CO-BASED HIGH-STRENGTH AMORPHOUS ALLOY AND USE THEREOF

Information

  • Patent Application
  • 20200115775
  • Publication Number
    20200115775
  • Date Filed
    November 29, 2019
    4 years ago
  • Date Published
    April 16, 2020
    4 years ago
Abstract
The present invention relates to an amorphous alloy corresponding to the formula:
Description

This application claims priority from European patent application No. 16198457.0 filed on Nov. 11, 2016, the entire disclosure of which is hereby incorporated herein by reference.


FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The invention relates to Co-based amorphous alloys with high strength and ductility properties making them useful for the fabrication of watch components and in particular for the fabrication of springs in mechanically operating watches.


BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Due to the absence of microstructural defects such as grains, grain or twin boundaries, dislocations and stacking faults, metallic glasses (MGs) can offer a good corrosion resistance and a high mechanical strength with fracture strengths above 4 GPa and even 5 GPa. Their unique properties make them attractive for a number of structural applications where high specific strengths and/or elastic storage energies are required. Unfortunately, they are usually inherently brittle and do not show any macroscopic plastic deformation, i.e. ductility, prior to catastrophic failure if tested under tensile or bend loading conditions. The limited or non-existing malleability of MGs is caused by highly localized deformation processes with the rapid propagation of major shear bands and cracks. This lack of ductility hampers their potential for mechanical applications, especially if the fabrication of the structural part involves a room temperature deformation step as for springs in watches.


To be used as springs whilst being competitive with the best crystalline alloy, the amorphous alloy must fulfill several requirements:


High glass forming ability so that it may be synthetized under thick ribbon with a thickness higher than 80 and preferably higher than 100 μm,


High fracture strength with values above 3.75 GPa and preferably above 4 GPa,


High ductility under bend and compressive loading so that it may be plastically deformed at room temperature.


In the literature, a vast number of Fe-and/or Co-based amorphous alloy compositions are described. Their basic composition often fits the generic formula (Fe, Co)—(P, C, B, Si)- X, where X is at least one additional element among e.g. Nb, Ta, Mo, Al, Ga, Cr, Mn, Cu, V, Zr and rare earth elements. An extensive study on Fe-based compositions, also indexed as “structural amorphous steels”, can be found in the following three publications:


Z. Q. Liu, and Z. F. Zhang, “Mechanical properties of structural amorphous steels: Intrinsic correlations, conflicts, and optimizing strategies,” J. Appl. Phys., 114(24), 2013.


C. Suryanarayana, and A. Inoue, “Iron-based bulk metallic glasses,” Int. Mater. Rev., 58(3):131-166, 2013.


Z. Q. Liu, and Z. F. Zhang, “Strengthening and toughening metallic glasses: The elastic perspectives and opportunities,” J. Appl. Phys., 115(16), 2014.


Representative compositions showing strengths above 4 GPa are for example:





Co—(Fe)—Nb—B—(Er, Tb, Y, Dy), Co—(Ir)—Ta—B or Co—Fe—Ta—B—(Mo, Si),





Fe—(Co, Cr, Mn)—Mo—C—B—(Er) or Co—(Fe)—Cr—Mo—C—B—(Er),

    • Fe—(Co, Ni)—B—Si—Nb—(V) or Co—B—Si—Ta.


In particular, a document of Cheng et al. (Y. Y. Cheng, et al., “Synthesis of CoCrMoCB bulk metallic glasses with high strength and good plasticity via regulating the metalloid content,” J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 410:155-159, 2015) discloses an amorphous alloy Co50Cr15Mo14CxBy with a compressive strength above 4.5 GPa.


The problem of the majority of these high-strength alloys is that they show a cleavage-like fracture behavior and hence offer no or a quite limited plastic formability.


Several phosphorus containing Fe- and/or Co-based amorphous systems with ductility improvement are known from the following documents.


T. Zhang, et al., “Ductile Fe-based bulk metallic glass with good soft-magnetic properties,” Mater. Trans., 48(5):1157-1160, 2007.


K. F. Yao, and C. Q. Zhang, “Fe-based bulk metallic glass with high plasticity,” Appl. Phys. Left., 90(6), 2007.


A. Inoue, et al., “Mechanical properties of Fe-based bulk glassy alloys in Fe—B—Si—Nb and Fe—Ga—P—C—B—Si systems,” J. Mater. Res., 18(6):1487-1492, 2003.


M. Stoica, et al., “Mechanical behavior of Fe65.5Cr4Mo4Ga4P12C5B5.5 bulk metallic glass,” Intermetallics, 13(7):764-769, 2005.


A. Seifoddini, etal., “New (Fe0.9Ni0.1)77Mo5P9C7.5B1.5 glassy alloys with enhanced glass-forming ability and large compressive strain,” Mat. Sci. Eng. A, 560:575-582, 2013.


S. F. Guo, et al., “Enhanced plasticity of Fe-based bulk metallic glass by tailoring microstructure,” T. Nonferr. Metal. Soc., 22(2):348-353, 2012.


S. F. Guo, and Y. Shen, “Design of high strength Fe—(P, C)-based bulk metallic glasses with Nb addition,” T. Nonferr. Metal. Soc, 21(11):2433-2437, 2011.


W. Chen, et al., “Plasticity improvement of an Fe-based bulk metallic glass by geometric confinement,” Mater. Lett., 65(8):1172-1175, 2011.


X. J. Gu, et al., “Mechanical properties, glass transition temperature, and bond enthalpy trends of high metalloid Fe-based bulk metallic glasses,” Appl. Phys. Lett., 92(16), 2008.

    • L. Y. Bie, et al., “Preparation and properties of quaternary CoMoPB bulk metallic glasses,” Intermetallics, 71:7-11, 2016.
    • H. T. Miao, et at., “Fabrication and properties of soft magnetic Fe—Co—Ni—P—C—B bulk metallic glasses with high glass-forming ability,” J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 421:24-29, 2015.


However, the yield or fracture strengths of these systems are generally below 3.5 GPa and therefore they are not appropriate for our purposes.


In the patent literature, numerous documents disclose Fe- and/or Co-based amorphous alloys. Many of them cover amorphous compositions used for magnetic applications and no details about mechanical properties, i.e. strength and ductility, are presented. The documents WO 2012/010940, WO 2012/010941, WO 2010/027813, DE 10 2011 001 783 and DE 10 2011 001 784 can however be considered as an exception in view of the fact that they aim for protecting ductile, high strength alloys. However, the bendability as ribbon is generally limited to a maximum thickness of 86 μm for the Fe-, Co-based alloys unlike the present invention aiming to develop thicker ribbons.


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention aims to develop an amorphous alloy fulfilling the requirements of ductility and strength whilst having a high glass forming ability to manufacture thick watch components. More precisely, the present invention aims to develop an amorphous alloy meeting the requirements specified above.


To this end, a composition according to claim 1 is proposed and particular embodiments are given in the dependent claims.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 represents the plastic deformation energy of different alloys during nanoindentation (P=3 mN) as a function of their equivalent Vickers hardness.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The invention relates to a Co-based amorphous alloy. By amorphous alloy is meant a fully amorphous alloy or a partially amorphous alloy with a volume fraction of amorphous phase higher than 50%. This amorphous alloy corresponds to the following formula:





COaNibMoc(C1-xBx)dXe


wherein X is one or several elements selected from the group consisting of Cu, Si, Fe, P, Y, Er, Cr, Ga, Ta, Nb, V and W;


wherein the indices a to e and x satisfy the following conditions:


55≤a≤75 at. %, preferably 60≤a≤70 at. %,


0≤b≤15 at. %, preferably 0≤b≤10 at. %


7≤c≤17 at. %, preferably 10≤c≤15 at. %,


15≤d≤23 at. %, preferably 17≤d≤21 at. %


0.1≤x≤0.9 at. %,


0≤e≤10 at. %, preferably 0≤e≤5 at. % and more preferably 0≤e≤3 at. %, each element selected from the group having a content below 3 at. % and preferably below 2 at. %,


the balance being impurities with a maximum of 2 at. %.


