Molecular dynamics simulations of the rigid-anvil collision test are performed by using a two-dimensional computational setup that mimics the traditional ballistic Taylor test. In this extensively utilized computational setup, the slender nanoscale projectiles collide with a rigid wall with hypersonic striking velocities ranging from 3 km/s to 30 km/s. The projectiles used in these simulations are flat-ended, monocrystalline, nanoscale bars prepared at zero temperature. The Poisson hyper-exponential distribution with the logarithmic binning is used to capture the fragment mass (size) distribution under the constraint of the relatively small specimen size 15×100 nm. The objective is to highlight the occurrence of certain discreteness of the fragment mass distribution observed both in time (during the fragment debris evolution) and across the striking velocity field (for the final fragmentation states that correspond to the stationary distributions).
Callen H. Thermodynamics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, US. 1961;
2.
Egami T. Atomic level stress. Progress in Material Science. 2011;637–53.
3.
Elek P, Jaramaz S. Fragment mass distribution of naturally fragmenting warheads. FME Transactions. 2009;129.
4.
Ercolessi F. A molecular dynamics primer. Spring College in Computational Physics. ICTP. 1997;
5.
Feynman R. The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Addison-Wesley. 1963;
6.
Grady D. Fragmentation of Rings Shells. Springer. 2006;
7.
Grady D, Winfree N. Impact fragmentation of high-velocity compact projectiles on thin plates: A physical and statistical characterization of fragment debris. International Journal of Impact Engineering. 2001;249–62.
8.
Holian B, Grady D. Fragmentation by Molecular Dynamics: The Microscopic "Big Bang. Physical Review Letters. 1988;(14):1355–8.
9.
Hoover W. Canonical dynamics: Equilibrium phase space distributions. Physical Review A. 1985;1695–7.
10.
Hoover W, Holian B, Posch H. Possible experiment to check the reality of a nonequilibrium temperature. Physical Review E. 1993;3196–8.
11.
Mastilovic. Impact fragmentation of nanoscale projectiles at ultrahigh striking velocities. Meccanica. 2015;2353–67.
12.
Mastilovic S. Molecular-dynamics simulations of the nanoscale Taylor test under extreme loading conditions. Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids. 2016;(3):326–38.
13.
Mastilovic S. Damage-fragmentation transition: Size effect and scaling behavior for impact fragmentation of slender projectiles. International Journal of Damage Mechanics. 2017;(2):201–17.
14.
Mastilovic. Shattering impact fragmentation of slender nanoprojectiles. Meccanica. 2019;(14):2295–306.
15.
Mastilovic S. Computational Mechanics of Discontinua: Fundamentals and Applications in Fragmentation. 2019.
16.
Mishin Y, Farkas D, Mehl M, Papaconstantopoulos D. Interatomic potentials for monoatomic metals from experimental data and ab initio calculations. Physical Review B. 1999;3393–407.
17.
Mott N. Fragmentation of shell cases. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. 1947;300–8.
18.
Myagkov N. Critical behavior for impact fragmentation of spherical solid bodies sensitive to strain rate. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment. 2021;113201.
19.
Ramesh K, Hogan J, Stickle K, A. A review of mechanisms and models for dynamic failure, strength, and fragmentation. Planetary and Space Science. 2015;10–23.
20.
Sator N, Mechkov S, Sausset F. Generic behaviours in impact fragmentation. European Physics Letters. 2008;44002.
21.
Sator N, Hietala H. Damage in impact fragmentation. International Journal of Fracture. 2010;101–8.
22.
Trunin R, Medvedev A, Funtikov A. Shock compression of porous iron, copper, and tungsten, and their equation of state in the terapascal pressure range. J Exp Theor Phys). 1989;356–61.
23.
Vitek V. Pair potentials in atomistic computer simulations. MRS Bulletin. 1996;20–3.
24.
Wang J, Wu B, He A. Research Progress on Dynamic Damage and Failure of Metal Materials under Shock Loading with Molecular Dynamics Simulation. Chinese Journal of High Pressure Physics. 2021;(4):40101.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
