- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review E

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Effects of cooling rate on particle rearrangement statistics: Rapidly cooled glasses are more ductile and less reversible

Meng Fan1,2, Minglei Wang1,2, Kai Zhang3, Yanhui Liu1,2, Jan Schroers1,2, Mark D. Shattuck1,4, and Corey S. O'Hern1,2,5,6

  • 1Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA
  • 2Center for Research on Interface Structures and Phenomena, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA
  • 3Department of Chemical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027, USA
  • 4Department of Physics and Benjamin Levich Institute, The City College of the City University of New York, New York, New York 10031, USA
  • 5Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA
  • 6Department of Applied Physics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. E 95, 022611 – Published 28 February, 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.95.022611

Abstract

Amorphous solids, such as metallic, polymeric, and colloidal glasses, display complex spatiotemporal response to applied deformations. In contrast to crystalline solids, during loading, amorphous solids exhibit a smooth crossover from elastic response to plastic flow. In this study, we investigate the mechanical response of binary Lennard-Jones glasses to athermal, quasistatic pure shear as a function of the cooling rate used to prepare them. We find several key results concerning the connection between strain-induced particle rearrangements and mechanical response. We show that the energy loss per strain dUloss/dγ caused by particle rearrangements for more rapidly cooled glasses is larger than that for slowly cooled glasses. We also find that the cumulative energy loss Uloss can be used to predict the ductility of glasses even in the putative linear regime of stress versus strain. Uloss increases (and the ratio of shear to bulk moduli decreases) with increasing cooling rate, indicating enhanced ductility. In addition, we characterized the degree of reversibility of particle motion during a single shear cycle. We find that irreversible particle motion occurs even in the linear regime of stress versus strain. However, slowly cooled glasses, which undergo smaller rearrangements, are more reversible during a single shear cycle than rapidly cooled glasses. Thus, we show that more ductile glasses are also less reversible.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (57)