In the impurities are included small amounts (≤0.5 at. %) of oxygen or nitrogen.


This amorphous alloy can be synthesized as thick ribbon, thick foil, wire or more generally as small bulk specimen, with a minimum thickness of 80 μm and preferably of 100 μm.


The amorphous alloy exhibits a fracture strength above 3.75 GPa and preferably above 4 GPa and a large plastic elongation above 3% under compressive loading. It also exhibits high ductility under 180° bend tests for specimens with a thickness above 80 μm.


These properties make them particularly suitable for manufacturing watch components like springs by cold forming.


The process for manufacturing the amorphous alloy may be any conventional process such as melt-spinning, twin-roll casting, planar flow casting or further rapid cooling processes. Although not required, the process may comprise a subsequent step of heat treatment. This heat treatment can be carried out at temperatures below Tg for relaxation or change in free volume, in the supercooled liquid region ΔTx or slightly above Tx1. A heat treatment of the alloy above Tg can be carried out to nucleate a certain fraction of nanoscale precipitates like α-Co precipitates. The alloy can also be subjected to cryogenic thermal cycling in order to achieve a rejuvenation of the amorphous matrix.


Hereinafter, the present invention is described in further detail through examples.


EXAMPLES
Experimental Procedure

Sample preparation


The master alloys were prepared in an alumina or quartz crucible by induction melting mixtures of pure Co, Fe, Cr, Ni, Mo, graphite (99.9 wt. %) and pre-alloys of Co80B20 (99.5 wt. %). If necessary, the ingots were homogenized by arc-melting. Ribbons with thicknesses between 55 and 160 μm and widths in the range of 1 and 5 mm were subsequently fabricated from the master alloys by the Chill-Block Melt Spinning (CBMS) technique with a single-roller melt-spinner. The process atmosphere was inert gas or CO2. In general, for a ribbon thickness t>100 μm, a wheel speed ≤13 mm/s had to be applied.


Sample characterization


The ribbons were evaluated with respect to their thermal, structural and mechanical properties by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) at a constant heating rate of 20 K/min and under a flow of purified argon, by X-ray diffraction analyses, by optical stereoscopy and by mechanical testing. The X-ray measurements were performed in reflection configuration with Co—Kα radiation and within a range of 2θ=20 . . . 80° or 10 . . . 100°.


Selected material variants with sufficient glass-forming ability were cast to ∅1 mm rods with a final aspect ratio of 2:1 to determine their mechanical properties under quasi-static compressive loading ({dot over (ε)}=10−4s−1) as recommended by ASTM E9, using an electromechanical universal testing machine. At least three specimens were tested for the selected compositions.


To estimate the strength and failure strain of glassy ribbons, additional two-point bending tests were carried out. This test was first developed for optical glass fibers and finally applied on melt-spun ribbons (see for example WO 2010 027813). In this test, the ribbon is bent into a “U” shape and subjected to a constrained compressive loading between two co-planar and polished faceplates until fracture (one faceplate stationary). The two-point bending tests were carried out by means of a miniaturized computer-controlled tensile/compressive device at a constant traverse speed of 5 μm/s. The stop of the motor movement due to the fracture of the tape was achieved by adjusting a defined load drop criterion (viz, load decrease of 10% relative to the maximum load). The failure strength σb, f of the specimen is described by the maximum tensile load Fmax in the outer surface given from the faceplace separation at fracture Df:







σ

b
,
f


=



t
2




(

2







EF
max

/
I


)


1
/
2



=

1.19784

E






t


D
f

-
t








where E is the Young's modulus, t the thickness and I the second moment of cross-sectional area (I=bt3/12) of the ribbons. For the calculation of the failure strength in the examples, a Young's modulus of Eav=155 GPa, indicating an average value derived from the elastic slopes of the load versus displacement curves, has been used.


Based on the assumption that the tape undergoes an elastic deformation until fracture, the failure strain can be directly calculated by







ɛ

b
,
f


=



σ

b
,
f


E

.





Even if plastic deformation occurs, this method still provide a relative measure of strength. For each alloy, at least three samples of a same thickness were tested. It is the free side of the ribbons, i.e. the side not in contact with the wheel's surface, that was subject to the tension.


Additionally, primitive 180° bend tests were applied on ribbons of different compositions and thicknesses inducing a high strain in their outer fiber loaded under tension. The ribbon is considered to be ductile if it does not break when folded at 180°. The bending ability of the specimens has been tested for both sides of the ribbon for each specimen.


Moreover, nanoindentation measurements were conducted to evaluate and distinguish the ribbons with respect to their stiffness, hardness and performed deformation work. The nanoindentation experiments were carried on polished flat specimens at room temperature in the load control mode by using a UNAT nanoindenter (ASMEC laboratories) equipped with a triangular diamond Berkovich tip. A maximum load of 3 mN as well as a constant strain rate of 0.046 s−1 were applied. On each sample at least 10 indents for every loading were placed in a linear array and in a distance of 20 μm. The hardness and reduced elastic modulus values were derived from the unloading part of the load vs. displacement curves according to Oliver and Pharr's principle (W. C. Oliver, and G. M. Pharr, “An improved technique for determining hardness and elastic-modulus using load and displacement sensing indentation experiments, ”J. Mater. Res., 7(6):1564-1583, 1992) and considering the corrections with regard to thermal drift, contact area (calibrated with a fused quartz plate), instrument compliance, initial penetration depth (zero point correction), lateral elastic displacement of the sample surface (radial displacement correction) and contact stiffness. Hence, the elastic reduced modulus Er is determined by






E
r=(√πS)/(2βAc½)


where S is the contact stiffness of the sample, β is a constant depending on the indenter geometry and Ac, is the projected area of contact for the indentation depth hc=hmax−εPmax/S with a maximal displacement hmax at maximum load Pmax. β and ε are tip-dependent constants, given by β=1.05 (W. C. Oliver, and G. M. Pharr, “Measurement of hardness and elastic modulus by instrumented indentation: Advances in understanding and refinements to methodology,” J. Mater. Res., 19(1):3-20, 2004) and ε=0.75 (ISO 14577-1:2015. Metallic materials—Instrumented indentation test for hardness and materials parameters Part 1: Test method, 2015). The equivalent Vickers HV hardness is correlated to the indentation hardness HIT=Pmax/Ac by the following term:






HV(GPα)=0.92671HIT.


However, the hardness calculated by nanoindentation depends on the loading rate and the maximum applied load, and due to the indentation-size effect often not reflects the hardness values from macro- or microhardness measurements.


The deformation energies during nanoindentation were determined from the areas between the unloading curve and the x-axis (elastic deformation energy, Uel) and between the loading curve and the x-axis (total deformation work, Utot). Therefore, the plastic deformation energy, Up can be derived from the relationship Ut-Uel.


Results


Table 1 below lists the tested Co—Mo—C—B—X as-cast ribbons processed under vacuum/argon atmosphere (chamber pressure of 300 mbar). The alloy compositions include comparative examples and examples according to the invention. In the comparative alloys, the Cr content ranges from 5 to 15 atomic percent and the alloy may additionally comprise Fe with a content of 5 atomic percent. In the alloys according to the invention, the Fe and Cr contents are reduced and even suppressed to improve the ductility whilst keeping high fracture strength as shown hereafter.


In Table 1, the DSC data related to the onsets of glass transition (Tg) and primary crystallization (Tx1), the melting (Tm) and liquidus temperatures (Tliq) as well as the width of the supercooled liquid region (ΔTx) are given.


