This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Understanding glass-like Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann equilibration times:
microcanonical effective temperatures in quenched 3D martensites

N. Shankaraiah1, K.P.N. Murthy2 and S.R. Shenoy1 1Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana 500046, India.
2Dept of Physics, Central University of Rajasthan, Bandar Sindri, Rajasthan 305817, India
Abstract

We do Monte Carlo simulations of four 3D structural transitions, with vector-spin models of their martensitic strain domains under quenches to TT, to test a generic post-quench Partial Equilibration Scenario (PES) of Ritort. We indeed confirm that energy-lowering passages between fixed-energy shells induce a signature PES distribution of an exponential tail in heat releases, scaled in an effective search temperature. A linear vanishing of this Teff(T)TdTT_{eff}(T)\sim T_{d}-T at a temperature TdT_{d} where PES passage-searches freeze, explains the Vogel-Fulcher like divergence of equilibration times e1/Teff(T)e1/(TdT)e^{1/T_{eff}(T)}\sim e^{1/(T_{d}-T)}, extracted from incubation-time delays of simulations and martensitic alloys.


Glassy freezing or structural arrest of a rapidly cooled liquid or colloidal system R1 ; R2 ; R3 ; R4 ; R5 that pre-empts crystallisation, has been investigated for more than a century. Supercooled liquid models can yield heterogeneous domains of competing crystal structuresR3 ; R5 . Equilibration time divergences at a glassy freezing temperature TGT_{G}, have been fitted to Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann (VFT) e1/TTG\sim e^{1/T-T_{G}}, or other forms R2 ; R4 . It is natural to study generic equilibration scenarios R6 ; R7 ; R8 ; R9 in specific structural-domain systems that have long relaxation times R1 ; R2 ; R3 ; R4 ; R5 ; R10 ; R11 ; R12 ; R13 ; R14 ; R15 ; R16 .

After a sudden quench, a system on a free energy landscape, has competing pathways to the new global minimum, delayed by free energy barriers {ΔF=ΔUTΔS}\{\Delta F=\Delta U-T\Delta S\}. The delay rates eΔF/Te^{-\Delta F/T} will be from energy barriers (eΔU/T)\sim e^{-\Delta U/T}) and entropy barriers (e|ΔS|\sim e^{-|\Delta S|}), schematically depicted in Fig 1. Ritort and colleagues R6 ; R7 ; R8 ; R9 have proposed a Partial Equilibration Scenario (PES) for re-equilibrations delayed by entropy barriers. Over a waiting time twt_{w}, a post-quench ageing system rapidly explores configuration shells of energy E(tw)E(t_{w}), entropy S(E)S(E), and (inverse) micro-canonical effective temperature 1/Teff(tw)dS(E)/dE1/T_{eff}(t_{w})\equiv dS(E)/dE. Passages to a lower shell of E(tw+1)E=E(tw)+δEE(t_{w}+1)\equiv E^{\prime}=E(t_{w})+\delta E are driven by spontaneous heat releases (δE=δQ<0\delta E=\delta Q<0) to the bath at TT. The PES says that an iteration of these cooling steps ratchets the system down to the new canonical equilibrium. The non-equilibrium probability distribution for energy changes R6 ; R8 P0(δE;tw)P_{0}(\delta E;t_{w}) is peaked at positive energies, with an exponential tail for δE<0\delta E<0, whose fall-off eδE/2Teff(tw)\sim e^{\delta E/2T_{eff}(t_{w})} determines the effective temperature. The PES distribution has been studied by analytic Monte Carlo (MC) methods for harmonic oscillators R8 , and by numerical MC simulations of spin glasses and Lennard-Jones liquids R7 ; R9 . We note that if the effective temperature of the heat-release probability vanishes at some T=TdT=T_{d}, then there is an arrest of the PES cooling process.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Schematic of delays from two limits of free energy barriers: a) Energy-barrier delays from thermally activated jump attempts. b) Entropy-barrier delays from searches for rare passages. Key seeks lock, most attempts fail.

We consider solid-solid structural transitions of martensites R10 ; R11 ; R12 ; R13 ; R14 ; R15 ; R16 , quenched below a thermodynamic T0T_{0}, with competing domains and slow relaxations R11 ; R17 . Martensites undergo first-order, diffusionless transitions R5 ; R10 from the higher-symmetry austenite, with atomic shifts locked to their unit-cell distortions (‘military transformations’). The order-parameter strains have degenerate lower-symmetry ‘variants’ separated by crystallographically oriented Domain Walls (DW), that can form complex microstructures R10 ; R14 ; R15 . A long-standing puzzle R11 ; R12 is that while quenches of austenite to below an (athermal) ‘martensite start’ temperature T1>TT_{1}>T results in avalanche martensitic conversions, quenches above it T1<TT_{1}<T, show delayed conversions instead of no conversions. Resistivity, as a transition diagnostic, is flat during post-quench ‘incubations’, that end in sudden drops at a delayed avalancheR11 . Delays rise sharply, for shallower quenches approaching a third temperature TdT_{d} that is in between, T1<Td<T0T_{1}<T_{d}<T_{0}. When a bath quench TT goes a few percent closer to TdT_{d}, the resistivity-drops go from a few seconds after, to ten thousand seconds after, the temperature quench R12 .

In this Letter we do MC simulations in three dimensions, with vector order parameter strains, for four structural transitions R18 . We present here the cubic-tetragonal (CT) transitionR15 , with a strain order parameter of components NOP=2N_{OP}=2, with three competing unit-cell ‘variants’ NV=3N_{V}=3. We confirm for all four transitions, that the PES energy change distribution has the predicted generic behaviour: an exponential tail, with an effective temperature that regulates heat releasesR6 ; R7 ; R8 ; R9 .

For our specific case of quenches across a first order transition, the Order Parameter (OP) rises from zero, enabling the waiting time twt_{w} to be defined by rising-OP marker events at tmt_{m}, that depend on TT. This choice tw=tm(T)t_{w}=t_{m}(T) induces quench-temperature dependences: Teff(tw)Teff(T)T_{eff}(t_{w})\rightarrow T_{eff}(T) and P0(δE;tw)P0(δE,T)P_{0}(\delta E;t_{w})\rightarrow P_{0}(\delta E,T). For passages to lower energy shells, the OP evolution must satisfy TT-controlled entropy-barrier constraints, postulated as of two types: a) A constraint that OP configurations must find and enter a Fourier space bottleneck that is like a Golf Hole (GH) that funnels into fast passage, as suggested for protein folding R19 ; or b) A constraint that the OP states need transient catalysts to enable fast passages, as inspired by facilitation modelsR20 ; R21 ; R22 . Our case is a), and we find a linear vanishing Teff(T)(TdT)T_{eff}(T)\sim(T_{d}-T). The ‘search freezing’ temperature TdT_{d} occurs at a pinch-off on warming, of the k\vec{k}-space inner radius of an angularly modulated bottleneck. Equilibration times are exponential in entropy barriers R11 ; R12 ; R23 , and for quenches Td>T>T1T_{d}>T>T_{1}, diverge as t¯m(T)e1/Teff(T)e1/(TdT){\bar{t}}_{m}(T)\sim e^{1/T_{eff}(T)}\sim e^{1/(T_{d}-T)}. Thus VFT -like behaviour is not restricted to the glass transition. Conversely, entropy barriers vanish and delay times collapse for T<T1T<T_{1}, when the bottleneck expands on cooling to span the Brillouin zone.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: Delay times for CT martensitic conversion: The martensite fraction nm(tm)=0.5n_{m}(t_{m})=0.5 defines tmt_{m}. a) For TT1T\leq T_{1} avalanche conversions occur, at tm=1t_{m}=1. For Td>T>T1T_{d}>T>T_{1} DW sluggishness causes ‘incubation’ delays or postponement of conversion avalanches to t=tm(T)t=t_{m}(T). b) Log-linear plot of mean delay time t¯m(T){\bar{t}}_{m}(T) versus T/Td<1{T/T_{d}}<1. Delay times are not exponentially sensitive to Hamiltonian energy scales E0E_{0}, so are not activated: delays are from entropy barriers.
Refer to caption
Figure 3: Bottlenecks in Fourier space for CT transition: The temperature dependence of bottleneck size and shape is shown for a [1,1,1] slice of a 3D anisotropic bottleneck. a) The 2D slice in (kx,ky)(k_{x},k_{y}) is like an anisotropic ‘Golf Hole’, enclosing negative martensite states, that shrinks with warming TT. The open butterfly shape changes topology to a segmented four-petal flower shape at T=TdT=T_{d}. b) The anisotropic bottleneck inner and outer radii kin,koutk_{in},k_{out} are plotted as k2{k}^{2} vs TT. The bottleneck outer radius kout(T)k_{out}(T) for 0<TT10<T\leq T_{1} (arrow) spans a Brillouin Zone size of π\sim\pi (horizontal light dashes), so conversions are immediate. The outer radius shrinks to a point on the right at the thermodynamic transition T=T0=1T=T_{0}=1 to austenite-only states. On the other hand, the inner radius kin(T)k_{in}(T) shrinks on warming for 0TTd0\leq T\leq T_{d}, vanishing (arrow) at T=TdT=T_{d} when the outer radius is still nonzero: the bottleneck topology changes.

We derive a discretized-strain Hamiltonian R15 in 3D, from a crystal-symmetry invariant strain free energy FF, that has Compatibility R14 , Ginzburg, and Landau terms in F/E0=r,rfC+r[fG+fL]F/E_{0}=\sum_{\vec{r},\vec{r}^{\prime}}f_{C}+\sum_{\vec{r}}[f_{G}+f_{L}], with E0E_{0} an energy scale. There are six independent physical strainsR15 in 3D, that are linear combinations of Cartesian tensor strains: compressional e1e_{1}; deviatoric or rectangular e2,e3e_{2},e_{3} , and shear e4,e5,e6e_{4},e_{5},e_{6}. The OP of the cubic-tetragonal (CT) transition are two deviatoric strains e=(e3,e2)=(16{exx+eyy2ezz},12{exxeyy}){\vec{e}}=(e_{3},e_{2})=(\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\{e_{xx}+e_{yy}-2e_{zz}\},\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\{e_{xx}-e_{yy}\}). Austenite is e=0\vec{e}=\vec{0}.

The remaining 6NOP6-N_{OP} non-OP strains (one compressional and three shears) enter the Hamiltonian as harmonic springs. These are minimized subject to a linear St Venant Compatibility constraintR14 that says no dislocations are generated: the double-curl of the strain tensor must vanish. There are three independent algebraic equations in k\vec{k} space, connecting OP and non-OP strains R15 . The harmonic non-OP strains then analytically yield an OP-OP interaction, whose transition-specific, anisotropic Compatibility kernel R15 is a 2×22\times 2matrix, U(k^)U_{\ell\ell^{\prime}}({\hat{k}}) where ,=2,3\ell,\ell^{\prime}=2,3. There is a prefactor of (1δk,0)(1-\delta_{\vec{k},0}), and dependence on direction k^=k/|k|\hat{k}={\vec{k}}/|\vec{k}|.

The Landau free energy for CT is fL(e)=[(τ1)e22(e333e3e22)+e4]f_{L}(\vec{e})=[(\tau-1){\vec{e}}^{2}-2(e_{3}^{3}-3e_{3}e_{2}^{2})+{\vec{e}}^{~{}4}] and has 4 minima, at NV=3N_{V}=3 variants plus at zero strain. Here τ(T)(TTc)/(T0Tc)\tau(T)\equiv(T-T_{c})/(T_{0}-T_{c}), and τ(Tc)=0\tau(T_{c})=0 at the spinodal TcT_{c}, while τ(T0)=1\tau(T_{0})=1 at the first-order transition temperature, scaled to be unity T0=1T_{0}=1.

In ‘polar’ coordinates, e|e|S\vec{e}\equiv|\vec{e}|\vec{S}. Here the unit-magnitude ‘variant vectors’ S(r)\vec{S}(\vec{r}) specify the unit-cell variants on either side of a Domain Wall (DW), that can be martensite-martensite or martensite-austenite. The nonzero NV=3N_{V}=3 martensite-variants have spins R15 S=(S3,S2)=(1,0),(1/2,3/2),(1/2,3/2)\vec{S}=(S_{3},S_{2})=(1,0),(-1/2,{\sqrt{3}}/2),(-1/2,-{\sqrt{3}}/2), pointing to corners of an equilateral triangle in a unit circle, while the centroid S=(0,0)\vec{S}=(0,0) is austenite. Thus S2=0{\vec{S}}^{2}=0 or 11.

The degenerate Landau minima are at mean-OP magnitudes ε¯(T)=(3/4)[1+1(8τ/9)]\bar{\varepsilon}(T)=(3/4)[1+\sqrt{1-(8\tau/9)}]. The variant domains have mostly-flat strain magnitudes, approximated by ε¯(T)\bar{\varepsilon}(T). Substituting e(r)ε¯(T)S(r){\vec{e}}(\vec{r})\rightarrow\bar{\varepsilon}(T){\vec{S}}(\vec{r}), the Landau term becomes fL(e)fL(T)S(r)2f_{L}(\vec{e})\rightarrow f_{L}(T){\vec{S}}(\vec{r})^{2}. Here fL(T)ε¯(T)2gL(T)0f_{L}(T)\equiv{{\bar{\varepsilon}}(T)}^{2}g_{L}(T)\leq 0, where gL=(τ1)+(ε¯(T)1)20g_{L}=(\tau-1)+({\bar{\varepsilon}}(T)-1)^{2}\leq 0. At T=T0T={T_{0}}^{-}, the OP is unity ε¯=1\bar{\varepsilon}=1 and gL=0g_{L}=0.

Notice a separation of time scale responses to TT quenches: the OP magnitude ε¯(T)\bar{\varepsilon}(T) responds immediately, at t=1t=1, while Domain Walls can take thousands of time steps tt, to evolve successively from DW Vapour to DW Liquid to a DW Crystal of twins. For our case of shallow quenches Td>T>T1T_{d}>T>T_{1}, it is the DW Vapour-to-Liquid conversion has the long (bottleneck type) delays studied here. See VideosR21 A,B. The DW moves by correlated flips of spins that bracket it, while domain spins remain locked: a dynamical heterogeneity in space and time R3 ; R5 .  [For deeper quenches T<<T1T<<T_{1} not studied here, it is the DW Liquid-to-Crystal twin orientation that has long (facilitation type) delays. See VideoR21 C.]

Refer to caption
Figure 4: Energy-change statistics for CT transition: a) Linear-linear plot of the normalized probability P0(δE,T)P_{0}(\delta E,T) versus energy change δE\delta E, for six TT quenches. b) Log-linear version. Slope at the origin βeff(T)/2\beta_{eff}(T)/2 rises from zero for T>T1T>T_{1}.

The total hamiltonian is βH=βHL+βHG+βHC\beta H=\beta H_{L}+\beta H_{G}+\beta H_{C}, without extrinsic disorder. It is diagonal in Fourier space,

βH=D02[,k[ϵ,(k,T)S(k)S(k)],\begin{array}[]{rr}\beta H=\dfrac{D_{0}}{2}[\sum_{\ell,\ell^{\prime}}\sum_{\vec{k}}[\epsilon_{\ell,\ell^{\prime}}(\vec{k},T){\vec{S}}_{\ell}(\vec{k}){\vec{S}}^{*}_{\ell^{\prime}}(\vec{k})],\end{array} (1)

with D02ε¯(T)2E0/TD_{0}\equiv 2{\bar{\varepsilon}}(T)^{2}E_{0}/T. The spectrum, with Kμ(k)2sin(kμ/2)K_{\mu}(\vec{k})\equiv 2\sin(k_{\mu}/2) and μ=x,y,z\mu=x,y,z, is

ϵ,(k,T){gL(T)+ξ02K2}δ,+A12U(k^).\epsilon_{\ell,\ell^{\prime}}(\vec{k},T)\equiv\{g_{L}(T)+\xi_{0}^{2}{\vec{K}}^{2}\}\delta_{\ell,\ell^{\prime}}+\frac{A_{1}}{2}U_{\ell\ell^{\prime}}(\hat{k}). (2)

The anisotropic Compatibility kernel in the energy spectrum can induce preferred DW orientations R14 ; R15 ; R16 ; R21 . For example the =\ell=\ell^{\prime} kernel U,(k^)U_{\ell,\ell}(\hat{k}) is smallest U,(min)=0U_{\ell,\ell}(min)=0 at the most favoured orientation, and largest U,(max)>0U_{\ell,\ell}(max)>0 for most disfavoured. The negative sign of the Landau term HLgL<0H_{L}\sim g_{L}<0 and the positive signs of the Ginzburg term HGk2>0H_{G}\sim\vec{k}^{2}>0 and the Compatibility term HC>0H_{C}>0 imply the spectrum ϵ,(k,T)\epsilon_{\ell,\ell}(\vec{k},T) could vanish along some Fourier contour. This contour will be angularly modulated, through the anisotropy of the Compatibility kernel R15 ; R16 .

In MC simulations, the initial state t=0t=0 is high-temperature austenite that is randomly and dilutely (2%2\%) seeded with martensite unit-cells. Typical parameters are T0=1T_{0}=1; ξ02=1\xi_{0}^{2}=1; Tc=0.95T_{c}=0.95; E0=3E_{0}=3; system volume N=L3=163N=L^{3}=16^{3}; Nruns=100N_{runs}=100; and holding times th=104t_{h}=10^{4} MC sweeps.The martensite fraction is nm(t)1NrS2(r,t)1n_{m}(t)\equiv\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\vec{r}}{S}^{2}(\vec{r},t)\leq 1, with nm=0n_{m}=0 or 11 for uniform austenite or martensite. The conversion time tmt_{m} is defined as when R16 nm(tm)=1/2n_{m}(t_{m})=1/2. An athermal martensite droplet or embryo can rapidly form anywhere, and after waiting till tw=tmt_{w}=t_{m}, can propagate rapidly to the rest of the system R13 . Hence it is mean rates r¯m{\bar{r}}_{m} (or inverse times), that are averaged over runs, analogous to total resistors in parallel determined by the smallest resistance. Mean times t¯m{\bar{t}}_{m} are inverse mean rates: t¯m(T)1/r¯m(T){\bar{t}}_{m}(T)\equiv 1/{{\bar{r}}_{m}(T)}.

Refer to caption
Figure 5: Effective temperature and its inverse, versus quench temperatures for CT transition: Left vertical axis: Teff(T)T_{eff}(T) versus T/TdT/T_{d} appears to vanish as (TdT)\sim(T_{d}-T), and rises from T1<TdT_{1}<T_{d}. Right vertical axis: βeff(T)\beta_{eff}(T) appears to vanish as (TT1)\sim(T-T_{1}), and rises rapidly towards Td>T1T_{d}>T_{1}. The entropy barrier SBβeffS_{B}\sim\beta_{eff} will then vanish at T1T_{1} (downward arrow) or diverge at TdT_{d}. Dashed lines are guides to the eye.

The MC procedure is standard, but with a crucial extra data retention R6 ; R7 ; R8 ; R9 of energy changes.
0. Take NN sites, each with a vector spin of NOPN_{OP} components, in one of NV+1N_{V}+1 possible values (including zero) at MC time tt. Each {S(r)}\{{\vec{S}}(\vec{r})\} set is a ‘configuration’.
1. Randomly pick one of NN sites, and randomly flip the spin on it to a new direction/value, and find the (positive/negative) δE\delta E changes for the new configuration.
2. If the energy change δE0\delta E\leq 0, then accept the flip. If δE>0\delta E>0, then accept flip with probability eδE/Te^{-\delta E/T}. Record this δE\delta E, that is not usually retained after use.
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2. Stop after NN such spin-flips. This configuration has the conversion fraction nm(t+1)n_{m}(t+1).
4. We collect R24 all {δE}\{\delta E\} from each spin-flip (configuration change) within each MC sweep of every run, up to the conversion time for that run, ttm(T)tht\leq t_{m}(T)\leq t_{h}. The set size N×tm×NrunN\times{t}_{m}\times N_{run} has up to 163×104×10016^{3}\times 10^{4}\times 100 data points. We take six quenches, from T=T1T=T_{1} up to TdT_{d}.

Figure 2a shows nm(t)n_{m}(t), the martensite conversion-fraction in a single run, versus MC time tt for different temperatures TT. For quenches TT1T\leq T_{1}, avalanche conversions, characteristic of athermal martensite, occur in the very first sweep over all spins (t=1t=1). We identify T1T_{1} with the martensite start temperature R11 ; R12 Ms=T1M_{s}=T_{1}. For higher temperatures T>T1T>T_{1}, there is a curious ‘incubation’ period, when nothing happens macroscopically, until a postponed avalanche at tw=tmt_{w}=t_{m}. These modelsR16 ; R24 display the delayed transitions and burst-like growth of order, characteristic of martensites and manganites R11 ; R12 ; R17 . Fig 2b shows that for TT above T1T_{1} (downward arrow), and approaching TdT_{d}, the mean incubation delays rise steeply, due to entropic bottlenecks.

Refer to caption
Figure 6: Universal slope of PES distribution: Log-linear scaled plot of Π0(δE,T)P0(δE,T)/P0(0,T)\Pi_{0}(\delta E,T)\equiv P_{0}(\delta E,T)/P_{0}(0,T) versus zβeff(T)δE/2z\equiv\beta_{eff}(T)\delta E/2. The PES predicts a universal slope of unity at z=0z=0. The four transitions mentioned have respective slope averages and standard deviations of 1.000±0.045,1.025±0.036,1.009±0.08,0.850±0.0851.000\pm 0.045,1.025\pm 0.036,1.009\pm 0.08,0.850\pm 0.085. The data for six TT and four transitions have mean slope (dashed white line) of 0.97±0.060.97\pm 0.06.
Refer to caption
Figure 7: Log-linear plots of scaled time versus (inverse) scaled temperature deviation: Scaled conversion times tm/t0t_{m}/t_{0} versus B0/|δ0|B_{0}/|\delta_{0}| with parameters t0,B0t_{0},B_{0} extracted from data. There is Vogel Fulcher linearity near TdT_{d}, with falloffs near T1T_{1} (downward arrows). a) From CT simulations in 3D for different E0E_{0}. b) From experiments R11 ; R12 in 3D for different alloys.

For our model, the boundary of a 3D bottleneck is from the spectrum set equal to zero ϵ,(k)=0\epsilon_{\ell,\ell}(\vec{k})=0, defining an anisotropic surface in k\vec{k}-space. For the CT case, a [1,1,1] slice can intersect the bottleneck surface as an open, butterfly-shaped locus with an inner and outer radius, inside the Brillouin Zone (BZ). See Fig 3. For TT1T\leq T_{1}, the radius kout(T)k_{out}(T) is larger than a BZ scale π\sim\pi, and martensitic passages are immediate. For T1<T<Td<T0,T_{1}<T<T_{d}<T_{0}, the butterfly bottleneck shrinks on warming. At T=TdT=T_{d}, the inner squared-radius kin(T)2=|gL(T)|(A1/2)U,(max)k_{in}(T)^{2}=|g_{L}(T)|-(A_{1}/2)U_{\ell,\ell}(max) vanishes, and the topology of the connected butterfly changes to that of a segmented four-petaled flower: entropy barriers diverge, and PES heat releases are arrested. For the ‘precursor’ region R14 Td<T<T0T_{d}<T<T_{0}, PES passages are energetically available, but entropically inaccessisible. Repeated bottleneck entry attempts could induce vibrations. See VideoR21 D. Finally, at T=T0=1T=T_{0}=1, the outer squared-radius kout(T)2=|gL(T)|k_{out}(T)^{2}=|g_{L}(T)| also vanishes: the bottleneck becomes a point, and only austenite exists.

We collect the O(1)O(1) changes {δE}\{\delta E\} to the O(N)O(N) energy EE. The probability P0(δE,T)P_{0}(\delta E,T) to access EE^{\prime} from EE, is proportional to the number of target states Ω(E)\Omega(E^{\prime}). With S(E)=lnΩ(E)S(E^{\prime})=\ln\Omega(E^{\prime}), the probability ratio R0(δE)R_{0}(\delta E) of energy changes is related to the entropy change ΔS(δE)S(E)S(E)<0\Delta S(\delta E)\equiv S(E^{\prime})-S(E)<0 by a fluctuation relation for aging R1 ; R2 ; R3 ; R4 :

R0P0(δE,T)P0(δE,T)=Ω(E)Ω(E)=eΔS(δE).R_{0}\equiv\frac{P_{0}(\delta E,T)}{P_{0}(-\delta E,T)}=\frac{\Omega(E^{\prime})}{\Omega(E)}=e^{\Delta S(\delta E)}. (3)

Entropy barriers SBΔS>0S_{B}\equiv-\Delta S>0 rise, when the searched-for states become rarer. Since R0(δE)R0(δE)1R_{0}(\delta E)R_{0}(-\delta E)\equiv 1, the entropy change is odd, ΔS(δE)+ΔS(δE)=0\Delta S(\delta E)+\Delta S(-\delta E)=0, and a solution for the PES distribution is

P0(δE,T)=P0(+)(δE)e12ΔS(δE),P_{0}(\delta E,T)={P_{0}}^{(+)}(\delta E)~{}e^{\frac{1}{2}\Delta S(\delta E)}, (4)

with an even P0(+)(δE)P0(δE,T)P0(δE,T){P_{0}}^{(+)}(\delta E)\equiv\sqrt{P_{0}(\delta E,T)~{}P_{0}(-\delta E,T)}. The leading entropy-change term for small heat releases is ΔSβeffδE\Delta S\simeq\beta_{eff}\delta E where βeff1/Teff\beta_{eff}\equiv 1/T_{eff}. For δE=|δE|<0\delta E=-|\delta E|<0, the Boltzmann-like form P0e12βeff(T)|δE|P_{0}\simeq e^{-\frac{1}{2}\beta_{eff}(T)|\delta E|} gives a physical meaning to the effective temperature, as a search range denoting accessible energy shells. If βeff0\beta_{eff}\rightarrow 0, entropy barriers collapse, and passages are immediate. If Teff0T_{eff}\rightarrow 0, then entropy barriers diverge, and passages cease. Glass-like freezing is a shutdown of PES searches.

Fig 4a shows that, as in PES models R6 ; R7 ; R8 ; R9 , the P0(δE,T)P_{0}(\delta E,T) peaks are at positive δE\delta E, understood as a completion-of-square between a gaussian peaked at the origin and an exponential tail for δE<0\delta E<0. Fig 4b shows a zoom-in near the origin, where the slopes define 12βeff(T)\frac{1}{2}\beta_{eff}(T).

Fig 5 shows the dependence of βeff(T)\beta_{eff}(T) and Teff(T)T_{eff}(T) on the quench temperature TT. The data suggest a linear vanishing of Teff(TdT)/(B0Td)T_{eff}\simeq(T_{d}-T)/(B_{0}T_{d}) near TdT_{d}, at a search freezing and a suppression of the heat releases to the bath. There is also a linear vanishing of βeffTT1\beta_{eff}\sim T-T_{1} near T1T_{1}, at a search avalanche and prompt equilibration.

Fig 6 shows log-linear plots for a scaled Π0(δE,T)P0(δE,T)/P0(0,T)\Pi_{0}(\delta E,T)\equiv P_{0}(\delta E,T)/P_{0}(0,T) versus the entropy-barrier related variable 12βeffδE\frac{1}{2}\beta_{eff}\delta E. Data are for four 3D structural transitions R18 ; R23 , and six TT between the collapse (T1T_{1}) and divergence (TdT_{d}) of entropy barriers.

The mean conversion time is exponential in the entropy barrier R23 t¯e1/Teff(T){\bar{t}}\sim e^{1/T_{eff}(T)}, so near TdT_{d} we have t¯m(T)t0eB0/|δ0(T)|{\bar{t}}_{m}(T)\simeq t_{0}e^{B_{0}/|\delta_{0}(T)|}, where the constants B0,t0B_{0},t_{0} can be fixed by simulational and experimental data R24 . The initial slope in |δ0||\delta_{0}| of 1/lnt¯m(T)1/\ln{{\bar{t}}_{m}(T)} gives 1/B01/B_{0}; and the extrapolated intercept of lnt¯m(T)\ln{{\bar{t}}_{m}(T)} versus B0/|δ0(T0)|B_{0}/|\delta_{0}(T_{0})| gives t0t_{0}. For Ni-Al data R11 the ‘fragility’ parameter R2 B0Td1.23B_{0}T_{d}\simeq 1.23 Kelvin, and the austenite-martensite DW hop time is t01t_{0}\simeq 1 sec.

Fig 7a shows that CT times show VFT behaviour near TdT_{d} and fall-off behaviour near T1T_{1}. Fig 7b shows data extracted from Ni-Al and Fe-Al alloysR11 ; R12 are similar.

Signatures of PES could be sought, in previous simulations or experimentsR3 ; R5 under systematic temperature quenches, with a recording of energy releases. Further experimental work on martensitic alloys R11 ; R12 could record signal and noise under systematic quench steps of 1/|δ0|1/|\delta_{0}|, over the delay region Td>T>T1T_{d}>T>T_{1}; as well as the precursor R14 ; R21 region T0>T>TdT_{0}>T>T_{d} above it. Non-stationary distributions of energy releases might be determined through concurrent resistive, photonic, acoustic, and elastic signalsR25 . Finally, one might speculate that complex oxides quenched near their structural/ functional transitions, could show PES ageing behaviour in their (strain-coupled) functional variablesR17 ; R18 .

In summary, post-quench ageing in athermal martensites shows characteristic signatures of the Partial Equilibration Scenario. The conversion arrest and delay-divergence found in 3D simulations and alloy experiments, are understood as arising from a vanishing of the search temperature that governs the PES cooling process.

Acknowledgement: It is a pleasure to thank Smarajit Karmakar for valuable discussions on the glass transition.

References

  • (1) K. Binder and W. Kob, Glassy Materials and Disordered Solids, World Scientific, Singapore (2005).
  • (2) A.L. Greer, K.F. Kelton, S. Sastry, Eds.,Fragility of glass-forming liquids, Hindustan Book Agency, New Delhi (2014).
  • (3) P. Harrowell, Nature Phys 2, 157 (2006);
    H. Shintani and H. Tanaka, Nature Phys 2, 200 (2006);
    X. Yang, H. Tong, W-H. Wang, and K. Chen, Phys. Rev. E, 99, 062610 (2019).
  • (4) P. Lunkenheimer, S. Kastner, M. Koehler and A. Loidl, Phys. Rev. E 81, 051504 (2010).
  • (5) H. Fang, M.F. Hagan, W.B. Rogers, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 117, 27927 (2020).
  • (6) F.Ritort, J.Phys. Chem B 108, 6893 (2004); and in
    Unifying Concepts in Granular Media and Glasses, (eds.) A. Coniglio, A. Fierro, H.J. Hermann and M. Nicodemi, Elsevier (2004); arXiv/ condmat/ 03113710v1.
  • (7) A. Crisanti and F. Ritort, Europhys. Lett., 66,253 (2004).
  • (8) L. L.  Bonilla, F.G.  Padilla and F.  Ritort, Physica A 250, 315 (1998);
    L. Garriga and F. Ritort, Phys. Rev. E 72, 031505 (2005).
  • (9) A. Crisanti, M. Pecco and F. Ritort, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110, 080601 (2013).
  • (10) K. Bhattacharya, Microstructure of Martensite, Oxford University Press (2003).
  • (11) T. Kakeshita, T. Fukuda and T. Saburi, Scripta Mat. 34, 1 (1996); T. Kakeshita, K. Kuroiwa, K. Shimuzu, T. Ikeda, A. Yamagashi, and M. Date, Mat. Trans. JIM, 34, 423 (1993).
  • (12) M. Aspelmeyer, U Klemradt, L.T. Wood and S.C. Moss, Phys. Stat. Sol. (a) 174, R9 (1999);
    L. Müller , U. Klemradt, T.R. Finlayson, Mat. Sci. and Eng. A 438, 122 (2006);
    L. Müller, M. Waldorf, G. Gutt, G. Grubel, A. Madsen, T. R. Finlayson and U. Klemradt, Phys. Rev. Lett., 109,105701 (2011).
  • (13) P.R. Rios and J.R.C. Guimaraes, Scripta Mat., 57, 1105 (2007);
    P.R. Rios, F.G. Cardoso, T.A. Neves and J.R.C. Guimaraes, in the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, TMS 2015 144th Annual Meeting, Cham, Springer (2015), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48127-2_84.
  • (14) S. Kartha, J. A. Krumhansl, J. P. Sethna, and L. K. Wickham, Phys. Rev. B 52, 803 (1995).
  • (15) S.R. Shenoy, T. Lookman and A. Saxena, Phys. Rev. B 82, 144103 (2010). The kernels for the four 3D transitions are in an Appendix.
    K.O. Rasmussen, T. Lookman, A. Saxena, A.R. Bishop, R.C. Albers and S.R. Shenoy, Phys. Rev. Lett., 87, 055704 (2001).
  • (16) N. Shankaraiah, K. P. N. Murthy, T. Lookman and S. R. Shenoy, Europhys. Lett. 92, 36002 (2010);
    Phys. Rev. B 84, 064119 (2011); Phys. Rev. B 91, 214108 (2015).
  • (17) W.I.F. David,C.C. Wilson, P. P. Edwards, R. Jones, M.R. Harrison, Nature 331, 245 (1988);
    M. Uehara and S-W. Cheong, Europhys. Lett., 52, 674 (2000);
    V Podzorov, C.H. Chen, M.E. Gershenson and S.-W. Cheong, Europhys. Lett., 55, 411 (2001);
    V. Podzorov, B.G. Kim, V. Kiryukin, M.E. Gershenson and S.W. Cheong, Phys. Rev. B 64, 140406 (R) (2001);
    V. Hardy, A. Maignan, S. Hebert, C. Yaicle, C. Martin,M. Hervieu, M.R. Lees, G. Rowlands, D. McK. Paul and B. Raveau, Phys. Rev. B 68, R220402 (2003);
    V. Hardy, S. Majumdar, S.J. Crowe, M.R. Lee, D. McK. Paul, L. Herve’, A. Maignan, S. Hebert, C. Martin, C. Yaicle, M. Hervieu and B. Raveau, Phys. Rev. B 9, 020407 (R) (2004).
  • (18) The four chosen structural transitions can occur in materials with useful functionalities R17 . The transitions are: tetragonal-orthorhombic (YBCOYBCO, superconductivity); cubic-tetragonal (FePdFePd, shape memory); cubic-orthorhombic (BaTiOBaTiO, ferroelectrics); cubic-trigonal (LaSrMnOLaSrMnO, colossal magnetoresistance).
  • (19) D. J. Bicout and A. Szabo, Protein Science 9, 452 (2000);
    P.G. Wolynes, Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. 145, 4 (2001);
    M. Cieplak and J.I. Sulkowska, J. Chem. Phys.,123,194908 (2005).
  • (20) F. Ritort and P. Sollich, Adv. Phys. 52, 219 (2003);
    K. Otsuka, X. Ren, and T. Takeda, Scripta Mat. 45,145 (2001).
  • (21) Supplementary Material. [ URL]
    Videos for the 2D square-rectangle NOP=1,NV=2N_{OP}=1,N_{V}=2 transitions for 64×6464\times 64 systems, with austenite (green) and the two martensite variants (red/ blue), showR16 sequentially evolving Domain Wall states, from DW Vapour to DW Liquid to DW Crystal or oriented ‘twins’. The 3D physical evolutions are similar.
    Video A. The droplet in r\vec{r}-space: This shows the coordinate-space evolution for Td>T>T1T_{d}>T>T_{1}, for the bottleneck type passage. Random initial martensite seeds rapidly form a single-variant DW Vapour droplet, bounded by a martensite-austenite DW. This fluctuates like an amoeba, searching over incubation delays for a conversion passage to a DW Liquid, and then a quick symmetry-breaking to a DW crystal.
    Video B. The droplet in k\vec{k}-space: This shows the Td>T>T1T_{d}>T>T_{1} evolution as Video A but now in Fourier space. The dynamic structure factor for variant spins |S(k,t)|2|S(\vec{k},t)|^{2} is shown in (kx,ky)(k_{x},k_{y}) space, with elliptic contours of a DW Vapour going to the bi-diagonal X of a DW Liquid, and to a single-diagonal ky=kxk_{y}=-k_{x} line of a DW Crystal.
    Video C. The r\vec{r}-space dynamic catalysts: This shows the evolution for deep quenches to T<<T1T<<T_{1}, of the facilitation type passage R20 . The DW Vapour now converts rapidly to a sluggish DW Liquid of frozen walls. Transient hotspots of austenite in martensite act as facilitation variables or dynamic catalysts, that unlock and delete even far-off minority-diagonal DW segments, leaving a dominant-diagonal DW crystal, or twins R16 .
    Video D. The r\vec{r}-space tweed precursor: This shows (dynamical) tweed R14 in the precursor region T>Td>T1T>T_{d}>T_{1}, of an oscillating array of martensitic islands in austenite sea. This might arise from a k\vec{k} space profile of the droplet, vibrating as it unsuccessfully attempts entry to a topologically blocked GH.
  • (22) S. R. Shenoy and T. Lookman, Phys. Rev. B 78, 144103 (2008), see Fig 7.
  • (23) The mean equilibration rate is the average over an inter-shell rate 1/t(δE)1/t(\delta E) over all heat releases. With a normalized PES probability, 1/t¯=0𝑑δEP0(δE,T)/t(δE)1/{\bar{t}}={\int_{-\infty}^{0}d\delta E~{}P_{0}(\delta E,T)/t(\delta E)}. For slow intershell variation 1/t(δE)1/t01/t(\delta E)\simeq 1/t_{0}, the mean rate is proportional to the acceptance fraction over energy decrements. Taking the PES probability, as a shifted gaussian with peak mean energy change M>0M>0, and variance σ2=2MTeff\sigma^{2}=2MT_{eff}, the acceptance fraction is a complementary error function, whose asymptotic behaviour yields t0/t¯eM/4Tefft_{0}/{\bar{t}}\simeq e^{-M/4T_{eff}}. Dropping constants, the martensitic mean conversion time near TdT_{d} is written simply as t¯m(T)=t0e1/Teff(T){\bar{t}}_{m}(T)=t_{0}~{}e^{1/T_{eff}(T)}.
  • (24) N. Shankaraiah, K.P.N. Murthy and S.R. Shenoy, submitted.
  • (25) U. Chandni, S Kar-Narayan, A. Ghosh, H.S. Vijaya and S. Mohan, Acta Mater., 57,6113 (2009);
    A. Planes, Ll. Manosa and E. Vives, J. Alloys and Comp., 577, S699 (2013);
    X. Balandraud, N. Barrara, P. Biscarin, M. Grediac, G. Zanzotto, Phys. Rev. B, 91,174111 (2015);
    B. Blaysat, X. Balandraud, M. Grediac, E. Vives, N. Barrera and G. Zanzotto, Nature Commun. Mater., 1,3 (2020); Z. Eranson, B. Ruta, S. Hechler, M. Stolpe, E. Pineda, I. Gallimo, and R. Busch, Phys. Rev. Lett., 115, 175701 (2015).See also Physics 8, S5121 (2015).