| Title |
Avalanche precursors of failure in hierarchical fuse networks
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1038/s41598-018-30539-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paolo Moretti, Bastien Dietemann, Nosaibeh Esfandiary, Michael Zaiser |
| Abstract |
We study precursors of failure in hierarchical random fuse network models which can be considered as idealizations of hierarchical (bio)materials where fibrous assemblies are held together by multi-level (hierarchical) cross-links. When such structures are loaded towards failure, the patterns of precursory avalanche activity exhibit generic scale invariance: irrespective of load, precursor activity is characterized by power-law avalanche size distributions without apparent cut-off, with power-law exponents that decrease continuously with increasing load. This failure behavior and the ensuing super-rough crack morphology differ significantly from the findings in non-hierarchical structures. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 7 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 43% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 29% |
| Researcher | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 29% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 29% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,718,998
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#70,312
of 127,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,673
of 332,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#2,043
of 3,660 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 127,511 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,102 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,660 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.