4.7 Article

Gurtin-Murdoch surface elasticity theory revisit: An orbital-free density functional theory perspective

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmps.2017.08.009

关键词

Surface elasticity; Orbital-free density functional theory; Boundary layer; Homogenisation; Gurtin-Murdoch theory; Size effect

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11772026, 11732004, 11642021]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [DUT16RC(3)091]
  3. National Key Research and Development Plan from the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China [2016YFB0201600]
  4. Program for Changjiang Scholars, Innovative Research Team in University (PCSIRT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present paper, the well-established Gurtin-Murdoch theory of surface elasticity (Gurtin and Murdoch, 1975, 1978) is revisited from an orbital-free density functional theory (OFDFT) perspective by taking the boundary layer into consideration. Our analysis indicates that firstly, the quantities introduced in the Gurtin-Murdoch theory of surface elasticity can all find their explicit expressions in the derived OFDFT-based theoretical model. Secondly, the derived expression for surface energy density captures a competition between the surface normal derivatives of the electron density and the electrostatic potential, which well rationalises the onset of signed elastic constants that are observed both experimentally and computationally. Thirdly, the established model naturally yields an inversely linear relationship between the materials surface stiffness and its size, which conforms to relevant findings in literature. Since the proposed OFDFT-based model is established under arbitrarily imposed boundary condition of electron density, electrostatic potential and external load, it also has the potential of being used to investigate the electro-mechanical behaviour of nanoscale materials manifesting surface effect. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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