Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Savi-Bhransha: Graph-Theoretic Dislocation-Loop Characterization in Crystals

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dislocation loops in irradiated crystals can be read directly from the aligned chain of defect cores, without constructing a global interface mesh.

desk verdict Genuinely new graph-based loop reconstruction with strong DXA correlation and speedups, but the central assumption that core dumbbells align with b is unvalidated; deserves peer review with ground-truth tests. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29328 v1 pith:A7O44FSL submitted 2026-07-31 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.comp-ph

Utkarsh Bhardwaj This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.comp-ph PACS 61.72.Bb61.80.Az61.72.Lk02.10.Ox
keywords dislocationloopsgraphtheorydefectmotifsBurgersvectorradiationdamagemoleculardynamicscascadedebrisatomisticsimulation
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

Dislocation loops control how irradiated metals harden, swell, and conduct heat, but extracting them from atomistic simulations is unreliable when loops are fragmented or buried in defect debris. Savi-Bhransha proposes that a dislocation loop is visible in the raw atomic configuration as a chain of dumbbell and crowdion defects all aligned with the loop's Burgers vector, and that building a graph over these line-like motifs recovers the loop directly. The paper argues this graph-theoretic reading yields the loop's topology, Burgers-vector family, habit plane, size, and segment-wise edge/screw character for BCC, FCC, and HCP crystals without a global interface mesh. If right, this makes loop-level analysis of large radiation-damage simulations faster and more stable than the standard mesh-based approach, and connects directly to experimentally measurable quantities.

What carries the argument

The line-primitive adjacency graph. Defect motifs—dumbbells, displaced atom–vacancy pairs, and vacancy-centred triads—are reduced to directed line primitives; collinear members of the same family merge into extended lines; typed edges connect near-parallel same-family lines (parallel edges, used to identify loops) or close non-parallel lines (ring edges, used for C15-like structures). Connected components of parallel edges are the loop objects. The physical warrant is the Mura–Willis decomposition: a loop's displacement field is dominated by a term parallel to the Burgers vector, so the core's defect chain encodes the local Burgers direction directly, making the graph construction purely geo

What would settle it

Take a single, well-characterized loop with a known Burgers vector (for example a <100> loop in BCC tungsten generated by a known displacement field), run the pipeline with the stated thresholds, and check whether every perimeter line primitive is assigned to the expected family. If an isolated loop yields a disconnected parallel component or a minority label large enough to flip the consensus, the central loop-to-component identification is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a connected component of mutually parallel line primitives in a graph over defect motifs is the atomistic image of a dislocation loop perimeter. The physical warrant is the Mura–Willis decomposition of a closed loop's displacement field, which contains a term everywhere parallel to the Burgers vector b; the inserted material at the core therefore appears as dumbbells or crowdions aligned with b. Each defect is assigned to a crystallographic direction family, collinear lines are merged, near-parallel same-family lines are connected, and the loop's Burgers-vector family is the majority-vote direction of the component. Habit plane, size, boundary/bulk separation, and e

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that a loop's inserted material stays aligned with its Burgers vector as clean dumbbells or crowdions along the whole perimeter, even inside dense defect debris, so that a majority vote over local directions recovers the true Burgers family.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Loop topology, Burgers-vector family, habit plane, size, and segment-wise edge/screw character can be recovered directly from defect-core motifs for BCC, FCC, and HCP crystals, without a global interface mesh.
  • Loop-level objects remain stable in complex cascade debris, where the standard mesh-based extraction returns fragmented open segments; total dislocation length stays strongly correlated between the two approaches.
  • The boundary-versus-bulk defect separation enables direct comparison with transient-grating-spectroscopy measurements: in tungsten at 0.1 dpa the resolved boundary-defect concentration brackets the measured value, and the predicted Burgers-vector fraction at 0.2 dpa agrees with room-temperature TEM.
  • In FCC FeNiCr the pipeline resolves Heidenreich–Shockley dissociation, with a Shockley-pair signature in about 91% of surviving <110>-family interstitial clusters.
  • Median runtime speedups are 6.34x for BCC tungsten and 8.86x for HCP zirconium, with peak-memory reductions up to 7.77x, making the analysis practical on workstation hardware for large cascade boxes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the core-alignment premise is right, the same local-motif graph could be pointed at grain boundaries and interfaces, where dislocation networks are open rather than closed loops; the parallel-component logic would need a boundary condition the paper does not specify.
  • A natural extension is to turn per-primitive disagreement into a quantitative disorder metric: when the majority-vote family fraction drops, that could flag partial dissociation or stress-rotated cores before the FCC-specific partial analysis is invoked.
  • The boundary/bulk count distinction is validated only indirectly through one experimental number; a direct test would compare the graph-defined boundary population against phonon-scattering calculations on the same snapshots.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents Savi-Bhransha, a graph-theoretic method for identifying dislocation loops in atomistic MD configurations without constructing a global interface mesh. Individual defect motifs (dumbbells, crowdions, displaced-atom–vacancy pairs, vacancy-centered motifs) are converted to line primitives, assigned to crystallographic direction families, merged, and connected in a typed graph; connected components of mutually parallel primitives are identified as dislocation loops, and their Burgers-vector family is taken as the majority direction-family of the constituent primitives. The pipeline also computes habit planes by weighted PCA, boundary/bulk defect populations, segment-wise edge/screw character, and, in FCC systems, a band-based Shockley-partial dissociation analysis. The method is applied to single- and successive-cascade simulations in BCC W, HCP Zr, and FCC FeNiCr, benchmarked against DXA on total lengths and loop counts, and compared with experimental TGS and TEM observables, with reported 6.3–8.9× median runtime speedups and 5.8–7.6× memory reductions.

Significance. If the central identification is correct, this is a significant contribution: it offers a mesh-free, topology-based route to loop-level descriptors that are difficult to obtain from DXA in dense cascade debris, including boundary/bulk separation and partial-dissociation signatures, at substantially reduced cost. The paper includes concrete algorithm details, measured performance data, and comparisons to external experiments and to DXA. However, the principal claim—that a connected component of mutually parallel line primitives corresponds to a dislocation loop perimeter whose Burgers family is the common direction family—rests on a physical assumption about core motifs that is not validated against known or synthetic loop configurations, and several hand-set thresholds directly control the graph connectivity. The benchmark evidence is largely limited to total-length correlation and selected qualitative comparisons, so the loop-level validity of the method remains conditional.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.2 and §2.3.2] The central load-bearing assumption is stated in §2.2: 'The inserted material at the core therefore aligns with b and is observed atomistically as a dumbbell or crowdion triad parallel to b.' On this basis, §2.3.2 identifies a connected component of parallel line primitives with a loop perimeter and sets its Burgers family by majority vote. This is not validated for vacancy loops (no inserted material), for dissociated FCC loops (§2.8 concedes the inferred family can remain <110> rather than the partial Burgers vector), or for cores under stress. A systematic misalignment would simultaneously remove parallel edges via the θpar criterion in Eq. (5) and skew the majority Burgers label. The paper needs a ground-truth test: synthetic or relaxed isolated loops with known Burgers vectors, and sensitivity of the Burgers assignment and component connectivity to θpar, δ⊥, and δmerge.
  2. [§2.1, §2.3.2, §2.6] Several thresholds are given as ranges or qualitative values: δ⊥ = 1.5–2.0 NN, θpar 'very small', δmerge, θcol, the 2NN cluster distance, α for the α-shape perimeter, nsurf in Eq. (11), and the FCC size cutoff (≤6 dumbbells excluded). These thresholds directly determine which primitives are merged, which graph edges are formed, and hence which components are called loops. No sensitivity analysis or calibration against known loop geometries is provided. As written, the method could miss loops if θpar is too tight or merge unrelated primitives if δ⊥ is too large. The paper should report the stability of the loop descriptors under these threshold choices.
  3. [§3.4.2] The quantitative benchmark is based on total dislocation length (r = 0.903 and 0.915 in Fig. 8a–b) and on selected qualitative comparisons. Fig. 8(e) shows that closed-loop counts do not correlate with Savi-Bhransha (r = −0.080); the paper attributes this to DXA fragmentation, but without an independent ground truth the statement that Savi-Bhransha returns 'more stable loop-level objects' is not established. The central claim is loop-level, so the manuscript should validate loop counts, Burgers families, and habit planes on configurations with known loop content—e.g., constructed loops, relaxed isolated loops, or cross-validation against a manually curated set of cascade loops.
  4. [§2.8 and §3.3] The Heidenreich–Shockley dissociation analysis is presented as a major result ('Shockley-pair signature in about 91% of surviving <110>-family interstitial clusters'), but §2.8 explicitly states that the dominant line-direction family inferred from triad primitives 'can remain <110> when the two partials sit close together.' The partial-pair detection therefore relies on a separate band-partition heuristic with thresholds ('two well-populated outer bands', 'optional sparse middle band') and a user-set size cutoff, rather than on the central loop-identification mechanism. This result needs validation against known dissociation geometries, stacking-fault widths, or an independent method; otherwise the 91% figure is an artifact of the band-partition choices.
  5. [§4 Conclusions] The conclusions list 'explicit treatment of stacking-fault-rich loops' and 'continued extension of vacancy-loop handling in mixed defect populations' as future priorities. Yet §3.2 and §3.3 present vacancy loops and dissociated FCC populations as already resolved. This is an internal tension: the paper claims in the results section what it later identifies as future work. The manuscript should either temper the results-section claims for these classes or provide the validation that would justify them.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.4.3, Table 2] Table 2 defines 'mem ratio = DXA peak / AnuVikar peak RSS', but the text describes the Savi-Bhransha workflow. 'AnuVikar' is not defined in the main text (SA Vi is introduced in §1). Clarify whether the memory reported includes the graph-analysis step or only the preprocessing stage.
  2. [§2.1, Eq. (1)] The notation is slightly awkward: 'axis periods p (lattice parameters) and fractional origin o which is similar to the offset or shift...' should be reworded. Also define the units of o explicitly.
  3. [§2.8] The terms 'well-populated', 'sparse', and 'largely disjoint' are qualitative. Since these determine whether a cluster is labeled perfect <110> versus a Shockley pair versus a stair-rod, quantitative criteria (or a reference table) are needed.
  4. [Table 1] The row 'Mean d at 0.05 dpa' lists MD values of 1.56/1.28 nm against an experimental 7.3±2.5 nm, but this discrepancy is not discussed in the text. If this row is intended only as context, say so; otherwise explain the factor-of-five difference.
  5. [Throughout] Figure 1 is very dense and the sub-panels are not referenced in the text in a way that makes the pipeline easy to follow. Consider a larger version or a step-by-step schematic with the threshold names explicitly attached to the stages.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the loop/Burgers outputs are asserted physical identifications that are then checked against external DXA, TGS, and TEM data, not fitted or self-citation-derived results.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: identify lattice-site occupancy and dumbbell/crowdion/vacancy motifs (Sec. 2.1), assign crystallographic direction families (Sec. 2.2), merge collinear primitives, build a parallel/ring adjacency graph, and equate parallel connected components with dislocation-loop perimeters whose Burgers family is the majority line-direction family (Sec. 2.3.2). The statements 'A connected component of mutually parallel line primitives in the graph is therefore the atomistic image of such a perimeter contour, and its Burgers-vector family is set by the common direction-family of its constituents' and 'The inserted material at the core therefore aligns with b' are physical identifications, not reductions of an output to a fitted input. The Burgers family is, by construction, the majority dumbbell-axis family, but the paper does not fit that output to any experimental target; it reports it and then compares it with room-temperature TEM. Likewise the habit plane is a weighted PCA on line centroids, and the boundary/bulk separation uses neighbor counts with thresholds derived from lattice coordination (Eq. 11), not values fitted to DXA or TGS. The DXA benchmark is external and falsifiable: total-length correlations are strong (r = 0.903 and 0.915) while the DXA closed-loop-only correlation collapses (r = -0.080), which shows the Savi-Bhransha loop counts are not manufactured to agree with the reference. Self-citations (SAVi [14], cascade data [13], potential comparisons [30], C15 clusters [55]) are lineage and data-provenance citations, not a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or an imported ansatz; no uniqueness claim is invoked. The admitted limitations are real but are not circularity: Sec. 2.8 states that the object-level descriptors 'do not by themselves separate the dissociated state from the undissociated one,' and Sec. 4 calls for 'more rigorous fresh-process memory benchmarking for exact cross-tool comparison.' These weaken certainty about dissociation classification and benchmark methodology, but they do not make any prediction identical to an input by construction. Overall, the central outputs are externally benchmarked and parameter-free with respect to the experimental targets, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The method introduces many user-chosen thresholds and algorithmic constructs. Although the paper states that thresholds scale with lattice quantities, the multiplicative factors (0.3–0.4, 1.5–2.0, 60°, nsurf, α, etc.) are empirical choices made by the author, not derived from first principles. No new physical entities are postulated beyond the internal line-primitive representation.

free parameters (10)
  • displacement threshold for displaced-atom-vacancy pairs = 0.3–0.4 × nearest-neighbor spacing
    Section 2.1: 'atoms whose displacement ... exceeds a threshold (typically 0.3–0.4× the nearest-neighbor spacing) are paired with that lattice site'. Controls which diffuse displacement-field lines are included.
  • δmerge (collinearity threshold for line merging) = tight, unspecified numerical value
    Section 2.3.1 Eq. (4): 'δmerge is a tight collinearity threshold—deliberately smaller than the inter-line spacing δ⊥'. Governs merging of collinear defect lines.
  • θcol (near-parallel angle threshold for merging) = small, not quantified
    Section 2.3.1 Eq. (4): 'θcol enforces near-parallel alignment'. Affects which lines become unified primitives.
  • δ⊥ (inter-line graph-edge distance) = 1.5–2.0 × NN spacing
    Section 2.3.2 Eq. (5): 'δ⊥ scaling with the nearest-neighbor distance (typically 1.5–2.0× NN spacing)'. Primary determinant of graph edges and thus loop components.
  • θpar (parallel-edge angle threshold) = very small, not quantified
    Section 2.3.2 Eq. (5): 'θpar can be very small as we use crystallographically aligned and projected line equations'. Affects parallel-edge connectivity.
  • Ring-edge criteria = distance < a/√2; θij > 60°
    Section 2.3.2 Eq. (6): defines ring edges for C15 identification. Hand-set thresholds.
  • nsurf (boundary/bulk neighbor-count threshold) = 5 for close-packed, 4 for others
    Section 2.6 Eq. (11): classifies lines as boundary when neighbor count < nsurf. This threshold controls the boundary-defect population used for the TGS comparison.
  • α for alpha-shape perimeter = chosen 'tight enough to track the interatomic spacing'
    Section 2.7: α is not specified for different materials; affects perimeter and area of loops.
  • FCC partial-analysis size cutoff = clusters of six dumbbells or fewer excluded
    Section 3.4.1: deterministic user-tunable threshold for partial-dislocation analysis; affects reported Shockley-pair fractions.
  • 2NN cluster grouping distance = second-nearest-neighbor distance
    Section 2.3: point defects grouped within 2NN distance; sets the local analysis domains.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Mura–Willis representation of a dislocation loop displacement field (Eq. 2)
    Used in Section 2.2 as the theoretical basis for identifying loop cores and Burgers-vector direction.
  • domain assumption Inserted material at the dislocation core aligns with the Burgers vector b
    Section 2.2: 'The inserted material at the core therefore aligns with b and is observed atomistically as a dumbbell or crowdion triad parallel to b.' This is the crux of per-primitive family assignment.
  • domain assumption A connected component of mutually parallel line primitives is a dislocation loop
    Section 2.3.2: 'Parallel components are identified with dislocation loops.' Central heuristic; no size/shape criterion specified to distinguish loops from parallel crowdion bundles.
  • domain assumption The line-integral remainder u_LI perturbs only a minority of peripheral primitives
    Section 2.3.2: 'absorbs the few peripheral primitives whose family code has been shifted by the Poisson-bulging contribution'. If the perturbation is not small, the Burgers majority-vote fails.
  • domain assumption The alpha-shape concave hull correctly orders boundary-points into a loop perimeter
    Section 2.7: an α-shape is fitted to boundary coordinates; the computed perimeter/area and edge/screw character depend on this ordering being correct.
  • domain assumption Band populations of dumbbells across {111} layers encode Shockley-partial dissociation in FCC
    Section 2.8: the partial-dislocation analysis infers Shockley pairs and stair-rods from band occupancy on {111} planes; no independent calibration is provided.
invented entities (1)
  • Line primitive
    purpose: Algorithmic object representing a dumbbell/crowdion/vacancy-centered displacement motif; used as graph vertex.
    Computational construct, not a physical entity; introduced to enable the graph-based analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Savi-Bhransha: Graph-Theoretic Dislocation-Loop Characterization in Crystals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7O44FSL

@misc{pith2026260729328,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Savi-Bhransha: Graph-Theoretic Dislocation-Loop Characterization in Crystals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7O44FSL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29328}
}
read the original abstract

Dislocation loops govern the properties of crystalline materials, but extracting their detailed characteristics from atomistic simulations is difficult when loops are fragmented or embedded in compact defect debris. We present Savi-Bhransha, a graph-theoretic method that reconstructs interstitial and vacancy loops directly from local defect-displacement motifs, without constructing a global interface mesh. The method identifies Burgers-vector family, habit plane, loop size, segment-wise edge/screw character, and boundary and bulk defect populations for BCC, FCC, and HCP crystals. We apply it to single-cascade simulations over a range of energies in BCC W and HCP Zr, and to successive collision cascades in BCC W and FCC FeNiCr. We benchmark the method against the Dislocation Extraction Algorithm (DXA). Total dislocation lengths remain strongly correlated between the two methods, while Savi-Bhransha returns more stable loop-level objects in complex environments where DXA returns fragmented, overlapping open segments. Savi-Bhransha also better resolves mixed-morphology defects and dislocations near other defects, including vacancy clusters. Median runtime speedups are 6.34x for BCC W and 8.86x for HCP Zr, with peak-memory reductions up to 7.77x. In successive W cascades, the resolved boundary-defect concentration brackets transient-grating-spectroscopy measurements and the predicted Burgers-vector fraction agrees with room-temperature TEM. In FCC FeNiCr, the method resolves Heidenreich-Shockley dissociation, with a Shockley-pair signature in about 91% of surviving <110>-family interstitial clusters. Savi-Bhransha therefore enables efficient, topology-resolved analysis of large radiation-damage simulations and direct comparison with experimentally accessible observables.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29328 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic overview of the Savi-Bhransha pipeline. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Aggregated loop morphology in BCC W from 10–150 keV PKA simulations (DnD and SNAP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of defect and loop metrics under successive 50 keV W cascades (DnD and SNAP poten [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Single-cascade loop morphology in HCP Zr from 10–125 keV PKA simulations (ADP potential, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Loop morphology in FCC FeNiCr (1203 supercell, 250 successive 20 keV cascades, 7.205×10−3 dpa by standard NRT). (a) Areal loop density versus dose: total perfect-Burgers loops (dashed black) and to￾tal partial-resolved sub-loops (solid black), with coloured traces givi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Representative qualitative comparisons between Savi-Bhransha and DXA on the same atomistic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Full-cell comparison on a representative FCC FeNiCr snapshot from the successive-cascade trajec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Quantitative comparison between Savi-Bhransha and DXA across the filtered benchmark set of 64 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Benchmark comparison of the Savi-Bhransha workflow (AnuVikar preprocessing plus graph analy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. J. Bacon, F. Gao, and Yu. N. Osetsky. The primary damage state in fcc, bcc and hcp metals as seen in molecular dynamics simulations.Jour- nal of Nuclear Materials, 276(1–3):1–12, 2000. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3115(99)00165-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s0022-3115(99)00165-8

  2. [2]

    Nordlund, S

    K. Nordlund, S. J. Zinkle, A. E. Sand, F. Granberg, R. S. Averback, R. E. Stoller, T. Suzudo, L. Malerba, F. Banhart, W. J. We- ber, F. Willaime, S. L. Dudarev, and D. Sime- one. Primary radiation damage: A review of current understanding and models.Journal of Nuclear Materials, 512:450–479, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jnucmat.2018.10.027

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2018.10.027 2018

  3. [3]

    A. E. Sand, S. L. Dudarev, and K. Nordlund. High-energy collision cascades in tungsten: Dis- location loop structure and clustering scaling laws.EPL (Europhysics Letters), 103(4):46003,

  4. [5]

    Ex- tracting dislocations and non-dislocation crystal defects from atomistic simulation data.Mod- elling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering, 18(8):085001, 2010

    Alexander Stukowski and Karsten Albe. Ex- tracting dislocations and non-dislocation crystal defects from atomistic simulation data.Mod- elling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering, 18(8):085001, 2010. doi: 10.1088/ 0965-0393/18/8/085001

    2010

  5. [6]

    Bulatov, and Athanasios Arsenlis

    Alexander Stukowski, Vasily V. Bulatov, and Athanasios Arsenlis. Automated identification and indexing of dislocations in crystal inter- faces.Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering, 20(8):085007, 2012. doi: 10.1088/0965-0393/20/8/085007

    doi:10.1088/0965-0393/20/8/085007 2012

  6. [7]

    Mason, and Duc Nguyen-Manh

    Jan Fikar, Robin Sch¨ aublin, Daniel R. Mason, and Duc Nguyen-Manh. Nano-sized prismatic vacancy dislocation loops and vacancy clusters in tungsten.Nuclear Materials and Energy, 16: 60–65, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.nme.2018.06.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nme.2018.06.011 2018

  7. [8]

    P. M. Derlet and S. L. Dudarev. Microscopic structure of a heavily irradiated material.Phys- ical Review Materials, 4(2):023605, 2020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.4.023605

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevmaterials.4.023605 2020

  8. [9]

    Sand, and Manoj Warrier

    Utkarsh Bhardwaj, Andrea E. Sand, and Manoj Warrier. Stability of⟨100⟩dislocation loops formed in displacement cascades in tungsten. Journal of Nuclear Materials, 569:153938, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.jnucmat.2022.153938

    arXiv 2022

Show all 57 references
  1. [10]

    Dennett and Michael P

    Cody A. Dennett and Michael P. Short. Time- resolved, dual heterodyne phase collection tran- sient grating spectroscopy.Applied Physics Let- ters, 110(21):211106, 2017. doi: 10.1063/1. 4983716

    2017 doi

  2. [11]

    Thermal diffusivity degradation and point defect density in self-ion implanted tungsten.Acta Materialia, 193:270– 279, 2020

    Abdallah Reza, Hongbing Yu, Kenichiro Mizo- hata, and Felix Hofmann. Thermal diffusivity degradation and point defect density in self-ion implanted tungsten.Acta Materialia, 193:270– 279, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2020.03.034

    2020 doi

  3. [12]

    Mason, Abdallah Reza, Fredric Granberg, and Felix Hofmann

    Daniel R. Mason, Abdallah Reza, Fredric Granberg, and Felix Hofmann. Estimate for thermal diffusivity in highly irradiated tungsten using molecular dynamics simulation.Physi- cal Review Materials, 5(12):125407, 2021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.5.125407

    2021 doi

  4. [13]

    Molec- ular dynamics simulations of the defect evolu- tion in tungsten on successive collision cascades, 2024

    Utkarsh Bhardwaj and Manoj Warrier. Molec- ular dynamics simulations of the defect evolu- tion in tungsten on successive collision cascades, 2024

    2024

  5. [14]

    Sand, and Manoj Warrier

    Utkarsh Bhardwaj, Andrea E. Sand, and Manoj Warrier. Graph theory based approach to char- acterize self interstitial defect morphology.Com- putational Materials Science, 195:110474, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.commatsci.2021.110474

    2021

  6. [15]

    Mura.Micromechanics of Defects in Solids

    T. Mura.Micromechanics of Defects in Solids. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, 2 edi- tion, 1987

    1987

  7. [16]

    D. M. Barnett. The displacement field of a triangular dislocation loop.Philosophical Mag- azine A, 51(3):383–387, 1985. doi: 10.1080/ 01418618508237562

    1985

  8. [17]

    Weinberger, and Vasily V

    Wei Cai, Athanasios Arsenlis, Christopher R. Weinberger, and Vasily V. Bulatov. A non- singular continuum theory of dislocations.Jour- nal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 54 (3):561–587, 2006. doi: 10.1016/j.jmps.2005.09. 005

    2006 doi

  9. [18]

    Atomsk: A tool for manipulat- ing and converting atomic data files.Computer Physics Communications, 197:212–219, 2015

    Pierre Hirel. Atomsk: A tool for manipulat- ing and converting atomic data files.Computer Physics Communications, 197:212–219, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.07.012

    2015 doi

  10. [19]

    Nordlund, M

    K. Nordlund, M. Ghaly, R. S. Averback, M. Caturla, T. Diaz de la Rubia, and J. Tarus. Defect production in collision cascades in ele- mental semiconductors and fcc metals.Phys- ical Review B, 57(13):7556–7570, 1998. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.57.7556

    1998 doi

  11. [20]

    Sand, and Manoj Warrier

    Utkarsh Bhardwaj, Andrea E. Sand, and Manoj Warrier. Classification of clusters in collision cas- cades.Computational Materials Science, 172: 109364, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.commatsci.2019. 109364

    2020 doi

  12. [21]

    Bukkuru, U

    S. Bukkuru, U. Bhardwaj, M. Warrier, A. D. P. Rao, and M. C. Valsakumar. Identifying self- interstitials of bcc and fcc crystals in molecular dynamics.Journal of Nuclear Materials, 484: 258–269, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.jnucmat.2016.12. 010

    2017 doi

  13. [23]

    Weber, Kai Sun, Yan Dong, and Lumin Wang

    Chenyang Lu, Taini Yang, Ke Jin, Ning Gao, Pengyuan Xiu, Yanwen Zhang, Fei Gao, Hong- bin Bei, William J. Weber, Kai Sun, Yan Dong, and Lumin Wang. Radiation-induced segrega- tion on defect clusters in single-phase concen- trated solid-solution alloys.Acta Materialia, 127:98–1...

    2017 doi

  14. [24]

    J. P. Hirth and J. Lothe.Theory of Dislocations. Wiley, New York, 2 edition, 1982

    1982

  15. [25]

    Fast parallel algorithms for short-range molecular dynamics.Journal of Computational Physics, 117(1):1–19, 1995

    Steve Plimpton. Fast parallel algorithms for short-range molecular dynamics.Journal of Computational Physics, 117(1):1–19, 1995. doi: 10.1006/jcph.1995.1039

    1995

  16. [26]

    Thompson, H

    Aidan P. Thompson, H. Metin Aktulga, Richard Berger, Dan S. Bolintineanu, W. Michael Brown, Paul S. Crozier, Pieter J. in ’t Veld, Axel Kohlmeyer, Stan G. Moore, Trung Dac Nguyen, Ray Shan, Mark J. Stevens, Julien Tranchida, Christian Trott, and Steven J. Plimpton. LAMMPS—a fl...

    2022

  17. [27]

    Lindhard and M

    J. Lindhard and M. Scharff. Energy dissipation by ions in the kev region.Physical Review, 124 (1):128–130, 1961. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.124. 128

    1961 doi

  18. [28]

    J. F. Ziegler, J. P. Biersack, and U. Littmark. The Stopping and Range of Ions in Solids. Perg- amon Press, New York, 1985

    1985

  19. [29]

    Warrier, U

    M. Warrier, U. Bhardwaj, H. Hemani, R. Schnei- der, A. Mutzke, and M. C. Valsakumar. Statisti- cal study of defects caused by primary knock-on atoms in fcc cu and bcc w using molecular dy- namics.Journal of Nuclear Materials, 467(1): 457–464, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.jnucmat.2015.09. 025

    2015 doi

  20. [30]

    Statis- tical study of the defect cluster morphology in the primary damage of tungsten from collision cascades from five inter-atomic potentials, 2024

    Manoj Warrier and Utkarsh Bhardwaj. Statis- tical study of the defect cluster morphology in the primary damage of tungsten from collision cascades from five inter-atomic potentials, 2024

    2024

  21. [31]

    Marinica, Lisa Ventelon, M

    M.-C. Marinica, Lisa Ventelon, M. R. Gilbert, L. Proville, S. L. Dudarev, J. Marian, G. Benc- teux, and F. Willaime. Interatomic potentials for modelling radiation defects and dislocations in tungsten.Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 25(39):395502, 2013. doi: 10.1088/ 095...

    2013

  22. [32]

    Wood and Aidan P

    Mitchell A. Wood and Aidan P. Thompson. Quantum-accurate molecular dynamics poten- tial for tungsten, 2017

    2017

  23. [33]

    Starikov and D

    S. Starikov and D. Smirnova. Optimized inter- atomic potential for atomistic simulation of Zr- Nb alloy.Computational Materials Science, 197: 110581, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.commatsci.2021. 110581

    2021 doi

  24. [34]

    M. J. Norgett, M. T. Robinson, and I. M. Torrens. A proposed method of calculating displacement dose rates.Nuclear Engineering and Design, 33(1):50–54, 1975. doi: 10.1016/ 0029-5493(75)90035-7

    1975

  25. [35]

    Bonny, N

    G. Bonny, N. Castin, and D. Terentyev. Inter- atomic potential for studying ageing under irra- diation in stainless steels: the FeNiCr model al- loy.Modelling and Simulation in Materials Sci- ence and Engineering, 21(8):085004, 2013. doi: 10.1088/0965-0393/21/8/085004

    2013 doi

  26. [36]

    Roche, Howard L

    Wahyu Setyawan, Giridhar Nandipati, Ken- neth J. Roche, Howard L. Heinisch, Brian D. Wirth, and Richard J. Kurtz. Displacement cas- cades and defects annealing in tungsten, part i: Defect database from molecular dynamics simu- lations.Journal of Nuclear Materials, 462:329– 337...

    2015 doi

  27. [37]

    Hollingsworth, M.-F

    A. Hollingsworth, M.-F. Barthe, M. Yu. Lavren- tiev, P. M. Derlet, S. L. Dudarev, D. R. Ma- son, Z. Hu, P. Desgardin, J. Hess, S. Davies, B. Thomas, H. Salter, E. F. J. Shelton, K. Heinola, K. Mizohata, A. De Backer, A. Baron-Wiechec, I. Jepu, Y. Zayachuk, A. Widdowson, E. Mes...

    2022

  28. [38]

    Jenkins, Marquis A

    Xiaoou Yi, Michael L. Jenkins, Marquis A. Kirk, Zhongfu Zhou, and Steve G. Roberts. In-situ TEM studies of 150 kev W+ ion irradiated tung- sten and tungsten alloys: Damage production and microstructural evolution.Acta Materialia, 112:105–120, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2016. 03.051

    2016 doi

  29. [39]

    Wielunska, T

    B. Wielunska, T. P loci´ nski, T. Schwarz-Selinger, M. Mayer, W. Jacob, and L. Ciupi´ nski. Disloca- tion structure of tungsten irradiated by medium to high-mass ions.Nuclear Fusion, 62(9):096003,

  30. [40]

    Atomic irradiation defects induced hardening model in irradiated tungsten based on molecular dynamics and CPFEM.Interna- tional Journal of Plasticity, 174:103895, 2024

    Pan-dong Lin, Jun-feng Nie, Yu-peng Lu, Chang-xin Shi, Shu-gang Cui, Wen-dong Cui, and Lei He. Atomic irradiation defects induced hardening model in irradiated tungsten based on molecular dynamics and CPFEM.Interna- tional Journal of Plasticity, 174:103895, 2024. doi: 10.1016/...

    2024

  31. [41]

    S. J. Wooding and D. J. Bacon. A molec- ular dynamics study of displacement cas- cades inα-zirconium.Philosophical Maga- zine A, 76(5):1033–1051, 1997. doi: 10.1080/ 01418619708200013

    1997

  32. [42]

    C. H. Woo and B. N. Singh. Produc- tion bias due to clustering of point defects in irradiation-induced cascades.Philosophical Magazine A, 65(4):889–912, 1992. doi: 10.1080/ 01418619208205596

    1992

  33. [43]

    R. E. Stoller. The role of cascade energy and temperature in primary defect formation in iron. Journal of Nuclear Materials, 276(1–3):22–32,

  34. [44]

    Griffiths

    M. Griffiths. A review of microstructure evolu- tion in zirconium alloys during irradiation.Jour- nal of Nuclear Materials, 159:190–218, 1988. doi: 10.1016/0022-3115(88)90093-1

    1988 doi

  35. [45]

    Christiaen, C

    B. Christiaen, C. Domain, L. Thuinet, A. Am- bard, and A. Legris. A new scenario for⟨c⟩ vacancy loop formation in zirconium based on atomic-scale modeling.Acta Materialia, 179:93– 106, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2019.07.030

    2019 doi

  36. [46]

    Osetsky, Laurent K

    Yuri N. Osetsky, Laurent K. B´ eland, Alexan- der V. Barashev, and Yanwen Zhang. On the ex- istence and origin of sluggish diffusion in chem- ically disordered concentrated alloys.Current Opinion in Solid State and Materials Science, 22(3):65–74, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.cossms.20...

    2018 doi

  37. [47]

    D. J. Edwards, E. P. Simonen, and S. M. Bruem- mer. Evolution of fine-scale defects in stain- less steels neutron-irradiated at 275 ◦c.Journal of Nuclear Materials, 317(1):13–31, 2003. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3115(03)00002-3

    2003 doi

  38. [48]

    Malcolm Stocks, and Yanwen Zhang

    Shijun Zhao, G. Malcolm Stocks, and Yanwen Zhang. Stacking fault energies of face-centered cubic concentrated solid solution alloys.Acta Materialia, 134:334–345, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j. actamat.2017.05.001

    2017 doi

  39. [49]

    Malcolm Stocks, and Yanwen Zhang

    Shijun Zhao, Yuri Osetsky, G. Malcolm Stocks, and Yanwen Zhang. Local-environment depen- dence of stacking fault energies in concentrated solid-solution alloys.npj Computational Materi- als, 5:13, 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41524-019-0150-y

    2019 doi

  40. [50]

    Osetskiy, German D

    Laurent Karim B´ eland, Chenyang Lu, Yuri N. Osetskiy, German D. Samolyuk, Alfredo Caro, Lumin Wang, and Roger E. Stoller. Features of primary damage by high energy displacement cascades in concentrated Ni-based alloys.Jour- nal of Applied Physics, 119(8):085901, 2016. doi: 10...

    2016 doi

  41. [51]

    Knowles, Lumin Wang, Olivier Tissot, Fr´ ed´ eric Prima, Fei Gao, Huiqiu Deng, and Marie Loyer-Prost

    Kan Ma, Long Guo, Antoine Dartois, Estelle Meslin, Colin Ophus, Brigitte D´ ecamps, Anna Fraczkiewicz, Alexander J. Knowles, Lumin Wang, Olivier Tissot, Fr´ ed´ eric Prima, Fei Gao, Huiqiu Deng, and Marie Loyer-Prost. Decod- ing the interstitial/vacancy nature of disloca- tion...

    2025

  42. [52]

    Pengyuan Xiu, Hongbin Bei, Yanwen Zhang, Lu- min Wang, and Kevin G. Field. STEM char- acterization of dislocation loops in irradiated FCC concentrated solid-solution alloys.Jour- nal of Nuclear Materials, 544:152658, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.jnucmat.2020.152658

    2021

  43. [53]

    Irradiation performance of concentrated solid-solution al- loys: Insight into defect behaviors.Journal of Nuclear Materials, 583:154510, 2023

    Yan Zhao, Yaojun Li, Fan Yang, Zhen Xie, Xiaoyong Wu, and Yuexia Wang. Irradiation performance of concentrated solid-solution al- loys: Insight into defect behaviors.Journal of Nuclear Materials, 583:154510, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.jnucmat.2023.154510

    2023

  44. [54]

    Alexander Stukowski. Visualization and analy- sis of atomistic simulation data with OVITO–the open visualization tool.Modelling and Simula- tion in Materials Science and Engineering, 18 (1):015012, 2010. doi: 10.1088/0965-0393/18/ 1/015012

    2010 doi

  45. [55]

    Charitha Durga, P

    D. Charitha Durga, P. V. Lakshmi Narayana, Utkarsh Bhardwaj, and Manoj Warrier. Transi- tion energy analysis of C15-like defect clusters in tungsten using molecular dynamics simulations. Computational Materials Science, 268:114658,

  46. [2000]

    doi: 10.1016/S0022-3115(99)00204-4

    doi

  47. [2013]

    doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/103/46003

    doi

  48. [2022]

    doi: 10.1088/1741-4326/ac75ff. 23

    doi

  49. [2026]

    doi: 10.1016/j.commatsci.2026.114658. 24

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.