SHOCK COMPRESSION OF CONDENSED MATTER - 2019: Proceedings of the Conference of the American Physical Society Topical Group on S 2020
DOI: 10.1063/12.0000946
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The shock physics of giant impacts: Key requirements for the equations of state

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
59
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
2
59
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Despite this assumption, an in-depth study of the critical behavior of SiO 2 by Connolly (2016) suggests that the width of the liquid-vapor phase boundary in SiO 2 is relatively narrow and thus is likely smaller than the uncertainties on the densities of the coexisting liquid and vapor from our calculations, as shown in Figure 4. In accordance with other silica-bearing systems studied thus far, the assumption of single component-like critical behavior seems reasonable given the current state of knowledge of these materials and the capabilities of current hydrodynamic simulation techniques (Connolly, 2016;Kraus et al, 2012;Xiao & Stixrude, 2018;Stewart et al, 2020).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 73%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Despite this assumption, an in-depth study of the critical behavior of SiO 2 by Connolly (2016) suggests that the width of the liquid-vapor phase boundary in SiO 2 is relatively narrow and thus is likely smaller than the uncertainties on the densities of the coexisting liquid and vapor from our calculations, as shown in Figure 4. In accordance with other silica-bearing systems studied thus far, the assumption of single component-like critical behavior seems reasonable given the current state of knowledge of these materials and the capabilities of current hydrodynamic simulation techniques (Connolly, 2016;Kraus et al, 2012;Xiao & Stixrude, 2018;Stewart et al, 2020).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 73%
“…Canup, 2012; Cuk & Stewart, 2012; Lock & Stewart, 2017; Nakajima & Stevenson, 2014). In the ANEOS model for forsterite, for example, the critical point is at 1.68 g/cm 3 , 8800 K, and 10 kbar, while our results suggest a critical point at 0.52 g/cm 3 , 6230 K, and 1.22 kbar (Stewart et al, 2020). This is significant as is suggests that nearly all accretionary collisions produce some amount of vaporization (Davies et al, 2020).…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 51%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Specific entropies at 50% vaporization are not experimentally constrained and vary greatly among the model calculations. For this work, we use the model vapor curve from Stewart et al (), labeled new ANEOS in Figure . While this work experimentally constrains the specific entropy of the principal forsterite Hugoniot, the pressure‐volume‐temperature states at higher pressures on the liquid‐vapor dome still need experimental validation.…”
Section: Shock‐induced Phase Changesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, the shock states for forsterite were measured at pressures from 200 to 950 GPa, to determine the relationships between pressure (P), density (ρ), temperature (T), and specific entropy (S) (Davies et al, 2020;Root et al, 2018). Stewart et al (2020) found substantial differences between previous ANEOS models for forsterite and these new data, and developed improvements to the ANEOS code package to improve the fit to experimental temperatures and entropies.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%