Abstract
The successful discovery and isolation of graphene in 2004, and the subsequent synthesis of layered semiconductors and heterostructures beyond graphene have led to the exploding field of twodimensional (2D) materials that explore their growth, new atomicscale physics, and potential device applications. This review aims to provide an overview of theoretical, computational, and machine learning methods and tools at multiple length and time scales, and discuss how they can be utilized to assist/guide the design and synthesis of 2D materials beyond graphene. We focus on three methods at different length and time scales as follows: (i) nanoscale atomistic simulations including density functional theory (DFT) calculations and molecular dynamics simulations employing empirical and reactive interatomic potentials; (ii) mesoscale methods such as phasefield method; and (iii) macroscale continuum approaches by coupling thermal and chemical transport equations. We discuss how machine learning can be combined with computation and experiments to understand the correlations between structures and properties of 2D materials, and to guide the discovery of new 2D materials. We will also provide an outlook for the applications of computational approaches to 2D materials synthesis and growth in general.
Introduction
The perfection and physical properties of atomically thin twodimensional (2D) materials are extremely sensitive to their synthesis and growth process. Achieving desired characteristics such as structural uniformity, high carrier mobility^{1}, strong light–matter interactions, tunable bandgap, and flexibility is the main challenge for the synthesis and growth of next generation, electronicsgrade 2D materials. A reliable and optimized growth and manufacturing process is essential for the synthesis of 2D materials with uniform properties at the wafer scale, e.g., for application in flexible and transparent optoelectronics.
Two main approaches have been employed for the synthesis of 2D materials, i.e., (i) topdown approaches such as mechanical^{2} and liquidphase exfoliation that allows scalability^{3}, and (ii) bottomup approaches such as chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and atomic layer deposition techniques^{4}. The former approaches are suitable for mass production of 2D materials but with typically lower quality, whereas the latter approaches can produce highquality 2D materials but in small amounts. For both types of approaches, the morphology and characteristics of the synthesized 2D materials are very sensitive to the thermodynamic or kinetic conditions^{5} of the growth processes, e.g., heat transfer and mass transfer of source chemical species, chemical reaction kinetics, adsorption of reaction product species on a substrate surface, and nucleation and growth of the resulting 2D materials. The goal of this review is to provide an overview of the main theoretical and computational methods for understanding the thermodynamics and kinetics of mass transport, reaction, and growth mechanisms during synthesis of 2D materials. We will discuss the possibility of synthesisbydesign of new 2D materials guided by computation to reduce the number of expensive and timeconsuming trialanderror experimentations.
The critical challenge for developing theoretical and computational design tools for the synthesis of 2D materials is the broad range of length and temporal scales involved in their growth process. For example, it may require quantum mechanical and atomistic reactive forcefield calculations to determine the activation energies for atomic migration on a surface^{6} and understand the atomistic surface reaction mechanisms^{7}, and then a finite element method (FEM) to model the mesoscale mass transport phenomena^{8}. Other challenges include incorporating the effects of substrates including the types of substrate defects^{9}, the possible wrinkling of 2D films^{10}, the effect of van der Waals (vdW) interactions at the mesoscale^{11}, and the growth kinetics unique to atomically thin materials^{12}. Also reproducing quadratic dispersion for the flexural acoustic modes of 2D materials using classical or reactive potentials may not be straightforward, it has been already formulated^{13}. Furthermore, a practically useful multiscale model should be computationally efficient, numerically accurate, and, more importantly, able to capture the multiphysical governing relationships among the growth conditions, growth morphology, and materials properties. The eventual goal of developing multiscale computational models is to guide the design of new growth chambers to produce uniform largearea 2D materials.
Atomistic computational methods
Firstprinciples calculations
This section discusses the computational approaches based on the density functional theory (DFT). The primary application of DFT in modeling 2D materials is to determine the relative thermodynamic stabilities of different crystal structures of a 2D material by computing their chemical potentials or to identify kinetic pathways by analyzing the energetics of potential transient structures from one stable equilibrium structure to another as thermodynamic conditions change. Examples of applications of DFT to understanding 2D materials and their growth, as well as the corresponding DFTbased firstprinciples methodologies and the corresponding experimental observables for validation are summarized in Table 1.
Thermodynamic stability
The thermodynamic stability of a 2D material requires its formation energy to be negative. The formation energies of various 2D materials have been efficiently calculated by DFT in combination with highthroughput screening platforms^{14}. The success of DFT in predicting energies relies on the accuracy of welltempered approximate exchangecorrelation functionals. Standard functionals, e.g., the PerdewBurkeErnzerhof parametrization of the generalized gradient approximation exchangecorrelation functional (GGAPBE), accompanied by appropriate corrections^{15}, describe well the formation and atomization energies. However, they are limited by intrinsic delocalization errors when bonds are stretched, resulting in underestimated reaction barriers^{16}. A more realistic criterion for a stable 2D material is a low “abovehull” energy^{17}. Exfoliation energies within 0.2 eV/atom are suggested as a general rule of thumb for the stability in 2D form. A slightly stricter criterion to have low surface energy (<20 meV/Å) is suggested to rule out potential highsurface energy but multiatomthick sheets.
Kinetically stabilized 2D Materials
Asgrown products may be metastable structures rather than groundstate polytypes^{18}. The wellknown phasestability competition between the 2H and 1T′ types in transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) has been studied extensively using DFT. Several possible mechanisms for the 1T′phase stabilization in the disulfide, including growthrelated factors such as the presence of point defects and residual strain, have been elucidated through DFT calculations^{19}. Phasestability analysis for the entire group IV metal dichalcogenide family^{20} revealed that the 1T′ phases are generally more stable for ditellurides. In addition to pure compounds, mixing/segregation behavior and order–disorder transitions in alloys have also been discussed^{21}. Within the W/Mo + S/Se/Te combinations, mixing either chalcogens or metals is thermodynamically favorable^{22}, which can be experimentally quantified using the WarrenCowley order parameters^{23}. For TMDs, theory predicts that at finite temperatures, the formation of random alloys is favorable. However, kinetically stabilized atomically thin strips of alternating W and Mo in a sulfide alloy have been reported^{24}.
Interlayer/substrate interactions
Accurate description of vdW interactions becomes critical when interlayer sheet–sheet or sheet–substrate interactions are considered, e.g., for identifying the growth orientation. As a nonlocal effect, vdW forces are not correctly described by DFT with semilocal exchangecorrelation functionals and are often corrected by adding pairwise interatomic terms from empirical fittings^{25}, based on charge densities^{26}, or by introducing nonlocal exchangecorrelation functionals, i.e., van der Waals Density Functional^{27}. Thorough testing of these methods has been examined in ref. ^{28}. One common technical problem in this computational approach is that substrates are modeled in a slab geometry where the one surface not in contact with the 2D sheet may host surface states, unless it is passivated. To suppress artificial charge transfer that these may induce, capping using pseudohydrogen^{29} with fractional charge is often performed. With the advent of new software platforms automating the generation of solid surfaces in combination with stacked 2D sheets and adsorption geometries (e.g., MPInterfaces^{30}), highthroughput screening of possible substrates may lead to a systematic approach to substrate engineering.
Precursor chemistry and kinetics
Transient intermediate states are commonly calculated using transition state theory and the nudged elastic band (NEB) method^{31} by calculating bond dissociation energies or corresponding activation barriers^{32}. One recently attempted approach to capture precursor reaction kinetics is constrained molecular dynamics (MD)^{33}, where slowly varying coordination constraints are enforced on reacting species to map out free energy barriers, as implemented in VASP^{34}. It is different from NEB calculations in that (1) it calculates free energies at finite temperatures; (2) the final state of the reaction need not to be known; and (3) it has a better numerical stability^{35}. Constrained MD was used to study a sulfur precursor, S_{2}, reacting with a MoO_{3} surface^{36}, concluding that MoO_{3} surface vacancies favor the sulfurization process both kinetically and thermodynamically. The downside of constrained MD is that a reaction coordinate is chosen a priori, which may bias the system towards unnatural products with incorrect reaction mechanisms^{33} and higher reaction barriers^{34}.
Other methods for sampling of rare events such as nucleation of a new structure include umbrella sampling, transition interface sampling, and metadynamics. The umbrella sampling technique was introduced by Torrie and Valleau^{37}, to improve the sampling of systems with energy landscapes containing high energy barriers. The weighted histogram analysis method^{38} can be used to analyze a series of umbrella sampling methods. In the transition interface sampling^{39}, the transition region is divided into subregions of intermediate states. The rate constant of a reaction in this method is the multiplication of transition probabilities between different intermediate states. The metadynamics technique was introduced in 2002 and is usually used within an atomistic modeling framework^{40}. Selected collective variables of the system not only evolve with time but also periodically leave behind positive Gaussian potentials that are added to the original potential energy of the system, which effectively push the system out of a local minimum and into a neighboring energy well. Informally, metadynamics resembles “filling the free energy wells with computational sand.”^{41}
Growth front advancement
Early studies focused on calculating the surplus energies of edges in the highsymmetry directions and then applying the thermodynamic Wulff construction^{42}. One difficulty in calculating the edge energies is the polar and noncentrosymmetric nature of materials, where the usual ribbon calculation geometry makes the energies of dislike edges inseparable. The usual workaround is by constructing triangular flakes exposing a single type of edge^{43}. Another “energy density method” was introduced in ref. ^{44} and a recently proposed method^{42} aimed at finding a general method suitable for highthroughput calculations introduces capping groups to passivate a surface.
One major criticism of further employing thermodynamic Wulff constructions is that growth is by definition out of equilibrium. Therefore, edges that dominate over others should not be the energetically favorable ones, but the slowest growing ones. The stepflow approach was formulated in ref. ^{45} for graphene growth and was further developed in ref. ^{46} for polar materials, establishing the use of kinetic Wulff construction. A similar approach involves DFT calculations and fitting to experimental grain morphologies, to construct a kinetic Monte Carlo (KMC) model^{47}.
Defects
The formation of defects may occur within thermodynamic equilibrium such as thermally generated point defects or follow from growth imperfections such as dislocations and grain boundaries (GBs), or reflect the finite size of crystals such as edges and surfaces. Defects can also be deliberately introduced using methods such as electron or ion irradiation and chemical treatment^{40}. The calculation of defect formation energies follows a wellestablished procedure detailed in ref. ^{48}. 2D materials also host latticespecific defect types, such as the StoneWales defect in graphene^{49}. Singleatom vacancies are another type of defects in 2D materials. A general strategy to ensure correct convergence behavior for charged defects in 2D systems is presented in ref. ^{50}. Defect formation energies in MoS_{2} have been comprehensively studied in ref. ^{51}; possible strategies of introducing extrinsic dopants have been examined in ref. ^{52}. Defect complexes are also frequently studied to identify likely combinations between simple intrinsic defects and external contamination^{53}, devise possible defectpairing strategies to neutralize harmful defects^{54}, and investigate their influence on the growth behavior of 2D materials on a different 2D sheet^{9,55}. Multiple vacancies may exist in 2D materials such as double vacancies in graphene, resulting in (i) two pentagons and one octagon—V_{2} (585) defect; or (ii) three pentagons and three heptagons—V_{2}(555777) defect; or (iii) four pentagons, a hexagon, and four heptagons—V_{2}(555567777) defect^{56}. The formation of defects with an even number of vacancies in graphene is energetically favorable due to the lack of any dangling bonds^{57}, whereas a large number of vacancies may bend and wrap the 2D material^{58}. Table 2 lists the typical values of formation and migration energies of these point defects from atomistic calculations.
Dislocations are line defects in 2D materials that can be of inplane edge or outofplane screw type. The former consists of pentagon–heptagon (5–7) pairs^{59,60} and the latter makes the structure to become 3D^{61}. In general, dislocations in 2D materials have high gliding energy barriers and are immobile at room temperature. They hinder the plastic deformation of 2D materials^{62}. The inplane edge dislocations with the smallest Burgers vector, b = (1,0), is typically the energetically most favorable dislocation configuration. The trilayer biatomic MoS_{2} has a complex dislocation structure with two types, i.e., Morich that resembles (5–7) and Srich that resembles (7–5) pairs. The complex nature of dislocations in MoS_{2} is a source of its rich chemistry. For example, at specific chemical potentials of S, the (5–7) dislocation reacts with 2S vacancies to form a (4–6) defect.
GBs in 2D materials can be considered as an array of dislocations, which can be divided into lowangle and highangle GBs depending on the dislocation core density. Atomistic simulations revealed that the mechanical properties of 2D materials, similar to the onedimensional nanostructures, will be affected by both the density and arrangement of the defects^{63}. Notably, graphene sheets with highangle tilt GBs can be as strong as the pristine material and much stronger than those with lowangle GBs^{64}. First‐principles calculations also revealed that sinuous GB structures are energetically favorable when the straight GB line cannot bisect the tilt angle^{65}. GB energies of different 2D materials are also reported based on atomistic calculations. For MoS_{2}, the energy of GB with a 20.6° misorientation angle is 0.05 eV/Å^{62}. The GB energy for phosphorene varies between 0.05 and 1.5 eV/Å, depending on its tilt angle^{66}.
Molecular dynamics
The MD approach is one of the main tools that have been used to study the growth of 2D materials at the atomistic scale. The quality of potential function governing the atomic interactions is the key for the accuracy of this technique in predicting the structures and properties of 2D materials. In general, two classes of interatomic potentials are used in MD simulations to study the growth of 2D materials, i.e., empirical and reactive potentials, which we elaborate on here.
Empirical potentials
Empirical potentials are faster and more computationally efficient, but less accurate than reactive potentials. Common empirical potentials for modeling 2D materials are reviewed below.
LennardJones potential
In 1924, LennardJones (LJ) published the 12–6 pairwise potential to describe the vdW interaction between two neutral particles (i.e., rare gases)^{67},
where r is the distance between two interacting atoms, \({\it{\epsilon }}\) is the potential well depth and σ is the distance at which the potential is zero. The r^{−12} term captures the strong repulsion occurring when two atoms get closer. The repulsive effect originates from the Pauli exclusion principle, which penalizes the overlap of electron orbitals. The r^{−6} term describes the vdW interaction, which is due to the coupling between the instantaneous polar charges induced in two neutral molecules and is significantly weaker than the electron overlap effects.
The popularity of the LJ potential is due to its simplicity and it has been widely applied to simulate the interlayer interactions in atomically layered materials. While being used to capture vdW interactions, a limitation of the pairwise interaction is the inability to capture frictional processes, such as the sliding of atomic layers. Different corrections have been proposed to overcome this shortcoming^{68,69,70}. The two potential parameters \({\it{\epsilon }}\) and σ can be determined by using one energy quantity like the binding energy and a structural quantity like the density. The LJ parameters for most elements can be determined systematically, as demonstrated by Rappe et al.^{71}. The LJ parameters for typical 2D materials and substrates in Table 3 are listed in in Table 4 (for σ) and Table 5 (for \({\it{\epsilon }}\)), respectively.
StillingerWeber potential
Stillinger and Weber (SW) proposed this potential in 1985, to model bulk silicon^{72}. The SW potential includes both pair (twobody) and threebody interactions,
where V_{2} describes the pairwise bondstretching energy and V_{3} captures the bending energy associated with an angle with initial value θ_{0}.
The cutoffs r_{max}, r_{max12}, and r_{max13} can be determined by fitting to the average of the first and secondneighboring bond lengths. The seven unknown potential parameters, including five unknown geometrical parameters, i.e., ρ and B in V_{2} and ρ_{1}, ρ_{2}, and θ_{0} in V_{3}, and two energy parameters A and K, can be determined either by a leastsquares fit to targeted quantities such as the elastic constants, Poisson’s ratio, and the phonon spectrum, or by analytical derivations from the linear valence forcefield potential. It is noteworthy that the nonlinear parameter B could not be determined by the latter approach, which should be determined by nonlinear quantities such as the thirdorder elastic constants^{73}.
The SW potential can describe nonlinear processes including large deformations, as higherorder terms for the variation of bond length and angle are included in its formulation. Although the SW potential is efficient and suitable for simulating thermal transport and other nonlinear phenomena^{74}, it is not able to describe chemical bond formation or breaking. It should also be noted that the SW potential cannot provide bending energy for atomically layered materials without outofplane bonds such as graphene^{75}. Due to its efficiency, the SW potential has been used in the simulation of many atomically layered materials such as 2D nanostructures of Si and their thermal properties^{76}, MoS_{2}^{73,74,76}, MoSe_{2}^{76}, WS_{2}^{77}, and black phosphorus^{73,78,79}. The SW potential has been parametrized for 156 emerging atomic layered materials, along with other available empirical potentials for these atomically layered materials^{80}.
Forcefield potential
The forcefield (FF) potential describes the variation in the potential energy of a deformed structure with respect to its equilibrium configuration. It is essentially a Taylor expansion of the total energy in terms of the variation in the bond length and angle,
where Δb, Δθ, Δϕ, and Δγ are variations of the bond length, bond angle, twisting angle, and inversion angle, respectively; k_{b}, \(k_b^{(3)}\), \(k_b^{(4)}\), k_{θ}, \(k_\theta ^{(3)}\), \(k_\theta ^{(4)}\), k_{ϕ}, k_{γ}, k_{bb′}, k_{θθ′}, and k_{bθ} are force constants. V_{b} is the bondstretching energy, V_{θ} is the bond anglebending energy, V_{ϕ} is the torsional energy for a bond, V_{γ} is the inversion energy among four atoms, and V_{c} is the offdiagonal coupling interaction. It is noteworthy that the cubic and quartic anharmonic terms in the bondstretching and anglebending interactions enable the FF model to capture nonlinear phenomena such as thermal expansion and thermal transport.
The FF potential has two significant features: (i) the number of interaction terms and (ii) the forceconstant parameters and the equilibrium structural parameters (bond lengths and angles). MM3^{81} and COMPASS^{82} use all of the interaction terms and can simulate large deformations and nonlinear phenomena. In contrast, the Keating model^{83} is the simplest model including only the harmonic terms. Parameters of the potential are usually fitted to available data and, thus, the volume and accuracy of the fitted data set determine the accuracy of the FF model. Several generations of FF models have been developed as more data become available, including four versions of the molecular mechanics FF: MM1^{84}, MM2^{85}, MM3^{81}, and MM4^{86}. The UFF^{71} provides the FF parameters for all the elements in the periodic table.
As the energies in the FF model are additive, this potential has been widely used to calculate physical or mechanical properties for various materials via analytic expressions, including many 2D materials. For example, an FF model, with bond stretching and anglebending terms, has been used to derive the phonon dispersion of graphene layers^{86}. The bondstretching and anglebending terms were utilized to extract the bending properties of graphene^{87}. A mapping between the FF model and the elastic beam model has been developed, which is used to derive analytic expressions for Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of graphene and carbon nanotubes^{88}.
Reactive interatomic potentials
The reactivepotential approach has been widely used to explore the synthesis and properties of different materials. The reactive potentials can capture the bond breaking and formation during the classical simulations of 2D materials. They are also computationally less expensive than firstprinciples methods such as DFT calculations and abinitio MD. Typical reactive potentials that have been frequently considered are Tersoff Bond Order (Tersoff)^{89}, Reactive Empirical Bond Order (REBO)^{90}, Adaptive Intermolecular Reactive Empirical Bond Order (AIREBO)^{91}, Charge Optimized ManyBody (COMB)^{92}, and Reactive Force Field (ReaxFF)^{93}. These different reactive potentials are reviewed in detail in ref. ^{94}. Performances of several reactive and nonreactive potentials in graphenebased materials are compared in ref. ^{95}. These potentials allow the realization of the thermodynamic stability of graphenebased materials under different conditions, environmental chemistry, substrate, interlayer interactions, and structural defects. However, only a few of them have been employed in the study of computational synthesis of other 2D materials to reveal thermodynamic stability, simulate the process of the growth of layers, model the topdown synthesis of 2D materials such as exfoliation techniques^{38}, and evaluate the properties of 2D nanostructures. This is due to several challenges including the following: (1) the long time required to develop a reactive potential, (2) the nontransferability of potential parameters from one material to another, and (3) the lack of universal functional forms for the reactive potentials.
The Tersoff potentials are mainly used to explore various structures and properties of 2D hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) materials^{96}. The REBO and AIREBO potentials are used to simulate the CVD process and growth of 2D amorphous carbon on substrates, mechanical properties of MoS_{2}, and even study the thermal stability of C_{60} 2D nanostructures^{97}. The COMB3 potentials have been used to simulate the experimental CVD deposition and growth of graphene and metal on substrates^{98}. The ReaxFF potentials have been used to explore the structures of several 2D materials under intercalation, study the defects and groups on the surfaces of MXene materials, simulate CVD growth of MoS_{2} layers, and explore the synthesis of 2D polymeric materials in experiments^{7,99}. In general, COMB3 and ReaxFF can further explore 2D materials, as their functional forms can describe heterogeneous systems. It remains crucial to find accelerated methods to develop reactive potentials with high accuracy and transferability for 2D materials.
Tersoff potential
The Tersoff potential was first published in 1986^{100} and further developed in 1988^{101}. The second version of the Tersoff potential has the following form,
where \(f_R(r_{ij})\) and \(f_A(r_{ij})\) are the repulsive and attractive components, respectively. The cutoff function is:
A distinct feature of the Tersoff potential is the absence of an explicit threebody interaction term. Instead, the concept of bond order is introduced, in which the strength of a given bond depends strongly on its local environment. Bond order is accounted for via the function b_{ij}, which has the following form
a_{ij} is an alternative parameter to improve the accuracy of the potential, with a similar form
The 13 unknown parameters are typically determined by fitting to data from firstprinciples calculations or experiments.
The Tersoff potential was used for modeling of graphene, which gives a better description of the phonon spectrum^{102}. It was also used to model germanene^{103} and silicene^{103}. By introducing one scaling parameter for the quantity b_{ij} with atoms i and j of different elements^{104}, the Tersoff potential was generalized to describe the interaction for multicomponent systems including CSi and SiGe^{104}, and boron nitride^{105}. Using the Tersoff potential, the thermal conductivity of silicene was calculated to be 61.7 and 68.5 W mK^{−1} for the armchair and zigzag configurations, which is reduced when it is doped with heavier silicon isotopes^{106}. This potential has also been used for modeling the misfit dislocations in 2D materials, where a critical thickness was found for the formation of an interface misfit dislocation^{107}.
ReaxFF potential
The ReaxFF^{93} is a bondorderbased force field, which allows formation and breaking of bonds. It has a general form of
where the energy terms on the righthand side in the order of appearance are bond, overcoordination penalty, undercoordination stability, lone pair, valence, torsion, nonbonded vdW interactions, and Coulomb energies, respectively. The bondorder parameter determines the bonded interactions between the atoms in the system,
where \({\mathrm {BO}}_{ij}^\sigma ,{\mathrm {BO}}_{ij}^\pi ,\) and \({\mathrm {BO}}_{ij}^{\pi \pi }\) are the partial contributions of associated σ, π, and ππ bonds between the i and j atoms; r_{ij} is the distance between the i and j atoms; \(r_o^\sigma\), \(r_o^\pi\), and \(r_o^{\pi \pi }\) are the associated bond radii; and p_{bo} are empirical constants that will be determined from abinitio simulations or experiments. The energy terms in Eq. (14) are then formulated as a function of the bondorder parameter (see ref. ^{93} for details).
ReaxFF studies on 2D materials were initiated from studies of various aspects of graphene^{108} and inspired investigations for a number of other 2D materials, which are elaborated below.
Graphene—Effect of the environment’s chemistry on properties and responses of graphene has been investigated using ReaxFF. For example, effect of oxygen on the mechanical response of graphene^{109}, effect of the addition of fluorine and hydrogen^{110} on the structural quality of graphene, as well as the Nicatalyzed growth process of singlelayer graphene^{111}, are investigated. The growth mechanism involves atomic deposition and segregation of C atoms on the Ni substrate, forming domelike carbon nanotube cap and polygonal ring patterns via atoms→chains→graphenelike layer formation (Fig. 1a). The ReaxFF has also been applied to study reactive events at the graphene–water interface (Fig. 1b)^{112} and selective desalination via the bare and hydrogenated graphene nanopore^{113}.
Silicene and phosphorene—Silicene and black phosphorene (BP) are the silicon and phosphorus analogs of graphene, respectively. A favorable route for silicene formation has been proposed by employing the graphene bilayer as a template (Fig. 1c)^{114}. It was found that vacancy defects reduce the thermal stability of silicene, where the critical temperature reduces by more than 30%^{115}. A P/H parameter set has been developed for monolayer BP^{114} to examine the mechanical, thermal, and chemical stability of both pristine and defective BP.
Molybdenum disulfide—The ReaxFF potential for 2D MoS_{2} systems was introduced in ref. 6. This potential could precisely calculate the formation energy of ripplocations in MoS_{2} (Fig. 1d)^{116}, which result from the slippage of the upper layer against the lower layer to relax the strain without breaking covalent bonds. This potential was also trained over the vacancy formation energies, diffusion barriers, bending rigidity, and kinetics. It has also been applied to design S vacancy defects on MoS_{2} surface^{117}. Reactive MD simulations have also been used to model the synthesis of MoS_{2} layers via sulfidation of MoO_{3} surfaces^{7}. These simulations identified a threestep reaction pathway as follows: (i) evolution of O_{2} and reduction of MoO_{3} surface; (ii) S_{2}assisted reduction and formation of SO/SO_{2}; and (iii) sulfidation of the surface via MoS bond formation. The ReaxFF MD simulations have also been employed within a multiscale framework to capture thermal properties of MoS_{2}^{118}. The predicted thermal conductivity of MoS_{2} structures with infinite length (37 ± 3 W/mK) falls within the range of experimental results (34.5–110 W/mK)^{119}.
MXenes—MD simulations with ReaxFF of MXenes revealed that intercalating with potassium cations drastically improves water stability and homogeneity of MXenes, and reduce the selfdiffusion coefficient of water by two orders of magnitude^{120}. The dynamical response of MXenes with different surface terminations to intercalating ions was studied with DFT calculations and ReaxFF MD simulations^{121}. Figure 1e compares the interlayer distance of Ti_{3}C_{2}(OH)_{2} MXene bilayer with and without K^{+} ions. Influence of metal ions intercalation on vibrational properties of water molecules trapped between MXene layers was studied using ReaxFF MD simulations^{122}. Widening of the interlayer gap may enable the penetration of molecular reactants such as urea, which decomposes readily and leads to the intercalation of ammonium cations^{123}. ReaxFF simulations were performed for defect formation and homoepitaxial growth of TiC layer on Ti3C2 MXene structures^{124}.
REBO/AIREBO potentials
The REBO potential \(( {E_{ij}^{\mathrm {REBO}}} )\) is a combination of attractive \(( {V_{ij}^A} )\) and repulsive \(( {V_{ij}^R} )\) interactions with certain ratio (b_{ij}), \(E_{ij}^{\mathrm {REBO}} = V_{ij}^R + b_{ij}V_{ij}^A\). The bondorder interaction ratio, b_{ij}, is dependent on the local coordination in the atomic environment. The REBO potential can define the conjugation of bonds using b_{ij}, and therefore the potential has been widely used for modeling hydrocarbon systems^{125}. The repulsive term is expressed by the Brenner equation^{90},
Here, the Q_{ij}, r_{ij}, and α_{ij} parameters depend on i and j. The bond weighting parameter w_{ij}(r_{ij}) depends on switching function S(t) as
The attractive interaction is expressed as
the bondorder interaction ratio b_{ij} is
Here, \(p_{ij}^{\sigma \pi }\) and \(p_{ji}^{\sigma \pi }\) are not necessarily equal as they depend on the penalty function (g_{i}) of bond angle θ_{jik} between the vector r_{ij}, and vector r_{ki}, i.e.,
The AIREBO potential is the modification over the REBO potential, which also considers the torsional \(( {E_{kijl}^{\mathrm {TORSION}}} )\) and LJ \(( {E_{ij}^{lj}} )\) interactions. The integration of pairwise interactions in AIREBO potential can be represented by the following equation
The REBO potential can describe the breaking, formation, and hybridization of covalent bonds. The REBO and AIREBO potentials have been used to study the growth of 2D amorphous carbon, mechanical properties of MoS_{2}, and even thermal stabilities of C_{60} 2D nanostructures using atomic coordination, internal stress, and mass density analysis^{126}. The subplantation phenomenon during CVD, i.e., penetration of the substrate bulk carbon by carbon atoms, can be explained by this REBO potential. REBO potential is also suitable for modeling and analysis of TMD materials such as MoS_{2}. The potential results in stabilized structure and good agreement of the structural and mechanical properties^{97,127,128}. It was also used for modeling the synthesis of diamane from graphene and its stability under different conditions^{129}.
COMB3 potential
The general formation of the COMB3 potential can be expressed as^{92}
The total potential energy consists of electrostatic energy \(\left( {U^{\mathrm{es}}\left[ {\left\{ q \right\},\left\{ r \right\}} \right]} \right)\), shortrange interactions \(\left( {U^{\mathrm {short}}\left[ {\left\{ q \right\},\left\{ r \right\}} \right]} \right)\), longrange vdW interaction \(\left( {U^{\mathrm {vdW}}\left[ {\left\{ q \right\},\left\{ r \right\}} \right]} \right)\), and the correction terms. Here, q and r represent the charge and coordinate array of the elements. The electrostatic energies \(\left( {U^{\mathrm {es}}\left[ {\left\{ q \right\},\left\{ r \right\}} \right]} \right)\) can be represented as
The selfinteraction energy \(\left( {U^{\mathrm {self}}\left[ {\left\{ q \right\},\left\{ r \right\}} \right]} \right)\) consists of fieldeffect and ionization energy, or the affinity energy. Chargetocharge interaction \(\left( {U^{qq}\left[ {\left\{ {q1s} \right\},\left\{ r \right\}} \right]} \right)\) is associated with the charge density distribution functions. Nuclearcharge interaction \(U^{qZ}\left[ {\left\{ q \right\},\left\{ r \right\}} \right]\) depends on the coulombic interaction between charge density distributions in the system. Polar interaction energy \(U^{\mathrm {polar}}\left[ {\left\{ q \right\},\{ r\} } \right]\) depends on the charge interactions and dipole distributions in response to the external electric field.
The chargedependent shortrange interaction in Eq. (24) is associated with bond distance functions of the atom and the associated charge functions. This energy term can be expressed by
Here, \(V_{ij}^{\mathrm {bond}}\) is the bond energy that is associated with pairwise attraction \(\left( {V^A(r_{ij},q_i,q_j)} \right)\) and pairwise repulsion energy \((V^R(r_{ij},q_i,q_j))\). They exponentially decrease with the interatomic distance r_{ij}. F_{c}(r_{ij}) is the cutoff function.
The longrange interaction energy is defined by the vdW interaction, which can be expressed by the LJ interaction formula^{130}
Here, \(\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm {vdW}}\) and \(\varepsilon _{ij}^{\mathrm {vdW}}\) are the equilibrium distance and interaction energy, respectively; r_{ij} is the cutoff radii where the interaction assumes zero.
The correction factor in Eq. (24) adjusts the energy penalties associated with specified angles. It can be calculated by a sixthorder Legendre polynomial and bond bending term.
Here, \(K_{ijk}^\theta\) indicates the specific bond angles and θ_{ijk} is the bond angle.
The COMB3 potential has been introduced to study the CVD process for various 2D materials. The chargeoptimized COMB3 potentials have been used to simulate the experimental CVD deposition and growth of graphene on metal substrates. Especially, the introduction of dihedral interaction terms in the COMB3 potential can capture the delocalized bonding and bond bending during the CVD process on a particular substrate. The wrinkle formation due to the size mismatch of graphene and Cusubstrate has been studied using COMB3 potential, which was comparable to experimental results^{98}. This potential was also used to understand the role of growth parameters such as absorption energy, migration barrier, and temperature in the Cu deposition on ZnO substrate^{131}. COMB3 potential has also been used to investigate the effect of surface hydroxylation of amorphous SiO_{2} substrate on heat conduction of supported graphene^{132}.
Mesoscale simulations
Phasefield model
At mesoscale, a simple and effective model for 2D materials growth is the classical BurtonCabreraFrank (BCF) theory^{133}, where the island growth is realized by the deposition of adatoms from the supersaturated gas atmosphere and the incorporation of diffusing atoms at the step edge. The direct numerical implementation of the BCF model requires tracking the evolving step edges and applying the boundary conditions due to the sharpinterface nature of the model; in contrast, phasefield diffuseinterface models^{134} avoid the explicit tracking of the interfaces.
