Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

A nucleation theory for yielding of nearly defect-free crystals: understanding rate dependent yield points

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 A Lambert-W curve, not a power law, sets the yield point of defect-free crystals.

desk verdict A genuinely derived Lambert-W formula for yield strain versus rate, but the ε^-4 barrier hinges on a 2D result the paper does not verify in 3D; worth refereeing, not yet citable. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08829 v3 pith:SDK3CY4G submitted 2019-08-23 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.app-ph

Vikranth Sagar Reddy , Parswa Nath , Jürgen Horbach , Peter Sollich , Surajit Sengupta This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-ph PACS 62.20.-x64.60.Qb61.72.-y
keywords yieldpointstrain-ratesensitivityclassicalnucleationtheoryLambertWfunctionmetastablecrystalnanowiredeformationmoleculardynamicsfirst-orderphasetransition
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

The paper tries to establish that the yield point of nearly defect-free crystals is governed by nucleation of stress-free regions inside a metastable rigid crystal, and that this mechanism produces a closed-form, non-power-law relation between yield strain and strain rate. That relation, built on the Lambert W function, has only two free parameters, a microscopic attempt time and an interfacial energy, and is claimed to describe published yield data for Cu, Ni, and Au nanowires and nanocrystals across fifteen orders of magnitude in time scale. The practical consequence is that the familiar power law $\sigma_Y \sim (\dot{\varepsilon})^m$, with its small non-universal exponent $m$, is an approximation: the exponent is a logarithmic artifact of a curve with an essential singularity, not a fundamental constant. If the derivation is right, parameters obtained from fast molecular-dynamics simulations can be used to predict yield points at experimentally slow loading rates, as demonstrated for copper between twelve orders of magnitude apart.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a classical nucleation bubble: a sphere of radius $R$ of the stress-free $M$ phase inside the metastable $N$ phase, with free energy $F = -\tfrac12 K\varepsilon^2 V_1 R^d + \gamma_s S_1 R^{d-1}$, where $V_1$ and $S_1$ are the volume and surface area of a $d$-dimensional unit sphere. The negative elastic-volume term wins at large $R$ while the positive interface term dominates at small $R$, so extremizing $F$ gives a critical radius and a barrier $\Delta F \propto \gamma_s^d K^{-(d-1)} \varepsilon^{-2(d-1)}$. The hidden first-order $N$--$M$ transition, whose coexistence boundary reaches $\varepsilon=0$ at $h_X=0$, is what keeps $\gamma_s$ nonzero and the $N$ phase metastable at arbitrarily small strain. Putting $\beta\Delta F$ into the self-consistency condition $\tau_{FP} = \varepsilon^*/\dot{\varepsilon} = \tau_0 \exp(\beta\Delta F(\varepsilon^*))$ and inverting with the Lambert W function gives Eq. (1) with only two free parameters.

What would settle it

Compute the equilibrium $N$--$M$ interfacial free energy $\gamma_s$ from coexistence simulations at a sequence of small strains and extrapolate to $\varepsilon=0$: if $\gamma_s\to 0$, the $\varepsilon^{-4}$ barrier is wrong. Alternatively, measure yield strain on clean single-crystal nanopillars over at least ten decades of strain rate and test whether $\log\varepsilon^*$ versus $\log\dot{\varepsilon}$ has the curvature of Eq. (1) or a constant power-law slope.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the yield strain $\varepsilon^*$ of a nearly defect-free crystal satisfies, in $d$ dimensions, $$\varepsilon^* = \left[\frac{W\!\left(2(d-1)\$\alpha$(\dot{\varepsilon}\tau_0)^{-2(d-1)}\right)}{2(d-1)\$\alpha$}\right]^{-1/[2(d-1)]},$$ where $W$ is the Lambert W function, $\tau_0$ is a microscopic attempt time, and $\alpha$ encodes the dimensionless nucleation barrier. The derivation treats yielding as the first-passage time for thermally nucleating a bubble of stress-free $M$ phase inside the elastically strained $N$ phase; because the interfacial energy $\gamma_s$ stays finite as $\varepsilon\to 0$, the barrier diverges as $\beta\Delta F = \alpha \varepsilon^{-2(d-1)}$, i.e. as $\varepsilon^{-4}$ in $d=3$. The authors assert that this essential singularity, not a power law, is what the data show: fits to Eq. (1) collapse experiments and simulations on Cu, Ni, and Au over fifteen decades of strain rate, and the previously reported tiny exponents $m$ are the logarithmic curvature of the same single curve.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a first-order $N$--$M$ transition exists in the $h_X$--$\varepsilon$ plane with coexistence that extrapolates to $\varepsilon=0$ at $h_X=0$, so the interfacial energy $\gamma_s$ stays nonzero as strain goes to zero; without that transition, or if $\gamma_s$ vanishes with strain, the $\varepsilon^{-4}$ barrier and the Lambert-W law do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The apparent strain-rate sensitivity exponent $m$ is not a material constant; it is the slowly varying logarithmic slope of a curve with an essential singularity.
  • Yield strain data from different experiments and simulations should collapse onto one master curve when plotted as $\alpha(\varepsilon^*)^{-4}$ against $\ln[(4\alpha)^{1/4}(\dot{\varepsilon}\tau_0)^{-1}]$, as shown for Cu, Ni, and Au.
  • Parameters extracted from high-rate molecular dynamics on Cu nanowires predict experimental yield points at rates roughly twelve orders of magnitude slower, without any rate-independent mechanical threshold.
  • In defect-free crystals, dislocations need not pre-exist: they appear only in the $N$--$M$ interface and move with it, so observed dislocation populations are signatures of kinetically arrested interfaces.
  • When defects are abundant and barriers vanish, the nucleation route should give way to instability- or critical-controlled yielding, where the theory no longer applies and exponents can be zero or negative.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Lambert-W law is correct, very slow, clean experiments on single-crystal nanopillars should show downward curvature in a log-log plot of $\varepsilon^*$ versus $\dot{\varepsilon}$; a constant-exponent power law should fail once enough decades are covered.
  • The same functional form should appear in any activated process whose barrier diverges as an inverse power of a control parameter while a finite interfacial cost remains, for example yielding in soft glasses or shear-jammed systems, provided a clear order-parameter distinction exists.
  • The distinction from the alternative droplet picture, where $\gamma_s\to 0$ with strain, can be tested independently of yield data: direct coexistence simulations at small strain could measure whether the $N$--$M$ interfacial free energy plateaus to a nonzero value or falls to zero.
  • Treating $\tau_0$ as a physical attempt time for nucleating dislocation pairs would let Eq. (1) be cross-checked against atomistic estimates of dislocation-nucleation rates rather than treated purely as a fit parameter.
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 proposes that yielding of nearly defect-free crystals is controlled by homogeneous nucleation of stress-free ('M') bubbles inside a metastable rigid ('N') phase, building on a previously reported first-order N-M transition in the hX-ε plane. Using the classical nucleation free energy F = −(1/2)Kε²V1R^d + γsS1R^(d−1), the authors derive a closed-form Lambert-W relation, Eq. (1), for the yield strain ε* as a function of strain rate ε̇, and a logarithmic asymptotic form, Eq. (2). They then fit Eq. (1) to a digitized collection of experimental and MD data on Cu, Ni, and Au nano-crystals and nano-polycrystals, reporting good fits and a master-curve collapse, with one out-of-sample prediction in Fig. 2f. The paper also includes an extended supplementary discussion of the N-M transition, the fitting procedure, the influence of pre-existing defects, and a comparison with the alternative SBK theory.

Significance. If the claimed result holds, the paper provides a nontrivial and physically motivated explanation for the small, non-universal strain-rate sensitivity exponent m: the apparent power law would be a logarithmic artifact of an underlying essential singularity, rather than a fundamental constant. The derivation from nucleation theory to Eq. (1) is mathematically clean and is a genuine strength, as is the single out-of-sample prediction in Fig. 2f, in which MD simulation parameters for Cu predict experimental results twelve orders of magnitude slower. The proposed theory is also falsifiable in principle and offers a clear contrast with the SBK picture. The significance is conditional, however, because the key microscopic input—that γs remains finite as ε→0 in three dimensions—is imported from a two-dimensional study and is not verified here, and because the primary empirical support comes from two-parameter fits that the supplementary material admits cannot distinguish Eq. (1) from power-law alternatives.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplementary Material, Section 2] The authors state that the data 'is not accurate enough and is not available in a wide enough range to be able to distinguish between alternate theories.' This admission is load-bearing, because the paper's headline claim is that Eq. (1) explains data covering fifteen orders of magnitude. If individual data sets cannot distinguish Eq. (1) from a power law, then the fits in Fig. 2a–d and Table I do not by themselves test the functional form. The one out-of-sample test in Fig. 2f is a genuine success, but it is a single pair of datasets; the fifteen-orders claim rests on aggregating many separately fitted datasets.
  2. [Main text, bubble free energy and Eq. (1)] The derivation of βΔF = α(ε*)^{-4} and hence Eq. (1) assumes γs is a finite, nonzero constant as ε→0. This behavior is taken from Nath et al.'s d=2 study of the N-M transition and is not verified in three dimensions in the present manuscript. If, as in the SBK picture, γs∼ε^q as ε→0, the barrier would scale as ε^{-4+3q}, changing the essential singularity and invalidating the Lambert-W form. The authors should either supply 3D numerical evidence for finite γs at the coexistence boundary or explicitly present this as an unverified assumption and discuss how sensitive Eq. (1) is to that assumption.
  3. [Table I and Fig. 2e] Each data set is fitted with its own α and τ0, and the master-curve collapse in Fig. 2e is produced by rescaling each set with those fitted values. Because Eq. (1) is a two-parameter family of monotone curves, the collapse is to a large extent generated by the fitting procedure rather than being an independent test of the theory. A stronger test would fix τ0 and γs from independent measurements for several materials, or use a model-selection criterion to compare Eq. (1) with a power law on the original, unscaled data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'explains data covering fifteen orders of magnitude in time scales' should be qualified: no single sample or experiment spans this range, and the claim aggregates datasets with separately fitted parameters.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states that three experimental data sets with excessive (>50%) scatter were omitted without identifying them. The omitted sets should be listed and the omission criterion stated explicitly, since selective omission can affect the visual quality of the reported collapse.
  3. [Main text, after Eq. (1)] The text says 'wherever Eq. (1) is valid, τ0 is a constant,' but the supplementary material explains that τ0 depends on the time-dependent force and the curvature of the potential for fast rates. This apparent tension should be resolved with a precise statement of the regime in which a constant τ0 is justified.
  4. [Table I] The values of γs are computed from α and a single bulk modulus K taken from an online source, but the samples include nanowires and polycrystals with different orientations and grain sizes; a short discussion of the expected uncertainty in K and its effect on γs would improve the table's interpretation.
  5. [Supplementary Material, Section 1.1] The comparison with the SBK theory uses k=1 without a sensitivity analysis; because k is stated to be O(1), the conclusion that SBK yields physically unreasonable yield points would be more convincing if the dependence on k over its plausible range were shown.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The Lambert-W yield relation is a genuine algebraic derivation, but its rate singularity inherits the finite-gamma_s N-M coexistence assumption from the authors' own prior work, and most 'explains data' claims are two-parameter fits rather than predictions.

  1. self citation load bearing [Supplementary Section 1 (background of the hidden first-order transition); echoed in main text around Fig. 1 and Eq. (1)]
    "Full knowledge of this background is not necessary to appreciate the nucleation theory given in the main text – merely assuming that such a transition exists at ε = 0 is enough."

    The derivation's barrier, βΔF = α(ε*)^{-4} in d=3, and hence Eq. (1), follows only if the N-M interfacial energy γs is a nonzero constant as ε→0, because α ∝ γs^d. The only support for that 'hidden transition' with finite γs at hX=0 is Ref. [18] (Nath et al., same research group), and the Supplementary explicitly reduces the input to an assumption. If, as in the SBK picture, γs→0 with strain, then α ∼ ε^{3q} and the barrier singularity changes, invalidating the Lambert-W form and its logarithmic asymptotic Eq. (2). The paper's claimed difference from SBK therefore rests on a self-cited prior result rather than on a derivation within this paper.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Main text, paragraph after Eq. (1) and Table I; abstract claim of 'fifteen orders of magnitude']
    "The two parameters of our theory, τ0 and γs (or α) can be obtained by either fitting yielding data, as is done here, or from precise, finite sized scaled, numerical computations as in Ref. [18]."

    For essentially every dataset in Table I, α and τ0 are fitted to the same yield-strain versus strain-rate data that Eq. (1) is then said to 'explain'; the agreement is a two-parameter fit, not an independent prediction. The abstract's 'explains data covering fifteen orders of magnitude' is therefore partly a statement of fit quality. The Supplementary's admission that the data 'is not accurate enough and is not available in a wide enough range to be able to distinguish between alternate theories' further shows that the empirical comparison does not independently verify the non-power-law form. The genuine out-of-sample element is Fig. 2f, where MD-fit Cu parameters predict slower experiments, which prevents this from being fully circular.

full rationale

The core algebra is self-contained: Eq. (1) follows by inverting the classical nucleation barrier F = -(1/2)K ε^2 V1 R^d + γs S1 R^(d-1) with the Shillcock-Seifert self-consistency condition ε* = εdot τ0 exp(βΔF(ε*)). That inversion is not circular. However, the exponent 4 in the barrier, which produces the essential singularity and the logarithmic asymptote Eq. (2), is inherited from the assumption that γs is finite as ε→0; the paper's only support for this is the same-group prior work, Nath et al., and the Supplementary candidly says 'merely assuming that such a transition exists at ε = 0 is enough.' If γs vanished with strain as in the SBK alternative, the singularity would change and Eq. (1) would not be the correct derived form. Separately, most of the data comparisons are two-parameter fits to the very data being 'explained,' so the fifteen-orders claim is partly a goodness-of-fit claim. The paper does include one real prediction: parameters from MD of Cu [43] predict experiments [33] separated by twelve orders of magnitude, which provides independent content. Because the algebraic derivation is genuine and one out-of-sample prediction exists, the paper is not fully circular, but the central non-power-law claim is more conditional on a self-cited assumption and more fit-dependent than the abstract suggests. Hence a moderate score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No genuinely new entities are introduced; the N and M phases are inherited from Nath et al. The central claim rests on two fitted parameters per data set (τ0 and γs/α) plus the assumed hidden transition. The out-of-sample prediction in Fig. 2f is the only place where both parameters come from one data set and are used for another.

free parameters (2)
  • τ0 (attempt time) = 11 to 341 fs across data sets (Table I)
    Each data set is fit to Eq. (1) with this microscopic timescale; it varies per material, sample, and protocol and is not predicted.
  • γs (interfacial energy, equivalently α) = 1.3 to 39.7 mJ/m^2 across data sets (Table I)
    Obtained from the fitted α in Eq. (1); sets the barrier scale and is varied per dataset to achieve the fit.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A first-order transition between N and M crystals exists in the hX-ε plane, with phase boundary passing through ε=0 at hX=0
    Imported from Nath et al.; used in the main text to justify metastability at infinitesimal strain and constant γs. Not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Classical nucleation free energy for a spherical bubble: F = -1/2 K ε^2 V1 R^d + γs S1 R^(d-1)
    Underlies barrier ΔF ~ ε^(-4); assumes homogeneous nucleation, sharp interface, constant γs, and linear elasticity.
  • domain assumption Self-consistent Kramers first-passage time ε* = εdot τ0 exp(βΔF(ε*))
    Adapted from Shillcock and Seifert for time-ramped barriers; assumes rare barrier crossing and gives the equation inverted with Lambert W.
  • standard math Equilibrium free energy of short-ranged systems is shape independent, so a rigid crystal is metastable at any nonzero strain in the zero-rate limit
    Used to motivate the general principle in the introduction; cited to Ruelle and Penrose.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A nucleation theory for yielding of nearly defect-free crystals: understanding rate dependent yield points." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SDK3CY4G

@misc{pith2026190808829,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A nucleation theory for yielding of nearly defect-free crystals: understanding rate dependent yield points},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SDK3CY4G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08829}
}
read the original abstract

Experiments and simulations show that when an initially defect free rigid crystal is subjected to deformation at a constant rate, irreversible plastic flow commences at the so-called {\em yield point}. The yield point is a weak function of the deformation rate, which is usually expressed as a power law with an extremely small non-universal exponent. We re-analyze a representative set of published data on nanometer sized, mostly defect free, Cu, Ni and Au crystals in the light of a recently proposed theory of yielding based on nucleation of stable stress-free regions inside the metastable rigid solid. The single relation derived here, which is {\em not} a power law, explains data covering {\em fifteen} orders of magnitude in time scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08829 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic phase diagram and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Phillips, Crystals, defects and microstructures: Modeling across scales (Cambridge Press, Cambridge, 2004)

    R. Phillips, Crystals, defects and microstructures: Modeling across scales (Cambridge Press, Cambridge, 2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    A. S. Argon, Strengthening Mechanisms in Crystal Plasticity (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    H. A. Barnes, J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech., 81 (1-2), 133 (1999)

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    J. P. Sethna, et al. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 47 , 217 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Ruelle, Statistical Mechanics , (Benjamin, New York, 1969)

    D. Ruelle, Statistical Mechanics , (Benjamin, New York, 1969)

    work page 1969

  6. [6]

    J. P. Hirth and J. Lothe, Theory of Dislocations (McGraw-Hill, 1967)

    work page 1967

  7. [7]

    Bulatov, F

    V. Bulatov, F. F. Abraham, L. Kubin, B. Devincre, S. Yip, Nature, 391 , 669 (1998)

    work page 1998

  8. [8]

    J. S. Langer, 96 , 053005 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    K. A. Dahmen, Y. Ben-Zion, and J. T. Uhl, 102 , 175501 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    Tsekenis, J

    G. Tsekenis, J. T. Uhl, N. Goldenfeld and K. A. Dahmen. Eur. Phys. Lett. 101 , 36003 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Tsekenis, N

    G. Tsekenis, N. Goldenfeld, and K. A. Dahmen , 106 , 105501 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    P. D. Isp\'anovity et al. , 112 , 235501

  5. [13]

    Chaikin and T

    P. Chaikin and T. Lubensky, Principles of Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge Press, Cambridge, 1995)

    1995

  6. [14]

    M. S. Bharathi et al. , , 87 , 165508 (2001)

    2001

  7. [15]

    M. C. Miguel et al. , Nature, 410 , 667 (2001)

    2001

  8. [16]

    Zaiser, Adv

    M. Zaiser, Adv. Phys., 55 , 185 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    D. M. Dimiduk, C. Woodward, R. LeSar, M. D. Uchic, Science, 312 , 1188 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    Papanikolaou et al

    S. Papanikolaou et al. , Nature, 490 , 517 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    B. R. Johnson and W. H. Cook, Engng. Fract. Mech., 21 , 31, (1985)

    1985

  12. [20]

    W. G. Johnston, J. Appl. Phys. 33 , 2716 (1962)

    1962

  13. [21]

    E. N. Borodin, A. A. Gruzdkov, A. E. Mayer, and N. S. Selyutina, J. Phys.: Conf. Series 991 , 012012 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Meyers, A

    M.A. Meyers, A. Mishra, D.J. Benson., Prog. Mater. Sci. 51 , 427, (2006)

    2006

  15. [23]

    Penrose, Statistical mechanics of nonlinear elasticity Markov Processes Relat

    O. Penrose, Statistical mechanics of nonlinear elasticity Markov Processes Relat. Fields 8 , 351 (2002)

    2002

  16. [24]

    Sausset, G

    F. Sausset, G. Biroli and J. Kurchan, J. Stat. Phys. 140 , 718 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Nath et al

    P. Nath et al. , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115 , E4322 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    sas1,sas2,sas3,sas4,sas5,sas6,sas7,popli , for a brief theoretical background and other technical details

    See Supplemental Material, which includes Refs. sas1,sas2,sas3,sas4,sas5,sas6,sas7,popli , for a brief theoretical background and other technical details

  19. [27]

    Ganguly, S

    S. Ganguly, S. Sengupta, P. Sollich, and M. Rao, Phys. Rev. E 87 , 042801 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Ganguly, S

    S. Ganguly, S. Sengupta, and P. Sollich, Soft Matter 11 , 4517 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Mitra, S

    A. Mitra, S. Ganguly, S. Sengupta, and P. Sollich, JSTAT, P06025 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Ganguly, P

    S. Ganguly, P. Nath, J. Horbach, P. Sollich, S. Karmakar and S. Sengupta, J. Chem. Phys. 146 , 124501 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Ganguly and S

    S. Ganguly and S. Sengupta, J. Chem. Sci. 129 , 891 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Ganguly, P

    S. Ganguly, P. S. Mohanty, P. Schurtenberger, S. Sengupta, and A. Yethiraj, Soft Matter, 13 , 4689, (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Ganguly, D

    S. Ganguly, D. Das, J. Horbach, P. Sollich, S. Karmakar, and S. Sengupta, J. Chem. Phys. 149 , 184503 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Popli, S

    P. Popli, S. Kayal, P. Sollich, and S. Sengupta, Phys. Rev. E 100 , 033002 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Binder, Rep

    K. Binder, Rep. Prog. Phys. 50 , 783 (1987)

    1987

  28. [36]

    Becker, W

    R. Becker, W. D\"oring, Ann. Phys. (Weinheim, Ger) 24 , 719 (1935)

    1935

  29. [37]

    Shillcock and U

    J. Shillcock and U. Seifert, Phys. Rev. E, 57 , 7301 (1998)

    1998

  30. [38]

    Hayes, Am

    B. Hayes, Am. Sci. , 93 , 104, (2005)

    2005

  31. [39]

    A. T. Jennings, J. Li, J. R. Greer, Acta Mater. 59 , 5627 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Cheng et al

    S. Cheng et al. Acta Mater. 53 , 1521 (2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    Peng et al

    C. Peng et al. , Appl. Phys. Lett. 102 , 083102 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Schwaiger et al

    R. Schwaiger et al. , Acta Mater. 51 , 5159 (2003)

    2003

  35. [43]

    C. D. Gu, J. S. Lian, Q. Jiang and W. T. Zheng, J. Phys. D, 40 , 7440 (2007)

    2007

  36. [44]

    R. T. Humphrey, A. F. Jankowski, Surf. Coat. Tech. 206 , 1845 (2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    H. S. Park and J. A. Zimmerman, Phys. Rev. B 72 , 054106 (2005)

    2005

  38. [46]

    Shi et al

    G.-J. Shi et al. , Mod. Phys. Lett. B, 31 , 1750247 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Ju, W.-J

    S.-P. Ju, W.-J. Lee, J.-S. Lin, and M.-L. Liao, Mater. Chem. Phys. 100 , 48, (2006)

    2006

  40. [48]

    Wen, Z.-Z

    Y.-H. Wen, Z.-Z. Zhu, R.-Z. Zhu, Comput. Mater. Sc. 41 , 553, (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    H. A. Wu, Eur. J. Mech. - A/Solids, 25 , 370 (2006)

    2006

  42. [50]

    H. A. Wu et al., Key Engineering Materials, 261-263 , 33-38, (2004)

    2004

  43. [51]

    https://periodictable.com

  44. [52]

    Q. Wei, S. Cheng, K.T. Ramesh, E. Ma, Mater. Sc. Eng. A 381 , 71, (2004)

    2004

  45. [53]

    Li et al

    J. Li et al. , Nature 418 , 307 (2002); J. Li et al. , S. Suresh, Mat. Sci. Eng. A, 365 25 (2004); S. Ryu, K. Kang, W. Cai, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108 , 5174 (2011)

    2002

  46. [54]

    Cao, Nanostructures & nanomaterials: synthesis, properties & applications (Imperial College Press, London, 2004)

    G. Cao, Nanostructures & nanomaterials: synthesis, properties & applications (Imperial College Press, London, 2004)

    2004

  47. [55]

    R. E. Miller and A. Acharya, J. Mech. Phys. Sol. 52 , 1507 (2004)

    2004

  48. [56]

    Dailidonis, V

    V. Dailidonis, V. Ilyin, P. Mishra, and I. Procaccia, 92 , 094105 (2015)

    2015

  49. [57]

    J. Lin, E. Lerner, A. Rosso, and M. Wyart, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 111 , 14382 (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    K. H. Nagamanasa et al. , 89 , 062308 (2014); A. Ghosh et al. 118 , 148001 (2017)

    2014

  51. [59]

    G. P. Shrivastav, P. Chaudhuri, and J. Horbach 94 , 042605 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    Parisi, I

    G. Parisi, I. Procaccia, C. Rainone and M. Singh Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 114 , 5577 (2017); P. Cao, M. P. Short, S. Yip, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 114 , 13631 (2017); P. Leishangthem, A. D. S. Parmar, S. Sastry, Nature Comm. 8 , 14653 (2017); P. Cao, et al. , J. Mech. Phys. Sol. 11...

    2017

  53. [61]

    offler, Appl. Phys. Lett. 89 , 091918 (2006); A. Dubach, F. H. Dalla Torre and J. F. L\

    T. C. Hufnagel et al. , J. Mater. Res., 17 , 1441 (2002); F. H. Dalla Torre, A. Dubach, M. E. Siegrist, and J. F. L\"offler, Appl. Phys. Lett. 89 , 091918 (2006); A. Dubach, F. H. Dalla Torre and J. F. L\"offler, Phil. Mag. Lett. 87 , 695 (2007); S. Gonz\'alez et al. , Mater. ...

    2002

Pith tools

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