Viscosity of Glass-Forming Liquids
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Viscosity of glass-forming liquids John C. Mauroa,1, Yuanzheng Yueb, Adam J. Ellisona, Prabhat K. Guptac, and Douglas C. Allana aScience and Technology Division, Corning Incorporated, Corning, NY 14831; bSection of Chemistry, Aalborg University, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark; and cDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210 Communicated by J. C. Phillips, Rutgers University, Summit, NJ, October 9, 2009 (received for review June 15, 2009) The low-temperature dynamics of ultraviscous liquids hold the key ͑x͒ ␣͑x͒ ͑ ͒ ϭ ͑ ͒ ϩ ͩ ͪ to understanding the nature of glass transition and relaxation log T, x log ϱ x , [2] 10 10 T phenomena, including the potential existence of an ideal thermo- dynamic glass transition. Unfortunately, existing viscosity models, where ϱ, , and ␣ are fitting parameters. Eq. 2 had been such as the Vogel–Fulcher–Tammann (VFT) and Avramov–Milchev proposed (albeit empirically) by several authors (1, 7, 8) before (AM) equations, exhibit systematic error when extrapolating to the work of Avramov and Milchev. Although another three- low temperatures. We present a model offering an improved parameter model has recently been proposed by Elmatad et al. description of the viscosity–temperature relationship for both (9), the quadratic form adopted by these authors applies only inorganic and organic liquids using the same number of parame- over a narrow range of temperatures and breaks down in both the ters as VFT and AM. The model has a clear physical foundation high- and low-temperature tails. Here we are interested only in based on the temperature dependence of configurational entropy, those models, such as VFT and AM, that cover the full range of and it offers an accurate prediction of low-temperature isokoms temperatures by using a single three-parameter form. without any singularity at finite temperature. Our results cast doubt on the existence of a Kauzmann entropy catastrophe and Model. We revisit the problem of viscous liquid dynamics starting associated ideal glass transition. with the Adam–Gibbs equation (10), relating viscosity to the configurational entropy of the liquid, Sc(T,x): modeling ͉ supercooled liquids ͉ configurational entropy ͉ relaxation B͑x͒ PHYSICS ͑ ͒ ϭ ͑ ͒ ϩ log10 T, x log10 ϱ x , [3] erhaps the most intriguing feature of a supercooled liquid is TSc͑T, x͒ Pits dramatic rise in viscosity as it is cooled toward the glass transition. This sharp, super-Arrhenius increase is accompanied which has met with remarkable success in describing the relax- by very little change in the structural features observable by ation behavior of a wide variety of systems (11) and has proved typical diffraction experiments. Several basic questions remain a key enabler for the theoretical study of dynamical heteroge- unanswered: neities in supercooled liquids (12, 13). Here, B(x) is an effective 1. Is the behavior universal (i.e., is the viscosity of all liquids activation barrier, which is typically left as a fitting parameter. described by the same underlying model)? The configurational entropy Sc(T,x) is a complex quantity in a 2. Does the viscosity diverge at some finite temperature below glassily entangled system, but it can be modeled by using the glass transition (i.e., is there a dynamic singularity)? constraint theory. [Constraint theory is general approach that 3. Is the existence of a thermodynamic singularity the cause of has given an accurate description of the phase diagrams of the dramatic viscous slowdown? thermal, kinetic, vibrational, and other properties of many Answers to these questions are critical for understanding the network glasses, especially near the glass transition (14).] Fol- behavior of deeply supercooled liquids. Unfortunately, equilibrium- lowing the energy landscape analysis of Naumis (15) and the viscosity measurements cannot be carried out at temperatures temperature-dependent constraint model of Gupta and Mauro much below the glass transition owing to the long structural (16), the configurational entropy can be related to the topolog- relaxation time. It thus becomes critical to find a model that best ical degrees of freedom per atom (17, 18), f(T,x), by describes the temperature dependence of viscosity by using the ͑ ͒ ϭ ͑ ͒ ⍀ fewest possible number of fitting parameters (1, 2). Because two Sc T, x f T, x Nk ln , [4] parameters are needed for a simple Arrhenius description, mod- where