The tensile strengths of heterogeneous interfaces: A comparison of static and dynamic first-principles calculations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First-principles molecular dynamics (FPMD) simulations and static quantum chemical (QC) calculations are used to evaluate the tensile strengths, σ(c), of interfaces consisting of (0001) surfaces of α-Al(2)O(3) separated by small organic species. The evaluation of σ(c) with FPMD was achieved by performing simulations in which the simulation cell was extending in a direction normal to the fracture plane until rupture of the interface occurred. The static QC calculations employed an approach which treated fracture of the interface as a competition between uniform extension of the simulation cell and crack formation at the rupture site, which is analogous to that used in the construction of universal binding energy relationships. The results showed that the static QC calculations accurately reproduced the FPMD simulations with respect to tensile strength and the cell extension at which rupture occurred, provided that the rupture site employed in the static calculations matched the site at which rupture occurred during the FPMD simulations. A simple strategy for identifying the rupture site, even in complex systems containing many potential rupture sites, is proposed. Overall, the work extends the calculation of tensile strengths with static QC methods to highly heterogeneous interfaces, thus providing a computationally efficient alternative to demanding FPMD simulations for this purpose.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".