Home | About Journal | Web Links | E-mail Alerts | RSS RSS Icon | Browse
Previous Article Next Article

Why Nanoprojectiles Work Differently than Macroimpactors: The Role of Plastic Flow

Source: Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 027601 (2012); http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.027601

Published 11 January 2012

PACS
PUBLICATION DATA
ISSN:
1553-9644 (online)
Publisher:
AIP is a member of CrossRef APS
Christian Anders,1 Eduardo M. Bringa,2 Gerolf Ziegenhain,1 Giles A. Graham,3 J. Freddy Hansen,4 Nigel Park,5 Nick E. Teslich,4 and Herbert M. Urbassek1
1Fachbereich Physik und Forschungszentrum OPTIMAS, Universität Kaiserslautern, Erwin-Schrödinger-Straße, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
2CONICET and Instituto de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Mendoza, 5500 Argentina
3Mineralogy Department, The Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom
4Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California 94550, USA
5AWE, Plc Aldermaston, Reading, United Kingdom

Atomistic simulation data on crater formation due to the hypervelocity impact of nanoprojectiles of up to 55 nm diameter and with targets containing up to 1.1×1010 atoms are compared to available experimental data on µm-, mm-, and cm-sized projectiles. We show that previous scaling laws do not hold in the nanoregime and outline the reasons: within our simulations we observe that the cratering mechanism changes, going from the smallest to the largest simulated scales, from an evaporative regime to a regime where melt and plastic flow dominate, as is expected in larger microscale experiments. The importance of the strain-rate dependence of strength and of dislocation production and motion are discussed.
History: Received 5 April 2011; revised 11 November 2011; published 11 January 2012
Digital Object Identifier: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.027601
ADVERTISEMENT