5
Fe61B15Mo7Zr8Co5Y2Cr2[3] 901 960 1490 5 Fe61B15Mo7Zr8Co6Y2Al1[3] 900 956 1495 5
Fe61B15Zr8Mo7Co7Y2[3] 905 916 1490 5 Fe62B22Co10Y6[15] 885 932 1503 2.5
Fe63C15Mo14B6Er2[3] 771 830 1389 3 Fe64B22Co8Y6[15] 884 927 1505 2.5
Fe65.5P12C5B5.5Cr4Mo4Ga4[1] 745 806 1322 3 Fe66B22Co6Y6[15] 887 925 1509 2
Fe66B22W6Y6[1] 897 981 1497 2 Fe66Co10Mo4(P45C20B20Si15)20[15] 744 788 1221 6
Fe67B22Y6Mo5[2] 920 941 1483 3.5 Fe67B22Y6Ni5[15] 866 891 1469 1
Fe67B22Y6W5[1] 882 970 1497 3 Fe68.3P8.8C6.9B6.7Mo2.5Si2.5Cr2.2Al2.1[3] 795 835 1316 4
Fe68B22Y6Co4[15] 896 941 1414 2 Fe68B22Y6Mo4[2] 915 944 1488 6.5
Fe68B22Y6Ni4[15] 872 907 1470 1.5 Fe68B22Y6W4[1] 874 971 1504 4
(Fe68B20Tb7Si5)96Nb4[1] 959 1019 1438 2 Fe69B22Y6Mo3[2] 908 958 1488 6
Fe69B22Y6Ni3[15] 874 910 1503 1.5 Fe69B22Y6W3[1] 868 973 1505 4
(Fe69B20Tb6Si5)96Nb4[1] 952 1012 1411 3 Fe70B16.67Si8.33Hf5[20] 861 901 1543 1
Fe70B20Nb4Hf3Y3[1] 850 924 1437 3.5 Fe70B22Y6Co2[15] 898 944 1420 2
Fe70B22Y6Mo2[2] 907 969 1508 3.5 Fe70B22Y6Ni2[15] 880 925 1509 2
Fe70B22Y6W2[1] 867 970 1521 3 [(Fe70Co30)72B24Mo4]94Dy6[19] 845 929 1367 2
[(Fe70Co30)75B20Si5]96Nb4[1] 828 878 1413 3.5 (Fe70Tb5Si5B20)96Nb4[1] 935 995 1396 3.5
Fe70.83B16.67Si8.33Hf4.17[20] 858 893 1485 1.5 Fe71P12C10Mo3Nb2B2[1] 724 766 1305 1
Fe71B20Nb4Hf3Y2[1] 850 928 1432 4 Fe71B22Y6Mo1[2] 902 960 1517 2.5
Fe71B22Y6Ni1[1] 883 926 1507 2 Fe71B22Y6W1[2] 845 956 1423 3
Fe71B23Nb6[1] 819 865 1494 1.5 (Fe71B24Er5)96Nb4[21] 868 964 1463 5.5
(Fe71B24Gd5)96Nb4[21] 865 982 1485 3.5 (Fe71B24Ho5)96Nb4[21] 866 967 1467 5
(Fe71B24Tb05)96Nb4[21] 863 991 1474 3.5 (Fe71B24Tm5)96Nb4[21] 868 936 1396 6.5
Fe71P12C10Mo2Nb3B2[1] 719 757 1305 1 Fe71P12C10Mo4Nb1B2[1] 729 777 1296 2
(Fe71B20Si5Tb4)96Nb4[1] 869 969 1397 3.5 Fe71.67B16.67Si8.33Hf3.33[20] 854 887 1467 2
Fe71.67B16.67Si8.33Zr3.33[20] 847 883 1461 2.5 Fe72P8.7C7B5Ga4Si3.3[20] 782 801 1290 2
(Fe72B20Nb4Si4)96Y4[1] 905 933 1424 3 (Fe72B20Nb4Si4)97Y3[1] 859 915 1416 4
(Fe72B20Nb4Si4)98Y2[1] 855 903 1416 2 (Fe72B20Nb4Si4)99Y1[1] 855 881 1419 2
Fe72B22Y6[1] 898 950 1413 2 (Fe72B22Y6)98Nb2[1] 918 980 1412 4
(Fe72B22Y6)98Ta2[1] 917 979 1415 4 (Fe72B22Y6)98Ti2[1] 915 974 1416 3
(Fe72B24Mo4)93Dy7[2] 880 957 1406 2 (Fe72B24Mo4)94Dy6[2] 854 945 1400 3
(Fe72B24Mo4)95Dy5[2] 853 942 1401 2 (Fe72B24Mo4)96Dy4[2] 848 923 1396 2
Fe72P9C9Cr8B2[15] 710 750 1296 1 Fe72B20Nb4Si4[3] 842 880 1420 2
Fe72B20Nb4Hf3Y1[1] 841 916 1446 3 (Fe72Si5Tb3B2)96Nb4[1] 860 940 1422 3
Fe72.5B16.67Si8.33Hf2.5[20] 852 885 1458 2.5 Fe72.8B16Si8Zr3.2[20] 850 883 1472 2
Fe73P10Mo4C4B4Ga3Si2[1] 744 801 1283 2 Fe73B20Nb4Hf3[20] 836 899 1448 2
(continued on next page)

7
B. Ren et al. Computational Materials Science 189 (2021) 110259

(continued )
Alloy composition/at./[References] Tg/K Tx/K Tl/K Dmax/mm Alloy composition/at.%[References] Tg/K Tx/K Tl/K Dmax/mm

(Fe73B20Si5Tb3)96Nb4[1] 844 914 1440 2.5 Fe73.33B16.67Si8.33Hf1.67[20] 840 872 1486 1

Fe73.85B15.38Si7.69Zr3.08[20] 848 873 1483 2 Fe74P8.7C7Si3.3B5Ga2[1] 784 800 1283 3
Fe74.81B14.81Si7.41Zr2.96[20] 840 865 1492 2 Fe74P10Mo4C4B4Ga2Si2[15] 740 790 1276 1.5
Fe74P10Mo5C4B4Si3[15] 758 799 1263 3 Fe74B17Nb6Y3[3] 831 879 1391 2
(Fe74B20Si5Tb1)96Nb4[1] 836 882 1459 1 Fe75P8.7C7B5Si3.3Ga1[1] 781 794 1282 3
Fe75.71B14.29Si7.14Zr2.86[20] 839 862 1496 1.5 (Fe75B15Si10)96Nb4[15] 835 885 1369 1.5
(Fe75B15Si10)98Nb2[15] 812 870 1425 1 (Fe75B15Si10)99Nb1[15] 815 858 1455 0.5
(Fe75B15Si10)99Zr1[15] 867 919 1469 0.75 (Fe75B2Si5)96Nb4[15] 835 880 1475 1.5
Fe75P9C9Cr5B2[15] 707 743 1286 1.5 Fe75P9C7Cr5B4 [15] 733 766 1300 2
Fe75P10C4B4Mo2Ga3Si2[15] 738 798 1230 2.5 Fe75P10C4B4Mo4Si3[15] 752 799 1227 4
Fe76P8.7C7B5Si3.3[1] 779 795 1292 1 Fe76P10C4B4Mo2Ga2Si2[15] 736 788 1247 2
Fe76P10C4B4Mo3Si3[15] 750 793 1250 3.5 Fe76Mo4(P45C20B20Si15)20[15] 744 788 1245 4
Fe76B10Si9P5[15] 780 832 1258 2.5 Fe76.55B13.79Si6.9Zr2.76[20] 830 852 1505 1
Fe77Mo2P10C4B4Si3[15] 742 783 1264 2.5 Fe78Cr2P9C9B2[15] 703 736 1275 1.8
Fe78Mo1P10C4B4Si3[15] 742 780 1268 1.5 Fe79P10C4B4Si3[15] 740 774 1263 1
(Fe80Co20)71B23Nb6[1] 809 864 1475 2 [(Fe80Co20)72B24Mo4]94Dy6[19] 852 944 1370 3
[(Fe80Co20)75B20Si5]96Nb4[1] 830 880 1431 2.5 Fe80P9C9B2[15] 700 733 1270 1.8
(Fe81.5C14Si3.8Tm0.7)90.9P9.1[15] 717 767 1318 1 (Fe81.5C14Si3.8Tm0.7)92.37P7.63[15] 687 752 1284 1
[(Fe90Co10)72B24Mo4]94Dy6[19] 860 945 1385 2 [(Fe90Co10)75B20Si5]96Nb4[1] 832 877 1460 2
Gd55Ni22Al20Mn3[1] 553 603 955 2 Gd60Al25Ni15[15] 603 648 1006 4
Gd60Co25Al15[15] 572 617 952 5 Hf47Cu29.25Al14Ni9.75[15] 790 875 1278 10
Hf48Cu29.25Al13Ni9.75[15] 785 874 1280 10 Hf51Cu27.75Al12Ni9.25[15] 777 872 1344 8
La32Ce32Al16Cu10Ni5Co5[3] 413 467 718 12 La32Ce32Al16Cu12Ni5Co3[3] 406 455 709 10
La32Ce32Al16Cu15Ni5[3] 403 451 712 10 La32Ce32Al16Co10Ni5Cu5[3] 424 472 767 10
La32Ce32Al16Cu7Co8Ni5[3] 416 471 739 10 (La50Ce50)65Co25Al10[2] 427 453 776 15
La55.4(Cu,Ni)26.2Al18.4[15] 426 491 881 2 La55Cu20Al15Ag10[15] 416 483 787 2
La55Cu20Al17.5Ag7.5[15] 425 498 852 3 La55Cu20Al20Ag5[6] 429 503 823 4
La55Al25Cu15Ag5[15] 452 503 860 3 La55Al25Cu20[1] 456 495 896 3
La55Al25Ni10Cu10[15] 467 547 835 5 La55Al25Ni20[1] 491 555 941 3
La55Al25Ni5Cu10Co5[1] 465 542 822 9 La56.5(Cu,Ni)25.6Al17.9[15] 433 492 823 2
La57.6(Cu,Ni)24.9Al17.5[15] 425 499 790 8 La58.6(Cu,Ni)24.4Al17.0[15] 421 489 774 5
La59.6(Cu,Ni)23.8Al16.6[15] 416 475 750 8 (La60Ce40)65Co25Al10[2] 437 467 835 20
La60Cu20Al15Ag5[15] 401 481 759 5 La60.5(Cu,Ni)23.2Al16.3[15] 414 465 734 8
La61.4(Cu,Ni)22.7Al15.9[15] 413 459 729 10.5 La62(Cu,Ni)22.4Al15.6[15] 410 453 712 11
La62(Cu,Ni)24Al14[15] 417 446 738 10 La62Al14(Cu50Ni50)24[3] 423 452 744 12
La62Al14(Cu83Ag17)12(Ni50Co50)12[3] 429 471 698 16 La62Al14(Cu83Ag17)14(Ni50Co50)10[3] 418 491 703 20
La62Al14(Cu83Ag17)16(Ni50Co50)8[3] 415 477 708 16 La62Al14(Cu83Ag17)20(Ni50Co50)4[3] 412 472 713 16
La62Al14Cu12Ni12[3] 423 452 744 12 La62Cu16Al14Ag8[3] 407 458 744 5
La62Cu17Al14Ag7[3] 406 458 739 5 La62Cu18Al14Ag6[3] 406 457 736 5
La62Cu19Al14Ag5[3] 405 456 730 5 La62Cu20Al14Ag4[3] 404 456 729 8
La62Cu22Al14Ag2[3] 401 455 722 5 La62Cu24Al10.5Mg3.5[1] 386 431 712 10
La62Cu24Al10.8Mg3.2[1] 387 421 710 10 La62Cu24Al14[3] 401 449 734 5
La62Cu24Al9.8Mg4.2[1] 386 440 719 10 La62.5Cu15Al12.5Ag5Co5[15] 397 474 700 9
La62.5Cu15Al12.5Ag5Fe5[15] 390 445 713 6 La62.5Cu17.5Al12.5Ag5Co2.5[15] 393 473 712 8
La62.5Cu17.5Al12.5Ag5Fe2.5[15] 391 464 711 7 La62.5Cu20Al12.5Ag5[15] 389 472 721 6
La63.1(Cu,Ni)21.7Al15.2[3] 408 448 709 10 La64.6(Cu,Ni)20.8Al14.6[15] 406 442 706 5
La65Cu20Al10Ag5[3] 380 458 716 5 La66(Cu,Ni)20Al14[3] 405 431 674 1.5
La66Cu20Al14[1] 395 449 731 2 La68(Cu,Ni)18.8Al13.2[3] 400 426 743 1
La68(Cu,Ni)18Al14[15] 405 431 724 1 (La70Ce30)65Co25Al10[2] 437 472 850 25
La70(Cu,Ni)16Al14[15] 404 429 763 0.5 La70(Cu,Ni)17.6Al12.4[3] 397 418 759 0.5
(La80Ce20)65Co25Al10[2] 439 476 869 12 Mg50Ni30La20[1] 453 510 841 1
Mg57Cu31Y6.6Nd5.4[3] 427 491 778 14 Mg57Cu31.5Y8Nd3.5[3] 426 501 778 12
Mg57Cu31.5Y9.2Nd2.3[3] 428 502 777 10 Mg57Ni26La17[1] 454 499 831 2
Mg58.5Cu30.5Gd11[3] 427 490 753 8 Mg58.5Cu30.5Y11[3] 422 496 762 9
Mg59Cu31Gd10[3] 424 482 769 4 Mg60Ni20La20[1] 458 485 851 0.2
Mg60Ni23.6La13.51B2.89[1] 453 498 811 1 Mg60Ni23.6La15.4Y1[1] 454 491 827 3
Mg60Ni23.6La15.65Y0.75[1] 456 495 839 4 Mg60Ni23.6La15.75Y0.5Si0.5[1] 457 490 824 1
Mg60Ni23.6La15.8Y0.5Si0.1[1] 453 494 828 1.5 Mg60Ni23.6La15.9B0.5[1] 454 493 824 2
Mg60Ni23.6La15.9Si0.5[1] 457 492 828 1 Mg60Ni23.6La15.9Y0.25Si0.25[1] 456 492 824 2
Mg60Ni23.6La15.9Y0.5[1] 456 492 829 4 Mg60Ni23.6La16.15Si0.25[1] 453 492 826 1
Mg60Ni23.6La16.15Y0.25[1] 456 491 829 3.5 Mg60Ni23.6La16.4[1] 450 490 819 2.5
Mg60.5Cu28.5Gd11[3] 425 485 755 8 Mg61Cu28Gd11[3] 422 483 737 12
Mg61Cu29Gd10[3] 420 480 762 4 Mg61.5Cu29.5Gd9[3] 433 472 785 4
Mg62.5Cu26.5Gd11[3] 427 483 748 9 Mg63Cu27Gd10[3] 418 481 755 4
Mg63.5Cu27.5Gd9[3] 425 469 773 4 Mg64.5Cu24.5Gd11[3] 413 472 739 6
Mg65Cu15Ag10Er10[3] 427 465 733 6 Mg65Cu15Ag10Gd10[3] 416 459 686 7.5
Mg65Cu15Ag10Gd8Y2[3] 420 464 683 9 Mg65Cu15Ag10Gd6Y4[3] 424 467 682 8
Mg65Cu15Gd10Ag5Pd5[3] 430 472 748 10 Mg65Cu20Gd10Ni5[3] 420 481 786 5
Mg65Cu25Dy10[3] 422 492 750 3 Mg65Cu25Er10[3] 422 480 766 3
Mg65Cu25Gd10[3] 413 473 739 7 Mg65Cu25Gd5Y5[3] 413 486 755 5
Mg65Cu25Ho10[3] 417 473 751 1 Mg65Cu25Nd10[18] 423 456 744 1
Mg65Cu25Pr10[3] 413 446 784 1 Mg65Cu25Y10[3] 425 479 771 7
Mg65Gd10Cu7.5Ni7.5Ag5Zn5[3] 440 477 726 11 Mg65Y7.5Cu7.5Ni7.5Ag5Zn5Gd2.5[3] 433 473 735 9.5
Mg65Cu7.5Ni7.5Ag5Zn5Gd5Y5[3] 434 472 718 14 Mg65Gd7.5Cu7.5Ni7.5Ag5Zn5Y2.5[3] 438 474 719 13
Mg65Y10Cu7.5Ni7.5Ag5Zn5[3] 430 459 728 9 Mg65Ni20La15[1] 451 480 812 0.5
Mg65Ni20Nd15[18] 459 501 805 3.5 Mg65.5Cu25.4Gd9[3] 411 457 741 6
(continued on next page)

