4.8 Article

Physical Origin of the Mechanochemical Coupling at Interfaces

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
卷 126, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.076001

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [1951314]
  2. University of Pennsylvania
  3. Texas AM University
  4. Division Of Earth Sciences
  5. Directorate For Geosciences [1951314] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Utilizing density functional theory calculations, we found that the mechanochemical response of material interfaces can be attributed to the deformation of interfacial bonds and the contribution from the underlying solid. The relative contributions are influenced by the stiffness of these regions and the contact geometry. The activation volume and mechanochemical response of interfaces are finite due to effects on stiffness and stress distribution.
We used density functional theory calculations to investigate the physical origin of the mechanochemical response of material interfaces. Our results show that the mechanochemical response can be decomposed into the contribution from the interface itself (deformation of interfacial bonds) and a contribution from the underlying solid. The relative contributions depend on the stiffness of these regions and the contact geometry, which affects the stress distribution within the bulk region. We demonstrate that, contrary to what is commonly assumed, the contribution to the activation volume from the elastic deformation of the surrounding bulk is significant and, in some case, may be dominant. We also show that the activation volume and the mechanochemical response of interfaces should be finite due to the effects on the stiffness and stress distribution within the near-surface bulk region. Our results indicate that the large range of activation volumes measured in the previous experiments even for the same material system might originate from the different degrees of contributions probed from the bulk vs interface.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据