- 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

Scaling of slip avalanches in sheared amorphous materials based on large-scale atomistic simulations

Dansong Zhang*

Karin A. Dahmen†

Martin Ostoja-Starzewski‡

  • Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA

  • Department of Physics, Institute for Condensed Matter Theory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA

  • Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, Institute for Condensed Matter Theory and Beckman Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA

  • *dzhang31@illinois.edu
  • †dahmen@illinois.edu
  • ‡martinos@illinois.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. E 95, 032902 – Published 3 March, 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.95.032902

Abstract

Atomistic simulations of binary amorphous systems with over 4 million atoms are performed. Systems of two interatomic potentials of the Lennard-Jones type, LJ12-6 and LJ9-6, are simulated. The athermal quasistatic shearing protocol is adopted, where the shear strain is applied in a stepwise fashion with each step followed by energy minimization. For each avalanche event, the shear stress drop (Δσ), the hydrostatic pressure drop (Δσh), and the potential energy drop (ΔE) are computed. It is found that, with the avalanche size increasing, the three become proportional to each other asymptotically. The probability distributions of avalanche sizes are obtained and values of scaling exponents fitted. In particular, the distributions follow a power law, PΔU∼ΔU−τ, where ΔU is a measure of avalanche sizes defined based on shear stress drops. The exponent τ is 1.25±0.1 for the LJ12-6 systems, and 1.15±0.1 for the LJ9-6 systems. The value of τ for the LJ12-6 systems is consistent with that from an earlier atomistic simulation study by Robbins et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 105703 (2012)], but the fitted values of other scaling exponents differ, which may be because the shearing protocol used here differs from that in their study.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (55)