The BCFbased phasefield models have been developed since the 1990s for a series of problems related to crystal growth, including collective step motions in a 1D step train^{135}, spiral surface growth during thinfilm epitaxy^{136}, and step flow under different kinetic regimes^{137}. More recently, the combined effects of edge diffusion, the EhrlichSchwoebel barrier, deposition, and desorption for epitaxial growth have been investigated in 2D^{138}. Based on these studies, Meca et al.^{139,140} applied the model to the growth of 2D materials with anisotropic diffusion on substrates, using the epitaxial graphene growth on copper foil during CVD as an example, with experimental validations. The typical BCFbased phasefield model for 2D materials growth uses a smoothly varying order parameter ϕ to distinguish the phases, e.g., ϕ = 1 in the 2D island, ϕ = −1 in the substrate, and −1 < ϕ < 1 at step edges. The free energy functional ℱ of the system has the general form of:
where the first term f(ϕ) is a doublewell (or multiwell, e.g., see refs. ^{136,141}) function with global minima at ϕ = 1 and ϕ = −1; the second term describes the coupling with the reduced saturation field u, with g(ϕ) an interpolation function and λ the coupling coefficient; the third term is the gradient energy due to the inhomogeneous distribution of ϕ at interfaces, where W(θ) is the angledependent interface thickness with \(\theta = arctan( {\phi _y/\phi _x})\). u can be directly related to the adatom concentration c through \(u = {\mathrm{\Omega }}( {c  c_{eq}^0} )\), where \(c_{eq}^0\) is the equilibrium concentration for a flat interface and Ω is the atomic area of the solid phase. The evolution of ϕ is governed by
where τ_{ϕ} is the characteristic time. The evolution of the saturation field u is governed by
where D is the diffusion coefficient, F_{d} is the effective deposition rate, and τ_{s} is the characteristic time scale for atom desorption. The phasefield equations (Eqs. (30) and (31)) can recover the sharpinterface BCF model in the limit of W(θ) → 0^{140}.
The applications of the phasefield models in 2D materials growth can be categorized into the following three aspects. (1) Reproducing and explaining experimentally observed growth morphologies. Examples include the reconstruction of the spiral growth of SnSe_{2}^{141}, the verification of impurityinduced bilayered graphene growth^{142}, and the explanation to island shape change from quasihexagons to triangles and dendritelike morphologies^{143}. (2) Investigating the effect of experimental parameters on growth morphologies. Taking the CVD growth of graphene as an example, the effects of flux of carbon species^{144}, deposition rates^{145}, and equilibrium saturation^{145}, and substrate orientation^{139} on graphene island morphologies have been investigated using phasefield simulations, which could provide useful guidance to the experimental control of the growth qualities. (3) Further development of the model to include the effect of additional physical/chemical processes during growth. In addition to the deposition, edge diffusion, and edge anisotropies, phasefield simulations have been extended to model multiisland interactions^{146}, tilt GB topology of 2D materials on substrates with topological cones^{147}, and to include the chemical reaction kinetics in the gas phase using a microkinetic model^{148}. These works improve the fidelity and applicable range of the phasefield model for 2D materials growth.
Nevertheless, a primary obstacle to applying phasefield models for computational synthesis of 2D materials is the lack of connection between the model parameters and the experimentally controllable CVD processing parameters, which is largely due to the difference in size scales of interest. Most of the existing phasefield simulations only focus on the growth of a few 2D islands (up to micrometer scale), which can hardly represent the effect of the macroscopic CVD parameters. One possible solution is to enable the “multiscale” modeling approach^{8}, integrating the FEM (see the section on “Macroscale models”) to account for the effect of macroscopic CVD parameters on transport phenomena and the mesoscale phasefield model for 2D crystal growth within selected zones of the whole substrate. In particular, the steadystate velocity, concentration, and temperature profiles from FEM can be incorporated in the phasefield model, as it has been proposed and applied by Momeni et al.^{8} (see Fig. 2). The incorporation of chemical reaction kinetics in the phasefield model can improve the accuracy of the predictions and expand its applicability. Phasefield models have also been applied to phase changes in 2D materials. Notable examples include the multidomain microstructure during HT’ structure transformation in MoTe_{2} and the domain switching behaviors under external stimuli^{149}. A fast Fourier transform algorithm has been implemented to study the domain switching during bending of MoTe_{2} (see Fig. 3^{149}).
Phasefieldcrystal model
Different from the continuous mesoscale phasefield approach, the phasefieldcrystal (PFC) approach^{150} describes the thermodynamics and dynamics of phase transformations through an atomically varying order parameter related to the atomic density field. With the application of the classical dynamic DFT, PFC can capture the atomisticscale morphology and evolution dynamics, within diffusional time scales, which is usually challenging for conventional atomistic methods. Recently, PFC has been actively applied to investigate the defect formation and the atomic structure of interfaces, GBs, and triple junctions during the growth of 2D materials^{151}. The unique GB structure and collective domain dynamics in binary 2D materials, e.g., hBN, was investigated (see Fig. 4^{152}).
Compared with the continuous phasefield approach, the advantage of PFC lies in resolving atomisticscale interface structures and growth dynamics of 2D islands; however, due to the limitation of simulation size, interface dynamics under the effect of realistic CVD parameters are difficult to realize. Future directions of PFC simulations for 2D materials growth include the consideration of atomisticscale islandsubstrate interactions and the integration with the largerscale phasefield or FEM simulations.
Kinetic Monte Carlo
KMC is another mesoscale technique for predicting the growth morphology and kinetic mechanisms of 2D materials, where all possible kinetic events are listed in an event catalog, and their stochastic sequence are randomly selected based on their activation energies^{153}. Activation energies of the related kinetic processes are usually obtained from atomisticscale calculations. KMC identifies the governing kinetic pathways and simulates the kinetic process. Details of its implementation can be found in ref. ^{154}.
KMC has been extensively applied to simulate the growth of graphene, e.g., the evolution of vacancy complexes and formation of vacancy chains^{155}, the formation and kinetic effect of multimember carbon ring complexes^{156}, etching of graphene GBs due to oxygen migration and reaction^{157}, and GB evolution following the StoneWales mechanism^{158}. Growth of nanoscale graphene islands from carbon monomer nuclei or preexisting growth fronts has been captured, showing catalytic growth behaviors^{159}, anisotropic morphological patterns^{160}, temperature and depositionfluxratedependent size and shapes^{161}, inhomogeneous and nonlinear growth kinetics due to lattice mismatch^{162}, and geometrydetermined growth mechanisms^{163}. The “coastline” graphene morphology during sublimation^{164} and the stepflow growth of epitaxial graphene have also been reported^{165}. Based on KMC simulations for graphene growth on Cu (111) with and without hydrogen, the growth protocol was designed for bilayer growth and Ndoped graphene growth^{166}.
Regarding TMDs, the KMC simulations for the growth of WSe_{2} monolayer on graphene have been used to develop the phase diagram of domain morphologies as a function of flux and precursor stoichiometry (Fig. 5)^{154,167}. It was found that the fast kink nucleation and propagation, rather than edge attachment and diffusion, could lead to ultrafast growth of monolayer WSe_{2}^{168}. KMC simulations also guided CVD growth of largescale WSe_{2} grains by controlling the threestage adsorption–diffusion–attachment mechanisms^{169}. KMC model is also a key component in a more generalized mechanistic model for growth morphology predictions of 2D materials^{47}.
In summary, the KMC model can be a useful tool for investigating the kinetic pathways and morphologies during the growth of 2D materials. However, the probabilitybased nature of KMC makes it most suitable for cases where atomic fluctuations are high, i.e., the atomistic and nanoscale morphology and kinetics of 2D materials. For largerscale simulations, due to the significantly increased system size and the disparate rates of different KMC events, a fullKMC is computationally expensive. As a compromise, multiscale KMC has been developed^{163}; simplifications should also be made to account for the key events that are most relevant to the largescale kinetics^{163}. Under such situations, the phasefield approach could be a more efficient option. Meanwhile, the KMC model can provide the governing kinetic mechanisms for phasefield simulations to improve the validity and accuracy of the simulation.
Macroscale models
Although the growth of 2D materials occurs at the nano and mesoscale, it is controlled by physics and parameters that have a macroscopic nature, e.g., heat and mass transfer, furnace configuration, and gasphase reactions. Thus, having a thorough understanding of the macroscale physics and processes is essential for controlling the growth of 2D materials and their synthesis by design. We can classify the macroscale models of the growth chamber into four groups: (i) experimentbased models, where rate equations and their constants used to describe the growth^{170} are determined from experiments; (ii) analytical models, where the governing equations are simplified and solved analytically^{171}; (iii) adaptive models, where a set of experiments are used to train the model^{172}; and (iv) multiphysics models, where the coupled system of governing equations at different length and temporal scales are solved numerically^{173}. Among these methods, the last group of models have key advantages, providing a profound understanding to the growth process, flexibility to apply to different growth conditions, and the ability to optimize the process.
A practical macroscale model of the growth chamber should capture the critical governing physics, e.g., the heat and mass transports and chemical reactions. Setting up these models requires several key information that can be obtained from lower scale simulations^{7} or experiments^{174}. Identifying the gasphase reactions, we may approximate some of the reaction parameters using classical theories, e.g., the collision rate to estimate the chemisorption rate of species^{175} or the group contribution methods to determine the diffusion coefficient^{176}. The other approximation is for low concentrations of reactive species, where the change in pressure and heat of reaction can be neglected. In the latter case, we may decouple the fluid and heat transfer of gaseous materials from the mass transfer and kinetics. In contrast, for high concentrations of reactive species in the gas phase, such as in metalorganic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD), the coupled system of equations must be solved^{176}. A summary of main equations in macroscale models are presented below.
Gas flow
The NavierStokes equation governs the flow rates in the growth chamber,
where u is the velocity field, p is pressure, I is the unit matrix, μ is the dynamic viscosity, and F is the volumetric applied force, i.e., weight. Furthermore, the density ρ is a function of temperature and precursor concentration. In general, the concentration of precursor in the gas phase is low and ρ can be assumed to be only a function of temperature.
Heat transfer
The two main heat transfer mechanisms in the growth chamber are convection and conduction that respectively are
where Q is the heat source, C_{P} is the heat capacity at constant pressure, T is the temperature, q is the heat flux vector, and k is the thermal conductivity coefficient.
Mass transfer
Commonly, the concentration of precursor materials in the growth chamber is negligible. Thus, the equation governing the mass transfer can be formulated with the flowassisted diffusion of dilute species
where R is the source term for precursor, c is the precursor concentration, D is the diffusion coefficient, and N is the flux of the precursor. Equations (32)–(34) must be solved for a set of initial and boundary conditions, as shown in Table 6.
Chemical reaction
Consider a set of j reactions involving i species of the form \(aA + bB + \ldots \rightleftharpoons xX + yY + \ldots\) with forward and reverse reaction rate constants \(k_j^f\) and \(k_j^r\), respectively. These reaction rates depend on the temperature via an Arrhenius expression, e.g., \(k_j^f = A_j^f\left( {T/T_{{\mathrm{ref}}}} \right)^n{\mathrm{exp}}\left( {  E_j^f/R_gT} \right)\). Here, \(A_j^f\) denotes the frequency factor, n the temperature exponent, \(E_j^f\) the activation energy, and R_{g} the gas constant. According to the mass action law, the reaction rates r_{j} can be described as,
where c_{i} is the concentration of ith species and v_{ij} is the stoichiometric coefficient (negative for reactants and positive for products). The rate equations provide the information regarding the concentration of different species, which in combination with mass and heat balance equations form the complete system of equations.
Macroscale models provide insight into the growth mechanisms and flow regimes, and play a crucial role in determining proper furnace design and growth parameters. Figure 6 shows the application of a macroscopic model of the flow and concentration diffusion in a vertical furnace with a side inlet to study the effect of the gap between the susceptor and substrate. It shows that the presence of the gap results in the formation of eddy currents close to the substrate edge, which disturbs precursor concentration and hinders the formation of 2D materials that is consistent with the experimental observations. These models have been successfully used in determining the mechanisms governing the growth of 2D materials. For example, it was revealed that the concentration gradient of the precursor is a critical factor in determining the growth morphology of 2D materials, where a low concentration gradient along the substrate leads to the formation of multigrain 2D films. In contrast, moderate planar concentration gradients lead to isolated islands of varying morphologies, and an outofplane gradient leads to the formation of standing 2D materials^{173,177}. Furthermore, macroscale models can be combined with lower scale models to form a multiscale platform with high fidelity, e.g., ref. ^{8}.
Materials genome approaches
Datadriven methods have been employed to satisfy the urgent need for theoretical development of 2D materials. The improvement of computational power has resulted in extensive collections of data and scientifically organized databases, which can be used by methods such as data mining and machine learning, to accelerate the computational design of new 2D materials.
Database of 2D materials
Compared with the databases of 3D bulk materials such as the Crystallographic Open Database^{178}, the Inorganic Crystal Structure Database^{179}, and the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre^{180}, the database focused on 2D materials is still under development. Several 2D materials databases have been attempted primarily based on a highthroughput approach coupled with firstprinciples and quantum theory to address this shortcoming. Besides, datamining methods have also been applied to screen those bulk materials databases and identify possible 2D materials from 3D structures. These approaches can provide various information about 2D materials that have been or not been synthesized in experiments. For example, using a criterion to identify 2D materials, a database has been developed on the basis of experimental and DFT data^{181}. This database provides information including exfoliation energy, bandgap, work function, and elasticconstant values of various 2D materials, and also predicted hundreds of new 2D materials for the experimental synthesis. DFT and manybody perturbation theory have been used to generate the Computational 2D Materials Database (C2DB)^{182}. The C2DB contains structural, thermodynamic, elastic, electronic, magnetic, and optical information of about two thousand 2D materials in more than 30 crystal structures. A few hundred new monolayer structures that were previously unknown, but potentially synthesizable were also identified. A datamining method has also been used to screen the bulk materials from the open database and identified a few hundred 2D weakly bonded solid materials^{183}. The band gaps and point groups that determine piezoelectric and nonlinear optical properties in these materials were also provided. A search in the database of bulk materials was performed and DFT calculations were used to explore these materials for possible exfoliation, where more than one thousand materials have been identified^{14}. Information including electronic, vibrational, magnetic and topological properties of promising materials was also provided. Similarly, the crystal database was screened for layered motifs, and hundreds of stable layered materials were found that can be considered as candidates for the formation of 2D monolayers via exfoliation^{184}.
Machine learning method
Machine learning models trained using 2D material databases can be parameterized, validated, and therefore used for predictive exploration of novel 2D materials with desired properties. Machine learning methods can also aid the understanding of the complex correlations between structures and properties in 2D materials. A combination of machine learning with MD simulations and insitu highresolution transmission electron microscopy to explore TMDs has been performed^{185}, where machine learning provided information for structural optimization and evolution of defects to help understand the structural transition in 2D TMDs. A practical method to explore hybrid 2D materials was developed by coupling machine learning with DFT calculations^{186}. The structural and electronic properties of different hybrid 2D materials were provided and various parameters for vdW heterostructures were screened. A machine learning model with forcefiledinspired descriptors in material screening for complex systems has been introduced and used to discover exfoliated 2Dlayered materials^{187}. An artificial neural network for titanium dioxide systems was trained based on the a DFT calculated database, where a novel quasi 2D titanium dioxide structure was revealed^{188}. Similarly, new 2D materials with high magnetic moments were found using a machine learning model trained by firstprinciples data^{189}. Machine learning methods have also been used to aid the development of force fields for classical simulations of materials^{190}. For instance, a force field for classical simulations of stanene was developed using a machine learning method trained by data sets from abinitio results to calculate the mechanical and thermal properties of stanene^{190}. 2D materials without bulk layered counterparts are also being discovered, using genetic algorithms^{191,192} or particle swarm optimization, both using energybased merit criteria and additional biases towards 2D sheets (see refs. ^{17,193,194}).
Outlook
This overview summarizes the stateoftheart of modeling efforts on the growth of 2Dlayered materials and outlines the advantages and limitations of computational models and methods at different length and time scales. The emphasis is on modeling, understanding, and predicting the thermodynamics and kinetics of 2D materials growth. The eventual goal is to develop computational tools and techniques to realize the “synthesis by design” of 2D materials.
An ideal computational model should not only capture accurately the correct physics to allow robust designs but also be computationally efficient to be employed for active control of the growth process. The complex nature of the growth of 2D materials requires applications of a range of models, which operate at multiple length and temporal scales to capture the full range of the growth phenomena from macroscale flow and concentration profiles in the furnace to atomistic reactions leading to formation and growth of 2D materials at mesoscale. Modeling the full spectrum of mechanisms involved in the growth of 2D materials is challenging due to the limitations associated with each of the computational models at different length and temporal scales.
A highfidelity prediction of 2D materials growth often requires an integration of methods applicable across different scales, ranging from electronic and atomistic, to mesoscale phenomenological, and largescale continuum models. For example, chemical potentials of different phases and the migration energies of atomic species in different structural and chemical environment from electronic and atomistic models can be employed to parametrize mesoscale phasefield models for predicting the morphology and thus characteristics of asgrown 2D materials with the boundary conditions specified by the information obtained from largescale continuum models such as temperature distribution in the growth chamber as presented in ref. ^{8}. Furthermore, technical obstacles to insitu experimental monitoring of growth hinder the validation of computational predictions. The current mathematical and numerical models are computationally expensive and commonly do not capture simultaneously all the physics involved in a growth process of 2D materials, limiting their widespread adoption in active control of 2D materials growth. One promising way to circumvent this challenge is to use machine learning models trained using experimental and computational databases of the 2D materials structure and growth conditions such as the ones available at the 2D Crystal Consortium–Materials Innovation Platform. Finally, the models and approaches applied in understanding the growth of 2D materials can be adapted to the growth of other materials that use the same synthesis techniques, e.g., CVD growth of thin films.
As a future perspective, we can envision two main strategies for the development of computational models and their applications to the design and synthesis of 2D materials, which are longterm challenging goals of the field. First is the openloop design approach, where the growth chamber design and synthesis conditions are determined by performing a series of simulations mimicking the thermophysical conditions and reaction and growth kinetics that would be expected in experiments. In this approach, the models must have high fidelity and a comprehensive sensitivity analysis should be performed to obtain a robust design. The second approach is the closedloop design that the developed models will be utilized to determine the states of the system to be passed to a controller which adjusts the growth conditions in realtime. In this approach, the computational efficiency of the models is key to the success of the design.
Data availability
All data that was obtained during this project are available from the authors.
References
 1.
Henini, M. Principles of electronic materials and devices (second edition). Microelectron. J. 33, 681 (2002).
 2.
Yi, M. & Shen, Z. A review on mechanical exfoliation for the scalable production of graphene. J. Mater. Chem. A 3, 11700–11715 (2015).
 3.
Coleman, J. N. et al. Twodimensional nanosheets produced by liquid exfoliation of layered materials. Science 331, 568–571 (2011).
 4.
Lim, Y. R. et al. Rolltoroll production of layercontrolled molybdenum disulfide: a platform for 2D semiconductorbased industrial applications. Adv. Mater. 30, 1705270 (2018).
 5.
McKee, G. S. B. & Vecchio, K. S. Thermogravimetric analysis of synthesis variation effects on CVD generated multiwalled carbon nanotubes. J. Phys. Chem. B 110, 1179–1186 (2006).
 6.
Ostadhossein, A. et al. ReaxFF reactive forcefield study of molybdenum disulfide (MoS_{2}). J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 8, 631–640 (2017).
 7.
Hong, S. et al. Computational synthesis of MoS layers by reactive molecular dynamics simulations: initial sulfidation of MoO surfaces. Nano Lett. 17, 4866–4872 (2017).
 8.
Momeni, K., Ji, Y., Zhang, K., Robinson, J. A. & Chen, L.Q. Multiscale Framew. Simul.Guide. growth 2D Mater. npj 2D Mater. Appl. 2, 27 (2018).
 9.
Zhang, X. et al. Defectcontrolled nucleation and orientation of WSe_{2} on hBN: a route to singlecrystal epitaxial monolayers. ACS Nano 13, 3341–3352 (2019).
 10.
Chen, W., Gui, X., Yang, L., Zhu, H. & Tang, Z. Wrinkling of twodimensional materials: methods, properties and applications. Nanoscale Horiz. 4, 291–320 (2019).
 11.
Momeni, K. & Levitas, V. I. Propagating phase interface with intermediate interfacial phase: phase field approach. Phys. Rev. B 89 (2014).
 12.
Mehdipour, H. & Ostrikov, K. Kinetics of lowpressure, lowtemperature graphene growth: toward singlelayer, singlecrystalline structure. ACS Nano 6, 10276–10286 (2012).
 13.
Jiang, J.W., Wang, B.S., Wang, J.S. & Park, H. S. A review on the flexural mode of graphene: lattice dynamics, thermal conduction, thermal expansion, elasticity and nanomechanical resonance. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 27, 83001 (2015).
 14.
Mounet, N. et al. Twodimensional materials from highthroughput computational exfoliation of experimentally known compounds. Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 246–252 (2018).
 15.
Zhuang, H. L. & Hennig, R. G. Stability and magnetism of strongly correlated singlelayer VS_{2}. Phys. Rev. B 93, 54429 (2016).
 16.
Cohen, A. J., MoriSánchez, P. & Yang, W. Insights into current limitations of density functional theory. Science 321, 792–794 (2008).
 17.
Paul, J. T. et al. Computational methods for 2D materials: discovery, property characterization, and application design. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 29, 473001 (2017).
 18.
Sun, Y. et al. Lowtemperature solution synthesis of fewlayer 1T′MoTe_{2} nanostructures exhibiting lattice compression. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 55, 2830–2834 (2016).
 19.
