# An Energy Minimization Approach to Twinning with Variable Volume Fraction

## TL;DR

This paper presents a model for understanding how materials form specific microstructures when bent, using energy minimization principles.

## Contribution

The novel contribution is an energy-minimization model for twinning with variable volume fraction in martensitic materials.

## Key findings

- The model identifies how minimum energy scales with surface energy density.
- Upper and lower bounds are proven to show optimal microstructure arrangements.
- The model uses Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions to simulate bending.

## Abstract

In materials that undergo martensitic phase transformation, macroscopic loading often leads to the creation and/or rearrangement of elastic domains. This paper considers an example involving a single-crystal slab made from two martensite variants. When the slab is made to bend, the two variants form a characteristic microstructure that we like to call “twinning with variable volume fraction.” Two 1996 papers by Chopra et al. explored this example using bars made from InTl, providing considerable detail about the microstructures they observed. Here we offer an energy-minimization-based model that is motivated by their account. It uses geometrically linear elasticity, and treats the phase boundaries as sharp interfaces. For simplicity, rather than model the experimental forces and boundary conditions exactly, we consider certain Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions whose effect is to require bending. This leads to certain nonlinear (and nonconvex) variational problems that represent the minimization of elastic plus surface energy (and the work done by the load, in the case of a Neumann boundary condition). Our results identify how the minimum value of each variational problem scales with respect to the surface energy density. The results are established by proving upper and lower bounds that scale the same way. The upper bounds are ansatz-based, providing full details about some (nearly) optimal microstructures. The lower bounds are ansatz-free, so they explain why no other arrangement of the two phases could be significantly better.