N is the number of atoms, k is Boltzmann’s constant, and eling of super-Arrhenius behavior requires a minimum of three ⍀ is the number of degenerate configurations per floppy mode parameters. We focus on three-parameter models only, with the (16). To obtain the most economical model for f(T,x), we goal of describing the universal physics of supercooled liquid consider a simple two-state system in which the network con- viscosity in the most economical form possible. straints are either intact or broken, with an energy difference The most popular viscosity model is the Vogel–Fulcher– given by H(x): Tammann (VFT) equation (3) H͑x͒ A͑x͒ ͑ ͒ ϭ ͩ Ϫ ͪ ͑ ͒ ϭ ͑ ͒ ϩ f T, x 3exp . [5] log10 T, x log10 ϱ x Ϫ ͑ ͒ , [1] kT T T0 x In the limit of high temperature, Eq. 5 gives three translational T x where is temperature, is composition, and the three VFT degrees of freedom per atom. The network becomes completely ϱ A T 1 parameters ( , , and 0) are obtained by fitting Eq. to rigid at absolute zero temperature, f(0,x) ϭ 0, where there is no experimentally measured viscosity data. In the polymer science thermal energy to break the bond constraints. Defining K(x) ϭ community, Eq. 1 is also known as the Williams–Landel–Ferry (WLF) equation (4). Although VFT has met with notable success for a variety of liquids, there is some indication that it Author contributions: J.C.M. designed research; J.C.M., A.J.E., P.K.G., and D.C.A. performed breaks down at low temperatures (3, 5). Another successful research; J.C.M., Y.Y., and A.J.E. analyzed data; and J.C.M., Y.Y., and P.K.G. wrote the paper. three-parameter viscosity model is the Avramov–Milchev (AM) The authors declare no conflict of interest. equation (6), derived based on an atomic hopping approach: 1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]. www.pnas.org͞cgi͞doi͞10.1073͞pnas.0911705106 PNAS Early Edition ͉ 1of5 Downloaded by guest on September 23, 2021 ⍀ ϭ B(x)/3Nkln and C(x) H(x)/k, we obtain the following three- A 36 parameter model for viscosity: 32 VFT 28 AM K͑x͒ C͑x͒ 24 Current Model ͑ ͒ ϭ ͑ ͒ ϩ ͩ ͪ log10 T, x log10 ϱ x exp . [6] ) [Pa-s] 20 T T T / g 16 T ( 12 Eq. 6 was proposed empirically as one of several expressions by η Waterton in 1932 (19), but we are unaware of any subsequent 10 8 log 4 6 work with this expression. Although Eq. could be obtained by 0 assuming an exponential form for activation barrier in the -4 Arrhenius formula for viscosity, this would be physically unre- 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 alistic because (i) the activation barrier would become infinite in Tg/T the limit of zero temperature and (ii) the high-temperature B kinetics are dominated by entropic effects, which are not con- 6 ) VFT sidered by using a simple activation-barrier model. Here we 2 5 4 AM obtain Eq. 6 through a physically realistic model for configura- (1/K Current Model g 3 tional entropy based on a constraint approach. BT )/ 2 Although the viscosity models of Eqs. 1, 2, and 6 have different T ( c 1 sets of adjustable parameters, each model can be rewritten in S 0 terms of the same set of physically meaningful quantities: (i) the 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 glass-transition temperature, Tg(x); (ii) the fragility, m(x); and Tg/T (iii) the extrapolated infinite temperature viscosity, ϱ(x). For 0.07 any composition x, the glass-transition temperature is defined C VFT ) 0.06 12 2 where the shear viscosity is equal to 10 Pa-s (16, 20), i.e., 0.05 AM 12 (Tg(x),x) ϭ 10 Pa-s. Fragility (21) is defined as (1/K 0.04 Current Model g 0.03 BT Ѩ log ͑T, x͒ )/ 0.02 T 10 T ( ͯ c m͑x͒ ϭ . [7] 0.01 Ѩ͑ ͑ ͒ ͒ S Tg x /T ϭ ͑ ͒ T Tg x 0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 With these definitions, the VFT expression of Eq. 1 becomes T/Tg ͑ Ϫ ͒2 12 log10 ϱ Fig. 1. Comparison of the viscosity models. (A) Temperature dependence of log ͑T͒ ϭ log ϱ ϩ , [8] ϭ ϭϪ 10 10 ͑ Ϫ ͒ ϩ ͑ Ϫ ͒ viscosity with Eqs. 8–10, assuming m 60 and log10 ϱ 4. (B) Plot of Sc(T)/BTg m T/Tg 1 12 log10 ϱ for T Ͼ Tg, obtained by equating each of Eqs. 7-9 with the Adam–Gibbs the AM expression of Eq. 2 becomes relation of Eq. 3. The AM model of Eq. 9 yields a divergent configurational entropy in the limit of T 3ϱ.(C) Plot of Sc(T)/BTg for T Ͻ Tg. The VFT model of ͑ Ϫ ͒ ϭ T m/ 12 log10 ϱ Eq. 8 predicts a vanishing of configurational entropy at T T0. ͑ ͒ ϭ ϩ ͑ Ϫ ͒ͩ gͪ log T log ϱ 12 log ϱ , [9] 10 10 10 T remains contentious, the energy-landscape analysis of Stillinger and the current model in Eq.