Molecular dynamics study of acoustic velocity in silicate glass under irradiation

Discussion on the Structural Origins of the Fracture Toughness and Hardness Changes in Rapidly Quenched Borosilicate Glasses: A Molecular Dynamics Study

“…The values determined for Young's modulus in the pristine glass is 74.0 GPa while the corresponding experimental value is 82 GPa (+10%) [18].…”

Development of empirical potentials for sodium borosilicate glass systems

“…The earliest work used integer charges; in general the atomic structures were in good agreement with experimental results, but the elastic moduli were far from the experimental values, with deviations of up to 70%-100% [9]. More recently, models have been fitted in which the parameters vary with the local atom coordination numbers (Takada-Catlow-Price model [10,11] modified by CormackPark [12], Huang-Kieffer model [13]), but they are relatively complex.…”

Effect of Gas Adsorption on Acoustic Wave Propagation in MFI Zeolite Membrane Materials: Experiment and Molecular Simulation

“…The difference between the shear modulus ( G Voigt = 18.90 GPa) and bulk modulus ( K Voigt = 13.44 GPa) indicates that S-1 is difficult to deform under shear while it is relatively easy to deform under volume compression or expansion. The compressional wave velocity V L and the shear wave velocity V T can be deduced from K Voigt and G Voigt using the following equations: The Rayleigh wave velocity V R ( V R < V T < V L ), which results from interferences between longitudinal and transversal waves at a free surface, can be estimated as The derivation of eq , which can be found in refs and , is obtained by solving the Navier equation for the dynamical equilibrium. The Young modulus E and Poisson ratio are also deduced from K Voigt and G Voigt : Earlier experimental studies have determined the Young modulus of S-1 crystal with very different results: E ∼ 4, 38, and 79.6 GPa. − We note that the experimental value E = 79.6 GPa was obtained for S-1 having a mass density of 2.04 g/cm 3 which largely overestimates the nominal density of S-1.…”