pith. sign in

arxiv: 2501.13055 · v1 · pith:YSBUVM55new · submitted 2025-01-22 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci · cond-mat.mes-hall

Microtubes and nanomembranes by ion-beam-induced exfoliation of β-Ga₂O₃

Duarte Magalh\~aes Esteves , Ru He , Calliope Bazioti , S\'ergio Magalh\~aes , Miguel Carvalho Sequeira , Lu\'is Filipe Santos , Alexander Azarov , Andrej Kuznetsov
show 3 more authors
Flyura Djurabekova Katharina Lorenz Marco Peres
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 04:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords β-Ga₂O₃ion implantationexfoliationmicrotubesnanomembranesstrain profilecleavage planesannealing recovery
0
0 comments X

The pith

Ion implantation in β-Ga₂O₃ generates strain that detaches surface layers into microtubes unrollable to nanomembranes by annealing.

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

The paper shows that ion implantation under specific conditions creates a strain profile in β-Ga₂O₃ crystals that causes a thin surface layer to detach and roll up into a microtube. This occurs because of the material's monoclinic structure and easy cleavage planes. Annealing then unrolls the microtube into a nanomembrane with crystal quality matching the original bulk material, and the membrane can be moved to other substrates. The process also recovers damage at moderate temperatures and works with different ions to add doping at the same time.

Core claim

Ion implantation in (100)-oriented β-Ga₂O₃ single crystals under controlled flux and fluence produces an irradiation-induced strain profile that drives detachment and rolling of a thin surface layer into a microtube. The mechanism ties to the anisotropic monoclinic system and its easy-cleavage planes. Annealing unrolls these microtubes into nanomembranes retaining bulk-like crystalline quality for transfer to other substrates, with implantation damage recovering at around 500 °C. Different ions can be used for simultaneous doping to adjust properties.

What carries the argument

Irradiation-induced strain profile that interacts with the material's easy-cleavage planes to cause controlled layer detachment and rolling.

Load-bearing premise

The strain profile leads to controlled detachment along easy-cleavage planes instead of random cracking due to the monoclinic anisotropy.

What would settle it

If the same implantation conditions produce random cracks or no rolling instead of ordered microtubes, or if annealing fails to produce flat bulk-quality nanomembranes.

read the original abstract

This paper reports an innovative process to fabricate $\beta$-Ga$_{2}$O$_{3}$ microtubes and nanomembranes based on ion implantation in (100)-oriented single-crystals. We show that, under specific flux and fluence conditions, the irradiation-induced strain profile promotes the detachment and rolling-up of a thin surface layer, forming a microtube. The strain-disorder interplay was investigated in detail for Cr-implanted $\beta$-Ga$_{2}$O$_{3}$ with a range of complementary methods, showing an excellent agreement between experimental and simulation data, and suggesting an exfoliation mechanism that is correlated with the anisotropic nature of the $\beta$-Ga$_{2}$O$_{3}$ monoclinic system and its easy-cleavage planes. Moreover, these microtubes can be unrolled upon a subsequent annealing step, resulting in nanomembranes with bulk-like crystalline quality that can be transferred to other substrates. The recovery of the implantation-induced damage under thermal annealing has also been studied, showing a remarkable recovery at moderate temperatures (~500 {\deg}C). This observation underscores the potential of this method for the scalable production of nanomembranes with improved reproducibility compared to conventional mechanical exfoliation techniques. Importantly, such exfoliation can be done employing different ions, providing simultaneous $\beta$-Ga$_{2}$O$_{3}$ doping, chosen to control the structural, optical, magnetic and electrical properties of the nanomembranes, thus tailoring them to fit the desired applications.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes an ion implantation-based method for fabricating β-Ga₂O₃ microtubes and nanomembranes from (100)-oriented single crystals. Under specific flux and fluence conditions, the irradiation-induced strain profile leads to detachment and rolling of a thin surface layer into a microtube. These microtubes can be unrolled by annealing at approximately 500°C to produce nanomembranes with bulk-like crystalline quality. The exfoliation mechanism is correlated with the anisotropic monoclinic structure and easy-cleavage planes, with simulations showing excellent agreement with experimental data. The process allows for simultaneous doping using different ions and shows remarkable damage recovery at moderate temperatures.

Significance. If substantiated with quantitative metrics and direct mechanistic tests, this approach could enable scalable, reproducible production of doped β-Ga₂O₃ nanomembranes with better control than mechanical exfoliation, and the moderate-temperature recovery would be advantageous for integration into devices.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the strain profile produces controlled, directional detachment (rather than random cracking) rests on a post-hoc correlation with monoclinic anisotropy and easy-cleavage planes; no orientation-dependent controls, cleavage-plane-specific crack imaging, or modeling that isolates anisotropy from generic strain/disorder effects are described, leaving the selectivity mechanism untested.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the statements of 'excellent agreement between experimental and simulation data' and 'remarkable recovery at moderate temperatures (~500°C)' are presented without error bars, raw data, quantitative metrics (e.g., R² values, FWHM, or damage fractions), or exclusion criteria, which are load-bearing for assessing the strength of the strain-exfoliation and recovery claims.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract invokes 'the anisotropic nature of the β-Ga₂O₃ monoclinic system' without citing the specific easy-cleavage planes or prior literature on their energies in this context.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We provide point-by-point responses to the major comments below, indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the strain profile produces controlled, directional detachment (rather than random cracking) rests on a post-hoc correlation with monoclinic anisotropy and easy-cleavage planes; no orientation-dependent controls, cleavage-plane-specific crack imaging, or modeling that isolates anisotropy from generic strain/disorder effects are described, leaving the selectivity mechanism untested.

    Authors: The directional detachment and rolling are observed specifically under the implantation conditions in (100) crystals and align with the simulated strain profile that incorporates the monoclinic elastic anisotropy. The simulations account for the lattice orientation and predict detachment along directions consistent with the easy-cleavage planes, distinguishing this from isotropic strain effects. We acknowledge that explicit orientation-dependent controls or dedicated crack imaging would provide additional direct tests. We will revise the abstract to emphasize that the mechanism is suggested by the correlation between the anisotropic strain model and experimental outcomes rather than claiming definitive isolation of the selectivity. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statements of 'excellent agreement between experimental and simulation data' and 'remarkable recovery at moderate temperatures (~500°C)' are presented without error bars, raw data, quantitative metrics (e.g., R² values, FWHM, or damage fractions), or exclusion criteria, which are load-bearing for assessing the strength of the strain-exfoliation and recovery claims.

    Authors: We will revise the abstract and relevant sections to include quantitative metrics supporting these statements, such as R² values for the strain profile comparisons, FWHM values from XRD characterizing the recovered crystalline quality, and damage fraction estimates from complementary measurements. Error bars will be added to relevant data, and the temperature range and conditions for recovery will be specified with reference to the supporting figures. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental observations and simulations are independent of claimed mechanism.

full rationale

The paper reports experimental results on ion implantation in β-Ga₂O₃ leading to strain-induced exfoliation, microtubes, and subsequent unrolling into nanomembranes, with supporting simulations showing agreement on strain profiles. The suggested correlation to monoclinic anisotropy and easy-cleavage planes is presented as an interpretation of the data-simulation match rather than a derivation. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are invoked in a way that reduces the central claims to inputs by construction. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks (observed morphologies, annealing recovery) without load-bearing self-referential steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions about ion-implantation strain profiles and the monoclinic crystal anisotropy of β-Ga₂O₃; no free parameters are fitted to produce the target result, and no new entities are postulated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption β-Ga₂O₃ monoclinic lattice possesses easy-cleavage planes that interact with implantation-induced strain to produce controlled layer detachment
    Invoked in the abstract to link observed rolling behavior to crystal structure rather than random fracture.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5868 in / 1389 out tokens · 24637 ms · 2026-05-23T04:41:43.571916+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 97 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introduction As a member of the family of ultra-wide bandgap semiconductors, Ga2O3 has recently attracted significant interest due to its exceptional properties. In its monoclinic β phase, which is chemically and thermodynamically stable at the usual device performance conditions, this material exhibits a bandgap of ∼4.9 eV at room temperature (RT) and a ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    were used

    Experimental and computational methods For this work, nominally undoped commercial β-Ga2O3 single-crystals from Novel Crystal Technology, Inc. were used. These crystals were grown by the edge-defined film-fed growth (EFG) method and mechanically cleaved along the {100} easy-cleavage planes to a thickness of ~500 μm and cut to lateral dimensions of 5 mm × ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Ion-beam-induced exfoliation A (100)-oriented β-Ga2O3 sample was implanted with a fluence of 1.0×1015 cm–2 using 250 keV Cr2+ ions, with a flux lower than ~1.0×1012 cm–2 s–1

    Structural data 3.1. Ion-beam-induced exfoliation A (100)-oriented β-Ga2O3 sample was implanted with a fluence of 1.0×1015 cm–2 using 250 keV Cr2+ ions, with a flux lower than ~1.0×1012 cm–2 s–1. Surprisingly, after the implantation, it was observed that a thin surface layer had been exfoliated and self-rolled along the b-axis ([010] direction), forming s...

    work page

  4. [4]

    14/26 3.3

    direction. 14/26 3.3. Disorder and strain evolution with annealing As mentioned before, annealing the microtubes promotes the relaxation of the strain and leads to the unrolling of the tubes, yielding a flat nanomembrane. In order to systematically study this process, we monitored the evolution of the strain and defect profiles for a sample implanted with...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Atomistic simulations and discussion In order to inspect the atomic origins of strain and stress, classical MD simulations were performed using the LAMMPS software, as detailed in section 2, using dpa values comparable to the one used experimentally. Specifically, we used 20 sequential collision cascades induced by 10 keV Ga ions, yielding a disorder leve...

    work page

  6. [6]

    substrate

    and (b) [001] directions. The blue curves correspond to the vacancy profiles obtained from SRIM. Generally, Fig. 8 shows a good agreement between SRIM and the MD simulations. Indeed, most of the damage is produced in the region predicted by SRIM, although there are deeper defects in the MD simulations, attributed to the channeling phenomenon not accounted...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Conclusions This work presents a novel method based on ion implantation that can be used to produce thin nanomembranes and microtubes of β-Ga2O3 with improved control compared to conventional mechanical exfoliation. The implantation-induced defects create a distribution of stresses and strains that ultimately lead to the rolling-up of the surface layer of...

    work page doi:10.54499/2022.05329.ptdc 2022

  8. [8]

    Sasaki, M

    K. Sasaki, M. Higashiwaki, A. Kuramata, T. Masui, S. Yamakoshi, J. Cryst. Growth 2013, 378, 591

    work page 2013

  9. [9]

    L. K. Ping, D. D. Berhanuddin, A. K. Mondal, P. S. Menon, M. A. Mohamed, Chin. J. Phys. 2021, 73, 195

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Y. Qin, Z. Wang, K. Sasaki, J. Ye, Y. Zhang, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 2023, 62, SF0801

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Zhang, N

    Q. Zhang, N. Li, T. Zhang, D. Dong, Y. Yang, Y. Wang, Z. Dong, J. Shen, T. Zhou, Y. Liang, W. Tang, Z. Wu, Y. Zhang, J. Hao, Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 418

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    A. Y. Polyakov, E. B. Yakimov, I. V. Shchemerov, A. A. Vasilev, A. I. Kochkova, V. I. Nikolaev, S. J. Pearton, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2024, 58, 063002

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    X. Hou, X. Zhao, Y. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Y. Liu, Y. Qin, P. Tan, C. Chen, S. Yu, M. Ding, G. Xu, Q. Hu, S. Long, Adv. Mater. 2022, 34, 2106923

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    H. Zhai, Z. Wu, Z. Fang, Ceram. Int. 2022, 48, 24213

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    S. J. Pearton, J. Yang, P. H. Cary, F. Ren, J. Kim, M. J. Tadjer, M. A. Mastro, Appl. Phys. Rev. 2018, 5, 011301

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    S. I. Stepanov, V. I. Nikolaev, V. E. Bougrov, A. E. Romanov, Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 2016, 4, 63

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Y. Yuan, W. Hao, W. Mu, Z. Wang, X. Chen, Q. Liu, G. Xu, C. Wang, H. Zhou, Y. Zou, X. Zhao, Z. Jia, J. Ye, J. Zhang, S. Long, X. Tao, R. Zhang, Y. Hao, Fundam. Res. 2021, 1, 697

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Zheng, C

    G. Zheng, C. Lou, Z. Yuan, W. Xiao, L. Shang, J. Zhong, M. Tang, J. Qiu, Adv. Mater. 2024, 2415791

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    H. H. Tippins, Phys. Rev. 1965, 140, A316

    work page 1965

  20. [20]

    Nogales, J

    E. Nogales, J. A. García, B. Méndez, J. Piqueras, J. Appl. Phys. 2007, 101, 033517

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    M. Back, J. Ueda, H. Nambu, M. Fujita, A. Yamamoto, H. Yoshida, H. Tanaka, M. G. Brik, S. Tanabe, Adv. Opt. Mater. 2021, 9, 2100033

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Vivien, B

    D. Vivien, B. Viana, A. Revcolevschi, J. D. Barrie, B. Dunn, P. Nelson, O. M. Stafsudd, J. Lumin. 1987, 39, 29

    work page 1987

  23. [23]

    Hemmer, A

    E. Hemmer, A. Benayas, F. Légaré, F. Vetrone, Nanoscale Horiz. 2016, 1, 168

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    Alonso-Orts, E

    M. Alonso-Orts, E. Nogales, J. M. San Juan, M. L. Nó, J. Piqueras, B. Méndez, Phys. Rev. Appl. 2018, 9, 064004

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    Mykhaylyk, H

    V. Mykhaylyk, H. Kraus, Y. Zhydachevskyy, V. Tsiumra, A. Luchechko, A. Wagner, A. Suchocki, Sensors 2020, 20, 5259

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    D. M. Esteves, A. L. Rodrigues, L. C. Alves, E. Alves, M. I. Dias, Z. Jia, W. Mu, K. Lorenz, M. Peres, Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 4882

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Peres, D

    M. Peres, D. M. Esteves, B. M. S. Teixeira, J. Zanoni, L. C. Alves, E. Alves, L. F. Santos, X. Biquard, Z. Jia, W. Mu, J. Rodrigues, N. A. Sobolev, M. R. Correia, T. Monteiro, N. Ben Sedrine, K. Lorenz, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2022, 120, 261904. 24/26

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Magalhães Esteves, A

    D. Magalhães Esteves, A. L. Rodrigues, M. I. Dias, L. C. Alves, Z. Jia, W. Mu, K. Lorenz, M. Peres, ACS Omega 2023, 8, 47874

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Y. Chen, S. Niu, Y. Li, W. Dou, X. Yang, C. Shan, G. Shen, Adv. Mater. 2024, 36, 2404656

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    S. K. Barman, M. N. Huda, Phys. Status Solidi RRL – Rapid Res. Lett. 2019, 13, 1800554

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Peres, L

    M. Peres, L. C. Alves, F. Rocha, N. Catarino, C. Cruz, E. Alves, A. G. Silva, E. G. Víllora, K. Shimamura, K. Lorenz, Phys. Status Solidi 2018, 215, 1800190

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    P. Li, L. Dong, C. Li, B. Lu, C. Yang, B. Peng, W. Wang, Y. Miao, W. Liu, Nanoscale 2023, 15, 12105

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Y. Lu, S. Krishna, C.-H. Liao, Z. Yang, M. Kumar, Z. Liu, X. Tang, N. Xiao, M. B. Hassine, S. T. Thoroddsen, X. Li, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2022, 14, 47922

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Lorenz, M

    K. Lorenz, M. Peres, E. Alves, J. Rocha, Process for Producing Rolls and Membranes of Submicrometric Thickness of Ga2O3 by Ion Implantation, 2022, PT 117063; EU PCT/PT/2022/050006; USA R6157.0189/189US

    work page arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Bruel, B

    M. Bruel, B. A. Auberton-Hervé, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 1997, 36, 1636

    work page 1997

  36. [36]

    Di Cioccio, F

    L. Di Cioccio, F. Letertre, Y. Le Tiec, A. M. Papon, C. Jaussaud, M. Bruel, Mater. Sci. Eng. B 1997, 46, 349

    work page 1997

  37. [37]

    X. Yu, W. Xu, Y. Wang, B. Qiao, R. Shen, J. Zhou, Z. Li, T. You, Z. Shen, K. Zhang, F.-F. Ren, D. Tang, X. Ou, G. Han, Y. Kong, T. Chen, S. Gu, Y. Zheng, J. Ye, R. Zhang, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 2023, 44, 1951

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Alves, K

    E. Alves, K. Lorenz, N. Catarino, M. Peres, M. Dias, R. Mateus, L. C. Alves, V. Corregidor, N. P. Barradas, M. Fonseca, J. Cruz, A. Jesus, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 2021, 136, 684

    work page 2021

  39. [40]

    B. R. Tuttle, N. J. Karom, A. O’Hara, R. D. Schrimpf, S. T. Pantelides, J. Appl. Phys. 2023, 133, 015703

    work page 2023

  40. [41]

    Wendler, W

    E. Wendler, W. Wesch, G. Götz, J. Appl. Phys. 1991, 70, 144

    work page 1991

  41. [42]

    Bøgh, Can

    E. Bøgh, Can. J. Phys. 1968, 46, 653

    work page 1968

  42. [43]

    Lorenz, E

    K. Lorenz, E. Wendler, A. Redondo-Cubero, N. Catarino, M.-P. Chauvat, S. Schwaiger, F. Scholz, E. Alves, P. Ruterana, Acta Mater. 2017, 123, 177

    work page 2017

  43. [44]

    G. Götz, K. Gärtner, High Energy Ion Beam Analysis of Solids, Walter De Gruyter GmbH, 1988

    work page 1988

  44. [45]

    Caçador, P

    A. Caçador, P. Jóźwik, S. Magalhães, J. G. Marques, E. Wendler, K. Lorenz, Mater. Sci. Semicond. Process. 2023, 166, 107702

    work page 2023

  45. [46]

    Wendler, E

    E. Wendler, E. Treiber, J. Baldauf, S. Wolf, C. Ronning, 18th Int. Conf. Radiat. Eff. Insul. REI-18 Dates 26th 31st Oct. 2015 2016, 379, 85

    work page 2015

  46. [47]

    Peres, K

    M. Peres, K. Lorenz, E. Alves, E. Nogales, B. Méndez, X. Biquard, B. Daudin, E. G. Víllora, K. Shimamura, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2017, 50, 325101. 25/26

    work page 2017

  47. [48]

    Lorenz, M

    K. Lorenz, M. Peres, M. Felizardo, J. G. Correia, L. C. Alves, E. Alves, I. López, E. Nogales, B. Méndez, J. Piqueras, M. B. Barbosa, J. P. Araújo, J. N. Gonçalves, J. Rodrigues, L. Rino, T. Monteiro, E. G. Villora, K. Shimamura, Proc. SPIE 2014, 89870M

    work page 2014

  48. [49]

    Magalhães, J

    S. Magalhães, J. S. Cabaço, J. P. Araújo, E. Alves, CrystEngComm 2021, 23, 3308

    work page 2021

  49. [50]

    Magalhães, C

    S. Magalhães, C. Cachim, P. D. Correia, F. Oliveira, F. Cerqueira, J. M. Sajkowski, M. Stachowicz, CrystEngComm 2023, 25, 4133

    work page 2023

  50. [52]

    Plimpton, J

    S. Plimpton, J. Comput. Phys. 1995, 117, 1

    work page 1995

  51. [54]

    Byggmästar, K

    J. Byggmästar, K. Nordlund, F. Djurabekova, Phys. Rev. Mater. 2022, 6, 083801

    work page 2022

  52. [55]

    Azarov, J

    A. Azarov, J. G. Fernández, J. Zhao, F. Djurabekova, H. He, R. He, Ø. Prytz, L. Vines, U. Bektas, P. Chekhonin, N. Klingner, G. Hlawacek, A. Kuznetsov, Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 4855

    work page 2023

  53. [56]

    J. Wu, Z. Xu, L. Liu, A. Hartmaier, M. Rommel, K. Nordlund, T. Wang, R. Janisch, J. Zhao, J. Mater. Chem. C 2021, 9, 2258

    work page 2021

  54. [58]

    Nordlund, Comput

    K. Nordlund, Comput. Mater. Sci. 1995, 3, 448

    work page 1995

  55. [59]

    Stukowski, Model

    A. Stukowski, Model. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2009, 18, 015012

    work page 2009

  56. [60]

    Boulle, A

    A. Boulle, A. Chartier, A. Debelle, X. Jin, J.-P. Crocombette, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2022, 55, 296

    work page 2022

  57. [61]

    Channagiri, A

    J. Channagiri, A. Boulle, A. Debelle, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2015, 48, 252

    work page 2015

  58. [62]

    P. P. Ewald, Ed., International Tables for X-Ray Crystallography, 2006

    work page 2006

  59. [63]

    Hovestreydt, Acta Crystallogr

    E. Hovestreydt, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. A 1983, 39, 268

    work page 1983

  60. [64]

    Hoshikawa, T

    K. Hoshikawa, T. Kobayashi, Y. Matsuki, E. Ohba, T. Kobayashi, J. Cryst. Growth 2020, 545, 125724

    work page 2020

  61. [65]

