Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Nanosecond timescale plasticity in shock-compressed polycrystalline MgO: evidence for transition in mechanism above 100 GPa

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Laser-shock X-ray snapshots show MgO flowing plastically within nanoseconds and switching slip systems above 100 GPa.

desk verdict Direct time-resolved XRD shows MgO flows plastically on nanosecond timescales; the inferred slip-system crossover is plausible but rests on a model-dependent fit that is not statistically robust at the highest pressure point. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04649 v1 pith:ETY6ZOA7 submitted 2026-08-05 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

A. Chakraborti , H. Ginestet , F. Bertrand , J. Chantel , S. Merkel , M. Harmand , S. Pandolfi , A. Amouretti
show 75 more authors
M. Andrzejewski K. Appel E. Barraud A.B. Belonoshko E. Brambrink K. Buakor C. Camarda O. Castelnau D.M. Cheshire G. Collins T.E. Cowan C. Crépisson J. Deng X. Fang M. Fitzgerald A. Gleason F. Hanby N.J. Hartley P.G. Heighway H. Höppner N. Jaisle J. Kim Z. Konopkova D. Kraus A. Krygier L. Libon C.M. Lonsdale S-N. Luo W. Lynn M. Masruri E.E. McBride D. McGonegle J.D. McHardy M.I. McMahon R.S. McWilliams T. Michelat B. Nagler M. Nakatsutsumi A-M. Norton I. Ocampo I.I. Oleynik C. Otzen S.E. Parsons D.J. Peake A. Pelka A. Phelipeau C. Prescher T.R. Preston N. Pulver L. Rogal J-P. Schwinkendorf G. Shoulga R.F. Smith S. Singh C.N. Somarathna T. Stevens C.V. Storm C. Strohm T-A. Suer M. Tang A. Tipeev M. Toncian T. Toncian U. Trdan T. Tschentscher J.D. Umpleby-Thorp L. Wang J.S. Wark A. Descamps A. Higginbotham T.M. Hutchinson C. McGuire A. Sollier G. Morard J.H. Eggert
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 62.50.-p
keywords magnesiumoxideshockcompressionplasticityslipsystemstime-resolvedX-raydiffractionEVPSCnanoseconddynamicslowermantlerheology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Polycrystalline magnesium oxide, a model ceramic and a major lower-mantle mineral, is shown to deform plastically within nanoseconds when driven by laser shock to pressures up to 175 GPa. Time-resolved X-ray diffraction snapshots, combined with elasto-viscoplastic self-consistent simulations, indicate that the material reaches a plastic flow state on nanosecond timescales and that the dominant slip system switches from $\{110\}\langle 110\rangle$ to $\{100\}\langle 110\rangle$ between 95 and 175 GPa. If correct, this means hard ceramics can flow fast enough to matter in high-velocity impacts, and it constrains the rheology of planetary interiors where ferropericlase carries much of the deformation.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by comparing time-resolved X-ray diffraction with elasto-viscoplastic self-consistent (EVPSC) simulations. From the diffraction images, lattice strain parameters $Q$ for the 111, 200, 220 and 311 reflections give the differential stress through $t = 6G\langle Q\rangle$, where $G$ is the pressure-temperature-dependent shear modulus, and orientation-dependent intensities give the texture. The EVPSC model, which treats each of 3000 spherical grains as an inclusion in a homogeneous anisotropic effective medium, is run under purely axial deformation to 10% strain at constant pressure and temperature, with a grid search over critical resolved shear stresses for the two slip systems; accepted solutions minimize a residual between modelled and measured $Q$ values and also reproduce the measured texture maximum. That double match is what lets the paper attribute the [100]-to-[110] texture shift to a change in dominant slip plane rather than to starting texture or arbitrary fitting.

What would settle it

Shock a polycrystalline MgO sample to an intermediate state near 135 GPa and measure its flow-state lattice strains and texture; if $\{110\}\langle 110\rangle$ slip still accounts for the majority of the EVPSC activity, the transition lies above 135 GPa, and if $\{100\}\langle 110\rangle$ dominates, it lies below, tightening or contradicting the claimed 95-175 GPa window.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, under laser-driven shock compression along the B1-phase Hugoniot, polycrystalline MgO undergoes plastic relaxation within the roughly 10 ns drive and that the controlling slip system changes with pressure. At 27(7) GPa / 500 K and 95(7) GPa / 1500 K the diffraction data show an elastic overshoot at shock entry, with differential stress rising to at least 7.4 and 6.9 GPa, before settling to flow-state values of 3.2(0.3) and 4.3(0.9) GPa; at 175(15) GPa / 3000 K only the flow state is captured, at 3.8(1.2) GPa. The flow-state texture's inverse-pole-figure maximum moves from [100] at 27 GPa to [110] at 175 GPa. In the EVPSC fits, the relative activity of $\{110\}\langle 110\rangle$ slip falls from 77% to 45% while $\{100\}\langle 110\rangle$ rises from 23% to 55%, placing the mechanism change between 95 and 175 GPa and implying that $\{100\}$ slip becomes dominant above roughly 100 GPa.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation rests on the EVPSC simplification of the shock: purely axial deformation of 3000 spherical grains to 10% strain at constant pressure and temperature, with a single strain-rate-independent critical resolved shear stress for each slip system, and the paper itself notes the model was not developed for shock deformation; if the real strain path is not axial or the critical stresses depend on strain rate, the inferred slip activities and the 95-175 GPa transition window could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Shock-compressed regions of polycrystalline MgO above roughly 100 GPa should be modelled with $\{100\}\langle 110\rangle$ as the active slip system rather than the ambient-pressure $\{110\}\langle 110\rangle$ system.
  • Plastic flow is reached within the ~10 ns laser drive, so hard ceramics should not be assumed to respond only elastically or brittly on these timescales.
  • The flow-state differential stresses of about 3-4 GPa up to 175 GPa provide direct dynamic-strength benchmarks comparable to static diamond-anvil and gas-gun values.
  • The elastic overshoot at shock entry means the yield stress at the shock front exceeds the steady flow stress, which matters for interpreting Hugoniot elastic limits in ceramics.
  • The same single-shot X-ray diffraction plus self-consistent modelling pipeline can be applied to other polycrystalline ceramics to map slip-system activity across pressure, temperature and strain rate.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the slip-system transition is strain-rate sensitive, as the authors suggest, extrapolating these shock results to mantle strain rates may shift the crossover pressure; a rate-dependent critical-resolved-shear-stress law would be needed before using the inferred activities directly in geodynamic models.
  • The fitted critical resolved shear stresses at 27, 95 and 175 GPa could be checked against atomistic simulations at the same pressures and strain rates; agreement would turn fitted parameters into physical quantities, while disagreement would point to non-axial strain or rate effects.
  • Repeating the measurement with a different drive duration or strain rate would map how the transition pressure depends on strain rate, separating thermally activated from athermal control of slip in MgO.
  • The flow-state differential stress at 175 GPa, 3.8(1.2) GPa, is higher than the sub-1 GPa strength inferred from interface instability growth; reconciling these two dynamic measures would clarify what each diagnostic actually measures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports laser-driven shock compression experiments on polycrystalline MgO at three Hugoniot states (27, 95, and 175 GPa) with time-resolved X-ray diffraction at the European XFEL. The authors extract lattice strain parameters Q(hkl) and texture from 2D Rietveld analysis, observe an elastic overshoot followed by a lower flow-state differential stress, and use elasto-viscoplastic self-consistent (EVPSC) simulations to interpret the evolution of lattice strains and texture. The central claim is that MgO deforms plastically on nanosecond timescales and that the dominant slip system changes from {110}<110> to {100}<110> between 95 and 175 GPa, as inferred from the EVPSC activity ratios and the observed texture transition from [100] to [110] maxima.

