4.7 Article

Exponential and power-law mass distributions in brittle fragmentation -: art. no. 026104

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW E
Volume 70, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.70.026104

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Generic arguments, a minimal numerical model, and fragmentation experiments with gypsum disk are used to investigate the fragment-size distribution that results from dynamic brittle fragmentation. Fragmentation is initiated by random nucleation of cracks due to material inhomogeneities, and its dynamics are pictured as a process of propagating cracks that are unstable against side-branch formation. The initial cracks and side branches both merge mutually to form fragments. The side branches have a finite penetration depth as a result of inherent damping. Generic arguments imply that close to the minimum strain (or impact energy) required for fragmentation, the number of fragments of size s scales as s(-(2D-1)/D)f(1)(-(2/lambda)(D)s)+f(2)(-s(0)(-1)(lambda+s(1/D))(D)), where D is the Euclidean dimension of the space, lambda is the penetration depth, and f(1) and f(2) can be approximated by exponential functions. Simulation results and experiments can both be described by this theoretical fragment-size distribution. The typical largest fragment size s(0) was found to diverge at the minimum strain required for fragmentation as it is inversely related to the density of initially formed cracks. Our results also indicate that scaling of s(0) close to this divergence depends on, e.g., loading conditions, and thus is not universal. At the same time, the density of fragment surface vanishes as L-1, L being the linear dimension of the brittle solid. The results obtained provide an explanation as to why the fragment-size distributions found in nature can have two components, an exponential as well as a power-law component, with varying relative weights.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available