    Azarov, V

    A. Azarov, V. Venkatachalapathy, P. Karaseov, A. Titov, K. Karabeshkin, A. Struchkov, A. Kuznetsov, Sci. Rep. 2022, 12. 15366

    work page 2022

  62. [66]

    Azarov, V

    A. Azarov, V. Venkatachalapathy, E. V. Monakhov, A. Yu. Kuznetsov, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2021, 118, 232101

    work page 2021

  63. [67]

    Abdullaev, K

    A. Abdullaev, K. Sekerbayev, A. Azarov, V. Venkatachalapathy, V. S. Chauhan, Z. Utegulov, A. Kuznetsov, APL Mater. 2024, 12, 081108

    work page 2024

  64. [69]

    Debelle, A

    A. Debelle, A. Boulle, F. Rakotovao, J. Moeyaert, C. Bachelet, F. Garrido, L. Thomé, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2012, 46, 045309

    work page 2012

  65. [70]

    Guziewicz, S

    E. Guziewicz, S. Mahwish, R. Renata, I. Y. Vitalij, M. Sushma, T. Marcin, W. Aleksandra, W. Wojciech, Adv. Sci. Technol. Res. J. 2022, 16, 147

    work page 2022

  66. [71]

    Sarwar, R

    M. Sarwar, R. Ratajczak, C. Mieszczynski, A. Wierzbicka, S. Gieraltowska, R. Heller, S. Eisenwinder, W. Wozniak, E. Guziewicz, Acta Mater. 2024, 268, 119760. 26/26

    work page 2024

  67. [72]

    Azarov, C

    A. Azarov, C. Bazioti, V. Venkatachalapathy, P. Vajeeston, E. Monakhov, A. Kuznetsov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2022, 128, 015704

    work page 2022

  68. [73]

    S. B. Kjeldby, A. Azarov, P. D. Nguyen, V. Venkatachalapathy, R. Mikšová, A. Macková, A. Kuznetsov, Ø. Prytz, L. Vines, J. Appl. Phys. 2022, 131, 125701

    work page 2022

  69. [74]

    J. Zhao, J. G. Fernández, A. Azarov, R. He, Ø. Prytz, K. Nordlund, M. Hua, F. Djurabekova, A. Kuznetsov, 2024, DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2401.07675

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.07675 2024

  70. [75]

    M. A. Moram, M. E. Vickers, Rep. Prog. Phys. 2009, 72, 036502

    work page 2009

  71. [76]

    Shimizu, S

    F. Shimizu, S. Ogata, J. Li, Mater. Trans. 2007, 48, 2923

    work page 2007

  72. [77]

    A. K. Subramaniyan, C. T. Sun, Int. J. Solids Struct. 2008, 45, 4340

    work page 2008

  73. [78]

    D. H. Tsai, J. Chem. Phys. 1979, 70, 1375

    work page 1979

  74. [79]

    M. J. Norgett, M. T. Robinson, I. M. Torrens, Nucl. Eng. Des. 1975, 33, 50

    work page 1975

  75. [80]

    C. S. Chang, N. Tanen, V. Protasenko, T. J. Asel, S. Mou, H. G. Xing, D. Jena, D. A. Muller, APL Mater. 2021, 9, 051119

    work page 2021

  76. [81]

    Hanif, O

    I. Hanif, O. Camara, M. A. Tunes, R. W. Harrison, G. Greaves, S. E. Donnelly, J. A. Hinks, Nanotechnology 2018, 29, 335701

    work page 2018

  77. [82]

    Borschel, S

    C. Borschel, S. Spindler, D. Lerose, A. Bochmann, S. H. Christiansen, S. Nietzsche, M. Oertel, C. Ronning, Nanotechnology 2011, 22, 185307

    work page 2011

  78. [83]

    Borschel, R

    C. Borschel, R. Niepelt, S. Geburt, C. Gutsche, I. Regolin, W. Prost, F.-J. Tegude, D. Stichtenoth, D. Schwen, C. Ronning, Small 2009, 5, 2576

    work page 2009

  79. [84]

    N. S. Rajput, Z. Tong, X. Luo, Mater. Res. Express 2014, 2, 015002

    work page 2014

  80. [85]

    Romano, N

    L. Romano, N. G. Rudawski, M. R. Holzworth, K. S. Jones, S. G. Choi, S. T. Picraux, J. Appl. Phys. 2009, 106, 114316

    work page 2009

Showing first 80 references.