4.6 Article

Regulation of failure mechanism of a bilayer Gr/h-BN staggered stacked heterostructure via interlayer sp3 bonds, interface connection, and defects

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00339-020-03895-7

关键词

Bilayer Gr; h-BN staggered stacked heterostructure; Interlayer sp(3) bonds; Interface connection; Defects; Mechanical properties

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11572186]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The combination of vertical and in-plane heterostructures will create unprecedented structures that may produce novel physical properties. In this study, the failure mechanism of a bilayer Gr/h-BN staggered stacked heterostructure (BGBN-SS) with different interlayer sp(3) bonds, different interface connection, and various defects has been investigated. The results show that interlayer sp(3) bonds and various defect affect the failure mechanism of BGBN-SS in two contrary ways. The sp(3) bonds raise the primary strain of the BGBN-SS-containing various defects and different interface connection, and can weaken tensile stresses and strain and Young's modulus. However, the creation of interlayer bonding leads the bilayer heterostructure gradually changed to quasi three-dimensional structure. The stronger interlayer interaction induced by sp(2)-sp(3) bonds in quasi three-dimensional structure can strengthen the interlayer shell modulus and load transfer rate. In addition, the mechanical properties of interface C-N bonding are greater than that of interface C-B bonding, indicating that C-N bonding at interface could improve the stability and ductility of the composite effectively. The square nanoholes are more likely to accumulate the local stress of the system, compared with circular nanoholes. The changing of sp(2) hybridization of interlayer bonds transforms to a weak hybrid sp(3) bonds. As a result, the special defects (interlayer bonding) introduce a new stress transfer mode (different from vdW heterostructures and in-plane hybrid nanostructures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据