Significance. If the nanosecond-timescale plasticity claim is robust, it is a significant advance: direct time-resolved diffraction evidence that a hard ceramic can flow plastically within a few nanoseconds under shock, with quantitative differential stress measurements. The independent texture evolution in Fig. 3 and Supplement E is a valuable observable that provides a check on the model. The paper also connects dynamic strength measurements to a broader literature across static and dynamic regimes. However, the slip-system transition, which is a headline claim, is more fragile than the plasticity claim itself; it depends on model inversions whose acknowledged simplifications and statistical uncertainties are not fully quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 4(c) and Table S2] The central claim of a completed switch to {100}<110> dominance is not statistically supported by the reported best-fit values. At 175 GPa/3000 K (Table S2), the best-fit CRSS values are 1.9(4) GPa for {110}<110> and 2.0(1) GPa for {100}<110>, and the corresponding relative activities are 45(7)% and 55(7)%. Because the two CRSS values agree within their 1σ errors and the activity uncertainties overlap the 50/50 line, the 'change in dominant slip system between 95 and 175 GPa' reported in the abstract and Fig. 4(c) is not a statistically discernible crossover. The authors should report a formal confidence interval for the activity ratio, or soften the claim to 'consistent with an increasing {100} activity' until more pressure points or a rate-dependent model are available.
  2. [Supplement C, Eq. (S1)] The slip activities are partly an inversion of the measured lattice strains because the CRSS values are fitted to the same Q(hkl) data that the EVPSC model then uses to compute the relative activities. The texture comparison is an independent check, but Fig. 3 and Supplement E report only visual agreement; the paper should quantify how well texture alone (without the residual-error weighting in Eq. S1) discriminates between the two slip systems, and report the sensitivity of the activities to the choice of the 1.25 E threshold.
  3. [Elasto-viscoplastic self-consistent (EVPSC) models] The authors correctly state that 'EVPSC were not developed to model shock deformation,' yet the model assumes purely axial deformation, constant P-T, 3000 spherical grains with affine interaction, and a strain-rate independent CRSS. Under laser-driven shock with strain rates near 1e6-1e7/s, CRSS is expected to be rate-dependent, and at 175 GPa the two fitted CRSS values are nearly equal; a modest rate-induced change in the CRSS ratio could flip the 45/55 activity split. The authors should provide a sensitivity analysis, e.g., varying the CRSS ratio within the accepted grid or including a power-law rate sensitivity, and show how the inferred crossover pressure shifts. Without such a test, the transition pressure range is not robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The term 'flow state' is used without a definition; please define it in the caption or main text, and clarify that the time axis is 'time before shock breakout' so that negative times are clear.
  2. [Table I] In the 175 GPa row, the P_VISAR column is blank; use an em dash and add a footnote explaining that the pressure was determined only from impedance matching because VISAR fringes disappeared.
  3. [Main text, section 'The two-dimensional diffraction data...'] The analysis procedure is attributed to Ref. [37], but the detailed methodology is described in Ref. [32], which is stated to be under review; please cite Ref. [32] explicitly at the first use of the Rietveld/MAUD procedure so readers can locate the full method.
  4. [Supplement C, Eq. (S1)] The sentence describing the acceptance criterion is ambiguous: 'within 1.25 of the minimum E' should be written as E <= 1.25 * E_min or an equivalent explicit inequality.
  5. [Main text, 'For each P–T condition...'] The text says the XFEL probe timing was varied in 0.5 to 1 ns increments, but the number of distinct time points per condition is not stated; please specify the total number of shots per condition used in the time series in Fig. 2.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Slip-system activities are computed from CRSS values fitted to the same Q(hkl) lattice-strain data, so the reported mechanism transition is partly an in-sample inversion; independent texture comparison mitigates but does not remove this.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text, section 'Elasto-viscoplastic self-consistent (EVPSC) models'; Supplement C, Eq. S1]
    "the CRSS for the two possible slip systems ({110}⟨110⟩ and {100}⟨110⟩) were tested on a grid (Table S1), thus establishing the best Q-factor fit between the experimental data and the self-consistent modelling (supp. mat. Sec. C and Fig. S3). The comparison between the experimental data and the EVPSC models shows that the relative plastic activity of the {110} system drops from 77% at 27 GPa to 45% at 175 GPa, while the activity in the {100} system increases from 23% at 27 GPa to 55% at 175 GPa"

    Eq. S1 defines the residual E that the grid search minimizes by varying the CRSS values; the reported relative activities are outputs of the same EVPSC run at the best-fit CRSS, so the activity transition is an inversion of the measured Q(hkl) values used to fit the model rather than an independent observable. The texture comparison is a mitigating independent check, and the CRSS trends are compared with literature, but the quantitative 45/55-55/45 split at 175 GPa is a restatement of the near-equal fitted CRSS values (1.9 vs 2.0 GPa) and lies within the accepted-grid 1σ uncertainties (7%). Thus the central 'switch' claim is substantially forced by the fit.

full rationale

The paper transparently describes an inverse-modeling workflow: CRSS values for the two slip systems are free parameters chosen by minimizing the residual between EVPSC-computed and measured Q(hkl) lattice strains, and the reported relative slip activities are outputs of the same best-fit calculation. This makes the quantitative activity transition partly an in-sample description of the fitted data rather than an independent measurement. The circularity is only partial: the EVPSC-predicted texture is compared with independently measured texture as a second criterion, and the fitted CRSS trends are checked against static and atomistic results, giving the central mechanism claim some external constraint. The near-equality of the fitted CRSS values at 175 GPa (1.9 vs 2.0 GPa) and the 7% uncertainty on the 45/55 activity split are robustness concerns, not additional circularity. Self-citations to companion method papers (Refs. 32 and 34) support data reduction and pressure calibration but are not load-bearing for the physical argument, and the EVPSC method citation (Ref. 43) is to published work with independent data. Overall, the central claim does not reduce entirely to its inputs, but the reported slip-system transition is substantially determined by the same lattice-strain data used for fitting.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are the six CRSS values fitted to the lattice strain data plus two hand-chosen modeling thresholds. The axioms are standard shock-physics and polycrystal-plasticity assumptions, several of which (temperature inference, rate-independent CRSS, reverse-shock impedance matching) are acknowledged in the text as approximations.

free parameters (8)
  • CRSS {110}<110> at 27 GPa = 0.4(1) GPa
    Fitted to match measured lattice strains in EVPSC grid search.
  • CRSS {100}<110> at 27 GPa = 4.8(1) GPa
    Fitted to match measured lattice strains in EVPSC grid search.
  • CRSS {110}<110> at 95 GPa = 0.9(2) GPa
    Fitted to match measured lattice strains in EVPSC grid search.
  • CRSS {100}<110> at 95 GPa = 2.80(7) GPa
    Fitted to match measured lattice strains in EVPSC grid search.
  • CRSS {110}<110> at 175 GPa = 1.9(4) GPa
    Fitted to match measured lattice strains in EVPSC grid search.
  • CRSS {100}<110> at 175 GPa = 2.0(1) GPa
    Fitted to match measured lattice strains in EVPSC grid search.
  • Residual error acceptance factor = 1.25
    Threshold on EVPSC residual E to define accepted grid points; chosen by hand.
  • Maximum applied strain = 10%
    Prescribed axial strain in EVPSC; modeling choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Particle velocity is half of free surface velocity for VISAR-derived pressures
    Standard impedance matching approximation used in shock experiments; cited in Supplement A.
  • domain assumption Temperature is not measured; it is inferred from the Hugoniot and thermal EOS intersection
    Temperatures are not measured directly; the paper estimates them from the B1 Hugoniot and PVT EOS.
  • domain assumption EVPSC with spherical grains, affine interaction, uniaxial strain, constant P-T, and rate-independent CRSS
    The modeling framework and its simplifications are stated in the EVPSC section and Supplement C.
  • domain assumption Only {110}<110> and {100}<110> are active slip systems; {111}<110> is fixed at high CRSS
    Table S2 sets {111} CRSS at 20 GPa and only grids the two dominant systems, following prior MgO literature.
  • standard math Differential stress relates to lattice strain as t = 6G<Q>
    Standard relation for cubic materials under nonhydrostatic stress, from Singh et al., used to convert Q to differential stress.
  • domain assumption Reverse shock approximation for BK-MgO impedance matching at 175 GPa
    At 175 GPa the VISAR fringes disappeared, so the pressure relies on symmetric Hugoniot reflection of black kapton; Supplement A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nanosecond timescale plasticity in shock-compressed polycrystalline MgO: evidence for transition in mechanism above 100 GPa." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ETY6ZOA7

@misc{pith2026260804649,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nanosecond timescale plasticity in shock-compressed polycrystalline MgO: evidence for transition in mechanism above 100 GPa},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ETY6ZOA7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04649}
}
read the original abstract

The mechanical properties of ceramics under extreme conditions directly impact applications ranging from shielding spacecrafts, designing plasma facing materials in nuclear fusion to understanding the rheology of deep planetary interiors. Here, we use polycrystalline MgO as a model ceramic to understand the high-pressure-temperature mechanical behaviour of such materials under extreme strain rates. We use laser-driven shock compression up to 175(15) GPa on the principal Hugoniot along with ultrafast diagnostics at the European X-ray Free Electron Laser to probe the dominant deformation mechanisms with changing P -T conditions. These near-instantaneous time-resolved snapshots, coupled with elasto-viscoplastic self-consistent (EVPSC) simulations, strongly suggest that MgO attains plastic regime in the nanoseconds scale accompanied by a pressure-mediated change in dominant slip system between 95 and 175 GPa. This work provides a new direct window into the deformation dynamics of polycrystalline ceramics under high-velocity impacts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04649 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Lattice strain parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Inverse pole figures of the shock direction showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a): Dynamic strength determined in this work [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Schmidt, S

    S. Schmidt, S. Beyer, H. Immich, H. Knabe, R. Meistring, and A. Gessler, Ceramic matrix composites: A chal- lenge in space-propulsion technology applications, Inter- national Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology2, 85 (2005)

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Lynch, C

    J. Lynch, C. Ruderer, and W. Duckworth,Engineering Properties of Selected Ceramic Materials(The American Ceramic Society, 1966)

    work page 1966

  3. [3]

    Linke, H

    J. Linke, H. Bolt, R. Doerner, H. Gr¨ ubmeier, Y. Hirooka, H. Hoven, C. Mingam, H. Schulze, M. Seki, E. Wallura, T. Weber, and J. Winter, Performance of boron/carbon first wall materials under fusion relevant conditions, Jour- nal of Nuclear Materials176-177, 856 (1990)

    work page 1990

  4. [4]

    Karato,Deformation of Earth Materials: An Intro- duction to the Rheology of Solid Earth(Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2008)

    S. Karato,Deformation of Earth Materials: An Intro- duction to the Rheology of Solid Earth(Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Zhang, G

    J. Zhang, G. Liu, W. Cui, Y. Ge, S. Du, Y. Gao, Y. Zhang, F. Li, Z. Chen, S. Du, and K. Chen, Plastic de- formation in silicon nitride ceramics via bond switching at coherent interfaces, Science378, 371 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    X. Yang, S. K. Biswas, J. Han, S. Tanpichai, M. Li, C. Chen, S. Zhu, A. K. Das, and H. Yano, Surface and interface engineering for nanocellulosic advanced materi- als, Advanced Materials33, 2002264 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    M. F. Ashby, The deformation of plastically non- homogeneous materials, The Philosophical Magazine: A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Applied Physics 21, 399 (1970)

    work page 1970

  8. [8]

    Amodeo, S

    J. Amodeo, S. Merkel, C. Tromas, P. Carrez, S. Korte- Kerzel, P. Cordier, and J. Chevalier, Dislocations and plastic deformation in MgO crystals: A review, Crystals 8, 10.3390/cryst8060240 (2018)

    doi:10.3390/cryst8060240 2018

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Merkel, H

    S. Merkel, H. R. Wenk, J. Shu, G. Shen, P. Gillet, H. Mao, and R. J. Hemley, Deformation of polycrystalline MgO at pressures of the lower mantle, Journal of Geo- physical Research: Solid Earth107, ECV 3 (2002)

    2002

  2. [10]

    S. Zhao, R. Flanagan, E. Hahn, B. Kad, B. Reming- ton, C. Wehrenberg, R. Cauble, K. More, and M. Mey- ers, Shock-induced amorphization in silicon carbide, Acta Materialia158, 206 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Tanaka, K

    Y. Tanaka, K. Ito, T. Nakatani, R. Onitsuka, M. Newton, T. Sato, T. Togashi, M. Yabashi, T. Kawaguchi, K. Shi- mada, K. Tokuda, I. Takahashi, T. Ichitsubo, E. Matsub- ara, and Y. Nishino, Time-resolved Bragg coherent X-ray diffraction revealing ultrafast lattice dynamics in na...

    2013

  4. [12]

    C. E. Wehrenberg, D. McGonegle, C. Bolme, A. Higgin- botham, A. Lazicki, H. J. Lee, B. Nagler, H. S. Park, B. A. Remington, R. E. Rudd, M. Sliwa, M. Suggit, D. Swift, F. Tavella, L. Zepeda-Ruiz, and J. S. Wark, In situ x-ray diffraction measurement of shock-wave-driven 8 twinn...

    2017

  5. [13]

    Merkel, S

    S. Merkel, S. Hok, C. Bolme, D. Rittman, K. J. Ramos, B. Morrow, H. J. Lee, B. Nagler, E. Galtier, E. Granados, A. Hashim, W. L. Mao, and A. E. Gleason, Femtosecond visualization of hcp-iron strength and plasticity under shock compression, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 205501 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    M. G. Gorman, D. McGonegle, R. F. Smith, S. Singh, T. Jenkins, R. S. McWilliams, B. Albertazzi, S. J. Ali, L. Antonelli, M. R. Armstrong, C. Baehtz, O. B. Ball, S. Banerjee, A. B. Belonoshko, A. Benuzzi-Mounaix, C. A. Bolme, V. Bouffetier, R. Briggs, K. Buakor, T. Butcher, S. ...

    2024

  7. [15]

    S. Chen, Y. X. Li, N. B. Zhang, J. W. Huang, H. M. Hou, S. J. Ye, T. Zhong, X. L. Zeng, D. Fan, L. Lu, L. Wang, T. Sun, K. Fezzaa, Y. Y. Zhang, M. X. Tang, and S. N. Luo, Capture deformation twinning in Mg dur- ing shock compression with ultrafast synchrotron X-Ray Diffraction...

    2019

  8. [16]

    M. Mo, M. Tang, Z. Chen, J. R. Peterson, X. Shen, J. K. Baldwin, M. Frost, M. Kozina, A. Reid, Y. Wang, J. E, A. Descamps, B. K. Ofori-Okai, R. Li, S.-N. Luo, X. Wang, and S. Glenzer, Ultrafast visualization of incip- ient plasticity in dynamically compressed matter, Nature Co...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Zastrau, K

    U. Zastrau, K. Appel, C. Baehtz, O. Baehr, L. Batchelor, A. Bergh¨ auser, M. Banjafar, E. Brambrink, V. Cerantola, T. E. Cowan, H. Damker, S. Dietrich, S. Di Dio Cafiso, J. Dreyer, H.-O. Engel, T. Feldmann, S. Findeisen, M. Foese, D. Fulla-Marsa, S. G¨ ode, M. Hassan, J. Hause...

    2021

  10. [18]

    T. M. Perez, S. C. Dick, R. F. Smith, P. M. Celliers, J. H. Eggert, S. J. Ali, E. Johnsen, and J. K. Wicks, Low viscosity of solid MgO at high pressures and strain rates measured using the laser-driven Richtmyer-Meshkov in- stability, Phys. Rev. B111, 144108 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    J. P. Singh, V. Singh, A. Sharma, G. Pandey, K. H. Chae, and S. Lee, Approaches to synthesize MgO nanostruc- tures for diverse applications, Heliyon6, 2405 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Murakami, A

    M. Murakami, A. Khan, P. A. Sossi, M. D. Ballmer, and P. Saha, The composition of earth’s lower mantle, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences52, 605 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Duffy, N

    T. Duffy, N. Madhusudhan, and K. Lee, 2.07 - mineralogy of super-earth planets, inTreatise on Geophysics (Second Edition), edited by G. Schubert (Elsevier, Oxford, 2015) second edition ed., pp. 149–178

    2015

  14. [22]