  1. M. L. Falk and J. S. Langer, Phys. Rev. E 57, 7192 (1998).
  2. M. Utz, P. G. Debenedetti, and F. H. Stillinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1471 (2000).
  3. C. Maloney and A. Lemaître, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 016001 (2004).
  4. B. A. Sun, H. B. Yu, W. Jiao, H. Y. Bai, D. Q. Zhao, and W. H. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 035501 (2010).
  5. F. Spaepen, Acta Metallurgica 25, 407 (1977).
  6. P. Schall, D. A. Weitz, and F. Spaepen, Science 318, 1895 (2007).
  7. J. Ju, D. Jang, A. Nwankpa, and M. Atzmon, J. Appl. Phys. 109, 053522 (2011).
  8. J. Ding, S. Patinet, M. L. Falk, Y. Cheng, and E. Ma, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 14052 (2014).
  9. K. E. Jensen, D. A. Weitz, and F. Spaepen, Phys. Rev. E 90, 042305 (2014).
  10. M. Atzmon and J. D. Ju, Phys. Rev. E 90, 042313 (2014).
  11. J. Ju and M. Atzmon, J. Alloys Compd. 643, S8 (2015).
  12. W. Chen, Z. Liu, J. Ketkaew, R. M. O. Mota, S.-H. Kim, M. Power, W. Samela, and J. Schroers, Acta Mater. 107, 220 (2016).
  13. J. Antonaglia, X. Xie, G. Schwarz, M. Wraith, J. Qiao, Y. Zhang, P. K. Liaw, J. T. Uhl, and K. A. Dahmen, Sci. Rep. 4, 4382 (2014).
  14. G. Kumar, P. Neibecker, Y. H. Liu, and J. Schroers, Nature Commun. 4, 1536 (2013).
  15. O. Gendelman, P. K. Jaiswal, I. Procaccia, B. S. Gupta, and J. Zylberg, Europhys. Lett. 109, 16002 (2015).
  16. K.-W. Park, C.-M. Lee, M. Wakeda, Y. Shibutani, M. L. Falk, and J.-C. Lee, Acta Mater. 56, 5440 (2008).
  17. I. Regev, J. Weber, C. Reichhardt, K. A. Dahmen, and T. Lookman, Nature Commun. 6, 8805 (2015).
  18. J. S. Harmon, M. D. Demetriou, W. L. Johnson, and K. Samwer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 135502 (2007).
  19. T. Fujita, Z. Wang, Y. Liu, H. Sheng, W. Wang, and M. Chen, Acta Mater. 60, 3741 (2012).
  20. W. Dmowski, T. Iwashita, C.-P. Chuang, J. Almer, and T. Egami, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 205502 (2010).
  21. J. Ding, Y. Cheng, and E. Ma, Appl. Phys. Lett. 101, 121917 (2012).
  22. A. Argon and H. Kuo, Mater. Sci. Eng. 39, 101 (1979).
  23. J. S. Langer, Phys. Rev. E 77, 021502 (2008).
  24. M. L. Falk and J. S. Langer, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 2, 353 (2011).
  25. E. Bouchbinder, J. S. Langer, and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. E 75, 036107 (2007).
  26. D. L. Malandro and D. J. Lacks, J. Chem. Phys. 110, 4593 (1999).
  27. F. H. Stillinger, Science 267, 1935 (1995).
  28. P. G. Debenedetti and F. H. Stillinger, Nature (London) 410, 259 (2001).
  29. C. H. Rycroft and E. Bouchbinder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 194301 (2012).
  30. G. Kumar, S. Prades-Rodel, A. Blatter, and J. Schroers, Scr. Mater. 65, 585 (2011).
  31. J. Zemp, M. Celino, B. Schönfeld, and J. F. Löffler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 165501 (2015).
  32. Ashwin J., E. Bouchbinder, and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. E 87, 042310 (2013).
  33. D. J. Lacks and M. J. Osborne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 255501 (2004).
  34. C. E. Maloney and A. Lemaître, Phys. Rev. E 74, 016118 (2006).
  35. W. Kob and H. C. Andersen, Phys. Rev. E 51, 4626 (1995).
  36. M. P. Allen and D. J. Tildesley, Computer Simulation of Liquids (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989).
  37. S. Plimpton, J. Comput. Phys. 117, 1 (1995).
  38. M. E. Tuckerman, J. Alejandre, R. López-Rendón, A. L. Jochim, and G. J. Martyna, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39, 5629 (2006).
  39. S. Büchner and A. Heuer, Phys. Rev. E 60, 6507 (1999).
  40. Y. Fan, T. Iwashita, and T. Egami, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 045501 (2015).
  41. W. Li, H. Bei, Y. Tong, W. Dmowski, and Y. Gao, Appl. Phys. Lett. 103, 171910 (2013).
  42. C. Zhong, H. Zhang, Q. Cao, X. Wang, D. Zhang, U. Ramamurty, and J. Jiang, Sci. Rep. 6, 30935 (2016).
  43. H. Sheng, W. Luo, F. Alamgir, J. Bai, and E. Ma, Nature (London) 439, 419 (2006).
  44. J. Lewandowski, W. Wang, and A. Greer, Philos. Mag. Lett. 85, 77 (2005).
  45. H. B. Yu, X. Shen, Z. Wang, L. Gu, W. H. Wang, and H. Y. Bai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 015504 (2012).
  46. J. Schroers and W. L. Johnson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 255506 (2004).
  47. Y. Shi, J. Luo, F. Yuan, and L. Huang, J. Appl. Phys. 115, 043528 (2014).
  48. A. Taub and F. Spaepen, J. Mater. Sci. 16, 3087 (1981).
  49. M. Kanik, P. Bordeenithikasem, G. Kumar, E. Kinser, and J. Schroers, Appl. Phys. Lett. 105, 131911 (2014).
  50. C. F. Schreck, R. S. Hoy, M. D. Shattuck, and C. S. O'Hern, Phys. Rev. E 88, 052205 (2013).
  51. I. Regev, T. Lookman, and C. Reichhardt, Phys. Rev. E 88, 062401 (2013).
  52. D. Fiocco, G. Foffi, and S. Sastry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 025702 (2014).
  53. N. V. Priezjev, Phys. Rev. E 93, 013001 (2016).
  54. T. Kawasaki and L. Berthier, Phys. Rev. E 94, 022615 (2016).
  55. H. G. E. Hentschel, P. K. Jaiswal, I. Procaccia, and S. Sastry, Phys. Rev. E 92, 062302 (2015).
  56. E. Lerner and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. E 79, 066109 (2009).
  57. S. Karmakar, E. Lerner, and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. E 82, 055103 (2010).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. E 95, 022611– Published 28 February, 2017
  • Received 14 July 2016
Article part of CHORUS

©2017 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation