Kaiguo Chen, Bo Chen, Yinan Cui, Yuying Yu, Jidong Yu, Huayun Geng, Dongdong Kang, Jianhua Wu, Yao Shen, Jiayu Dai. On the thermodynamics of plasticity during quasi-isentropic compression of metallic glass[J]. Matter and Radiation at Extremes, 2024, 9(2): 027802

Search by keywords or author
- Matter and Radiation at Extremes
- Vol. 9, Issue 2, 027802 (2024)

Fig. 1. (a) Illustrations of three different compression simulations: pISE, UC-QIC, and NEMD-QIC. (b) and (c) Thermodynamic paths undergone by Cu50Zr50 metallic glass subjected to pISE, UC-QIC, and NEMD-QIC at an equivalent strain rate of ∼ 7.5 × 1 0 8 / s .

Fig. 2. Illustration of the reference isentrope, instant isentrope, and quasi-isentrope without phase transition. States A and C have the same density, and states B , D , and E have the same density.

Fig. 3. Illustration of the framework integrating thermodynamics, mechanics, and microstructural analysis.

Fig. 4. (a) Shear modulus mapped into pressure and density. (b) Grüneisen parameter vs density at 300, 400, 500, and 600 K. (c) Vibrational entropy mapped into pressure and density. (d) Isochoric heat capacity vs nonaffine atomic strain at different densities and temperatures.

Fig. 5. (a) Isentrope recovered from P –ρ –T path. (b) Excess temperature increase ΔT excess vs density. (c) Strength vs density during pISE, UC-QIC, and NEMD-QIC with an equivalent strain rate of ∼ 7.5 × 1 0 8 / s . The light red box represents the elastic deformation regime for NEMD-QIC and roughly for UC-QIC. Gray dots indicate where ΔT excess starts to increase.

Fig. 6. (a) Excess temperature ΔT excess at ρ /ρ 0 = 1.29 and scaled strength vs rise time t rise. A separation between rate-insensitive and rate-sensitive regime is revealed. (b) Taylor–Quiney factor β int vs plastic strain during NEMD-QIC. (c) Replica distance and fraction of extra cage breakage at yielding vs t rise. The separation between rate-insensitive and rate-sensitive regime is the same as in (a). (d) A cross-section colored by d X , Y i in a yield replica of the case t rise = 67 ps.

Fig. 7. (a) Total entropy increase ΔS tot, configurational entropy increase ΔS conf, and vibrational entropy increase ΔS vib vs relative density during NEMD-QIC. (b) Entropy increases at ρ /ρ 0 = 1.29 vs rise time. The entropy increases for shock compression (t rise = 0 ps) are also shown.

Fig. 8. (a) Local fivefold symmetry (LFFS) vs relative density under compression. (b) Shannon entropy defined on a copper-centered polyhedron distribution vs relative density. Only compressions in the rate-insensitive regime are shown.

Fig. 9. (a) Configurational entropy vs Shannon entropy defined on copper-centered polyhedron distribution. (b) Taylor–Quinney factor (TQF) vs configurational entropy change during plastic regime for NEMD-QIC. Only compressions in the rate-insensitive regime are shown. Black solid lines are fitting curves.

Fig. 10. (a) Configurational energy vs plastic strain. (b) Effective temperature and temperature vs plastic strain. Only compressions in the rate-insensitive regime are shown.
|
Table 1. Fitting parameters of thermophysical properties of the model Cu50Zr50. The equation is , in which ρ is in units of kg/m3, T is in units of K, and γa is dimensionless. CV is the isochoric heat capacity, γg the Grüneisen parameter, B the bulk modulus, G the shear modulus, Svib the vibrational entropy, and F the Helmholtz free energy containing only a vibrational contribution.

Set citation alerts for the article
Please enter your email address