Kretschmer, S., Komsa, H.P., Bøggild, P. & Krasheninnikov, A. V. Structural transformations in twodimensional transitionmetal dichalcogenide MoS_{2} under an electron beam: insights from firstprinciples calculations. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 8, 3061–3067 (2017).
 20.
Duerloo, K.A. N., Li, Y. & Reed, E. J. Structural phase transitions in twodimensional Mo and Wdichalcogenide monolayers. Nat. Commun. 5, 4214 (2014).
 21.
Gan, L.Y., Zhang, Q., Zhao, Y.J., Cheng, Y. & Schwingenschlögl, U. Orderdisorder phase transitions in the twodimensional semiconducting transition metal dichalcogenide alloys Mo_{1−x}W_{x}X_{2} (X = S, Se, and Te). Sci. Rep. 4, 6691 (2015).
 22.
Komsa, H.P. & Krasheninnikov, A. V. Twodimensional transition metal dichalcogenide alloys: stability and electronic properties. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 3, 3652–3656 (2012).
 23.
Dumcenco, D. O., Kobayashi, H., Liu, Z., Huang, Y.S. & Suenaga, K. Visualization and quantification of transition metal atomic mixing in Mo_{1−x}W_{x}S_{2} single layers. Nat. Commun. 4, 1351 (2013).
 24.
Azizi, A. et al. Spontaneous formation of atomically thin stripes in transition metal dichalcogenide monolayers. Nano Lett. 16, 6982–6987 (2016).
 25.
Grimme, S., Antony, J., Ehrlich, S. & Krieg, H. A consistent and accurate ab initio parametrization of density functional dispersion correction (DFTD) for the 94 elements HPu. J. Chem. Phys. 132, 154104 (2010).
 26.
Tkatchenko, A. & Scheffler, M. Accurate molecular van der Waals interactions from groundstate electron density and freeatom reference data. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 73005 (2009).
 27.
Dion, M., Rydberg, H., Schröder, E., Langreth, D. C. & Lundqvist, B. I. Van der Waals density functional for general geometries. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 246401 (2004).
 28.
He, J., Hummer, K. & Franchini, C. Stacking effects on the electronic and optical properties of bilayer transition metal dichalcogenides MoS_{2}, MoSe_{2}, WS_{2}, and WSe_{2}. Phys. Rev. B 89, 75409 (2014).
 29.
Dreyer, C. E., Janotti, A. & Van de Walle, C. G. Absolute surface energies of polar and nonpolar planes of GaN. Phys. Rev. B 89, 81305 (2014).
 30.
Mathew, K. et al. MPInterfaces: A Materials Project based Python tool for highthroughput computational screening of interfacial systems. Comput. Mater. Sci. 122, 183–190 (2016).
 31.
Henkelman, G., Uberuaga, B. P. & Jonsson, H. A climbing image nudged elastic band method for finding saddle points and minimum energy paths. J. Chem. Phys. 113, 9901–9904 (2000).
 32.
Eichfeld, S. M., Colon, V. O., Nie, Y., Cho, K. & Robinson, J. A. Controlling nucleation of monolayer WSe_{2} during metalorganic chemical vapor deposition growth. 2D Mater. 3, 25015 (2016).
 33.
Tuckerman, M. E. Statistical mechanics: theory and molecular simulation (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010).
 34.
Bucko, T. Ab initio calculations of freeenergy reaction barriers. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 20, 64211 (2008).
 35.
Sheppard, D., Terrell, R. & Henkelman, G. Optimization methods for finding minimum energy paths. J. Chem. Phys. 128, 134106 (2008).
 36.
Misawa, M. et al. Reactivity of sulfur molecules on MoO_{3} (010) surface. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 8, 6206–6210 (2017).
 37.
Torrie, G. M. & Valleau, J. P. Nonphysical sampling distributions in Monte Carlo freeenergy estimation: umbrella sampling. J. Comput. Phys. 23, 187–199 (1977).
 38.
Sun, H. et al. Theory of thinfilmmediated exfoliation of van der Waals bonded layered materials. Phys. Rev. Mater. 2, 94004 (2018).
 39.
van Erp, T. S. & Bolhuis, P. G. Elaborating transition interface sampling methods. J. Comput. Phys. 205, 157–181 (2005).
 40.
Laio, A. & Parrinello, M. Escaping freeenergy minima. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 12562–12566 (2002).
 41.
Darve, E. & Pohorille, A. Calculating free energies using average force. J. Chem. Phys. 115, 9169–9183 (2001).
 42.
Kaminski, J. W., Kratzer, P. & Ratsch, C. Towards a standardized setup for surface energy calculations. Phys. Rev. B 95, 85408 (2017).
 43.
Liu, Y., Bhowmick, S. & Yakobson, B. I. BN white graphene with ‘colorful’ edges: the energies and morphology. Nano Lett. 11, 3113–3116 (2011).
 44.
Chetty, N. & Martin, R. M. Firstprinciples energy density and its applications to selected polar surfaces. Phys. Rev. B 45, 6074–6088 (1992).
 45.
Artyukhov, V. I., Liu, Y. & Yakobson, B. I. Equilibrium at the edge and atomistic mechanisms of graphene growth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 15136–15140 (2012).
 46.
Li, X. et al. Edgecontrolled growth and etching of twodimensional GaSe monolayers. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 139, 482–491 (2017).
 47.
Rajan, A. G., Warner, J. H., Blankschtein, D. & Strano, M. S. Generalized mechanistic model for the chemical vapor deposition of 2D transition metal dichalcogenide monolayers. ACS Nano 10, 4330–4344 (2016).
 48.
Freysoldt, C. et al. Firstprinciples calculations for point defects in solids. Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 253–305 (2014).
 49.
Stone, A. J. & Wales, D. J. Theoretical studies of icosahedral C_{60} and some related species. Chem. Phys. Lett. 128, 501–503 (1986).
 50.
Komsa, H. P., Berseneva, N., Krasheninnikov, A. V. & Nieminen, R. M. Charged point defects in the flatland: Accurate formation energy calculations in twodimensional materials. Phys. Rev. X 4, 31044 (2014).
 51.
Rao, R. et al. Dynamics of cleaning, passivating and doping monolayer MoS_{2} by controlled laser irradiation. 2D Mater. 6, 45031 (2019).
 52.
Rastogi, P., Kumar, S., Bhowmick, S., Agarwal, A. & Chauhan, Y. S. Doping strategies for monolayer MoS_{2} via surface adsorption: a systematic study. J. Phys. Chem. C. 118, 30309–30314 (2014).
 53.
Weston, L., Wickramaratne, D., Mackoit, M., Alkauskas, A. & Van de Walle, C. G. Native point defects and impurities in hexagonal boron nitride. Phys. Rev. B 97, 214104 (2018).
 54.
Walsh, A. & Zunger, A. Instilling defect tolerance in new compounds. Nat. Mater. 16, 964–967 (2017).
 55.
Zhang, F. et al. Full orientation control of epitaxial MoS_{2} on hBN assisted by substrate defects. Phys. Rev. B 99, 155430 (2019).
 56.
Lee, G.D. et al. Diffusion, coalescence, and reconstruction of vacancy defects in graphene layers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 205501 (2005).
 57.
Kotakoski, J., Krasheninnikov, A. V. & Nordlund, K. Energetics, structure, and longrange interaction of vacancytype defects in carbon nanotubes: atomistic simulations. Phys. Rev. B 74, 245420 (2006).
 58.
Momeni, K., Attariani, H. & Lesar, R. A. Structural transformation in monolayer materials: A 2D to 1D transformation. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18, 19873–19879 (2016).
 59.
Zhou, W. et al. Intrinsic structural defects in monolayer molybdenum disulfide. Nano Lett. 13, 2615–2622 (2013).
 60.
Zou, X., Liu, Y. & Yakobson, B. I. Predicting dislocations and grain boundaries in twodimensional metaldisulfides from the first principles. Nano Lett. 13, 253–258 (2013).
 61.
Xu, F., Yu, H., Sadrzadeh, A. & Yakobson, B. I. Riemann surfaces of carbon as graphene nanosolenoids. Nano Lett. 16, 34–39 (2016).
 62.
Yu, Z. G., Zhang, Y.W. & Yakobson, B. I. An anomalous formation pathway for dislocationsulfur vacancy complexes in polycrystalline monolayer MoS_{2}. Nano Lett. 15, 6855–6861 (2015).
 63.
Sha, Z. D. et al. Inverse pseudo HallPetch relation in polycrystalline graphene. Sci. Rep. 4, 5991 (2014).
 64.
Grantab, R., Shenoy, V. B. & Ruoff, R. S. Anomalous strength characteristics of tilt grain boundaries in graphene. Science 330, 946–948 (2010).
 65.
Zhang, Z., Yang, Y., Xu, F., Wang, L. & Yakobson, B. I. Unraveling the sinuous grain boundaries in graphene. Adv. Funct. Mater. 25, 367–373 (2015).
 66.
Liu, Y., Xu, F., Zhang, Z., Penev, E. S. & Yakobson, B. I. Twodimensional monoelemental semiconductor with electronically inactive defects: the case of phosphorus. Nano Lett. 14, 6782–6786 (2014).
 67.
Jones, J. E. On the determination of molecular fields. II. From the equation of state of a gas. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 106, 463–477 (1924).
 68.
Wen, M., Carr, S., Fang, S., Kaxiras, E. & Tadmor, E. B. Dihedralanglecorrected registrydependent interlayer potential for multilayer graphene structures. Phys. Rev. B 98, 235404 (2018).
 69.
Kolmogorov, A. N. & Crespi, V. H. Registrydependent interlayer potential for graphitic systems. Phys. Rev. B 71, 235415 (2005).
 70.
Naik, M. H., Maity, I., Maiti, P. K. & Jain, M. Kolmogorov–Crespi potential formultilayer transitionmetal dichalcogenides: capturing structural transformations in Moiré superlattices. J. Phys. Chem. C. 123, 9770–9778 (2019).
 71.
Rappe, A. K., Casewit, C. J., Colwell, K. S., Goddard, W. A. & Skiff, W. M. UFF, a full periodic table force field for molecular mechanics and molecular dynamics simulations. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 114, 10024–10035 (1992).
 72.
Stillinger, F. H. & Weber, T. A. Computer simulation of local order in condensed phases of silicon. Phys. Rev. B 31, 5262–5271 (1985).
 73.
Jiang, J.W. Parametrization of Stillinger–Weber potential based on valence force field model: application to singlelayer MoS_{2} and black phosphorus. Nanotechnology 26, 315706 (2015).
 74.
Jiang, J.W., Park, H. S. & Rabczuk, T. Molecular dynamics simulations of singlelayer molybdenum disulphide (MoS_{2}): StillingerWeber parametrization, mechanical properties, and thermal conductivity. J. Appl. Phys. 114, 64307–64311 (2013).
 75.
Jiang, J.W., Qi, Z., Park, H. S. & Rabczuk, T. Elastic bending modulus of singlelayer molybdenum disulfide (MoS_{2}): finite thickness effect. Nanotechnology 24, 435705 (2013).
 76.
Yapicioglu, H., Kandemir, A., Sevik, C., Çağın, T. & Kinaci, A. Thermal transport properties of MoS_{2} and MoSe_{2} monolayers. Nanotechnology 27, 55703 (2016).
 77.
Norouzzadeh, P. & Singh, D. J. Thermal conductivity of singlelayer WSe_{2} by a Stillinger–Weber potential. Nanotechnology 28, 75708 (2017).
 78.
Jiang, J.W., Rabczuk, T. & Park, H. S. A Stillinger–Weber potential for singlelayered black phosphorus, and the importance of crosspucker interactions for a negative Poisson’s ratio and edge stressinduced bending. Nanoscale 7, 6059–6068 (2015).
 79.
Xu, W., Zhu, L., Cai, Y., Zhang, G. & Li, B. Direction dependent thermal conductivity of monolayer phosphorene: parameterization of StillingerWeber potential and molecular dynamics study. J. Appl. Phys. 117, 214308 (2015).
 80.
Jiang, J.W. & Zhou, Y.P. In Parameterization of StillingerWeber Potential for TwoDimensional Atomic Crystal Chapter 1 (IntechOpen, 2017). https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.71929.
 81.
Allinger, N. L., Yuh, Y. H. & Lii, J. H. Molecular mechanics. The MM3 force field for hydrocarbons. 1. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 111, 8551–8566 (1989).
 82.
Sun, H. COMPASS: an ab initio forcefield optimized for condensedphase applications overview with details on alkane and benzene compounds. J. Phys. Chem. B 102, 7338–7364 (1998).
 83.
Keating, P. N. Effect of invariance requirements on the elastic strain energy of crystals with application to the diamond structure. Phys. Rev. 145, 637–645 (1966).
 84.
Allinger, N. L. Calculation of molecular structure and energy by forcefield methods. Adv. Phys Org. Chem. 13, 1–82 (1976).
 85.
Allinger, N. L. Conformational analysis. 130. MM2. A hydrocarbon force field utilizing V1 and V2 torsional terms. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 99, 8127–8134 (1977).
 86.
Allinger, N. L., Chen, K., Katzenellenbogen, J. A., Wilson, S. R. & Anstead, G. M. Hyperconjugative effects on carbon—carbon bond lengths in molecular mechanics (MM4). J. Comput. Chem. 17, 747–755 (1996).
 87.
Tu, Z. & OuYang, Z. Singlewalled and multiwalled carbon nanotubes viewed as elastic tubes with the effective Young’s moduli dependent on layer number. Phys. Rev. B 65, 233407 (2002).
 88.
Chang, T. & Gao, H. Sizedependent elastic properties of a singlewalled carbon nanotube via a molecular mechanics model. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 51, 1059–1074 (2003).
 89.
Tersoff, J. Empirical interatomic potential for carbon, with applications to amorphous carbon. Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2879–2882 (1988).
 90.
Brenner, D. W. et al. A secondgeneration reactive empirical bond order (REBO) potential energy expression for hydrocarbons. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 14, 783–802 (2002).
 91.
Stuart, S. J., Tutein, A. B. & Harrison, J. A. A reactive potential for hydrocarbons with intermolecular interactions. J. Chem. Phys. 112, 6472–6486 (2000).
 92.
Liang, T., Devine, B., Phillpot, S. R. & Sinnott, S. B. Variable charge reactive potential for hydrocarbons to simulate organiccopper interactions. J. Phys. Chem. A 116, 7976–7991 (2012).
 93.
Van Duin, A. C. T., Dasgupta, S., Lorant, F. & Goddard, W. A. ReaxFF: a reactive force field for hydrocarbons. J. Phys. Chem. A 105, 9396–9409 (2001).
 94.
Liang, T. et al. Reactive potentials for advanced atomistic simulations. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 43, 109–129 (2013).
 95.
Fonseca, A. F. et al. Graphene–titanium interfaces from molecular dynamics simulations. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 9, 33288–33297 (2017).
 96.
Mortazavi, B., Pereira, L. F. C., Jiang, J.W. & Rabczuk, T. Modelling heat conduction in polycrystalline hexagonal boronnitride films. Sci. Rep. 5, 13228 (2015).
 97.
Mukhopadhyay, T., Mahata, A., Adhikari, S. & Asle Zaeem, M. Probing the shear modulus of twodimensional multiplanar nanostructures and heterostructures. Nanoscale 10, 5280–5294 (2018).
 98.
Klaver, T. P. C., Zhu, S.E., Sluiter, M. H. F. & Janssen, G. C. A. M. Molecular dynamics simulation of graphene on Cu (100) and (111) surfaces. Carbon N. Y. 82, 538–547 (2015).
 99.
Hong, S. et al. Chemical vapor deposition synthesis of MoS_{2} layers from the direct sulfidation of MoO_{3} surfaces using reactive molecular dynamics simulations. J. Phys. Chem. C. 122, 7494–7503 (2018).
 100.
Tersoff, J. New empirical model for the structural properties of silicon. Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 632–635 (1986).
 101.
Tersoff, J. New empirical approach for the structure and energy of covalent systems. Phys. Rev. B 37, 6991–7000 (1988).
 102.
Jiang, J.W. & Wang, J.S. Manipulation of heat current by the interface between graphene and white graphene. Europhys. Lett. 96, 16003 (2011).
 103.
Mahdizadeh, S. J. & Akhlamadi, G. Optimized Tersoff empirical potential for germanene. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 72, 1–5 (2017).
 104.
Tersoff, J. Modeling solidstate chemistry: interatomic potentials for multicomponent systems. Phys. Rev. B 39, 5566–5568 (1989).
 105.
Jiang, J.W. & Wang, J.S. Theoretical study of thermal conductivity in singlewalled boron nitride nanotubes. Phys. Rev. B 84, 85439 (2011).
 106.
Liu, B. et al. Thermal conductivity of silicene nanosheets and the effect of isotopic doping. J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 47, 165301 (2014).
 107.
McGuigan, B. C., Pochet, P. & Johnson, H. T. Critical thickness for interface misfit dislocation formation in twodimensional materials. Phys. Rev. B 93, 214103 (2016).
 108.
Raju, M., van Duin, A. & Ihme, M. Phase transitions of ordered ice in graphene nanocapillaries and carbon nanotubes. Sci. Rep. 8, 3851 (2018).
 109.
Huang, X., Yang, H., van Duin, A. C. T., Hsia, K. J. & Zhang, S. Chemomechanics control of tearing paths in graphene. Phys. Rev. B 85, 195453 (2012).
 110.
Paupitz, R. et al. Graphene to fluorographene and fluorographane: a theoretical study. Nanotechnology 24, 35706 (2012).
 111.
Neyts, E. C., van Duin, A. C. T. & Bogaerts, A. Formation of single layer graphene on nickel under farfromequilibrium high flux conditions. Nanoscale 5, 7250–7255 (2013).
 112.
Achtyl, J. L. et al. Aqueous proton transfer across singlelayer graphene. Nat. Commun. 6, 6539 (2015).
 113.
Raju, M., Govindaraju, P. B., van Duin, A. C. T. & Ihme, M. Atomistic and continuum scale modeling of functionalized graphyne membranes for water desalination. Nanoscale 10, 3969–3980 (2018).
 114.
Berdiyorov, G. R., NeekAmal, M., Peeters, F. M. & van Duin, A. C. T. Stabilized silicene within bilayer graphene: a proposal based on molecular dynamics and densityfunctional tightbinding calculations. Phys. Rev. B 89, 24107 (2014).
 115.
Berdiyorov, G. R. & Peeters, F. M. Influence of vacancy defects on the thermal stability of silicene: a reactive molecular dynamics study. RSC Adv. 4, 1133–1137 (2014).
 116.
Kushima, A., Qian, X., Zhao, P., Zhang, S. & Li, J. Ripplocations in van der Waals layers. Nano Lett. 15, 1302–1308 (2015).
 117.
Yilmaz, D. E., Lotfi, R., Ashraf, C., Hong, S. & van Duin, A. C. T. Defect design of twodimensional MoS_{2} structures by using a graphene layer and potato stamp concept. J. Phys. Chem. C. 122, 11911–11917 (2018).
 118.
Mortazavi, B. et al. Strong thermal transport along polycrystalline transition metal dichalcogenides revealed by multiscale modeling for MoS_{2}. Appl. Mater. Today 7, 67–76 (2017).
 119.
Yan, R. et al. Thermal conductivity of monolayer molybdenum disulfide obtained from temperaturedependent Raman spectroscopy. ACS Nano 8, 986–993 (2014).
 120.
Osti, N. C. et al. Effect of metal ion intercalation on the structure of MXene and water dynamics on its internal surfaces. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 8, 8859–8863 (2016).
 121.
Berdiyorov, G. R. & Mahmoud, K. A. Effect of surface termination on ion intercalation selectivity of bilayer Ti_{3}C_{2}T_{2}(T=F, O and OH) MXene. Appl. Surf. Sci. 416, 725–730 (2017).
 122.
Osti, N. C. et al. Influence of metal ions intercalation on the vibrational dynamics of water confined between MXene layers. Phys. Rev. Mater. 1, 65406 (2017).
 123.
Overbury, S. H. et al. Complexity of intercalation in MXenes: destabilization of urea by twodimensional titanium carbide. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 140, 10305–10314 (2018).
 124.
Sang, X. et al. In situ atomistic insight into the growth mechanisms of single layer 2D transition metal carbides. Nat. Commun. 9, 2266 (2018).
 125.
Wang, N. & Komvopoulos, K. The effect of deposition energy of energetic atoms on the growth and structure of ultrathin amorphous carbon films studied by molecular dynamics simulations. J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 47, 245303 (2014).
 126.
Ma, T., Hu, Y.Z., Wang, H. & Li, X. Microstructural and stress properties of ultrathin diamondlike carbon films during growth: Molecular dynamics simulations. Phys. Rev. B 75, 35425 (2007).
 127.
Wang, X., Tabarraei, A. & Spearot, D. E. Fracture mechanics of monolayer molybdenum disulfide. Nanotechnology 26, 175703 (2015).
 128.
Reddy, C. D., Gen Yu, Z. & Zhang, Y.W. Twodimensional van der Waals C_{60} molecular crystal. Sci. Rep. 5, 12221 (2015).
 129.
Paul, S. & Momeni, K. Mechanochemistry of stable diamane and atomically thin diamond films synthesis from bi and multilayer graphene: a computational study. J. Phys. Chem. C. 123, 15751–15760 (2019).
 130.
Edward, L.J. J. & Sydney, C. On the forces between atoms and ions. Proc. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 109, 584–597 (1925).
 131.
Cheng, Y.T. et al. Cu cluster deposition on ZnO(101¯0): morphology and growth mode predicted from molecular dynamics simulations. Surf. Sci. 621, 109–116 (2014).
 132.
