Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 72 references

Solid-state dewetting instability in thermally-stable nanocrystalline binary alloys

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Co-sputtered Cu-Nb and Cu-Zr films that resist grain growth as ball-milled powders nevertheless collapse into Cu islands on annealing, with dewetting worsening as dopant content rises.

desk verdict Useful first look at dewetting in supposedly stabilized Cu-Nb/Cu-Zr films, but the 'overpowers stabilization' framing outruns the data. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10504 v2 pith:TRRKHTC7 submitted 2019-08-28 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Jennifer D. Schuler , Guild Copeland , Khalid Hattar , Timothy J. Rupert , Samuel A. Briggs This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords solid-statedewettingnanocrystallinethinfilmsCu-NballoysCu-Zrgrainboundarygroovingthermalstabilitysputterdepositiondopantconcentration
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 asks whether alloying strategies that keep nanocrystalline metals stable against grain growth also keep thin films structurally intact. It finds they do not: Cu-Nb and Cu-Zr films that are thermally stable as ball-milled powders dewet into Cu particles when annealed. Dewetting becomes more severe as dopant concentration rises, from 3% dewetted area for Cu-4Nb to 38% for Cu-46Nb after 1 h at 500 °C, and even a 2 µm Cu-5Zr film dewets at 900 °C. The paper concludes that dopant levels must be tuned to a balance: enough to stabilize the nanocrystalline grain size, but dilute enough to avoid the roughness and strain that promote dewetting.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is solid-state dewetting by grain boundary grooving: grooves form where grain boundaries meet the free surface, deepen by diffusion, reach the substrate, and open holes that let grains break away and coalesce into particles. Two standard relationships carry the interpretation: the groove dihedral angle connects grain-boundary energy to surface energy through $\gamma_{gb}=2\gamma_{surf}\cos(\psi_s/2)$, so higher-energy boundaries groove more deeply, and the Zener pinning pressure $P_z=3F_v\gamma_{gb}/(2r)$ is the kinetic-stabilization counterforce that could in principle resist groove advancement. The paper uses these to argue that the same doping that stabilizes grains could also make shallower grooves, yet the observed dewetting shows that these stabilization mechanisms do not keep the films intact.

What would settle it

Measure average grain size by precession electron diffraction or TEM in a Cu-46Nb film before and after annealing at 500 °C for 1 h; if the grains coarsen well beyond 100 nm while dewetted particles form, the film was not grain-size-stabilized and the paper's central contrast between stabilization and dewetting fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that solid-state dewetting can overpower both kinetic stabilization, from Nb precipitates pinning grain boundaries in Cu-Nb, and thermodynamic stabilization, from Zr segregation lowering grain-boundary energy in Cu-Zr. Sputtered nanocrystalline films of these alloys, which are stable as ball-milled powders, collapse into Cu islands through grain-boundary-groove-driven dewetting during vacuum annealing. Quantitatively, dewetted area after annealing at 500 °C for 1 h rises from 3% for Cu-4Nb to 7% for Cu-8Nb, 12% for Cu-21Nb, and 38% for Cu-46Nb, and Cu-5Zr films dewet extensively at 650 °C. In a thicker 2 µm Cu-5Zr film annealed at 900 °C, dewetted Cu particles leave behind a porous film enriched to about 14 at.% Zr from a nominal 5 at.% Zr. Dopant concentration is the most influential variable, and the authors propose a balance window in which enough dopant pins grains but not so much that surface roughness and lattice strain trigger dewetting.

Load-bearing premise

The paper treats the sputtered films as instances of the kinetic and thermodynamic grain-size stabilization demonstrated for ball-milled powders, rather than directly measuring the films' grain-size stability; if the films were not actually stabilized, the conclusion that dewetting overpowers stabilization would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Nanocrystalline thin-film alloy design cannot simply borrow stabilization recipes that work for powders; films must also be screened for dewetting.
  • Dopant concentration has a sweet spot: too little dopant allows grain growth, too much promotes dewetting by increasing roughness and lattice strain.
  • Thicker films reduce but do not eliminate dewetting, since the 2 µm Cu-5Zr film still collapsed into particles at 900 °C.
  • Comparing grain-boundary groove dihedral angles in kinetically versus thermodynamically stabilized films would directly test which stabilization route better suppresses dewetting initiation.
  • Dilute Cu-Zr formulations near 0.3–1.2 at.% Zr, which have not been observed to dewet, are the natural place to look for films that retain both nanocrystalline grains and structural stability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same balance logic likely applies to other segregating or immiscible binary nanocrystalline systems, such as W-Ti or Ni-W, where powder data may overpredict film stability; a co-sputtered film anneal screen would settle this quickly.
  • If thermodynamic stabilization lowers grain-boundary energy enough, it should produce shallower grooves and could suppress dewetting at dilute concentrations, whereas kinetic stabilizers may only delay dewetting by pinning rather than removing the groove-driving energy; this distinction is testable by measuring dihedral angles.
  • A quantitative model linking Zener pinning pressure to the critical groove dihedral angle, which the paper sketches, would turn the reported area-fraction measurements into a predictive dewetting criterion for other dopant concentrations and film thicknesses.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental study of solid-state dewetting in sputter-deposited nanocrystalline Cu-Nb and Cu-Zr thin films, two alloy families previously shown to be nanocrystalline-stable in ball-milled powder form. Using in situ and ex situ TEM annealing, precession electron diffraction phase mapping, EFTEM, FIB channeling contrast, and EDS, the authors find that both alloy systems dewet substantially, with the dewetted area fraction after annealing at 500 °C for 1 h increasing from 3% for Cu-4Nb to 38% for Cu-46Nb. The paper concludes that solid-state dewetting can overpower both kinetic and thermodynamic stabilization from dopants, and that an optimum dopant concentration must balance nanocrystalline grain-size stability against thin-film structural stability.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides a valuable cautionary result for the thin-film community: stabilization strategies validated on powders or bulk nanocrystalline alloys do not automatically confer structural stability on sputtered thin films. The work combines two relevant alloy classes (kinetically stabilized Cu-Nb and thermodynamically stabilized Cu-Zr) and documents morphology, phase, and composition changes with direct in situ observations. The qualitative trend of increasing dewetted area with Nb content is useful, and the suggestion to tune dopant concentration as a design lever is reasonable. However, the central 'overpower' claim depends on an unverified transfer of powder stability to the specific sputtered films, and the main quantitative support (area fractions) lacks replicate statistics. These issues are fixable with additional measurements or a more carefully qualified interpretation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3(i) and the surrounding text] The central quantitative result, that dewetted area increases from 3% for Cu-4Nb to 7% for Cu-8Nb, 12% for Cu-21Nb, and 38% for Cu-46Nb, is presented as single numbers with no error bars, no replicate count, and no description of the image-analysis procedure. Because these values carry the paper's main claim that dewetting severity increases with dopant concentration, the authors should report the number of inspected regions, the standard deviation or range, and the segmentation criteria used to define 'dewetted particles.' Without this, the trend is suggestive but not statistically grounded.
  2. [Section 1 and 'In summary' paragraph] The sentence 'We find solid-state dewetting can overpower both kinetic and thermodynamic stabilization from dopants' presupposes that the kinetic and thermodynamic stabilization mechanisms known for ball-milled powders are active in these sputtered films. The paper reports no as-deposited versus annealed grain-size measurements for the films; statements that Cu-4Nb and Cu-8Nb 'remained nanocrystalline' are not backed by grain-size data, and Cu-5Zr is not quantified at all. Sputtered films can differ from ball-milled powders in solute distribution, metastable phases, residual stress, and texture, so the stabilization may be absent or weaker in these films. The authors should either add direct grain-size stability measurements for the films or explicitly qualify the conclusion as applying only if the same stabilization is assumed to operate.
  3. [Fig. 2 and the Cu-Zr discussion] The thermodynamic-stabilization case (Cu-Zr) is central to the two-mechanism comparison, but no quantitative measure of dewetting severity is provided for the Cu-5Zr films beyond representative images and a qualitative statement of collapse into large Cu particles. Given that the Cu-Nb series is supported by area fractions, the Cu-Zr case should be quantified with an equivalent metric, or the comparative claim should be softened to note that the qualitative behavior is consistent but not quantified at the same level.
  4. [Discussion of roughness and lattice strain (penultimate paragraph of Section 1)] The manuscript attributes the enhanced dewetting at higher Nb concentrations to increased surface roughness and lattice strain, invoking prior work on Cu-Ag and Cu-Mo, but reports no roughness or strain measurements for the present films. This explanation is plausible but speculative, and it is not the only possible reading: the same composition trend could reflect changes in grain-boundary character, solute distribution, or the absence of stabilization. The authors should either provide supporting measurements or present this explanation more clearly as a hypothesis for future work.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Notation is inconsistent: 'Cu5Zr' appears in the experimental section and figure captions while 'Cu-5Zr' is used elsewhere; please standardize, and also use consistent spacing in 'at .%' (e.g., 'at.%').
  2. [Figures 1(a)-(c)] The in situ sequence for Cu-46Nb lacks a scale bar or a scale-bar statement in the caption, making it difficult to assess particle sizes; please add scale information to all in situ images.
  3. [Section 1, Fig. 4] The 2 µm-thick Cu-5Zr film annealed at 900 °C is described as inducing a complexion transformation, but the connection of this thicker-film result to the 50 nm films is not fully developed; a sentence clarifying whether this case is meant as a thickness comparison, a separate demonstration, or both would help the reader.
  4. [References] Reference [60] is cited for the global composition of the Cu-Zr film, but the reference does not appear to be about Cu-Zr thin films; please recheck the citation or replace it with the appropriate source for the deposition composition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: dewetting is a direct experimental measurement, the cited stabilization results are external support, and Eqs. (1)-(2) are standard textbook formulas used only for qualitative future-work discussion.

full rationale

The paper makes no fitted-parameter or self-derived-equation prediction. The quantitative result (3% to 38% dewetted area versus Nb content) is obtained by direct image analysis of as-deposited and annealed films, and the central claim is an experimental comparison against cited prior powder-stabilization behavior. Equations (1) and (2) are standard capillarity and Zener-pinning formulas introduced to motivate future dihedral-angle and pinning-pressure measurements; the paper explicitly labels those applications as future work, so they cannot be circular inputs. The only self-citations (Refs. [48,58,59]) support the prior finding that ball-milled Cu-Zr and thick-film complexion transformations show nanocrystalline stability; those are externally published, falsifiable results and are not derived from the present dewetting data. The paper does contain an evidentiary gap: it does not directly measure as-deposited versus annealed grain size in the sputtered films, so the premise that the films are grain-size stabilized is assumed from powder studies rather than demonstrated. That is a missing-support or correctness-risk issue, not a circular reduction. No derivation step equates an output to an input by construction.

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

No free parameters are fitted; the paper reports measurements and uses standard equations. The main unstated premise is that stabilization mechanisms from powder studies carry over to thin films, which is not directly measured.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The deposited Cu-Nb and Cu-Zr films have the nominal compositions and are nanocrystalline.
    Compositions are based on EDS; nanocrystallinity is inferred from TEM but no grain size statistics are reported.
  • domain assumption Grain-size stabilization demonstrated in ball-milled powders is active in the sputter-deposited thin films.
    The paper uses powder data to argue the films are stabilized, but does not measure film grain-size stability.
  • domain assumption Solid-state dewetting theory based on grain boundary grooving for single-element films applies to these binary alloys.
    The paper invokes Eq. 1 and Eq. 2 and grain boundary grooving to explain observations; this transfer is assumed, not validated.
  • standard math Eq. 1: gamma_gb = 2 gamma_surf cos(psi_s/2) and Eq. 2: P_z = 3 F_v gamma_gb / (2r) are valid.
    Both are standard textbook equations cited from the literature; they are used qualitatively, not fitted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solid-state dewetting instability in thermally-stable nanocrystalline binary alloys." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TRRKHTC7

@misc{pith2026190810504,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solid-state dewetting instability in thermally-stable nanocrystalline binary alloys},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TRRKHTC7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10504}
}
read the original abstract

Practical applications of nanocrystalline metallic thin films are often limited by instabilities. In addition to grain growth, the thin film itself can become unstable and collapse into islands through solid-state dewetting. Selective alloying can improve nanocrystalline stability, but the impact of this approach on dewetting is not clear. In this study, two alloys that exhibit nanocrystalline thermal stability as ball milled powders are evaluated as thin films. While both alloys demonstrated dewetting behavior following annealing, the severity decreased in more dilute compositions. Ultimately, a balance may be struck between nanocrystalline stability and thin film structural stability by tuning dopant concentration.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W.S. Wong, A. Salleo, Flexible Electronics: Materials and Applications, Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Sim, J.A

    G.D. Sim, J.A. Krogstad, K.M. Reddy, K.Y. Xie, G.M. Valentino, T.P. Weihs, K.J. Hemker, Science Advances 3(6) (2017) e1700685

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Tjong, H

    S.C. Tjong, H. Chen, Materials Science and Engineering: R: Reports 45(1) (2004) 1

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Freund, S

    L.B. Freund, S. Suresh, Thin Film Materials: Stress, Defect Formation and Surface Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 2004

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Amram, L

    D. Amram, L. Klinger, N. Gazit, H. Gluska, E. Rabkin, Acta Mater. 69 (2014) 386

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Kovalenko, J.R

    O. Kovalenko, J.R. Greer, E. Rabkin, Acta Mater. 61(9) (2013) 3148

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Thompson, Annual Review of Materials Research 42 (2012) 399

    C.V. Thompson, Annual Review of Materials Research 42 (2012) 399

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Niekiel, P

    F. Niekiel, P. Schweizer, S.M. Kraschewski, B. Butz, E. Spiecker, Acta Mater. 90 (2015) 118

    work page 2015

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Dannenberg, E.A

    R. Dannenberg, E.A. Stach, J.R. Groza, B.J. Dresser, Thin Solid Films 370(1) (2000) 54

    2000

  2. [10]

    Yang, J.S

    C.Y. Yang, J.S. Chen, J. Electrochem. Soc. 150(12) (2003) G826

    2003

  3. [11]

    B. Zhao, H. Kim, Y. Shimogaki, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 44(9L) (2005) L1278

    2005

  4. [12]

    LaBarbera, Nucleation, Wetting and Agglomeration of Copper and Copper-Alloy Thin Films on Metal Liner Surfaces, State University of New York at Albany, 2011

    S.F. LaBarbera, Nucleation, Wetting and Agglomeration of Copper and Copper-Alloy Thin Films on Metal Liner Surfaces, State University of New York at Albany, 2011

    2011

  5. [13]

    T. Hara, K. Sakata, A. Kawaguchi, S. Kamijima, Electrochem. Solid-State Lett. 4(11) (2001) C81

    2001

  6. [14]

    J. Wu, B. Han, C. Zhou, X. Lei, T.R. Gaffney, J.A. Norman, Z. Li, R. Gordon, H. Cheng, J. Phys. Chem. C 111(26) (2007) 9403

    2007

  7. [15]

    Yang, J.S

    C.Y. Yang, J.S. Jeng, J.S. Chen, Thin Solid Films 420 (2002) 398

    2002

  8. [16]

    Legros, B.R

    M. Legros, B.R. Elliott, M.N. Rittner, J.R. Weertman, K.J. Hemker, Philos. Mag. A 80(4) (2000) 1017

    2000

  9. [17]

    Y.M. Wang, K. Wang, D. Pan, K. Lu, K.J. Hemker, E. Ma, Scripta Mater. 48(12) (2003) 1581

    2003

  10. [18]

    Rupert, W

    T.J. Rupert, W. Cai, C.A. Schuh, Wear 298 (2013) 120

    2013

  11. [19]

    Padilla II, B.L

    H.A. Padilla II, B.L. Boyce, C.C. Battaile, S.V. Prasad, Wear 297(1-2) (2013) 860

    2013

  12. [20]

    Rupert, C.A

    T.J. Rupert, C.A. Schuh, Acta Mater. 58(12) (2010) 4137

    2010

  13. [21]

    L. Liu, Y. Li, F. Wang, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 26(1) (2010) 1

    2010

  14. [22]

    Chookajorn, H.A

    T. Chookajorn, H.A. Murdoch, C.A. Schuh, Science 337 (2012) 951

    2012

  15. [23]

    Murdoch, C.A

    H.A. Murdoch, C.A. Schuh, J. Mater. Res. 28(16) (2013) 2154

    2013

  16. [24]

    Murdoch, C.A

    H.A. Murdoch, C.A. Schuh, Acta Mater. 61(6) (2013) 2121

    2013

  17. [25]

    Trelewicz, C.A

    J.R. Trelewicz, C.A. Schuh, Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter 79(9) (2009) 094112

    2009

  18. [26]

    Kalidindi, C.A

    A.R. Kalidindi, C.A. Schuh, Acta Mater. 132 (2017) 128

    2017

  19. [27]

    Darling, M.A

    K.A. Darling, M.A. Tschopp, B.K. VanLeeuwen , M.A. Atwater, Z.K. Liu, Comput. Mater. Sci. 84 (2014) 255

    2014

  20. [28]

    Weissmüller, J

    J. Weissmüller, J. Mater. Res. 9(1) (1994) 4

    1994

  21. [29]

    Weissmüller, Nanostructured Materials 3(1) (1993) 261

    J. Weissmüller, Nanostructured Materials 3(1) (1993) 261

    1993

  22. [30]

    Suryanarayana, C.C

    C. Suryanarayana, C.C. Koch, Hyperfine Interact. 130(1) (2000) 5

    2000

  23. [31]

    Abdeljawad, P

    F. Abdeljawad, P. Lu, N. Argibay, B.G. Clark, B.L. Boyce, S.M. Foiles, Acta Mater. 126 (2017) 528

    2017

  24. [32]

    Cahn, Acta Metall

    J.W. Cahn, Acta Metall. 10(9) (1962) 789

    1962

  25. [33]

    Koch, R.O

    C.C. Koch, R.O. Scattergood, M. Saber, H. Kotan, J. Mater. Res. 28(13) (2013) 1785

    2013

  26. [34]

    Boylan, D

    K. Boylan, D. Ostrander, U. Erb, G. Palumbo, K.T. Aust, Scripta Metall. et Mater. 25(12) (1991) 2711

    1991

  27. [35]

    Z. Chen, F. Liu, X.Q. Yang, C.J. Shen, Y.M. Zhao, J. Alloys Compd. 608(Supplement C) (2014) 338

    2014

  28. [36]

    E. Nes, N. Ryum, O. Hunderi, Acta Metall. 33(1) (1985) 11

    1985

  29. [37]

    H. Sun, C. Deng, Comput. Mater. Sci. 93 (2014) 137

    2014

  30. [38]

    Darling, A.J

    K.A. Darling, A.J. Roberts, Y. Mishin, S.N. Mathaudhu, L.J. Kecskes, J. Alloys Compd. 573 (2013) 142

    2013

  31. [39]

    Frolov, K.A

    T. Frolov, K.A. Darling, L.J. Kecskes, Y. Mishin, Acta Mater. 60(5) (2012) 2158

    2012

  32. [40]

    Botcharova, J

    E. Botcharova, J. Freudenberger, L. Schultz, Acta Mater. 54(12) (2006) 3333

    2006

  33. [41]

    Koch, R.O

    C.C. Koch, R.O. Scattergood, K.A. Darling, J.E. Semones, J. Mater. Sci. 43(23-24) (2008) 7264

    2008

  34. [42]

    Kalidindi, T

    A.R. Kalidindi, T. Chookajorn, C.A. Schuh, JOM 67(12) (2015) 2834. 14

    2015

  35. [43]

    Rupert, Curr

    T.J. Rupert, Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 20(5) (2016) 257

    2016

  36. [44]

    Chookajorn, C.A

    T. Chookajorn, C.A. Schuh, Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter 89(6) (2014) 064102

    2014

  37. [45]

    Detor, C.A

    A.J. Detor, C.A. Schuh, J. Mater. Res. 22(11) (2007) 3233

    2007

  38. [46]

    Chookajorn, C.A

    T. Chookajorn, C.A. Schuh, Acta Mater. 73 (2014) 128

    2014

  39. [47]

    Darling, B.K

    K.A. Darling, B.K. VanLeeuwen, C.C. Koch, R.O. Scattergood, Mater. Sci. Eng., A 527(15) (2010) 3572

    2010

  40. [48]

    Khalajhedayati, T.J

    A. Khalajhedayati, T.J. Rupert, JOM 67(12) (2015) 2788

    2015

  41. [49]

    Kapoor, G.B

    M. Kapoor, G.B. Thompson, Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 19(2) (2015) 138

    2015

  42. [50]

    B. Fu, G.B. Thompson, J. Appl. Phys. 108(4) (2010) 043506

    2010

  43. [51]

    T.M. Kaub, P. Felfer, J.M. Cairney, G.B. Thompson, Scripta Mater. 113 (2016) 131

    2016

  44. [52]

    X. Zhou, T. Kaub, R.L. Martens, G.B. Thompson, Thin Solid Films 612 (2016) 29

    2016

  45. [53]

    Kaub, G.B

    T. Kaub, G.B. Thompson, J. Appl. Phys. 122(8) (2017) 085301

    2017

  46. [54]

    Sharma, A

    A. Sharma, A. Kumar, N. Gazit, D.J. Srolovitz, E. Rabkin, Acta Mater. 168 (2019) 237

    2019

  47. [55]

    Botcharova, M

    E. Botcharova, M. Heilmaier, J. Freudenberger, G. Drew, D. Kudashow, U. Martin, L. Schultz, J. Alloys Compd. 351(1-2) (2003) 119

    2003

  48. [56]

    Botcharova, J

    E. Botcharova, J. Freudenberger, L. Schultz, J. Alloys Compd. 365(1-2) (2004) 157

    2004

  49. [57]

    S.Y. Lee, N. Mettlach, N. Nguyen, Y.M. Sun, J.M. White, Appl. Surf. Sci. 206(1) (2003) 102

    2003

  50. [58]

    Schuler, T.J

    J.D. Schuler, T.J. Rupert, Acta Mater. 140 (2017) 196

    2017

  51. [59]

    Schuler, O.K

    J.D. Schuler, O.K. Donaldson, T.J. Rupert, Scripta Mater. 154 (2018) 49

    2018

  52. [60]

    Gorji, R

    N.E. Gorji, R. O'Connor, A. Mussatto, M. Snelgrove, P.G.M. González, D. Brabazon, Materialia 8 (2019) 100489

    2019

  53. [61]

    Klinger, Acta Mater

    L. Klinger, Acta Mater. 50(13) (2002) 3385

    2002

  54. [62]

    Bouville, D

    M. Bouville, D. Chi, D.J. Srolovitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98(8) (2007) 085503

    2007

  55. [63]

    Srolovitz, S.A

    D.J. Srolovitz, S.A. Safran, J. Appl. Phys. 60(1) (1986) 247

    1986

  56. [64]

    Barmak, C

    K. Barmak, C. Cabral Jr, K.P. Rodbell, J.M.E. Harper, J. Vac. Sci. Technol., B 24(6) (2006) 2485

    2006

  57. [65]

    C.P. Wang, S. Lopatin, A. Marathe, M. Buynoski, R. Huang, D. Erb, Proc. of the IEEE 2001 Int. Interc. Tech. Conf. (2001) 86

    2001

  58. [66]

    J. Chu, T. Lin, J. Appl. Phys. 85(9) (1999) 6462

    1999

  59. [67]

    Palumbo, S.J

    G. Palumbo, S.J. Thorpe, K.T. Aust, Scripta Metall. et Mater. 24(7) (1990) 1347

    1990

  60. [68]

    Dillon, M.P

    S.J. Dillon, M.P. Harmer, G.S. Rohrer, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 93(6) (2010) 1796

    2010

  61. [69]

    Skidmore, R.G

    T. Skidmore, R.G. Buchheit, M.C. Juhas, Scripta Mater. 50(6) (2004) 873

    2004

  62. [70]

    Saylor, G.S

    D.M. Saylor, G.S. Rohrer, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 82(6) (1999) 1529

    1999

  63. [71]

    Schölhammer, B

    J. Schölhammer, B. Baretzky, W. Gust, E. Mittemeijer, B. Straumal, Interface Sci. 9(1-2) (2001) 43

    2001

  64. [72]

    Rohrer, Curr

    G.S. Rohrer, Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 20(5) (2016) 231. 15 Fig. 1. (a)-(c) Evolution of solid-state dewetting in Cu-46 at.% Nb with increasing temperature during in situ heating experiments. The arrows in (b) and (c) track the growth of selected dewetted particles. ...

    2016

Pith tools

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