SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL IITK（辅料IITK）.pdfVIP

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL This document contains supplementary material related to the following manuscript: Manuscript Title: Negative, zero and positive stiffness in extended Eshelby plates Authors: Arun Kumar and Anandh Subramaniam Journal: Philosophical Magazine Letters A few cases have been considered in this supplementary material, to bring out the effect of various parameters on the energy landscape (and/or configurational force as a function of the separation of the dislocations). These parameters include: i) Thickness of the extended Eshelby plate. ii) Alternate boundary conditions, where the domain is constrained from bending. iii) Anisotropic material properties. Table 1 (inserted at the end of the document) lists the material properties used in the simulations. (I) Effect of thickness In the main manuscript two edge dislocations (with opposite Burgers vector) were considered in an extended Eshelby plate. The dimensions of the domain were 100b×20b. Here we show the effect of thicker domains on the energy landscape. A schematic of the finite element model used to simulate the effect of thickness of the domain on the various regions identified in the main manuscript (Figure 3) is shown in Figure 1a. The stress state (σxx contours) for the domain with thickness t = 30b and d = 40b is shown in Figure 1b. It can be seen from the figure that the bending of the domain is smaller as compared to the domain with thickness of 20b (Figure-2 in main manuscript). For t = 100b and d = 40b, the stress state (σxx contours) is shown in Figure 1c. This square domain does not bend in the presence of dislocations (additionally, this domain does not qualify to be an Eshelby plate!). The variation of strain energy with d is shown in Figure 2 (for t = 30b 100b). Unlike the plate of thickness 20b, these two dom