Molecular Dynamics Simulation on Mechanics of Skutterudite CoSb3 Nanowire
- 140 Downloads
- 1 Citations
For the binary thermoelectric material CoSb3 with a complex crystal structure, the Morse potential functional form is employed to describe its three-dimensional atomic interactions. The mechanical responses and deformation behavior of a rectangular cross-section CoSb3 nanowire subjected to uniaxial tensile strain are simulated at constant temperature by the molecular dynamics method. The deformation is strain controlled with constant strain rate. When the strain increases, necking gradually becomes distinct near the middle of the model, and complete damage occurs at around 60% strain. The single-crystal CoSb3 nanowire exhibits properties distinct from those of single-crystal CoSb3 bulk previously studied. Comparison of the stress–strain curves and configuration evolutions of the CoSb3 nanowire and bulk during tensile loading indicate that an interesting brittle–ductile transition phenomenon occurs when the single-crystal CoSb3 varies from bulk to nanowire. Future efforts should be devoted to seeking the critical dimension at which this transition happens and the mechanism behind it.
Keywords
Thermoelectric material mechanical properties molecular dynamics nanowire CoSb3Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.B.C. Sales, D. Mandrus, B.C. Chakoumakos, V. Keppens, J.R. Thompson. Phys. Rev. B 56, 15081 (1997) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.56.15081.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 2.B.C. Chakoumakos, B.C. Sales, D. Mandrus, V. Keppens. Acta Crystallogr. B 55, 341 (1999) doi: 10.1107/S0108768198018345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.L.D. Chen, T. Kawahara, X.F. Tang, T. Goto, T. Hirai, J.S. Dyck, W. Chen, and C. Uher, J. Appl. Phys. 90, 1864 (2001) doi: 10.1063/1.1388162.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 4.A. Kjekshus, T. Rakke. Acta Chem. Scand. A 28, 99 (1974) doi: 10.3891/acta.chem.scand.28a-0099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.D.T. Morelli, T. Caillat, J.P. Fleurial, A. Borshchevsky, J. Vandersande, B. Chen, and C. Uher, Phys. Rev. B 51, 9622 (1995) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.51.9622.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 6.T. Calliat, A. Borshchevsky, J.P. Fleurial. J. Appl. Phys. 80, 4442 (1996) doi: 10.1063/1.363405.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 7.J.W. Sharp, E.C. Jones, R.K. Williams, P.M. Martin, B.C. Sales. J. Appl. Phys. 78, 1013 (1995) doi: 10.1063/1.360402.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 8.J.O. Sofo, G.D. Mahan. Phys. Rev. B 58, 15620 (1998) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.58.15620.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 9.J.L. Feldman, D.J. Singh, I.I. Mazin, D. Mandrus, B.C. Sales. Phys. Rev. B 61, 9209 (2000) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.61.R9209.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 10.L. Chaput, P. Pécheur, J. Tobola, H. Scherrer. Phys. Rev. B 72, 085126 (2005) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.72.085126.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 11.G. Binnig, H. Rohrer, Helev. Phys. Acta. 55, 726 (1982).Google Scholar
- 12.G. Binnig, C. F. Quate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 930(1986) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.56.930.PubMedCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 13.F. Ercolessi, Spring College in Computational Physics, ICTP, Trieste, June (1997).Google Scholar
- 14.Nicholas Metropolis and Stanislaw Ulam, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 44, 335 (1949) doi: 10.2307/2280232.MATHPubMedCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 15.J. Schiøtz, F. D. Di Tolla, K. W. Jacobsen, Nature 391, 561 (1998) doi: 10.1038/35328.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 16.H. Mehrez, S. Ciraci. Phys. Rev. B 56, 12632 (1997) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.56.12632.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 17.P. Walsh, W. Li, R.K. Kalia, A. Nakano, P. Vashista, S. Saini. Appl. Phys. Lett. 78, 3328 (2001) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.69.115411.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 18.J.W. Kang, H.J. Hwang. Nanotechnology 12, 295 (2001) doi: 10.1088/0957-4484/12/3/317.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 19.E. Z. da Silva, D. Frederico, Novaes, Antônio J. R. da Silva, A. Fazzio. Phys. Rev. B 69, 115411 (2004).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 20.E.Z. da Silva, A.J.R. da Silva, A. Fazzio. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 256102 (2001) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.256102.PubMedCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 21.Steve Plimpton, Comput. Mater. Sci. 4, 361(1995) doi: 10.1016/0927-0256(95)00037-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.X. Yang, L. Liu, P. Zhai, Q. Zhang, Comput. Mater. Sci. 44, 1390 (2009) doi: 10.1016/j.commatsci.2008.09.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.H. Rafii-Tabar. Phys. Rep. 325, 239 (2000) doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(99)00087-3.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 24.W.C. Swope, H.C. Andersen, P.H. Berens, K.R. Wilson. J. Chem. Phys. 76, 637 (1982) doi: 10.1063/1.442716.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 25.H.J.C. Berendsen, J.P.M. Postma, W.F. van Gunsteren, A. Dinola, J.R. Haak. J. Chem. Phys. 81, 3684 (1984) doi: 10.1063/1.448118.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 26.Shengping Shen and S. N. Atluri, Comput. Model. Eng. Sci. 6, 91 (2004) doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2004.58.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar