Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Mechanical behavior of InP twinning superlattice nanowires

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Taper-free InP twinning-superlattice nanowires loaded in tension along [111] deform elastically until they fracture in a brittle manner along a twin boundary, with measured modulus 87 ± 17 GPa, failure strain 2.9 ± 0.3%, and tensile…

desk verdict First tensile data on taper-free InP twinning-superlattice nanowires, but the twin-boundary fracture claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11239 v1 pith:KSV3X6WR submitted 2019-08-29 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Z. Liu , I. Papadimitriou , M. Castillo-Rodríguez , C. Wang , G. Esteban-Manzanares , X. Yuan , H. H. Tan , J. M. Molina-Aldareguía
show 1 more author
J. LLorca
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords InPnanowirestwinningsuperlatticesituTEMtensiletestingbrittlefracturetwinboundaryelasticmodulusmoleculardynamicsstrength
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

This paper tries to establish how taper-free InP twinning-superlattice nanowires fail when pulled along their [111] growth direction. The authors report that these nanowires are purely elastic up to fracture: the stress–strain curve is linear, no dislocations or other inelastic mechanisms appear in TEM images, and failure is brittle, with a crack running along a twin boundary. The measured elastic modulus is 87 ± 17 GPa, the failure strain is 2.9 ± 0.3%, and the tensile strength rises from 2.15 to 2.90 GPa as the nanowire diameter drops from 250 to 210 nm. Molecular dynamics simulations reproduce the same fracture path — crack nucleation at the surface where a twin boundary meets the nanowire edge — although they predict higher strength, which the authors attribute to surface zig-zag stress concentrations. The result matters because InP nanowires are used in nanodevices and solar cells, and any mechanical strain engineering or packaging load must respect this elastic-brittle limit.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the twinning superlattice itself: a nanowire containing a periodic array of twin boundaries spaced about 13 nm apart, grown along the close-packed [111] direction. The twin boundaries act as the preferred fracture path, and their intersection with the nanowire surface is the crack nucleation site. The experimental platform is a push-to-pull device inside a transmission electron microscope: a diamond flat punch pushes a semicircular end, the device converts that compression into tension across a central gap, and the nanowire is welded across the gap with platinum; the net force on the nanowire is obtained by subtracting the device's reaction force from the raw measured force, following the authors' earlier calibration. Molecular dynamics simulations with an InP interatomic potential, whose input elastic constants come from density functional theory, provide the atomistic picture of crack initiation and propagation that supports the interpretation of the TEM observations.

What would settle it

Perform the same tensile test on an identical InP twinning-superlattice nanowire using a force sensor that measures the nanowire load directly (for example, a MEMS tensile stage with integrated load cell) rather than subtracting the push-to-pull reaction force; a modulus outside 87 ± 17 GPa or any nonlinearity or dislocation activity before fracture would contradict the paper's elastic-brittle claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that twinning-superlattice InP nanowires loaded in uniaxial tension along [111] show no inelastic deformation at any stage before failure: every stress–strain curve is linear up to fracture, and in situ TEM images show no dislocation activity, necking, or bending even at strains near 3%. Fracture is brittle and occurs by nucleation and propagation of a crack along a twin-boundary plane, with the crack starting at the nanowire surface at the intersection with the twin boundary. From a small set of successful tests, the paper reports E[111] = 87 ± 17 GPa, failure strain 2.9 ± 0.3%, and tensile strength 2.15–2.90 GPa over diameters of 210–250 nm. Molecular dynamics simulations of twinned nanowires also fracture without inelastic mechanisms, with cracks initiating at twin-boundary/surface intersections and propagating along the twin plane; the simulations give a higher strength (~6.7–6.9 GPa) than experiments, which the paper explains by the stress concentration from the zig-zag surface waviness at twin boundaries.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that the net force on the nanowire equals the raw measured force minus the push-to-pull device's reaction force, i.e., that mounting and welding the nanowire do not change the device's stiffness or add a spurious load path; if this subtraction is wrong, the reported modulus and strength are systematically off.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Designers of InP nanowire devices should treat tensile loads along [111] as limited to about 2.1–2.9 GPa and to elastic strains below about 3%, since failure is abrupt and pre-fracture plasticity cannot absorb energy.
  • Twin boundaries are the weakest links in these nanowires: the fracture plane is always a twin boundary, so controlling twin spacing and surface smoothness, rather than bulk crystal strength, sets the practical strength.
  • The measured elastic modulus (87 ± 17 GPa) is the value to use in bending or resonance analyses of TSL InP nanowires; the presence of twins does not appear to change the stiffness compared with untwinned material.
  • Molecular dynamics predicts a strength of 6.7–6.9 GPa for perfect twinned nanowires, so the gap between simulation and experiment indicates that removing surface waviness could raise real nanowire strength toward that range.
  • Because fracture leaves a flat surface perpendicular to the growth direction, post-fracture inspection of a failed device can diagnose whether overload was tensile along the nanowire axis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the twin boundary is genuinely the weakest plane, then deliberately engineering twin spacing or removing surface notches could raise strength, an avenue the paper does not test.
  • The absence of plasticity at ~0.02 s−1 strain rate does not rule out dislocation activity at slower rates, higher temperatures, or under cyclic loading; a rate-dependent transition is a testable extension.
  • The same push-to-pull methodology could be applied to other III–V superlattice nanowires (e.g., GaAs or InP/InAs heterostructures) to check whether brittle twin-boundary fracture is generic to zinc-blende superlattices.
  • The reported 'smaller is stronger' trend over only three diameters is suggestive but not established; testing more diameters would settle whether a real size effect exists.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports in situ transmission electron microscope (TEM) tensile tests of three taper-free InP twinning-superlattice (TSL) nanowires grown along the [111] direction, with diameters of 210–250 nm and an average twin spacing of about 13 nm. The measured stress-strain curves are linear to failure, yielding an elastic modulus of 87 ± 17 GPa, a failure strain of 2.9 ± 0.3%, and tensile strengths of 2.15–2.90 GPa. Fracture surfaces are flat and perpendicular to the growth direction, and the authors conclude that fracture occurred by brittle crack propagation along a twin boundary. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations using a Vashishta-type interatomic potential show, for idealized twinned nanowires, crack nucleation at the twin boundary/surface intersection and propagation along the twin plane, with no inelastic deformation prior to failure. The paper's central claims are that InP TSL nanowires deform purely elastically until brittle failure and that the fracture path is the twin boundary.

Significance. If the results hold, this is the first tensile mechanical characterization of taper-free InP twinning-superlattice nanowires, providing quantitative design data (elastic modulus, failure strain, strength) relevant to InP nanowire-based devices. The work combines careful in situ TEM experiments with DFT-validated elastic constants and MD simulations, and the supplementary videos provide direct evidence of linear, uniaxial deformation up to ~3% strain. The authors are appropriately cautious about the limited number of tests and state that a size effect cannot be concluded. However, the central mechanistic claim—that fracture propagates specifically along a twin boundary—is not uniquely established by the experimental evidence, and the quantitative agreement between MD and experiment is weak; these limitations materially affect the strength of the conclusions drawn in the abstract and conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Figures 3h and 3i] The claim that fracture occurred 'along the twin boundary' is not uniquely supported by the evidence presented. The flat fracture surface perpendicular to [111] and the Δg vector nearly parallel to [111] only establish that the crack plane is a {111} plane, which is also the orientation of every twin boundary in this geometry and of ordinary {111} cleavage in zinc-blende InP. The in situ TEM images in Figures 3b–e stop at 3.0% strain, before the fracture at 3.18%, so the crack path was not directly observed. The MD simulations in Section 3.3 show twin-boundary fracture in an idealized geometry, but they do not by themselves prove that the experimental crack followed a twin boundary. Please provide high-resolution evidence of the fracture surface or trace (e.g., HRTEM of the fracture edge or of both fracture halves) or soften the central claim to fracture on a {111} plane, with twin-boundary fracture as a plausible interpretation consistent with MD.
  2. [Section 2.2, Figure 2g, Table 1] The reported values of elastic modulus, failure strain, and strength rest on the force calibration in which the net nanowire force is obtained by subtracting the PTP-device reaction force measured in the authors' previous work (Ref. 36). No verification is provided that the PTP frame stiffness is unchanged after mounting and welding the nanowire, and a systematic error in this subtraction would shift all reported mechanical properties. In addition, Table 1 contains only three nanowires, with elastic moduli of 77.9, 78.4, and 104 GPa, i.e., 87 ± 17 GPa; this large scatter and small sample size limit the statistical significance of the mean values and of the apparent strength increase with decreasing diameter. Please state the uncertainty budget and, if possible, validate the calibration with a reference sample or an independent measurement.
  3. [Section 3.3, Figure S3] The MD simulations do not cover the experimental parameter range: the simulated nanowires have D = 24 nm and D/l from 2 to 12, while the experiments have D ≈ 210–250 nm and D/l ≈ 16–19; the MD strain rate (10^9 s^-1) is about eight orders of magnitude above the experimental strain rate (~0.02 s^-1), and the simulated strength (6.7–6.9 GPa) is 2.3–3 times the measured strength (2.15–2.90 GPa). The attribution of this discrepancy to 'zig-zag waviness' at the twin boundaries is not quantitatively substantiated, since the notch radius at the twin boundary was not measured. The simulations therefore provide qualitative mechanistic insight but cannot be used to validate the experimental strength values; this limitation should be stated explicitly in the comparison between simulations and experiments.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] The text says 'according to the design of the PTPT device [36]'; 'PTPT' appears to be a typo and should read 'PTP device'.
  2. [Section 3.2, Figure 3h] The caption states that the TEM beam direction is 'very close to the [111] zone axis'; since the SAED pattern is indexed, please clarify whether the beam direction is exactly [111] or slightly off-axis, and define how Δg was measured.
  3. [Section 3.1] For clarity, state explicitly that the diameter-to-twin-spacing ratio of 16–19 corresponds to diameters of 210–250 nm and a twin spacing of 13 nm, and note that this ratio is outside the simulated D/l range.
  4. [Section 2.3 and Table 2] The description of the MD simulations omits the Vashishta potential parameters and the procedure for constructing the twinned supercells; please provide these details or reference them explicitly in the Supplementary Material.
  5. [References] Some reference entries contain typographical errors, e.g., 'Scipta Mater.' (Ref. 22) should be 'Scripta Mater.', and 'PANS' (Ref. 54) should be 'PNAS'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; the experimental measurements and the MD simulations are independent.

full rationale

The paper's central experimental results—the elastic modulus, failure strain, and tensile strength—are obtained directly from in situ TEM tensile tests. The net nanowire force is derived by subtracting the PTP device reaction force following the calibration in the authors' previous work (Ref. 36), but that calibration is an independent device characterization, not a fit to the InP nanowire data, and it does not presuppose the reported mechanical properties. The MD simulations use a literature interatomic potential (Vashishta et al.) and DFT-derived lattice parameters; no parameter is fitted to the measured stress-strain curves, so the simulated response is an independent prediction rather than an input. The claim that fracture occurred along a twin boundary is inferred from post-mortem SAED and the flat fracture-surface morphology and is then supported, not defined, by the MD crack-propagation images. While the experimental evidence for the twin-boundary fracture path may be open to alternative interpretation, such as cleavage on another {111} plane, that is an evidentiary limitation rather than a circular derivation. No equation, fitted parameter, or self-citation chain reduces the paper's conclusions to their own premises.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central quantitative claims rest on a literature interatomic potential and on the PTP force-subtraction calibration, both external inputs. The surface-waviness explanation for the strength gap is an ad hoc, unquantified assumption.

free parameters (1)
  • Vashishta InP interatomic potential parameters = not specified in this paper; from Vashishta et al. 2007
    All MD stress-strain and fracture-path results depend on this empirical potential, which was parameterized against InP properties in prior work, not against the present tensile data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Vashishta interatomic potential faithfully reproduces InP elastic behavior and fracture mechanisms.
    Invoked in Section 2.3 for all MD simulations; the paper validates elastic constants against DFT but does not independently validate the potential against experimental fracture.
  • domain assumption DFT-GGA/PBE with PAW pseudopotentials gives accurate elastic constants and stacking fault energy for InP.
    Used in Section 2.3 and Table 2; agreement with literature references is good but computed values are not independently verified by experiment.
  • domain assumption The net force on the nanowire equals the raw force minus the PTP device reaction force, with unchanged frame stiffness.
    Introduced in Section 2.2 and Figures 2f-g; the calibration is taken from the authors' previous paper (Ref. 36) and is not independently checked here.
  • ad hoc to paper Zig-zag surface waviness at twin boundaries is the main cause of the experimental strength being much lower than MD strength.
    Proposed in Section 3.3 to explain a factor-of-two strength discrepancy; the notch radius is unknown and no quantitative model is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mechanical behavior of InP twinning superlattice nanowires." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KSV3X6WR

@misc{pith2026190811239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mechanical behavior of InP twinning superlattice nanowires},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KSV3X6WR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11239}
}
read the original abstract

Taper-free InP twinning superlattice (TSL) nanowires with an average twin spacing of ~ 13 nm were grown along the zinc-blende close-packed [111] direction using metalorganic vapor phase epitaxy. The mechanical properties and fracture mechanisms of individual InP TSL nanowires in tension were ascertained by means of in situ uniaxial tensile tests in a transmission electron microscope. The elastic modulus, failure strain and tensile strength along the [111] direction were determined. No evidence of inelastic deformation mechanisms was found before fracture, which took place in a brittle manner along the twin boundary. The experimental results were supported by molecular dynamics simulations of the tensile deformation of the nanowires that also showed that the fracture of twinned nanowires occurred in the absence of inelastic deformation mechanisms by the propagation of a crack from the nanowire surface along the twin boundary.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11239 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Tensile deformation of the InP TSL nanowire along the [111] orientation. (a) Representative stress vs strain curve of the InP TSL nanowire. (b-e) TEM micrographs of the nanowire at different applied strains (i.e. 0, 0.5, 3.0 and 3.18%). (f, g) SEM images of the InP nanowire before and after fracture. (h) SAED pattern showing the TEM beam direction is very close to the [111] zone axis, ∆g is nearly parallel to the te… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. MD simulation results of crack initiation and propagation in an InP TSL nanowire with 24 nm in diameter during tensile deformation. (a) Section perpendicular to the twin plane. (b) Section parallel to the twin plane. The twin boundaries are shown as white lines in in (a). Crack initiation and propagation is evident at the twin boundaries (red arrows). The stress-strain curves of the InP TSL nanowires obtained by MD … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nature 2001, 409, 66-69, DOI: 10.1038/35051047

    Duan X.; Huang Y.; Cui Y.; Wang J.; Lieber C.M. Nature 2001, 409, 66-69, DOI: 10.1038/35051047

    work page doi:10.1038/35051047 2001

  2. [2]

    Nano Lett

    Bao J.; Bell D.C.; Capasso F. Nano Lett. 2008, 8(3) 836-841, DOI: 10.1021/nl072921e

    work page doi:10.1021/nl072921e 2008

  3. [3]

    ACS Nano 2016, 10(12), 11414-11419, DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.6b06874

    van Dam D.; van Hoof N.J.J.; Cui Y.; et al. ACS Nano 2016, 10(12), 11414-11419, DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.6b06874

    work page doi:10.1021/acsnano.6b06874 2016

  4. [4]

    Nano Lett

    Ikejiri K.; Kitauchi Y.; Tomioka K.; Motohisa J.; Fukui T. Nano Lett. 2011, 11, 4314-4318, DOI: 10.1021/nl202365q

    work page doi:10.1021/nl202365q 2011

  5. [5]

    Yan X.; Zhang X.; Li J.; Wu Y.; Ren X. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2015, 101, 023101, DOI: 10.1063/1.4926728

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4926728 2015

  6. [6]

    Zafar F.; Iqbal A. P. Roy. Soc. A 2016, 472, 20150804, DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2015.0804

    work page arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Nano Lett

    Janissen R.; Sahoo P.K.; Santos C.A.; da Silva A.M.; von Zuben A.A.G.; Souto D.E.P.; Costa A.D.T.; Celedon P.; Zanchin N.I.T.; Almeida D.B.; Oliveira D.S.; Kubota L.T.; Cesar C.L.; de Souza A.P.; Cotta M.A. Nano Lett. 2017, 17, 5938-5949, DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b01803

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b01803 2017

  8. [8]

    Nature 2008, 456, 369-372, DOI: 10.1038/nature07570

    Algra R.E.; Verheijen M.A.; Borgström M.T.; Feiner L.; Immink G.; van Enckevort W.J.P.; Vlieg E.; Bakkers E.P.A.M. Nature 2008, 456, 369-372, DOI: 10.1038/nature07570

    work page doi:10.1038/nature07570 2008

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Nature Mater

    Johansson J.; Karlsson L.S.; Svensson C.P.T.; Martensson T.; Wacaser B.A.; Deppert K.; Samuelson L.; Seifert W. Nature Mater. 2006, 5, 574-580, DOI: 10.1038/nmat1677

    2006 doi

  2. [10]

    Nano Lett

    Chen B.; Wang J.; Gao Q.; Chen Y.; Liao X.; Lu C.; Tan H.H.; Mai Y.W.; Zou J.; Ringer S.P.; Gao H.; Jagadish C. Nano Lett. 2013, 13, 4369-4373, DOI: 10.1021/nl402180k

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    Ikonic Z.; Srivastava G.P.; Inkson J.C. Phys. Rev. B 1993, 48, 17181-17193, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.48.17181

    1993 doi

  4. [12]

    Ikonic Z.; Srivastava G.P.; Inkson J.C. Phys. Rev. 1995, 52, 14078-14085, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.52.14078

    1995 doi

  5. [13]

    Fissel A.; Bugiel E.; Wang C.R.; Osten H.J. J. Cryst. Growth 2006, 290, 392-397, DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrysgro.2006.02.009 11

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    Nano Lett

    Hao Y.; Meng G.; Wang Z.L.; Ye C.; Zhang L. Nano Lett. 2006, 6, 1650-1655, DOI: 10.1021/nl060695n

    2006 doi

  7. [15]

    Nature Nanotech

    Yang R.; Qin Y.; Dai L.; Wang Z.L. Nature Nanotech. 2009, 4, 34-39, DOI: 10.1038/nnano.2008.314

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    Nature 2011, 479, 324-328, DOI: 10.1038/nature10678

    Pillarisetty R. Nature 2011, 479, 324-328, DOI: 10.1038/nature10678

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    Chu M.; Sun Y.; Aghoram U.; Thompson S.E. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 2009, 39, 203-229, DOI: 10.1146/annurev-matsci-082908-145312

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    Koga T.; Sun X.; Cronin S.B.; Dresselhaus M.S. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1999, 75, 2438-2440, DOI: 10.1063/1.125040

    1999 doi

  11. [19]

    Science 2018, 360(6386), 264-265, DOI: 10.1126/science.aat5211

    Llorca J. Science 2018, 360(6386), 264-265, DOI: 10.1126/science.aat5211

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Nano Lett

    Huang J.Y.; Zheng H.; Mao S.X.; Li Q.; Wang G.T. Nano Lett. 2011, 11, 1618-1622, DOI: 10.1021/nl200002x

    2011 doi

  13. [21]

    Nature Mater

    Kiener D.; Hosemann P.; Maloy S.A.; Minor A.M. Nature Mater. 2011, 10, 608-613, DOI: 10.1038/nmat3055

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    Scipta Mater

    Jawaharram G.S.; Price P.M.; Barr C.M.; Hattar K.; Averback R.S.; Dillon S.J. Scipta Mater. 2018, 148, 1-4, DOI: 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2018.01.007

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Nano Lett

    Chen Y.; Burgess T.; An X.; Mai Y.W.; Tan H.H.; Zou J.; Ringer S.P.; Jagadish C.; Liao X. Nano Lett. 2016, 16(3), 1911-1916, DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b05095

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Wang Y.B.; Wang L.F.; Joyce H.J.; Cao Q.; Liao X.Z.; Mai Y.W.; Tan H.H.; Zou J.; Ringer S.P.; Gao H.J.; Jagadish C. Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, 1356-1360, DOI: 10.1002/adma.201004122

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    Nano Lett

    Dunaevskiy M.; Geydt P.; Lähderanta E.; Alekseev P.; Haggrén T.; Kakko J.P.; Jiang H.; Lipsanen H. Nano Lett. 2017, 17, 3441-3446, DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b00312

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Scripta Mater

    Wang L.; Teng J.; Kong D.; Yu G.; Zou J.; Zhang Z.; Han X. Scripta Mater. 2018, 147, 103- 107, DOI: 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2018.01.012

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    Nano Lett

    Kiener D.; Minor A.M. Nano Lett. 2011, 11(9), 3816-3820, DOI: 10.1021/nl201890s

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    Nano Lett

    Seo J.H.; Yoo Y.; Park N.Y.; Yoon S.W.; Lee H.; Han S.; Lee S.W.; Seong T.Y.; Lee S.C.; Lee K.B.; Cha P.R.; Park H.S.; Kim B.; Ahn J.P. Nano Lett. 2011, 11(8), 3499-3502, DOI: 10.1021/nl2022306

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    Geydt P.; Dunaevskiy M.; Alekseev P.; Kakko J-P.; Haggren T.; Lahderanta E.; Lipsanen H. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2016, 769, 012029, DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/769/1/012029

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    Zhu Y.; Chang T.H. J. Micromech. Microeng. 2015, 25, 093001, DOI: 10.1088/0960- 1317/25/9/093001

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    MRS Bull

    Yu Q.; Legros M.; Minor A.M. MRS Bull. 2015, 40, 62-68, DOI: 10.1557/mrs.2014.306

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    Wang S.; Shan Z.; Huang H. Adv. Sci. 2017, 4, 1600332, DOI: 10.1002/advs.201600332

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    JOM 2009, 61(3), 24-34, DOI: 10.1007/s11837-009-0037-3

    Gianola D.S.; Eberl C. JOM 2009, 61(3), 24-34, DOI: 10.1007/s11837-009-0037-3

    2009 doi

  26. [34]

    Chen Y.J.; An X.H.; Liao X.Z. Appl. Phys. Rev. 2017, 4, 031104, DOI: 10.1063/1.4989649 12

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    Acta Mater

    Chisholm C.; Bei H.; Lowry M.B.; Oh J.; Asif S.A.S.; Warren O.L.; Shan Z.W.; George E.P.; Minor A.M. Acta Mater. 2012, 60, 2258-2264, DOI: 10.1016/j.actamat.2011.12.027

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    Extreme Mech

    Liu Z.; Monclús M.A.; Yang L.W.; Castillo-Rodríguez M.; Molina-Aldareguía J.M.; Llorca J. Extreme Mech. Lett. 2018, 25, 60-65, DOI: 10.1016/j.eml.2018.10.007

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Han S.Z.; Kang J.; Kim S.D.; Choi S.Y.; Kim H.G.; Lee J.; Kim K.; Lim S.H.; Han B. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 15050, DOI: 10.1038/srep15050

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    ACS Nano 2012, 6(11), 9425-9432, DOI: 10.1021/nn3037623

    Kushima A.; Huang J.Y.; Li J. ACS Nano 2012, 6(11), 9425-9432, DOI: 10.1021/nn3037623

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    Lu Y.; Song J.; Huang J.Y.; Lou J. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2011, 21, 3982-3989, DOI: 10.1002/adfm.201101224

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

    Nano Lett

    Agrawal R.; Peng B.; Espinosa H.D. Nano Lett. 2009, 9(12), 4177-4183, DOI: 10.1021/nl9023885

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    Nano Lett

    Guo H.; Chen K.; Oh Y.; Wang K.; Dejoie C.; Asif S.A.S.; Warren O.L.; Shan Z.W.; Wu J.; Minor A.M. Nano Lett. 2011, 11, 3207-3213, DOI: 10.1021/nl201460v

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    Yuan X.; Guo Y.; Caroff P.; He J.; Tan H.H.; Jagadish C. Phys. Status Solidi-R Res. Lett. 2017, 1700310, DOI: 10.1002/pssr.201700310

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    Nature Mater

    Chen L.Y.; He M.; Shin J.; Richter G.; Gianola D.S. Nature Mater. 2015, 14, 707-713, DOI: 10.1038/nmat4288

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    Paolo G.; Stefano B.; Nicola B.; et al. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 2009, 21, 395502, DOI: 10.1088/0953-8984/21/39/395502

    2009 doi

  37. [45]

    Perdew J.P.; Burke K.; Ernzerhof M. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 77(18), 3865-3868, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865

    1996 doi

  38. [46]

    Blöchl P.E. Phys. Rev. B 1994, 50, 17953, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.50.17953

    1994 doi

  39. [47]

    Monkhorst H.J.; Pack J.D. Phys. Rev. B 1976, 13, 5188, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.13.5188

    1976 doi

  40. [48]

    Vashishta P.; Kalia R.K.; Nakano A.; Rino J.P. J. Appl. Phys. 2007, 101(10), 103515, DOI: 10.1063/1.2724570

    2007 doi

  41. [49]

    LAMMPS-large-scale atomic/molecular massively parallel simulator, Sandia National Laboratories, 2007, 18, 43

    Plimpton S.; Crozier P.; Thompson A. LAMMPS-large-scale atomic/molecular massively parallel simulator, Sandia National Laboratories, 2007, 18, 43

    2007

  42. [50]

    Park H.S.; Gall K.; Zimmerman J.A. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 2006, 54, 1862-1881, DOI: 10.1016/j.jmps.2006.03.006

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    Pial T.H.; Rakib T.; Mojumder S.; Motalab M.; Akanda M.S. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2018, 20, 8647-8657, DOI: 10.1039/C7CP08252E

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    Tsai D. J. Chem. Phys. 1979, 70, 1375-1382, DOI: 10.1063/1.437577

    1979 doi

  45. [53]

    Nano Lett

    Tang D.M.; Ren C.L.; Wang M.S.; Wei X.; Kawamoto N.; Liu C.; Bando Y.; Mitome M.; Fukata N.; Golberg D. Nano Lett. 2012, 12(4), 1898-1904, DOI: 10.1021/nl204282y

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    PANS 2013, 110(33), 13289-13293, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1306371110

    Yu Q.; Qi L.; Mishra R.K.; Li J.; Minor A.M. PANS 2013, 110(33), 13289-13293, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1306371110

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    Wei Y.J. Phys. Rev. B 2011, 84, 014107, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.014107

    2011 doi

  48. [56]

    Nature Nanotech

    Jiang D.C.; Li X.Y.; Gao H.J.; Greer J.R. Nature Nanotech. 2012, 7, 594-601, DOI: 13 10.1038/nnano.2012.116

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

    Dos Santos C.L.; Piquini P. Phys. Rev. B, 2010, 81, 075408, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.075408

    2010 doi

  50. [58]

    Physical properties of III-V semiconductor compounds, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 1992

    Adachi S. Physical properties of III-V semiconductor compounds, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 1992

    1992

  51. [59]

    Gottschalk H.; Patzer G.; Alexander H. Phys. Status Solidi-A 1978, 45(1), 207-217, DOI: 10.1002/pssa.2210450125 1 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL Mechanical behavior of InP twinning superlattice nanowires Zhilin Liua, b, I. Papadimitrioub, M. Castillo-Rodríguezb, C. Wangb, G. Esteban-M...

    1978 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.