English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Using molecular dynamics simulations, we assess the uniaxial deformation response of ice I  as described by two popular water models, namely, the all-atom TIP4P/Ice potential and the coarse-grained mW model. In particular, we investigate the response to both tensile and compressive uniaxial deformations along the [0001] and  crystallographic directions for a series of different temperatures. We classify the respective failure mechanisms and assess their sensitivity to strain rate and cell size. While the TIP4P/Ice model fails by either brittle cleavage under tension at low temperatures or large-scale amorphization/melting, the mW potential behaves in a much more ductile manner, displaying numerous cases in which stress relief involves the nucleation and subsequent activity of lattice dislocations. Indeed, the fact that mW behaves in such a malleable manner even at strain rates that are substantially higher than those applied in typical experiments indicates that the mW description of ice I  is excessively ductile. One possible contribution to this enhanced malleability is the absence of explicit protons in the mW model, disregarding the fundamental asymmetry of the hydrogen bond that plays an important role in the nucleation and motion of lattice dislocations in ice I  .

Uniaxial-deformation behavior of ice Ih as described by the TIP4P/Ice and mW water models