# A comment on "The Computational 2D Materials Database: high-throughput modeling and discovery of atomically thin crystals"

A comment on "The Computational 2D Materials Database: high-throughput modeling and discovery of... COMMENT A comment on ”The Computational 2D Materials Database: high-throughput modeling and discovery of atomically thin crystals” Marcin Ma´zdziarz Institute of Fundamental Technological Research Polish Academy of Sciences, Pawin´skiego 5B, 02-106 Warsaw, Poland E-mail: mmazdz@ippt.pan.pl Abstract. Recently, Sten Haastrup, Mikkel Strange, Mohnish Pandey, Thorsten Deilmann, Per S Schmidt, Nicki F Hinsche, Morten N Gjerding, Daniele Torelli, Peter M Larsen, Anders C Riis-Jensen, Jakob Gath, Karsten W Jacobsen, Jens Jørgen Mortensen, Thomas Olsen and Kristian S Thygesen [2D Mater. 5 (2018) 042002] [1] introduced the Computational 2D Materials Database (C2DB), which organises a variety of structural, thermodynamic, elastic, electronic, magnetic, and optical properties of around 1500 two-dimensional materials distributed over more than 30 diﬀerent crystal structures. Unfortunately, the work contains serious and fundamental ﬂaws in the ﬁeld of elasticity and mechanical stability tests what makes it unreliable. Keywords: ab initio calculations, elastic stability, database, materials discovery, materials design, 2D materials In [1, ﬁgure 1] the workﬂow used to calculate the structure and properties of the materials in C2DB the authors stated that the dynamical stability condition for a structure is not satisﬁed when elastic constants are negative. Unfortunately, it is an incorrect condition. Moreover, in [1, equation (3)] the authors, for reasons diﬃcult to understand, disregarded shear deformations and calculated only the planar elastic stiﬀness coeﬃcients C , C , and C , what makes the aforementioned analysis 11 22 12 incomplete and insuﬃcient. In addition, even these calculated coeﬃcients in C2DB are erroneous, i.e. the stiﬀness tensor does not have a proper symmetry resulting from the symmetry of the crystal. In order to explain what the problem is, some facts from the theory of 2D linear elasticity and elastic stability analysis should be recalled. The generalised Hooke’s law is the linear strain-stress tensor relation: σ = C ε → σ = Cε, (1) ij ijkl kl arXiv:1812.05372v2 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 30 Apr 2019 A comment on ”The Computational 2D Materials Database...” 2 where σ is the second-rank Cauchy stress tensor, C is the fourth-rank anisotropic elastic stiﬀness tensor and ε is the second-rank small strain tensor (i, j, k=1,2,3 for 3D and i, j, k=1,2 for 2D problems), from Einstein summation convention repeated indices are implicitly summed over. From the symmetry of σ and ε it follows that C = C = C , (2) ijkl jikl ijlk and from the thermodynamic requirement of existing of a strain energy density function U(ε) (hyperelastic material) [2] such that 1 ∂ U 1 1 U = ε ε = C ε ε → U = εCε, (3) ij kl ijkl ij kl 2 ∂ε ∂ε ε=0 2 2 ij kl additionally C = C , (4) ijkl klij and hence number of independent components of four-rank C reduces to 21 in 3D [3] ijkl and to 6 in 2D [4, 5]. In relations (1) and (3) the fourth-rank tensor notation, employing fourth-rank Cartesian tensor in three or two dimensions, is used. Also diﬀerent notations for the generalized Hooke’s law, relation (1), are in use. The most popular is a non- tensorial Voigt notation that employs in 2D 3x3 matrix:       σ C C C ε 11 1111 1122 1112 11       σ = C C C ε , (5)  22   1122 2222 2212   22  σ C C C 2ε 12 1112 2212 1212 12 or       ˆ ˆ ˆ σˆ C C C εˆ 1 11 12 13 1       ˆ ˆ ˆ σˆ = C C C εˆ → σˆ = cˆεˆ. (6)       2 12 22 23 2 ˆ ˆ ˆ σˆ C C C γˆ 3 13 23 33 3 The less popular is a second-rank tensor, called also orthonormal or Mandel, notation:       σ C C 2C ε 11 1111 1122 1112 11       σ = C C 2C ε , (7)       22 1122 2222 2212 22 √ √ √ √ 2σ 2C 2C 2C 2ε 12 1112 2212 1212 12 or       σ C C C ε 1 11 12 13 1       σ = C C C ε → σ = cε. (8)       2 12 22 23 2 σ C C C ε 3 13 23 33 3 The diﬀerence between Voigt and second-rank tensor notation is not only by factors of 2 and its square root but is more fundamental. In the Voigt notation, the elements of matrix cˆ in equation (6) are not the elements of a second-rank tensor, whereas in the second-rank tensor notation the elements of c in equation (8) are the elements of a second-rank tensor in six dimensions for 3D and three dimensions for 2D problems. The fourth-rank tensor notation (1) and second-rank tensor notation (8) are tensorially equivalent [6, 4]. In two-dimensional space, there are ﬁve diﬀerent cell lattice types: A comment on ”The Computational 2D Materials Database...” 3 I. Oblique (parallelogram) (a6=b, ∡ 6=90 ) , II. Rectangular (a6=b, ∡=90 ) , III. Centered rectangular or diamond (a6=b, ∡=90 ) , IV. Square (a=b, ∡=90 ) , V. Rhombic or hexagonal (a=b, ∡=120 ) . It is clear that symmetry aspects are important in the study of physical phenomena. From symmetry principle: if a crystal is invariant with respect to certain symmetry elements, any of its physical properties must also be invariant with respect to the same symmetry elements and Curie laws, it results that the symmetries of the physical properties of the material may not be lower than the symmetry of the crystal, but may be higher [7, 8]. The symmetry classiﬁcation of linear elastic materials is not related to crystallography. This is due to the properties of fourth-rank Euclidean symmetric tensors (from the linearity of phenomenological Hooke’s law and the properties of two, three-dimensional Euclidean space)[9]. For 3D linear hyperelastic materials, there are eight classes of symmetry and four classes of symmetry for 2D [9, 4]. Necessary and suﬃcient elastic stability conditions, also called Born stability conditions, in various 3D crystal systems are gathered in [10], but from my best knowledge, there is no such work for 2D crystal systems. In general, the unstressed crystalline structure is stable with no external loads and in the harmonic approximation, if and only if two independent conditions are fulﬁlled: 1. All its phonon modes have positive frequencies ω for all wave vectors q (dynamical stability): ω (q) > 0, (9) 2. The strain energy density function, given by the quadratic form (3), is always positive (elastic stability): U(ε) > 0, ∀ε 6= 0. (10) It is worth pointing out that some authors incorrectly identify elastic stability (10) with dynamic stability (9) for the long wave limit (i.e. for vanishing wavevectors q →0) [11, 12]. In the mathematical elasticity this phonon condition is called strong ellipticity and does not imply positive deﬁniteness of the strain energy density function (3), but the opposite implication occurs [3]. It would be quite diﬃcult to check the positive deﬁniteness of the quadratic form (10) directly and it can, therefore, be replaced by equivalent easier conditions [10]: 1. All eigenvalues of tensor c in second-rank tensor notation (8) are positive, or 2. All the leading principal minors of tensor c in (8) (determinants of its upper-left k by k submatrix) are positive (Sylvesters criterion). A comment on ”The Computational 2D Materials Database...” 4 After this theoretical introduction we can give the form of elastic stiﬀness tensor c in the second-rank tensor notation (8) and the necessary and suﬃcient elastic stability conditions (10) for all four classes of symmetry for 2D hyperelastic materials. 1. Full symmetry (isotropy) → Hexagonal lattice (V) (2 elastic constants)   C C 0 11 12   C → C C 0 , (11)   IJ 12 11 0 0 C − C 11 12 C > 0 & C > |C | or λ = (C + C ) > 0 & λ = (C − C ) > 0. 11 11 12 I 11 12 II 11 12 2. Symmetry of a square, (tetragonal)→ Square lattice (IV) (3 elastic constants)   C C 0 11 12   C → C C 0 , (12) IJ   12 11 0 0 C C > 0 & C > 0 & C > |C | or λ = (C + C ) > 0 & λ = (C − C ) > 0 11 33 11 12 I 11 12 II 11 12 & λ = C > 0. III 33 3. Symmetry of a rectangle, (orthotropy)→ Rectangular (II) & Centered rectangular lattice (III) (4 elastic constants)   C C 0 11 12   C → , (13)  C C 0  IJ 12 22 0 0 C 2 1 2 2 C > 0 & C > 0 & C C > C or λ = C + C + 4C − (C − C ) > 11 33 11 22 I 11 22 11 22 12 12 1 2 0 & λ = C + C − 4C − (C − C ) > 0 & λ = C > 0. II 11 22 11 22 III 33 4. No symmetry (anisotropy) → Oblique lattice (I) (6 elastic constants)   C C C 11 12 13   C → C C C , (14)   IJ 12 22 23 C C C 13 23 33 C > 0 & C C > C & det(C ) ¿ 0 or λ > 0 & λ > 0 & λ > 0 (e.g. from 11 11 22 IJ I II III the Cardano formula [13]). The problem can arise if we ﬁnd C and/or C other than zero: it is hard to say, 13 23 in this case, if there is no symmetry at all or, possibly, we have chosen a wrong axis [4]. To avoid this it is recommended to check for all crystals the most general stability condition for anisotropy (14). The above considerations are not only of a general nature, selected examples of erroneous stiﬀness tensors and incorrectly veriﬁed elastic stability can be found in the A comment on ”The Computational 2D Materials Database...” 5 Computational 2D Materials Database (C2DB). As it was written earlier, crystal symmetry implies symmetries of its physical properties, and hence the symmetries of tensors, e.g. the stiﬀness tensor. The conditions for elastic stability were given in equations (11–14). For example, we can ﬁnd in the C2DB database: • Au O : https://cmrdb.fysik.dtu.dk/c2db/row/Au2O2-GaS-NM 2 2 Space group:P-6m2, C =86.93 N/m, C =87.90 N/m and C =103.62 N/m 11 22 12 Because it is a Hexagonal lattice (V) the stiﬀness tensor c must be isotropic (1) and C must be equal to C . Although all calculated elastic constants are positive, the 11 22 crystal is not elastically stable because not all required stability conditions (Eq.11) are fulﬁlled. • Ta Se : https://cmrdb.fysik.dtu.dk/c2db/row/Ta2Se2-GaS-FM 2 2 Space group:P-6m2, C =75.15 N/m, C =75.81 N/m and C =-45.67 N/m 11 22 12 Because it is a Hexagonal lattice (V) the stiﬀness tensor c must be isotropic (1) and C must be equal to C . Although calculated elastic constant C is negative, 11 22 12 the crystal is elastically stable because all mandatory stability conditions (Eq.11) are satisﬁed. • Re O : https://cmrdb.fysik.dtu.dk/c2db/row/Re2O2-FeSe-NM 2 2 Space group:P4/nmm, C =17.70 N/m, C =16.18 N/m and C =239.42 N/m 11 22 12 Because it is a Square lattice (IV) the stiﬀness tensor c must have symmetry of a square (2) and C must be equal to C (the diﬀerence here is more than 9%). 11 22 Although all calculated elastic constants are positive, the crystal is not elastically stable because not all stability requirements (Eq.12) are met. Acknowledgments This work was partially supported by the National Science Centre (NCN – Poland) Research Project: UMO-2016/21/B/ST8/02450. References [1] Sten Haastrup, Mikkel Strange, Mohnish Pandey, Thorsten Deilmann, Per S Schmidt, Nicki F Hinsche, Morten N Gjerding, Daniele Torelli, Peter M Larsen, Anders C Riis-Jensen, Jakob Gath, Karsten W Jacobsen, Jens Jørgen Mortensen, Thomas Olsen, and Kristian S Thygesen. The Computational 2D Materials Database: high-throughput modeling and discovery of atomically thin crystals. 2D Materials, 5(4):042002, 2018. [2] M.M Carroll. Must Elastic Materials be Hyperelastic? Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids, 14(4):369–376, 2009. [3] R.B. Hetnarski and J. Ignaczak. The Mathematical Theory of Elasticity, Second Edition. Taylor & Francis, 2010. [4] A. Blinowski, J. Ostrowska-Maciejewska, and J. Rychlewski. Two-dimensional Hooke’s tensors - isotropic decomposition, eﬀective symmetry criteria. Archives of Mechanics, 48(2):325–345, 1996. A comment on ”The Computational 2D Materials Database...” 6 [5] Q. C. He and Q. S. Zheng. On the symmetries of 2D elastic and hyperelastic tensors. Journal of Elasticity, 43(3):203–225, 1996. [6] Morteza M. Mehrabadi and Stephen C. Cowin. EIGENTENSORS OF LINEAR ANISOTROPIC ELASTIC MATERIALS. The Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics, 43(1):15–41, 1990. [7] J.F. Nye and P.P.L.J.F. Nye. Physical Properties of Crystals: Their Representation by Tensors and Matrices. Oxford science publications. Clarendon Press, 1985. [8] Yuriy I. Dimitrienko. Tensor Analysis and Nonlinear Tensor Functions. Springer Netherlands, [9] M. Ma´zdziarz and M. Gajewski. Estimation of Isotropic Hyperelasticity Constitutive Models to Approximate the Atomistic Simulation Data for Aluminium and Tungsten Monocrystals. Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences, 105(2):123–150, 2015. [10] F´elix Mouhat and Franc¸ois-Xavier Coudert. Necessary and suﬃcient elastic stability conditions in various crystal systems. Phys. Rev. B, 90:224104, 2014. [11] G¨oran Grimvall, Blanka Magyari-Ko¨pe, Vidvuds Ozolin¸ˇs, and Kristin A. Persson. Lattice instabilities in metallic elements. Rev. Mod. Phys., 84:945–986, Jun 2012. ˇ ˇ [12] Petr Reh´ak, Miroslav Cerny´, and Jaroslav Pokluda. Dynamic stability of fcc crystals under isotropic loading from ﬁrst principles. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 24(21):215403, [13] Mikhail Itskov. Tensor Algebra and Tensor Analysis for Engineers. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Condensed Matter arXiv (Cornell University)

# A comment on "The Computational 2D Materials Database: high-throughput modeling and discovery of atomically thin crystals"

, Volume 2018 (1812) – Dec 13, 2018
6 pages

/lp/arxiv-cornell-university/a-comment-on-the-computational-2d-materials-database-high-throughput-gzXeUnXfg1
ISSN
2053-1583
eISSN
ARCH-3331
DOI
10.1088/2053-1583/ab2ef3
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

### Abstract

COMMENT A comment on ”The Computational 2D Materials Database: high-throughput modeling and discovery of atomically thin crystals” Marcin Ma´zdziarz Institute of Fundamental Technological Research Polish Academy of Sciences, Pawin´skiego 5B, 02-106 Warsaw, Poland E-mail: mmazdz@ippt.pan.pl Abstract. Recently, Sten Haastrup, Mikkel Strange, Mohnish Pandey, Thorsten Deilmann, Per S Schmidt, Nicki F Hinsche, Morten N Gjerding, Daniele Torelli, Peter M Larsen, Anders C Riis-Jensen, Jakob Gath, Karsten W Jacobsen, Jens Jørgen Mortensen, Thomas Olsen and Kristian S Thygesen [2D Mater. 5 (2018) 042002] [1] introduced the Computational 2D Materials Database (C2DB), which organises a variety of structural, thermodynamic, elastic, electronic, magnetic, and optical properties of around 1500 two-dimensional materials distributed over more than 30 diﬀerent crystal structures. Unfortunately, the work contains serious and fundamental ﬂaws in the ﬁeld of elasticity and mechanical stability tests what makes it unreliable. Keywords: ab initio calculations, elastic stability, database, materials discovery, materials design, 2D materials In [1, ﬁgure 1] the workﬂow used to calculate the structure and properties of the materials in C2DB the authors stated that the dynamical stability condition for a structure is not satisﬁed when elastic constants are negative. Unfortunately, it is an incorrect condition. Moreover, in [1, equation (3)] the authors, for reasons diﬃcult to understand, disregarded shear deformations and calculated only the planar elastic stiﬀness coeﬃcients C , C , and C , what makes the aforementioned analysis 11 22 12 incomplete and insuﬃcient. In addition, even these calculated coeﬃcients in C2DB are erroneous, i.e. the stiﬀness tensor does not have a proper symmetry resulting from the symmetry of the crystal. In order to explain what the problem is, some facts from the theory of 2D linear elasticity and elastic stability analysis should be recalled. The generalised Hooke’s law is the linear strain-stress tensor relation: σ = C ε → σ = Cε, (1) ij ijkl kl arXiv:1812.05372v2 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 30 Apr 2019 A comment on ”The Computational 2D Materials Database...” 2 where σ is the second-rank Cauchy stress tensor, C is the fourth-rank anisotropic elastic stiﬀness tensor and ε is the second-rank small strain tensor (i, j, k=1,2,3 for 3D and i, j, k=1,2 for 2D problems), from Einstein summation convention repeated indices are implicitly summed over. From the symmetry of σ and ε it follows that C = C = C , (2) ijkl jikl ijlk and from the thermodynamic requirement of existing of a strain energy density function U(ε) (hyperelastic material) [2] such that 1 ∂ U 1 1 U = ε ε = C ε ε → U = εCε, (3) ij kl ijkl ij kl 2 ∂ε ∂ε ε=0 2 2 ij kl additionally C = C , (4) ijkl klij and hence number of independent components of four-rank C reduces to 21 in 3D [3] ijkl and to 6 in 2D [4, 5]. In relations (1) and (3) the fourth-rank tensor notation, employing fourth-rank Cartesian tensor in three or two dimensions, is used. Also diﬀerent notations for the generalized Hooke’s law, relation (1), are in use. The most popular is a non- tensorial Voigt notation that employs in 2D 3x3 matrix:       σ C C C ε 11 1111 1122 1112 11       σ = C C C ε , (5)  22   1122 2222 2212   22  σ C C C 2ε 12 1112 2212 1212 12 or       ˆ ˆ ˆ σˆ C C C εˆ 1 11 12 13 1       ˆ ˆ ˆ σˆ = C C C εˆ → σˆ = cˆεˆ. (6)       2 12 22 23 2 ˆ ˆ ˆ σˆ C C C γˆ 3 13 23 33 3 The less popular is a second-rank tensor, called also orthonormal or Mandel, notation:       σ C C 2C ε 11 1111 1122 1112 11       σ = C C 2C ε , (7)       22 1122 2222 2212 22 √ √ √ √ 2σ 2C 2C 2C 2ε 12 1112 2212 1212 12 or       σ C C C ε 1 11 12 13 1       σ = C C C ε → σ = cε. (8)       2 12 22 23 2 σ C C C ε 3 13 23 33 3 The diﬀerence between Voigt and second-rank tensor notation is not only by factors of 2 and its square root but is more fundamental. In the Voigt notation, the elements of matrix cˆ in equation (6) are not the elements of a second-rank tensor, whereas in the second-rank tensor notation the elements of c in equation (8) are the elements of a second-rank tensor in six dimensions for 3D and three dimensions for 2D problems. The fourth-rank tensor notation (1) and second-rank tensor notation (8) are tensorially equivalent [6, 4]. In two-dimensional space, there are ﬁve diﬀerent cell lattice types: A comment on ”The Computational 2D Materials Database...” 3 I. Oblique (parallelogram) (a6=b, ∡ 6=90 ) , II. Rectangular (a6=b, ∡=90 ) , III. Centered rectangular or diamond (a6=b, ∡=90 ) , IV. Square (a=b, ∡=90 ) , V. Rhombic or hexagonal (a=b, ∡=120 ) . It is clear that symmetry aspects are important in the study of physical phenomena. From symmetry principle: if a crystal is invariant with respect to certain symmetry elements, any of its physical properties must also be invariant with respect to the same symmetry elements and Curie laws, it results that the symmetries of the physical properties of the material may not be lower than the symmetry of the crystal, but may be higher [7, 8]. The symmetry classiﬁcation of linear elastic materials is not related to crystallography. This is due to the properties of fourth-rank Euclidean symmetric tensors (from the linearity of phenomenological Hooke’s law and the properties of two, three-dimensional Euclidean space)[9]. For 3D linear hyperelastic materials, there are eight classes of symmetry and four classes of symmetry for 2D [9, 4]. Necessary and suﬃcient elastic stability conditions, also called Born stability conditions, in various 3D crystal systems are gathered in [10], but from my best knowledge, there is no such work for 2D crystal systems. In general, the unstressed crystalline structure is stable with no external loads and in the harmonic approximation, if and only if two independent conditions are fulﬁlled: 1. All its phonon modes have positive frequencies ω for all wave vectors q (dynamical stability): ω (q) > 0, (9) 2. The strain energy density function, given by the quadratic form (3), is always positive (elastic stability): U(ε) > 0, ∀ε 6= 0. (10) It is worth pointing out that some authors incorrectly identify elastic stability (10) with dynamic stability (9) for the long wave limit (i.e. for vanishing wavevectors q →0) [11, 12]. In the mathematical elasticity this phonon condition is called strong ellipticity and does not imply positive deﬁniteness of the strain energy density function (3), but the opposite implication occurs [3]. It would be quite diﬃcult to check the positive deﬁniteness of the quadratic form (10) directly and it can, therefore, be replaced by equivalent easier conditions [10]: 1. All eigenvalues of tensor c in second-rank tensor notation (8) are positive, or 2. All the leading principal minors of tensor c in (8) (determinants of its upper-left k by k submatrix) are positive (Sylvesters criterion). A comment on ”The Computational 2D Materials Database...” 4 After this theoretical introduction we can give the form of elastic stiﬀness tensor c in the second-rank tensor notation (8) and the necessary and suﬃcient elastic stability conditions (10) for all four classes of symmetry for 2D hyperelastic materials. 1. Full symmetry (isotropy) → Hexagonal lattice (V) (2 elastic constants)   C C 0 11 12   C → C C 0 , (11)   IJ 12 11 0 0 C − C 11 12 C > 0 & C > |C | or λ = (C + C ) > 0 & λ = (C − C ) > 0. 11 11 12 I 11 12 II 11 12 2. Symmetry of a square, (tetragonal)→ Square lattice (IV) (3 elastic constants)   C C 0 11 12   C → C C 0 , (12) IJ   12 11 0 0 C C > 0 & C > 0 & C > |C | or λ = (C + C ) > 0 & λ = (C − C ) > 0 11 33 11 12 I 11 12 II 11 12 & λ = C > 0. III 33 3. Symmetry of a rectangle, (orthotropy)→ Rectangular (II) & Centered rectangular lattice (III) (4 elastic constants)   C C 0 11 12   C → , (13)  C C 0  IJ 12 22 0 0 C 2 1 2 2 C > 0 & C > 0 & C C > C or λ = C + C + 4C − (C − C ) > 11 33 11 22 I 11 22 11 22 12 12 1 2 0 & λ = C + C − 4C − (C − C ) > 0 & λ = C > 0. II 11 22 11 22 III 33 4. No symmetry (anisotropy) → Oblique lattice (I) (6 elastic constants)   C C C 11 12 13   C → C C C , (14)   IJ 12 22 23 C C C 13 23 33 C > 0 & C C > C & det(C ) ¿ 0 or λ > 0 & λ > 0 & λ > 0 (e.g. from 11 11 22 IJ I II III the Cardano formula [13]). The problem can arise if we ﬁnd C and/or C other than zero: it is hard to say, 13 23 in this case, if there is no symmetry at all or, possibly, we have chosen a wrong axis [4]. To avoid this it is recommended to check for all crystals the most general stability condition for anisotropy (14). The above considerations are not only of a general nature, selected examples of erroneous stiﬀness tensors and incorrectly veriﬁed elastic stability can be found in the A comment on ”The Computational 2D Materials Database...” 5 Computational 2D Materials Database (C2DB). As it was written earlier, crystal symmetry implies symmetries of its physical properties, and hence the symmetries of tensors, e.g. the stiﬀness tensor. The conditions for elastic stability were given in equations (11–14). For example, we can ﬁnd in the C2DB database: • Au O : https://cmrdb.fysik.dtu.dk/c2db/row/Au2O2-GaS-NM 2 2 Space group:P-6m2, C =86.93 N/m, C =87.90 N/m and C =103.62 N/m 11 22 12 Because it is a Hexagonal lattice (V) the stiﬀness tensor c must be isotropic (1) and C must be equal to C . Although all calculated elastic constants are positive, the 11 22 crystal is not elastically stable because not all required stability conditions (Eq.11) are fulﬁlled. • Ta Se : https://cmrdb.fysik.dtu.dk/c2db/row/Ta2Se2-GaS-FM 2 2 Space group:P-6m2, C =75.15 N/m, C =75.81 N/m and C =-45.67 N/m 11 22 12 Because it is a Hexagonal lattice (V) the stiﬀness tensor c must be isotropic (1) and C must be equal to C . Although calculated elastic constant C is negative, 11 22 12 the crystal is elastically stable because all mandatory stability conditions (Eq.11) are satisﬁed. • Re O : https://cmrdb.fysik.dtu.dk/c2db/row/Re2O2-FeSe-NM 2 2 Space group:P4/nmm, C =17.70 N/m, C =16.18 N/m and C =239.42 N/m 11 22 12 Because it is a Square lattice (IV) the stiﬀness tensor c must have symmetry of a square (2) and C must be equal to C (the diﬀerence here is more than 9%). 11 22 Although all calculated elastic constants are positive, the crystal is not elastically stable because not all stability requirements (Eq.12) are met. Acknowledgments This work was partially supported by the National Science Centre (NCN – Poland) Research Project: UMO-2016/21/B/ST8/02450. References [1] Sten Haastrup, Mikkel Strange, Mohnish Pandey, Thorsten Deilmann, Per S Schmidt, Nicki F Hinsche, Morten N Gjerding, Daniele Torelli, Peter M Larsen, Anders C Riis-Jensen, Jakob Gath, Karsten W Jacobsen, Jens Jørgen Mortensen, Thomas Olsen, and Kristian S Thygesen. The Computational 2D Materials Database: high-throughput modeling and discovery of atomically thin crystals. 2D Materials, 5(4):042002, 2018. [2] M.M Carroll. Must Elastic Materials be Hyperelastic? Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids, 14(4):369–376, 2009. [3] R.B. Hetnarski and J. Ignaczak. The Mathematical Theory of Elasticity, Second Edition. Taylor & Francis, 2010. [4] A. Blinowski, J. Ostrowska-Maciejewska, and J. Rychlewski. Two-dimensional Hooke’s tensors - isotropic decomposition, eﬀective symmetry criteria. Archives of Mechanics, 48(2):325–345, 1996. A comment on ”The Computational 2D Materials Database...” 6 [5] Q. C. He and Q. S. Zheng. On the symmetries of 2D elastic and hyperelastic tensors. Journal of Elasticity, 43(3):203–225, 1996. [6] Morteza M. Mehrabadi and Stephen C. Cowin. EIGENTENSORS OF LINEAR ANISOTROPIC ELASTIC MATERIALS. The Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics, 43(1):15–41, 1990. [7] J.F. Nye and P.P.L.J.F. Nye. Physical Properties of Crystals: Their Representation by Tensors and Matrices. Oxford science publications. Clarendon Press, 1985. [8] Yuriy I. Dimitrienko. Tensor Analysis and Nonlinear Tensor Functions. Springer Netherlands, [9] M. Ma´zdziarz and M. Gajewski. Estimation of Isotropic Hyperelasticity Constitutive Models to Approximate the Atomistic Simulation Data for Aluminium and Tungsten Monocrystals. Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences, 105(2):123–150, 2015. [10] F´elix Mouhat and Franc¸ois-Xavier Coudert. Necessary and suﬃcient elastic stability conditions in various crystal systems. Phys. Rev. B, 90:224104, 2014. [11] G¨oran Grimvall, Blanka Magyari-Ko¨pe, Vidvuds Ozolin¸ˇs, and Kristin A. Persson. Lattice instabilities in metallic elements. Rev. Mod. Phys., 84:945–986, Jun 2012. ˇ ˇ [12] Petr Reh´ak, Miroslav Cerny´, and Jaroslav Pokluda. Dynamic stability of fcc crystals under isotropic loading from ﬁrst principles. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 24(21):215403, [13] Mikhail Itskov. Tensor Algebra and Tensor Analysis for Engineers. Springer Berlin Heidelberg,

### Journal

Condensed MatterarXiv (Cornell University)

Published: Dec 13, 2018