For all the ribbons, the microstructures are fully amorphous or partially amorphous with the presence of some crystallites containing at least α-Co precipitates for the compositions Co60Ni5Mo14C18B3, Co60.6Ni9.15Mo10.1C14B4Si1.9Cu0.17, Co61.4Ni5.2Mo14.33C14.3B3Si1.7Cu0.07 and Co69Mo10C14B7 and mostly carbide and boride phases for the (Co60Ni5Mo14C15B6)99V1. For the alloys of the invention, the structures are amorphous for a thickness of minimum 80 μm.


Table 2 summarizes the mechanical properties under quasi-static compressive loading at room temperature for some samples. The reduction of the Cr content results in a significant increase in plasticity combined with a minor degradation of the ultimate fracture strength. The iron content was kept below 5% in order to keep the total Poisson's ratio (and hence the ductility of the alloy) as high as possible. The mechanical responses of the Co60Ni5Mo14C15+xB6-x alloys are characterized by a very high maximum stress level above 3.75 GPa with a pronounced plastic deformation. By taking the fully amorphous Co60Ni5Mo14C15+xB6-x rods as example, average values of σc,y=3959 MPa, σc, f=4262 MPa and εc, pl=6.3% were determined.


The experimental results of the two-point bending tests and 180° bending tests on as-cast ribbons are listed in Tables 3 and 4 respectively. As shown in Table 3, failure strength higher than 4500 MPa is obtained for the alloys according to the invention. As seen from Table 4, the alloys according to the invention exhibit bendability for ribbons with a thickness higher than 80 pm and even higher than 100 μm.


















TABLE 1







Alloy
t (μm)
Structure
Tg (K)
Tx1 (K)
ΔTx (K)
Tm (K)
Tliq (K)
























Comparative
Co45Fe5Cr15Mo14C10B11
56
Am.
829
922
93
1382
1457


examples
Co45Fe5Cr10Ni5Mo14C10B11
62
Am.
799
876
77
1352
1403



Co45Fe5Cr5Ni10Mo14C10B11
59
Am.
763
806
43
1405
1430



Co50Cr10Ni5Mo14C10B11
133
Am.
805
879
74
1348
1399



Co50Cr5Ni10Mo14C10B11
94
Am.
779
836
57
1341
1402


Examples of
Co60Ni5Mo14C15B6
130
Am.
745
788
43
1396
1436


the invention
Co60Ni5Mo14C16B5
133
Am.
745
794
49
1396
1433



Co60Ni5Mo14C17B4
83
Am.
748
795
47





Co60Ni5Mo14C18B3
133
Am./cryst.*
739
778
39
1396
1443



Co60Ni9Mo10C15B4Si2
94
Am.
668
695
27
1399




(Co60Ni5Mo14C15B6)99V1
110
Am./cryst.**
763
815
52





Co60.6Ni9.16Mo10.1C14B4Si1.9Cu0.17
158
Am./cryst.*
676
694
18
1405
1453



Co60.44Ni5.1Mo14.04C14.1B4Si1.96Cu0.36
138
Am.
723
747
24
1402
1443



Co61.4Ni5.2Mo14.33C14.3B3Si1.7Cu0.07
150
Am./cryst.*
714
760
46
1399
1458



Co64Ni5Mo10C15B6
125
Am.
702
717
15
1396
1425



Co65Mo14C15B6
118
Am.
767
820
53





Co65Mo14C17B4
86
Am.
766
812
46





Co69Mo10C15B6
100
Am.
732
776
44





Co69Mo10C14B7
107
Am./cryst.*
737
779
42







Am. = X-ray fully amorphous,


cryst. = presence of crystallites,


*= α-Co precipitates,


**= Mostly carbides and borides


















TABLE 2








σc,γ
σc,f




Alloy
(MPa)
(MPa)
εc,pl (%)




















Comparative
Co45Fe5Cr15Mo14C10B11
4232
4659
1.3


examples
Co45Fe5Cr10Ni5Mo14C10B11
4278
4587
2.2



Co45Fe5Cr5Ni10Mo14C10B11
4146
4484
3.1



Co50Cr10Ni5Mo14C10B11
4193
4571
2.5



Co50Cr5Ni10Mo14C10B11
4238
4369
1.8


Example of
Co60Ni5Mo14C15B6
3959
4262
6.3


the invention
























TABLE 3








t

E
Df
σb,f
εb,f



Alloy
(μm)
Structure
(GPa)
(mm)
(MPa)
(%)























Examples
Co60Ni5Mo14C16B5
123
Am.
155
4.15
5500
3.64


of the
Co60.44Ni5.1Mo14.04C14.1B4Si1.96Cu0.36
115
Am.
155
3.48
5860
3.65


invention
Co61.4Ni5.2Mo14.33C14.3B3Si1.7Cu0.07
94
Am./cryst.
155
3.74
4880
3.09




108
Am./cryst.
155
4.36
4790
3.31






















TABLE 4











Bendability





Processing

(free side and



Alloy
t (μm)
atmosphere
Structure
wheel side)





















Comparative
Co45Fe5Cr15Mo14C10B11
49-56
Vacuum/Ar
Am.
No


examples
Co45Fe5Cr10Ni5Mo14C10B11
53-54
Vacuum/Ar
Am.
No



Co45Fe5Cr5Ni10Mo14C10B11
60-61
Vacuum/Ar
Am.
No



Co50Cr10Ni5Mo14C10B11
54-67
Vacuum/Ar
Am.
No




66-67
CO2
Am.
No



Co50Cr5Ni10Mo14C10B11
78-90
Vacuum/Ar
Am.
No




91-94
CO2
Am.
No


Examples of the
Co60Ni5Mo14C15B6
 99-105
Vacuum/Ar
Am.
Yes


invention

 92-116
CO2
Am.
Yes



Co60Ni5Mo14C16B5
118-133
Vacuum/Ar
Am.
Yes



Co60Ni5Mo14C17B4
65-89
Vacuum/Ar
Am.
Yes



Co60Ni5Mo14C18B3
105-133
Vacuum/Ar
Am./cryst.
Yes



Co60Ni9Mo10C15B4Si2
83-94
Vacuum/Ar
Am.
Yes



(Co60Ni9Mo10C15B6)99V1
110-133
Vacuum/Ar
Am./cryst.
Yes



Co60.6Ni9.15Mo10.1C14B4Si1.9Cu0.17
113-158
Vacuum/Ar
Am./cryst.
Yes



Co60.44Ni5.1Mo14.04C14.1B4Si1.96Cu0.36
79-84
Vacuum/Ar
Am.
Yes



Co61.4Ni5.2Mo14.33C14.3B3Si1.7Cu0.07
 94-100
Vacuum/Ar
Am./cryst.
Yes



Co64Ni5Mo10C15B6
 92-125
Vacuum/Ar
Am.
Yes



Co65Mo14C15B6
 81-118
Vacuum/Ar
Am.
Yes



Co65Mo14C17B4
79-86
Vacuum/Ar
Am.
Yes



Co69Mo10C15B6
 90-100
Vacuum/Ar
Am.
Yes



Co69Mo10C14B7
 87-107
Vacuum/Ar
Am./cryst.
Yes









The nanoindentation tests were conducted on the as-cast and polished ribbons of the compositions Co50Cr10Ni5Mo14C10B11, Co60Ni5Mo14C16B5, Co60.44Ni5.1Mo14.04C14.1B4Si1.96Cu0.36 and Co61.4Ni5.2Mo14.33C14.3B3Si1.7Cu0.07. The results for the elastic reduced modulus Er and the deformation energies with respect to the applied load P are listed in Table 5. As shown in FIG. 1, the plastic deformation energy of the investigated materials is nearly indirectly proportional to their hardness. Hence, the higher Up values obtained for the CoNiMoCB(Si, Cu) ribbons (filled markers) as compared to the reference Co50Cr10Ni5Mo14C10B11 (unfilled marker) are a further indication of their improved malleability and bendability.