    Amodeo, P

    J. Amodeo, P. Carrez, and P. Cordier, Modelling the ef- fect of pressure on the critical shear stress of MgO single crystals, Philosophical Magazine92, 1523 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Cordier, J

    P. Cordier, J. Amodeo, and P. Carrez, Modelling the rhe- ology of MgO under Earth’s mantle pressure, tempera- ture and strain rates, Nature481, 177 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Y. Park, S. Azuma, K. Okazaki, K. Uesugi, M. Ya- sutake, Y. Nishihara, and R. Nomura, Development of lattice-preferred orientations of MgO periclase from strain rate controlled shear deformation experiments un- der pressure up to 120 GPa, Geophys. Res. Lett.49, 10.1029/2022gl1...

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Immoor, H

    J. Immoor, H. Marquardt, L. Miyagi, F. Lin, S. Speziale, S. Merkel, J. Buchen, A. Kurnosov, and H.-P. Liermann, Evidence for 100⟨011⟩slip in ferropericlase in earth’s lower mantle from high-pressure/high-temperature ex- periments, Earth and Planetary Science Letters489, 251 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Ishimori, S

    K. Ishimori, S. Azuma, K. Uesugi, M. Yasutake, K. Okazaki, B. Natsui, E. G. Jayawickrama, and K. Ohta, Temperature and pressure dependence on slip systems in MgO: Insights from large-strain deformation exper- iments using the rotational diamond anvil cell, Phys. Earth Planet. ...

    2025

  19. [27]

    T. S. Duffy, R. J. Hemley, and H. Mao, Equation of state and shear strength at multimegabar pressures: Magne- sium oxide to 227 GPa, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 1371 (1995)

    1995

  20. [28]

    J. Wang, R. F. Smith, F. Coppari, J. H. Eggert, T. R. Boehly, G. W. Collins, and T. S. Duffy, Ramp compres- sion of magnesium oxide to 234 gpa, Journal of Physics: Conference Series500, 062002 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    T. S. Duffy and T. J. Ahrens, Compressional sound veloc- ity, equation of state, and constitutive response of shock- compressed magnesium oxide, Journal of Geophysical Re- search: Solid Earth100, 529 (1995)

    1995

  22. [30]

    Miyanishi, Y

    K. Miyanishi, Y. Tange, N. Osaki, T. Kimura, T. Sano, Y. Sakawa, T. Tsuchiya, and R. Kodama, Laser-shock compression of magnesium oxide in the warm-dense- matter regime, Physical Review E92(2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    edited by S. P. Marsh,Los Alamos Shock Hugoniot Data, Tech. Rep. (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1979). 9

    1979

  24. [32]

    Ginestet, A

    H. Ginestet, A. Chakraborti, S. Merkel, P. G. Heigh- way, J. Chantel, A. Addad, A. Amouretti, M. An- drzejewski, C. Baehtz, E. Barraud, A. Belonoshko, V. Bouffetier, E. Brambrink, R. Briggs, N. Bruzy, K. Buakor, S. di dio Cafiso, C. Camarda, O. Castel- nau, D. Cheshire, A. Col...

  25. [33]

    Descamps, T

    A. Descamps, T. M. Hutchinson, R. Briggs, E. E. McBride, M. Millot, T. Michelat, J. H. Eggert, B. Al- bertazzi, L. Antonelli, M. R. Armstrong, C. Baehtz, O. B. Ball, S. Banerjee, A. B. Belonoshko, A. Benuzzi- Mounaix, C. A. Bolme, V. Bouffetier, K. Buakor, T. Butcher, V. Ceran...

    2025

  26. [34]

    Lonsdale, J

    C. Lonsdale, J. McHardy, C. Storm, M. McMahon, R. McWilliams, N. Jaisle, M. Jones, C. Roy, R. Smith, A. Descamps, A. Higginbotham, T. Hutchinson, S. Pan- dolfi, A. Sollier, A. Amouretti, M. Andrzejewski, K. Ap- pel, T. Aughey, P. Avery, E. Barraud, A. Belonoshko, E. Brambrink,...

  27. [35]

    K. Jin, X. Li, Q. Wu, H. Geng, L. Cai, X. Zhou, and F. Jing, The pressure-volume-temperature equation of state of MgO derived from shock Hugoniot data and its application as a pressure scale, Journal of Applied Physics107, 113518 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    Speziale, C.-S

    S. Speziale, C.-S. Zha, T. S. Duffy, R. J. Hemley, and H.-K. Mao, Quasi-hydrostatic compression of magnesium oxide to 52 gpa: Implications for the pressure-volume- temperature equation of state, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth106, 515 (2001)

    2001

  29. [37]

    Lutterotti, R

    L. Lutterotti, R. Vasin, and H.-R. Wenk, Rietveld tex- ture analysis from synchrotron diffraction images. i. cali- bration and basic analysis, Powder Diffraction29, 76–84 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    A. K. Singh, C. Balasingh, H.-k. Mao, R. J. Hemley, and J. Shu, Analysis of lattice strains measured under nonhydrostatic pressure, Journal of Applied Physics83, 7567 (1998)

    1998

  31. [39]

    Kositski and D

    R. Kositski and D. Mordehai, On the origin of the stress spike decay in the elastic precursor in shocked metals, Journal of Applied Physics126, 085901 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    E. B. Zaretsky and G. I. Kanel, Plastic flow in shock- loaded silver at strain rates from 10 4 s−1 to 10 7 s−1 and temperatures from 296 k to 1233 k, Journal of Applied Physics110, 073502 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    C. M. Fancher, Diffraction methods for qualitative and quantitative texture analysis of ferroelectric ceramics, Materials14, 10.3390/ma14195633 (2021)

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    Jeong and T

    Y. Jeong and T. C.N., Extension of the visco-plastic self- consistent model to account for elasto-visco-plastic be- havior using a perturbed visco-plastic approach, Mod- elling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineer- ing27, 085013 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    F. Lin, N. Hilairet, P. Raterron, A. Addad, J. Immoor, H. Marquardt, C. N. Tom´ e, L. Miyagi, and S. Merkel, Elasto-viscoplastic self consistent modeling of the ambi- ent temperature plastic behavior of periclase deformed up to 5.4 GPa, Journal of Applied Physics122, 205902 (2017). 10

    2017

  36. [44]

    B. B. Karki, R. M. Wentzcovitch, S. de Gironcoli, and S. Baroni, High-pressure lattice dynamics and thermoe- lasticity of MgO, Phys. Rev. B61, 8793 (2000)

    2000

  37. [45]

    Meade and R

    C. Meade and R. Jeanloz, Yield strength of MgO to 40 GPa, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth93, 3261 (1988)

    1988

  38. [46]

    S. Zhao, B. Kad, B. A. Remington, J. C. LaSalvia, C. E. Wehrenberg, K. D. Behler, and M. A. Meyers, Direc- tional amorphization of boron carbide subjected to laser shock compression, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113, 12088 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    X. Liu, T. Mashimo, K. Ogata, T. Kinoshita, T. Sekine, X. Zhou, and W. J. Nellis, Anomalous elastic–plastic transition of MgO under shock compression, Journal of Applied Physics114, 243511 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    Svendsen and T

    B. Svendsen and T. J. Ahrens, Shock-induced tempera- tures of mgo, Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astro- nomical Society91, 667 (1987)

    1987

  41. [49]

    Soubiran and B

    F. Soubiran and B. Militzer, Anharmonicity and phase diagram of Magnesium oxide in the Megabar regime, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 175701 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Ramis, J

    R. Ramis, J. Meyer-ter Vehn, and J. Ramirez, MULTI2D–a computer code for two-dimensional radia- tion hydrodynamics, Computer Physics Communications 180, 977 (2009). ... 1 SUPPLEMENT AR Y MA TERIAL A. Pressure determination through black kapton-MgO interface impedance matching ...

    2009

  43. [2440]

    acknowledges the financial support from the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (ARIS) through the research core funding programme No

    U.T. acknowledges the financial support from the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (ARIS) through the research core funding programme No. P2- 0270 and the ARIS research project No. J2-60033 (Su- perShocked) and the support of the Sustainable Blue Economy Partnership und...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.