8
B. Ren et al. Computational Materials Science 189 (2021) 110259

(continued )
Alloy composition/at./[References] Tg/K Tx/K Tl/K Dmax/mm Alloy composition/at.%[References] Tg/K Tx/K Tl/K Dmax/mm

Mg68Ni15Gd10Ag7[1] 437 473 747 4 Mg69La16Ni15[1] 455 481 800 1

Mg69Ni15Gd10Ag6[1] 439 475 757 7 Mg69Ni18La13[1] 449 478 797 0.5
Mg70La17Ni13[1] 474 474 803 0.4 Mg70Ni15Gd10Ag5[1] 450 479 764 5
Mg70Ni15Nd15[18] 467 489 844 1.5 Mg70Ni20La10[1] 447 475 791 0.4
Mg71Ni18La11[1] 451 479 796 0.5 Mg71Ni15Gd10Ag4[1] 440 485 774 4
Mg73Ni15Gd10Ag2[1] 442 489 780 3.5 Mg74Ni15Gd10Ag1[1] 442 483 791 3
Mg75Ni15Gd10[1] 449 482 799 3 Mg75Ni15Nd10[18] 450 470 790 2.8
Mg80Ni10Nd10[18] 454 471 878 0.6 Ni42Pd31S27[22] 430 457 756 1.5
Ni42Zr20.5Ti20Al8Cu5Si4.5[3] 763 856 1364 2 Ni42Zr21.5Ti20Al8Cu5Si3.5[3] 774 846 1366 2.5
Ni42Zr22.5Ti19Al8Cu5Si3.5[3] 780 846 1363 3 Ni42Zr22.5Ti20Al8Cu5Si2.5[3] 767 833 1367 2
Ni42Zr25Ti20Al8Cu5[3] 748 803 1366 0.5 Ni59Zr20Ti16Si2Sn3[15] 821 877 1272 3
Ni59Zr20Ti16Si5[3] 830 876 1304 2 Ni59Zr20Ti16Sn5[3] 819 854 1288 1
[(Ni60Fe40)75B20Si5]96Nb4[15] 745 795 1348 3 Ni60Nb20Zr20[3] 853 891 1391 0.5
Ni60Nb25Zr15[3] 860 891 1390 1.5 Ni60Nb30Ta10[3] 934 961 1559 2
Ni60Nb30Zr10[3] 875 902 1413 2 Ni60Nb35Zr5[3] 887 911 1458 1.5
Ni60Nb40[3] 891 924 1478 1 Ni60Zr20Ti2.5Nb12.5Al5[15] 836 897 1378 2
Ni60Zr20Ti5Nb10Al5[15] 826 896 1379 2 Ni60Zr20Ti7.5Nb7.5Al5[15] 824 885 1385 2
Ni61Zr22Nb7Al4Ta6[15] 867 927 1379 2 Ni61Zr28Nb7Al4[3] 848 898 1348 1
[(Ni70Fe30)75B20Si5]96Nb4[15] 750 795 1356 2.5 (Ni75B20Si5)96Nb4[15] 770 795 1446 0.5
[(Ni80Fe20)75B20Si5]96Nb4[15] 755 795 1381 2 [(Ni90Fe10)75B20Si5]96Nb4[15] 762 795 1408 1
Pd36Ni36S28[22] 426 439 734 0.3 Pd37Ni37S26[22] 426 449 731 2
Pd38Ni38S24[22] 429 451 733 0.3 Pd40Cu30P20Ni10[3] 577 656 836 72
Pd40Ni40P20[18] 590 671 991 25 Pd71.5Si16.5Cu12[18] 652 680 1154 2
Pd73.5Si16.5Cu10[18] 645 685 1136 2 Pd77.5Si16.5Cu6[18] 637 678 1058 1.5
Pd77Si17Cu6[18] 642 686 1128 2 Pd79Si10P5Cu2Ag4[18] 611 676 1006 7
Pd79Si10P5Cu3Ag3[18] 610 683 1005 5 Pd79Si10P5Cu4Ag2[18] 613 684 1005 5
Pd79Si10P5Cu5Ag1[18] 614 684 1001 4 Pd79Si10P5Cu6[18] 609 682 995 5
Pd79.5Si16.5Cu4[18] 635 675 1086 0.75 Pd81.5Si16.5Cu2[18] 633 670 1097 2
Pr68Cu25Al7[3] 382 402 705 1.5 Pr72(Cu,Ni)21Al7[3] 395 410 760 1.5
Pr72(Cu,Ni)25Al3[3] 367 402 743 1.5 Ti40Cu30Pd20Zr10[18] 687 747 1279 3
Ti40Cu32Pd18Zr10[18] 683 740 1272 3 Ti40Cu34Pd16Zr10[4] 672 723 1231 4
Ti40Cu36Pd14Zr10[18] 669 718 1191 6 Ti40Cu38Pd12Zr10[18] 666 715 1189 6
Ti40Cu40Pd10Zr10[18] 660 709 1184 4 Ti40Zr25Be18Cu9Ni8[3] 621 668 1009 8
Ti41.5Cu37.5Ni7.5Hf5Sn5Zr2.5Si1[1] 693 758 1176 6 Ti42.5Cu42.5Ni7.5Zr2.5Hf5[23] 677 726 1203 2.5
Ti43.15Cu36.24Zr9.59Ni9.06Sn1.96[1] 649 699 1167 3 Ti44.1Cu37.04Zr9.80Ni7.06Sn2[1] 650 692 1167 2
(Ti45Cu37.8Zr10Ni7.2)94Sn6[1] 683 739 1169 1 (Ti45Cu37.8Zr10Ni7.2)96Sn4[1] 666 715 1156 2
(Ti45Cu37.8Zr10Ni7.2)98Sn2[1] 650 692 1167 2 Ti45Cu25Ni15Sn3Be7Zr5[23] 680 741 1142 5
Ti45Cu37.8Zr10Ni7.2[23] 641 680 1167 1 Ti47.5Cu42.5Ni7.5Zr2.5[23] 673 720 1225 1.5
Ti50Be18Zr15Cu9Ni8[23] 622 662 1009 6 Ti50Cu25Ni15Be7Sn3[23] 688 733 1207 2
Ti50Cu32Ni30Sn3[23] 686 759 1283 1 Ti50Cu42.5Ni7.5[23] 670 708 1226 0.2
Ti50Ni24Cu20Sn3Si2B1[3] 726 800 1310 1 Ti53Ni18.5Cu15Al7Si3Hf3B0.5[3] 695 749 1230 2
Ti53Ni18.5Cu15Al7Si3Sc3B0.5[3] 709 767 1240 2 Ti55Be18Zr10Cu9Ni8[18] 629 667 1013 6
(Ti55Be20Zr15Ni10)90Cu10[23] 582 656 1046 7 (Ti55Be20Zr15Ni10)92Cu8[23] 586 653 1050 8
(Ti55Be20Zr15Ni10)94Cu6[23] 593 649 1079 8 (Ti55Be20Zr15Ni10)96Cu4[23] 599 646 1123 10
(Ti55Be20Zr15Ni10)98Cu2[23] 603 642 1143 7 Ti55Be20Zr15Ni10[23] 604 639 1171 5
Y36Al24Sc20Co10Ni10[15] 645 731 1010 25 Y36Al24Sc20Co20[15] 645 760 1034 25
Y56Al24Co20[15] 636 690 1078 1.5 Zr20Ti20Hf20Co20Be20[1] 683 722 1187 3
Zr20Ti20Hf20Cu20Be20[1] 632 715 1194 5 Zr20Ti20Hf20Ni20Be20[1] 657 709 1108 8
Zr26Mg24Be20Ti10Cu8Ni8Y4[3] 650 700 951 5 Zr28Ti24Be23Ni10Cu9Ag6[23] 633 682 1074 14
Zr28Ti24Be23Ni10Cu9Al6[23] 642 685 1087 9 Zr28Ti24Be23Ni10Cu9Cr6[23] 637 686 1071 6
Zr28Ti24Be23Ni10Cu9Fe6[23] 643 694 1107 4 Zr28Ti24Be23Ni10Cu9V6[23] 635 677 1064 7
Zr31Ti27Be26Cu10Ag6[23] 620 675 1057 14 Zr31Ti27Be26Cu10Al6[23] 607 678 1060 13
Zr31Ti27Be26Cu10Cr6[23] 611 678 1018 14 Zr31Ti27Be26Cu10Fe6[23] 617 685 1037 13
Zr31Ti27Be26Cu10Ni6[23] 610 682 1023 15 Zr31Ti27Be26Cu10V6[23] 610 666 1027 15
Zr36Be20Mg12Nb12Cu10Ni6Fe2Y2[3] 670 712 1029 5 Zr36Be20Mg12Nb12Cu10Ni8Y2[3] 653 733 1029 5
Zr40Be21.5Ti15Cu11Ni11Y1Mg0.5[3] 630 674 975 5 Zr41Be22.5Ti14Cu12.5C8Ni2[3] 629 727 992 3
Zr41Be22.5Ti14Cu12.5Ni8C2[3] 628 683 997 5 Zr41.2Be22.5Ti13.8Cu12.5Ni10[3] 623 672 996 50
Zr42Cu36Al8Ag8Au6[1] 723 813 1159 15 Zr42Cu36Al8Ag8Fe6[1] 708 797 1238 4
Zr42Cu36Al8Ag8Hf6[1] 695 796 1187 15 Zr42Cu36Al8Ag8Nb6[1] 715 755 1218 4
Zr42Cu36Al8Ag8Ni6[1] 695 779 1131 25 Zr42Cu36Al8Ag8Pd6[1] 709 796 1155 20
Zr42Cu36Al8Ag8Ti6[1] 704 731 1212 4 Zr44Cu36Al8Ag8Au4[1] 713 806 1153 20
Zr44Cu36Al8Ag8Fe4[1] 706 799 1213 9 Zr44Cu36Al8Ag8Hf4[1] 694 795 1155 20
Zr44Cu36Al8Ag8Nb4[1] 709 759 1209 9 Zr44Cu36Al8Ag8Ni4[1] 693 788 1129 30
Zr44Cu36Al8Ag8Pd4[1] 705 795 1153 25 Zr44Cu36Al8Ag8Ti4[1] 700 738 1181 9
Zr44Cu40Ag8Al8[1] 693 791 1176 15 Zr45Ni34Ti21[1] 642 683 1134 0.7
Zr46Cu27.64Be10Ag8.36Al8[1] 697 813 1129 35 Zr46Cu36Al8Ag8Au2[1] 705 799 1153 20
Zr46Cu36Al8Ag8Fe2[1] 705 806 1169 10 Zr46Cu36Al8Ag8Hf2[1] 692 794 1147 20
Zr46Cu36Al8Ag8Nb2[1] 707 765 1150 10 Zr46Cu36Al8Ag8Ni2[1] 687 797 1131 25
Zr46Cu36Al8Ag8Pd2[1] 699 794 1140 30 Zr46Cu36Al8Ag8Ti2[1] 696 750 1145 10
Zr46Cu38Ag8Al8[1] 692 795 1145 20 Zr47Cu46Al7[1] 705 781 1163 3
Zr48Be18Cu14Ni12Nb8[3] 656 724 1072 8 Zr48Be24Cu12Fe8Nb8[3] 658 751 1071 8
Zr48Cu34Ag8Al8Pd2[3] 699 794 1140 30 Zr48Cu36Ag13Al3[[3] 690 753 1169 4.5
Zr48Cu36Ag8Al8[[3] 690 791 1143 25 Zr48Cu36Al9Ag7[[3] 710 776 1151 10.4
Zr48Cu37Ag8Al7[[3] 698 765 1125 10 Zr48Cu40Al4Ag8[[3] 411 483 856 9
Zr48Cu40Al7Ag5[[3] 699 769 1121 10 Zr48Cu42Al7Ag3[[3] 700 763 1135 10
Zr48Cu43Al7Ag2[[3] 700 761 1152 12 Zr48Cu45Al4Ga3[[3] 430 490 901 5
(continued on next page)

9
B. Ren et al. Computational Materials Science 189 (2021) 110259

(continued )
Alloy composition/at./[References] Tg/K Tx/K Tl/K Dmax/mm Alloy composition/at.%[References] Tg/K Tx/K Tl/K Dmax/mm

Zr48Cu45Al7[[3] 698 758 1208 5 Zr48Cu46.5Al4Nb1.5[3] 414 471 908 5

Zr48Cu47.5Al4Cr0.5[3] 416 471 922 3 Zr48Cu47.5Al4Fe0.5[3] 419 470 921 3
Zr48Cu47.5Al4Ni0.5[3] 415 470 920 3 Zr48Cu47.5Al4V0.5[3] 422 474 919 2
Zr48Cu47.7Al4Co0.3[3] 417 471 922 3 Zr49Ni20Cu17Ti14[1] 625 674 1095 4
Zr49Ni20Ti17Cu14[1] 631 669 1087 3 (Zr50Cu38Al10Ti2)95Y5[24] 664 721 1145 6
(Zr50Cu38Al10Ti2)97Y3[24] 665 736 1146 16 (Zr50Cu38Al10Ti2)98Y2[24] 671 739 1148 20
(Zr50Cu38Al10Ti2)99Y1[24] 681 741 1145 18 Zr50.7Cu28Al12.3Ni9[1] 719 780 1158 7
Zr50Cu34Ag8Al8[15] 680 780 1148 15 Zr50Cu38Ag12[15] 663 734 1187 4
Zr50Cu38Al10Ti2[15] 687 746 1154 5 Zr50Cu40Ag10[15] 667 733 1177 5
Zr50Cu43Ag7[15] 669 727 1171 4 Zr50Cu45Ag5[15] 669 728 1188 4
Zr50Cu48Ag2[15] 668 719 1192 2 Zr51Cu20.7Al16.3Ni12[3] 722 800 1132 3
Zr51Co33Al16[1] 775 828 1258 2 Zr52Co32Al16[1] 770 824 1256 3
Zr53Cu19Al14Ni10Y4[3] 668 766 1069 5 Zr53Co31Al16[1] 763 812 1257 5
Zr54Cu19Al15Ni10Y2[3] 714 787 1112 5 Zr54Co30Al16[1] 757 806 1258 6
Zr54Cu46[1] 696 746 1201 2 Zr55Al2Co2Cu5[1] 737 815 1285 5
(Zr55Al20Co20Cu5)93Ag7[1] 753 806 1222 14 (Zr55Al20Co20Cu5)95Ag5[1] 747 806 1220 16
(Zr55Al20Co20Cu5)97Ag3[1] 740 805 1246 16 (Zr55Al20Co20Cu5)99Ag1[1] 739 813 1275 10
Zr55Co25Al20[1] 761 840 1245 2.5 Zr55Co29Al16[1] 750 799 1258 7
Zr55Cu30Al10Ni5[15] 690 757 1158 5.2 Zr56Co21Al16Cu7[1] 748 794 1245 1
Zr56Co22Al16Cu6[1] 753 802 1245 2 Zr56Co23Al16Cu5[1] 750 808 1244 1.5
Zr56Co28Al16[1] 743 792 1258 7 Zr57Co27Al16[1] 735 787 1260 5
Zr57Cu20Al10Ni8Ti5 677 720 1145 10 Zr58Co26Al16[1] 729 780 1282 2
Zr61.5Ni14.15Cu13.65Al10.7[1] 670 738 1155 5.5 (Zr62Cu23Al10Fe5)93Ag7[1] 664 751 1191 4
(Zr62Cu23Al10Fe5)95Ag5[1] 663 747 1189 5 (Zr62Cu23Al10Fe5)97Ag3[1] 658 743 1181 10
(Zr62Cu23Al10Fe5)99Ag1[1] 656 753 1175 4 Zr62Cu23Al10Fe5[1] 651 751 1186 3
Zr62.5Ni17.45Al12.1Cu7.95[1] 672 744 1172 7.5 Zr63Ni16.3Al11.4Cu9.3[1] 663 732 1164 6.5
Zr63.5Ni15.1Al10.7Cu10.7[1] 658 730 1166 6 Zr64Ni14.2Cu11.7Al10.1[1] 658 717 1159 5
Zr65Cu14.4Ni11.9Al8.7[1] 647 710 1165 4 Zr65Cu17.5Ni10Al7.5[1] 657 736 1168 16
Zr65.5Cu22.4Ni6.5Al5.6[1] 630 733 1211 3 Zr70Cu11Ni11Al8[1] 633 706 1175 8
Zr70Cu13.5Ni8.5Al8[1] 625 707 1171 10 Zr70Cu16Al8Ni6[1] 641 707 1179 6
Zr70Cu19Al8Ni3[1] 630 689 1200 1.5 Zr70Ni16Al8Cu6[1] 631 705 1205 8
Zr70Ni19Al8Cu3[1] 640 710 1220 1.5

References [15] Z. Long, H. Wei, Y. Ding, P. Zhang, G. Xie, A. Inoue, A new criterion for predicting
the glass-forming ability of bulk metallic glasses, J. Alloy. Compd. 475 (1-2) (2009)
207–219, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2008.07.087.
[1] M.K. Tripathi, S. Ganguly, P. Dey, P.P. Chattopadhyay, Evolution of glass forming
[16] B.-S. Dong, S.-X. Zhou, D.-R. Li, C.-W. Lu, F. Guo, X.-J. Ni, Z.-C. Lu, A new criterion
ability indicator by genetic programming, Comput. Mater. Sci. 118 (2016) 56–65,
for predicting glass forming ability of bulk metallic glasses and some critical
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2016.02.037.
discussions, Prog. Natural Sci.: Mater. Int. 21 (2) (2011) 164–172, https://doi.org/
[2] Z. Long, W. Liu, M. Zhong, Y. Zhang, M. Zhao, G. Liao, Z. Chen, A new correlation
10.1016/S1002-0071(12)60051-3.
between the characteristics temperature and glass-forming ability for bulk metallic
[17] K. Zhou, Y. Liu, S. Pang, T. Zhang, Formation and properties of centimeter-size Zr-
glasses, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 132 (3) (2018) 1645–1660, https://doi.org/
Ti-Cu-Al-Y bulk metallic glasses as potential biomaterials, J. Alloy. Compd. 656
10.1007/s10973-018-7050-0.
(2016) 389–394, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2015.09.254.
[3] Z.-Z. Yuan, S.-L. Bao, Y.e. Lu, D.-P. Zhang, L. Yao, A new criterion for evaluating
[18] Q. Chen, J. Shen, D. Zhang, H. Fan, J. Sun, D.G. McCartney, A new criterion for
the glass-forming ability of bulk glass forming alloys, J. Alloy. Compd. 459 (1-2)
evaluating the glass-forming ability of bulk metallic glasses, Mater. Sci. Eng., A 433
(2008) 251–260, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2007.05.037.
(1-2) (2006) 155–160, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2006.06.053.
[4] N. Islam, W. Huang, H.L. Zhuang, Machine learning for phase selection in multi-
[19] J. Torrens-Serra, P. Bruna, M. Stoica, J. Eckert, Glass-forming ability and
principal element alloys, Comput. Mater. Sci. 150 (2018) 230–235, https://doi.
microstructural evolution of [(Fe0.6Co0.4)0.75Si0.05B0.20]96-xNb4Mx metallic glasses
org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2018.04.003.
studied by Mössbauer spectroscopy, J. Alloy. Compd. 704 (2017) 748–759,
[5] R. Deng, Z. Long, L. Peng, D. Kuang, B. Ren, A new mathematical expression for the
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2017.02.098.
relation between characteristic temperature and glass-forming ability of metallic
[20] Y. Geng, Y. Wang, Z. Wang, J. Qiang, H. Wang, C. Dong, O. Tegus, Formation and
glasses, J. Non. Cryst. 533 (2020), 119829.
structure-property correlation of new bulk Fe–B–Si–Hf metallic glasses, Mater. Des.
[6] A.L. Greer, Metallic glasses, Science 267 (5206) (1995) 1947–1953, https://doi.
106 (2016) 69–73, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2016.05.102.
org/10.1126/science:267.5206.1947.
[21] J.W. Li, D. Estévez, K.M. Jiang, W.M. Yang, Q.K. Man, C.T. Chang, X.M. Wang,
[7] L. Ward, S.C. O’Keeffe, J. Stevick, G.R. Jelbert, M. Aykol, C. Wolverton, A machine
Electronic-structure origin of the glass-forming ability and magnetic properties in
learning approach for engineering bulk metallic glass alloys, Acta Materialia 159
Fe-RE-B-Nb bulk metallic glasses, Bizhanova 617 (2014) 332–336.
(2018) 102–111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2018.08.002.
[22] A. Kuball, B. Bochtler, O. Gross, V. Pacheco, M. Stolpe, S. Hechler, R. Busch, On the
[8] M. Yang, X.J. Liu, H.H. Ruan, Y. Wu, H. Wang, Z.P. Lu, High thermal stability and
bulk glass formation in the ternary Pd-Ni-S system, Acta Materialia 158 (2018)
sluggish crystallization kinetics of high-entropy bulk metallic glasses, J. Appl. Phys.
13–22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2018.07.039.
119 (24) (2016) 245112, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4955060.
[23] G. Bizhanova, F. Li, Y. Ma, P. Gong, X. Wang, Development and crystallization
[9] T. Kokubo, H.-M. Kim, M. Kawashita, Novel bioactive materials with different
kinetics of novel near-equiatomic high-entropy bulk metallic glasses, J. Alloy.
mechanical properties, Biomaterials 24 (13) (2003) 2161–2175, https://doi.org/
Compd. 779 (2019) 474–486, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2018.11.299.
10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00044-9.
[24] Y.W. Zhao, Y.H. Liu, W. Huang, Classification and prediction of HBV reactivation
[10] A. Inoue, Stabilization of metallic supercooled liquid and bulk amorphous alloys,
after radiotherapy of primary liver cancer based on neighborhood component
Acta Materialia 48 (1) (2000) 279–306, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6454(99)
analysis, Chin. J. Bioinformatics 16 (2018) 163–169.
00300-6.
[25] C.R. Cao, D.W. Ding, D.Q. Zhao, E. Axinte, H.Y. Bai, W.H. Wang, Correlation
[11] A. Inoue, N. Nishiyama, K. Amiya, T. Zhang, T. Masumoto, Ti-based amorphous
between glass transition temperature and melting temperature in metallic glasses,
alloys with a wide supercooled liquid region, Mater. Lett. 61 (14-15) (2007)
Mater. Des. 60 (2014) 576–579, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.04.021.
2851–2854, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2007.03.048.
[26] X. Xiao, F. Shoushi, W. Guoming, H. Qin, D. Yuanda, Influence of beryllium on
[12] M.K. Tripathi, P.P. Chattopadhyay, S. Ganguly, Multivariate analysis and
thermal stability and glass-forming ability of Zr–Al–Ni–Cu bulk amorphous alloys,
classification of bulk metallic glasses using principal component analysis, Comput.
J. Alloy. Compd. 376 (1-2) (2004) 145–148, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Mater. Sci. 107 (2015) 79–87, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2015.05.010.
jallcom.2004.01.014.
[13] Y.T. Sun, H.Y. Bai, M.Z. Li, W.H. Wang, Machine learning approach for prediction
[27] K. Mondal, B.S. Murty, On the parameters to assess the glass forming ability of
and understanding of glass-forming ability, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 8 (14) (2017)
liquids, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 351 (16-17) (2005) 1366–1371, https://doi.org/
3434–3439, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.7b01046.s001.
10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2005.03.006.
[14] X.-L. JI, Y.e. PAN, A thermodynamic approach to assess glass-forming ability of
bulk metallic glasses, Trans. Nonferrous Metals Soc. China 19 (5) (2009)
1271–1279, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1003-6326(08)60438-0.

10
B. Ren et al. Computational Materials Science 189 (2021) 110259

[28] G.J. Fan, H. Choo, P.K. Liaw, A new criterion for the glass-forming ability of [30] Z.P. Lu, C.T. Liu, A new glass-forming ability criterion for bulk metallic glasses,
liquids, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 353 (1) (2007) 102–107, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Acta Materialia 50 (13) (2002) 3501–3512, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6454
jnoncrysol.2006.08.049. (02)00166-0.
[29] S. Guo, C.T. Liu, New glass forming ability criterion derived from cooling
consideration, Intermetallics 18 (11) (2010) 2065–2068, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.intermet.2010.06.012.

11