  1. J. P. Sethna, K. A. Dahmen, and C. R. Myers, Nature 410, 242 (2001).
  2. A. P. Mehta, K. A. Dahmen, and Y. Ben-Zion, Phys. Rev. E 73, 056104 (2006).
  3. R. V. Solé and S. C. Manrubia, Phys. Rev. E 54, R42 (1996).
  4. J. Baró, Á. Corral, X. Illa, A. Planes, E. K. H. Salje, W. Schranz, D. E. Soto-Parra, and E. Vives, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 088702 (2013).
  5. T. Richeton, P. Dobron, F. Chmelik, J. Weiss, and F. Louchet, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 424, 190 (2006).
  6. B. A. Sun, H. B. Yu, W. Jiao, H. Y. Bai, D. Q. Zhao, and W. H. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 035501 (2010).
  7. J. L. Ren, C. Chen, G. Wang, N. Mattern, and J. Eckert, AIP Adv. 1, 032158 (2011).
  8. D. M. Dimiduk, Science 312, 1188 (2006).
  9. M.-C. Miguel, A. Vespignani, S. Zapperi, J. Weiss, and J.-R. Grasso, Nature 410, 667 (2001).
  10. N. Friedman, A. T. Jennings, G. Tsekenis, J.-Y. Kim, M. Tao, J. T. Uhl, J. R. Greer, and K. A. Dahmen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 095507 (2012).
  11. K. A. Dahmen, Y. Ben-Zion, and J. T. Uhl, Nat. Phys. 7, 554 (2011).
  12. K. A. Dahmen, Y. Ben-Zion, and J. T. Uhl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 175501 (2009).
  13. R. Maaß, M. Wraith, J. T. Uhl, J. R. Greer, and K. A. Dahmen, Phys. Rev. E 91, 042403 (2015).
  14. M. Zaiser and N. Nikitas, J. Stat. Mech. (2007) P04013.
  15. P. D. Ispánovity, L. Laurson, M. Zaiser, I. Groma, S. Zapperi, and M. J. Alava, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 235501 (2014).
  16. G. Tsekenis, J. T. Uhl, N. Goldenfeld, and K. A. Dahmen, Europhys. Lett. 101, 36003 (2013).
  17. P. Y. Chan, G. Tsekenis, J. Dantzig, K. A. Dahmen, and N. Goldenfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 015502 (2010).
  18. F. F. Csikor, C. Motz, D. Weygand, M. Zaiser, and S. Zapperi, Science 318, 251 (2007).
  19. C. A. Schuh, T. C. Hufnagel, and U. Ramamurty, Acta Mater. 55, 4067 (2007).
  20. B. A. W. Brinkman, M. P. LeBlanc, J. T. Uhl, Y. Ben-Zion, and K. A. Dahmen, Phys. Rev. E 93, 013003 (2016).
  21. J. Antonaglia, W. J. Wright, X. Gu, R. R. Byer, T. C. Hufnagel, M. LeBlanc, J. T. Uhl, and K. A. Dahmen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 155501 (2014).
  22. M. LeBlanc, L. Angheluta, K. Dahmen, and N. Goldenfeld, Phys. Rev. E 87, 022126 (2013).
  23. S. Kale and M. Ostoja-Starzewski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 045503 (2014).
  24. J. Lin, A. Saade, E. Lerner, A. Rosso, and M. Wyart, Europhys. Lett. 105, 26003 (2014).
  25. M. Talamali, V. Petäjä, D. Vandembroucq, and S. Roux, Phys. Rev. E 84, 016115 (2011).
  26. Z. Budrikis and S. Zapperi, Phys. Rev. E 88, 062403 (2013).
  27. J. Lin, E. Lerner, A. Rosso, and M. Wyart, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 14382 (2014).
  28. D. S. Fisher, K. Dahmen, S. Ramanathan, and Y. Ben-Zion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 4885 (1997).
  29. J. Lin and M. Wyart, Phys. Rev. X 6, 011005 (2016).
  30. C. Maloney and A. Lemaître, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 016001 (2004).
  31. E. Lerner and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. E 79, 066109 (2009).
  32. E. Lerner, N. P. Bailey, and J. C. Dyre, Phys. Rev. E 90, 052304 (2014).
  33. N. P. Bailey, J. Schiøtz, A. Lemaître, and K. W. Jacobsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 095501 (2007).
  34. K. M. Salerno and M. O. Robbins, Phys. Rev. E 88, 062206 (2013).
  35. K. M. Salerno, C. E. Maloney, and M. O. Robbins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 105703 (2012).
  36. S. Kobayashi, K. Maeda, and S. Takeuchi, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 19, 1033 (1980).
  37. C. E. Maloney and A. Lemaître, Phys. Rev. E 74, 016118 (2006).
  38. S. Ogata, F. Shimizu, J. Li, M. Wakeda, and Y. Shibutani, Intermetallics 14, 1033 (2006).
  39. S. Kobayashi, K. Maeda, and S. Takeuchi, Acta Metall. 28, 1641 (1980).
  40. C. E. Maloney and M. O. Robbins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 225502 (2009).
  41. A. Pǎduraru, A. Kenoufi, N. P. Bailey, and J. Schiøtz, Adv. Eng. Mater. 9, 505 (2007).
  42. Y. Q. Cheng, E. Ma, and H. W. Sheng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 245501 (2009).
  43. C. E. Maloney and M. O. Robbins, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 20, 244128 (2008).
  44. T. Zhu and E. Ertekin, Phys. Rev. B 93, 155414 (2016).
  45. T. Zhu and E. Ertekin, Nano Lett. 16, 4763 (2016).
  46. B. Tadmor, Ellad, and R. E. Miller, Modeling Materials: Continuum, Atomistic and Multiscale Techniques, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012).
  47. A. C. Lund and C. A. Schuh, Acta Mater. 51, 5399 (2003).
  48. K. Maeda and S. Takeuchi, Philos. Mag. A 44, 643 (1981).
  49. Q.-K. Li and M. Li, Appl. Phys. Lett. 88, 241903 (2006).
  50. A. Cao, Y. Cheng, and E. Ma, Acta Mater. 57, 5146 (2009).
  51. W. Wright, T. Hufnagel, and W. Nix, J. Appl. Phys. 93, 1432 (2003).
  52. J. Li, F. Spaepen, and T. C. Hufnagel, Philos. Mag. A 82, 2623 (2002).
  53. J. Li, Z. L. Wang, and T. C. Hufnagel, Phys. Rev. B 65, 144201 (2002).
  54. Y. Wei, A. F. Bower, and H. Gao, Phys. Rev. B 81, 125402 (2010).
  55. J. Lin, T. Gueudré, A. Rosso, and M. Wyart, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 168001 (2015).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. E 95, 032902– Published 3 March, 2017
  • Received 22 May 2016
Article part of CHORUS

©2017 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation