Catalysis of nanotube plasticity under tensile strain

Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics

Volumn 66, Issue 19, 2002, Pages 1-4

  Jensen, Pablo ^a   Gale, Julian ^b   Blase, X ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863931857     PISSN: 10980121     EISSN: 1550235X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.66.193403     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. B.I. Yakobson, C.J. Brabec, and J. Bernholc, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 2511 (1996);
2. Carbon Nanotubes, edited by M. S. Dresselhaus, G. Dresselhaus, and Ph. Avouris (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001);
3. D.H. Robertson, D.W. Brenner, and J.W. Mintmire, Phys. Rev. B 45, 12 592 (1992);
4. J.P. Lu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1297 (1997);
5. Phys. Rev. Lett.E. Hernández, C. Goze, P. Bernier, and A. Rubio, 80, 4502 (1998);
6. D. Sánchez-Portal, et al., Phys. Rev. B 59,12 678 (1999).
7. M.M.J. Treacy, T.W. Ebbesen, and J.M. Gibson, Nature (London) 381, 678 (1996);
8. E.W. Wong, P.E. Sheedan, and C.M. Lieber, Science 277, 1971 (1997);
9. A. Krishnan, et al., Phys. Rev. B 58, 14 013 (1998);
10. J.P. Salvetat, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 944 (1999);
11. Phys. Rev. Lett.M.F. Yu, B.S. Files, S. Arepalli, and R.S. Ruoff, 84, 5552 (2000).
12. D.A. Walters, et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 74, 3803 (1999).
13. M.B. Nardelli, B.I. Yakobson, and J. Bernholc, Phys. Rev. B 57, R4277 (1998).
14. P. Zhang, P.E Lammert, and V. Crespi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5346 (1998).
15. A.J. Stone and D.J. Wales, Chem. Phys. Lett. 128, 501 (1986).
16. G.G. Samsonidze, G.G. Samsonidze, and B.I. Yakobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 065501 (2002).
17. Q. Zhao, M.B. Nardelli, and J. Bernholc, Phys. Rev. B 65, 144105 (2002).
18. B.R. Eggen, et al., Science 272, 87 (1996).
19. C.P. Ewels, M.I. Heggie, and P.R. Briddon, Chem. Phys. Lett. 351, 178 (2002).
20. J.-C. Charlier, A. De Vita, X. Blase, and R. Car, Science 275, 646 (1997);
21. M.B. Nardelli, C.J. Brabec, A. Maiti, C. Roland, and J. Bernholc, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 313 (1998).
22. D. Orlikowski, M.B. Nardelli, J. Bernholc, and C. Roland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4132 (1999).
23. G. Henkelman and H. Jónsson, J. Chem. Phys. 113, 9978 (2000), and references therein.
24. J.M. Soler, E. Artacho, J.D. Gale, A. Garcia, J. Junquera, P. Ordejon, and D. Sanchez-Portal, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 14, 2745 (2002).
25. N. Troullier and J.L. Martins, Phys. Rev. B 43, 1993 (1991);
26. L. Kleinman and D.M. Bylander, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1425 (1982).
27. Calculations with the planewave basis have been performed using the PWSCF package (see S. Baroni, A. Dal Corso, S. de Gironcoli, and P. Giannozzi, URL http://www.pwscf.org). An energy cutoff of 40 Ry has been used.
28. V.H. Crespi, L.X. Benedict, M.L. Cohen, and S.G. Louie, Phys. Rev. B 53, R13 303 (1996).
29. S. Nosé, Mol. Phys. 52, 255 (1984);
30. S. NoséJ. Chem. Phys. 81, 511 (1984).
31. In Ref. 8, no indication of the size of the unit cells was provided, either for the graphene or nanotube calculations. As repulsion between defect images in periodic calculations depends on their distance, it is therefore difficult to make direct comparisons. As a matter of fact, an early ab initio work [E. Kaxiras and J.C. Pandey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2693 (1988)] found an energy barrier of 10.4 eV for the SW transformation in graphene.
32. Our values of 10.3 and 4.0 eV found for the uncatalyzed and catalyzed barriers in graphene at 0% strain can be compared to the 9.0 and 2.3 eV found respectively in Ref. 10 for a small graphitic (formula presented) flake. The large freedom for relaxation in the flake as compared to the infinite sheet (due to different boundary conditions) may explain the discrepancy between the two results.
33. Diffuse dangling bond orbitals are knowingly difficult to describe with strictly localized basis. This may be at the origin of the problem encountered with the DZ basis for the uncatalyzed saddle-point configuration.
34. M.B. Nardelli, B.I. Yakobson, and J. Bernholc, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4656 (1998).
35. Our calculations show that the lowering of the barrier by a boron adatom is not effective at 0% stress. Indeed, the final state reached after the “SW” transformation involves a four-coordinated boron atom. This is very different from that shown in Fig. 11(f), and one cannot therefore speak of a catalytic reaction.