4.6 Article

Atomistic and multiscale analyses of brittle fracture in crystal lattices

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW B
卷 76, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.094114

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Applicability of the Griffith criterion [A. A. Griffith, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. 221, 163 (1920); S. Zhang, S. L. Meilke, R. Khare, D. Troya, R. S. Ruoff, G. C. Schatz, and T. Belytschko, Phys. Rev. B 71, 115403 (2005)] for predicting the onset of crack extension in crystal lattices is systematically evaluated using atomistic and multiscale simulations with a focus on the effects of crack size and lattice discreteness. An atomistic scheme is developed to determine the true Griffith load defined by the thermodynamic energy balance of crack extension for both finite-sized and semi-infinite crack models. For a model monolayer lattice, we identify a characteristic crack length (about ten lattice spacings) below which the Griffith fracture stress markedly overestimates the true Griffith load. Through a stability analysis of crack-tip bond separation, the athermal (nonthermally activated) loads of instantaneous fracture are determined, thereby yielding the estimated lattice trapping range. Our simulations show that the strength of lattice trapping depends on the interaction range of the interatomic force fields. Using the reaction pathway exploration method, we determine the minimum energy paths of bond breaking and healing at a crack tip, giving a more precise estimate of the lattice trapping range. The activation energy barriers governing the rate of kinetic crack extension are extracted from the minimum energy paths. Implications concerning the distinction between the athermal and Griffith fracture loads are discussed. Based on these results, a general criterion is established to predict the onset of crack growth in crystal lattices. In addition to taking into account the lattice trapping effect, this criterion is applicable to a large spectrum of crack sizes.

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

4.6
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