The results have shown that the novel amorphous alloys according to the invention are able to fulfill the three requirements of high glass forming ability, high strength and high ductility. The examples of the invention cover compositions with an alloying element X being Si, V and/or Cu. However, minor additions (≤2% atomic percent) of other elements can be considered without significantly altering the properties of the alloy. Thereby, the present invention also covers X element being selected from the group consisting of P, Y, Er (≤1% atomic percent), Ga, Ta, Nb and W. Minor additions of Fe and Cr (≤3% and preferably ≤2% atomic percent) may also be considered without significantly affecting the properties of the amorphous alloys.

















TABLE 5








P
Er
HV
Utot
Up
Uel



Alloy
(mN)
(GPa)
(GPa)
(μJ)
(μJ)
(μJ)























Comparative
Co50Cr10Ni5Mo14C10B11
3
177.7
11.98
113.09
61.94
51.15


example


Examples of
Co60Ni5Mo14C16B5
3
168.2
10.67
120.54
68.41
52.12


the Invention
Co60.6Ni9.15Mo10.1C14B4Si1.9Cu0.17
3
155
10.1
125.42
72.04
53.39



Co60.44Ni5.1Mo14.04C14.1B4Si1.96Cu0.36
3
159.4
10.56
122.88
70.46
52.42



Co61.4Ni5.2Mo14.33C14.3B3Si1.7Cu0.07
3
125.9
9.94
135.64
72.31
63.33








Claims
  • 1. An amorphous alloy corresponding to the formula: COaNibMoc(C1-xBx)dXe wherein X is one or several elements selected from the group consisting of Cu, Si, Fe, P, Y, Er, Cr, Ga, Ta, Nb, V and W;wherein the indices a to e and x satisfy the following conditions: 55≤a≤75 at. %0≤b≤15 at. %7≤c≤17 at. %15≤d≤23 at. %0.1≤x≤0.9 at. %0≤e≤10 at. %, each element selected from the group having a content≤3 at. % and preferably≤2 at. %,the balance being impurities.
  • 2. The amorphous alloy according to claim 1, wherein 60≤a≤70 at. %.
  • 3. The amorphous alloy according to claim 1, wherein 0≤b≤10 at. %.
  • 4. The amorphous alloy according to claim 1, wherein 10≤c≤15 at. %.
  • 5. The amorphous alloy according to claim 1, wherein 17≤d≤21 at. %.
  • 6. The amorphous alloy according to claim 1, wherein 0≤e≤5 at. % and preferably 0≤e≤3 at. %.
  • 7. The amorphous alloy according to claim 1, wherein Cr content =0.
  • 8. The amorphous alloy according to claim 1, wherein Fe content =0.
  • 9. The amorphous alloy according to claim 1, wherein Cu content is≤1 at.%.
  • 10. The amorphous alloy according to claim 1, having a fracture strength under compressive loading above 3 750 MPa and preferably above 4000 MPa.
  • 11. The amorphous alloy according to claim 1 comprising α-Co precipitates.
  • 12. A ribbon, wire or foil made of the amorphous alloy according to claim 1, having a thickness or diameter above 80 μm and preferably above 100 μm.
  • 13. The ribbon, wire or foil according to claim 12, being ductile under 180° bend tests.
  • 14. A watch component, in particular spring, made of the amorphous alloy according to claim 1.
  • 15. A watch comprising the watch component according to the claim 14.
Priority Claims (1)
Number Date Country Kind
16198457.0 Nov 2016 EP regional
Continuations (1)
Number Date Country
Parent 15677212 Aug 2017 US
Child 16699326 US