Cui, L., Shi, S., Li, Z., Wei, G. & Du, X. Manipulating thermal conductance of supported graphene via surface hydroxylation of substrates. J. Phys. Chem. C. 122, 27689–27695 (2018).
 133.
Burton, W. K., Cabrera, N., Frank, F. C. & Francis, M. N. The growth of crystals and the equilibrium structure of their surfaces. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A, Math. Phys. Sci. 243, 299–358 (1951).
 134.
Steinbach, I. Phasefield model for microstructure evolution at the mesoscopic scale. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 43, 89–107 (2013).
 135.
Liu, F. & Metiu, H. Stability and kinetics of step motion on crystal surfaces. Phys. Rev. E 49, 2601–2616 (1994).
 136.
Karma, A. & Plapp, M. Spiral surface growth without desorption. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4444–4447 (1998).
 137.
PierreLouis, O. Phase field models for step flow. Phys. Rev. E 68, 21604 (2003).
 138.
Hu, Z., Lowengrub, J. S., Wise, S. M. & Voigt, A. Phasefield modeling of epitaxial growth: applications to step trains and island dynamics. Phys. D. Nonlinear Phenom. 241, 77–94 (2012).
 139.
Meca, E., Lowengrub, J., Kim, H., Mattevi, C. & Shenoy, V. B. Epitaxial graphene growth and shape dynamics on copper: phasefield modeling and experiments. Nano Lett. 13, 5692–5697 (2013).
 140.
Meca, E., Shenoy, V. B. & Lowengrub, J. Phasefield modeling of twodimensional crystal growth with anisotropic diffusion. Phys. Rev. E 88, 52409 (2013).
 141.
Wu, J. et al. Spiral growth of SnSe_{2} crystals by chemical vapor deposition. Adv. Mater. Interfaces 3, 1600383 (2016).
 142.
Li, J. et al. Impurityinduced formation of bilayered graphene on copper by chemical vapor deposition. Nano Res 9, 2803–2810 (2016).
 143.
Zhang, K. et al. Manganese doping of monolayer MoS_{2}: the substrate is critical. Nano Lett. 15, 6586–6591 (2015).
 144.
Hao, Y. et al. The role of surface oxygen in the growth of large singlecrystal graphene on copper. Science 342, 720–723 (2013).
 145.
Luo, B. et al. Etchingcontrolled growth of graphene by chemical vapor deposition. Chem. Mater. 29, 1022–1027 (2017).
 146.
Artyukhov, V. I., Hu, Z., Zhang, Z. & Yakobson, B. I. Topochemistry of Bowtie and starshaped metal dichalcogenide nanoisland formation. Nano Lett. 16, 3696–3702 (2016).
 147.
Yu, H. et al. Tilt grain boundary topology induced by substrate topography. ACS Nano 11, 8612–8618 (2017).
 148.
Meca, E., Shenoy, V. B. & Lowengrub, J. H. H_{2}dependent attachment kinetics and shape evolution in chemical vapor deposition graphene growth. 2D Mater. 4, 31010 (2017).
 149.
Berry, J., Zhou, S., Han, J., Srolovitz, D. J. & Haataja, M. P. Dynamic phase engineering of bendable transition metal dichalcogenide monolayers. Nano Lett. 17, 2473–2481 (2017).
 150.
Emmerich, H. et al. Phasefieldcrystal models for condensed matter dynamics on atomic length and diffusive time scales: an overview. Adv. Phys. 61, 665–743 (2012).
 151.
Elder, K. L. M., Seymour, M., Lee, M., Hilke, M. & Provatas, N. Twocomponent structural phasefield crystal models for graphene symmetries. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 376, 20170211 (2018).
 152.
Taha, D., Mkhonta, S. K., Elder, K. R. & Huang, Z.F. Grain boundary structures and collective dynamics of inversion domains in binary twodimensional materials. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 255501 (2017).
 153.
Battaile, C. C. The kinetic Monte Carlo method: foundation, implementation, and application. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 197, 3386–3398 (2008).
 154.
Nie, Y. et al. A kinetic Monte Carlo simulation method of van der Waals epitaxy for atomistic nucleationgrowth processes of transition metal dichalcogenides. Sci. Rep. 7, 2977 (2017).
 155.
Trevethan, T., Latham, C. D., Heggie, M. I., Briddon, P. R. & Rayson, M. J. Vacancy diffusion and coalescence in graphene directed by defect strain fields. Nanoscale 6, 2978–2986 (2014).
 156.
Whitesides, R. & Frenklach, M. Effect of reaction kinetics on grapheneedge morphology and composition. Z. fur Physikalische Chem. 229, 597–614 (2015).
 157.
Wang, B., Puzyrev, Y. S. & Pantelides, S. T. Enhanced chemical reactions of oxygen at grain boundaries in polycrystalline graphene. Polyhedron 64, 158–162 (2013).
 158.
Zhuang, J., Zhao, R., Dong, J., Yan, T. & Ding, F. Evolution of domains and grain boundaries in graphene: a kinetic Monte Carlo simulation. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18, 2932–2939 (2016).
 159.
Taioli, S. Computational study of graphene growth on copper by firstprinciples and kinetic Monte Carlo calculations. J. Mol. Model. 20, 2260 (2014).
 160.
Fan, L. et al. Topology evolution of graphene in chemical vapor deposition, a combined theoretical/experimental approach toward shape control of grapheme domains. Nanotechnology 23, 115605 (2012).
 161.
Gaillard, P., Schoenhalz, A. L., Moskovkin, P., Lucas, S. & Henrard, L. Growth of nitrogendoped graphene on copper: multiscale simulations. Surf. Sci. 644, 102–108 (2016).
 162.
Wu, P. et al. Lattice mismatch induced nonlinear growth of graphene. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134, 6045–6051 (2012).
 163.
Jiang, H. & Hou, Z. Largescale epitaxial growth kinetics of graphene: a kinetic Monte Carlo study. J. Chem. Phys. 143, 84109 (2015).
 164.
Huang, J. Y. et al. In situ observation of graphene sublimation and multilayer edge reconstructions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 10103–10108 (2009).
 165.
Ming, F. & Zangwill, A. Model and simulations of the epitaxial growth of graphene on nonplanar 6H–SiC surfaces. J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 45, 154007 (2012).
 166.
Qiu, Z., Li, P., Li, Z. & Yang, J. Atomistic simulations of graphene growth: from kinetics to mechanism. Acc. Chem. Res. 51, 728–735 (2018).
 167.
Nie, Y. et al. First principles kinetic Monte Carlo study on the growth patterns of WSe_{2} monolayer. 2D Mater. 3, 25029 (2016).
 168.
Chen, S. et al. Origin of ultrafast growth of monolayer WSe_{2} via chemical vapor deposition. npj Comput. Mater. 5, 28 (2019).
 169.
Yue, R. et al. Nucleation and growth of WSe_{2}: enabling large grain transition metal dichalcogenides. 2D Mater. 4, 45019 (2017).
 170.
Safron, N. S. & Arnold, M. S. Experimentally determined model of atmospheric pressure CVD of graphene on Cu. J. Mater. Chem. C. 2, 744–755 (2014).
 171.
Eversteyn, F. C., Severin, P. J. W., Brekel, C. H. Jvd & Peek, H. L. A stagnant layer model for the epitaxial growth of silicon from silane in a horizontal reactor. J. Electrochem. Soc. 117, 925–931 (1970).
 172.
Chen, J., Wong, D. S. H., Jang, S. S. & Yang, S. L. Product and process development using artificial neural‐network model and information analysis. AIChE J. 44, 876–887 (1998).
 173.
Vilá, R. A. et al. Bottomup synthesis of vertically oriented twodimensional materials. 2D Mater. 3, 41003 (2016).
 174.
Lee, P. W., Omstead, T. R., McKenna, D. R. & Jensen, K. F. In situ mass spectroscopy studies of the decomposition of organometallic arsenic compounds in the presence of Ga(CH_{3})_{3} and Ga(C_{2}H_{5})_{3}. J. Cryst. Growth 93, 134–142 (1988).
 175.
Theodoropoulos, C. et al. Kinetic and transport modeling of the metallorganic chemical vapor deposition of InP from trimethylindium and phosphine and comparison with experiments. J. Electrochem. Soc. 142, 2086–2094 (1995).
 176.
Poling, B. E., Prausnitz, J. M. & O’connell, J. P. The Properties of Gases and Liquids, Vol. 5 (McgrawHill, New York, 2001).
 177.
Zhang, F. et al. Controlled synthesis of 2D transition metal dichalcogenides: from vertical to planar MoS_{2}. 2D Mater. 4, 25029 (2017).
 178.
Grazulis, S. et al. Crystallography open database  an openaccess collection of crystal structures. J. Appl. Crystallogr 42, 726–729 (2009).
 179.
Belsky, A., Hellenbrandt, M., Karen, V. L. & Luksch, P. New developments in the Inorganic Crystal Structure Database (ICSD): accessibility in support of materials research and design. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. B 58, 364–369 (2002).
 180.
Allen, F. H. et al. The Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre: computerbased search, retrieval, analysis and display of information. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. B 35, 2331–2339 (1979).
 181.
Choudhary, K., Kalish, I., Beams, R. & Tavazza, F. Highthroughput identification and characterization of twodimensional materials using density functional theory. Sci. Rep. 7, 5179 (2017).
 182.
Haastrup, S. et al. The Computational 2D Materials. Database.: high.throughput modeling Discov. atomically thin Cryst. 2D Mater. 5, 42002 (2018).
 183.
Cheon, G. et al. Data mining for new two and onedimensional weakly bonded solids and latticecommensurate heterostructures. Nano Lett. 17, 1915–1923 (2017).
 184.
Ashton, M., Paul, J., Sinnott, S. B. & Hennig, R. G. Topologyscaling identification of layered solids and stable exfoliated 2D materials. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 106101 (2017).
 185.
Patra, T. K. et al. Defect dynamics in 2D MoS_{2} probed by using machine learning, atomistic simulations, and highresolution microscopy. ACS Nano 12, 8006–8016 (2018).
 186.
Tawfik, S. A. et al. Efficient prediction of structural and electronic properties of hybrid 2D materials using complementary DFT and machine learning approaches. Adv. Theory Simul. 2, 1800128 (2019).
 187.
Choudhary, K., DeCost, B. & Tavazza, F. Machine learning with forcefieldinspired descriptors for materials: fast screening and mapping energy landscape. Phys. Rev. Mater. 2, 83801 (2018).
 188.
Eivari, H. A. et al. Twodimensional hexagonal sheet of TiO_{2}. Chem. Mater. 29, 8594–8603 (2017).
 189.
Miyazato, I., Tanaka, Y. & Takahashi, K. Accelerating the discovery of hidden twodimensional magnets using machine learning and first principle calculations. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 30, 06LT01 (2018).
 190.
Cherukara, M. J. et al. Ab initiobased bond order potential to investigate low thermal conductivity of stanene nanostructures. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 7, 3752–3759 (2016).
 191.
Revard, B. C., Tipton, W. W., Yesypenko, A. & Hennig, R. G. Grandcanonical evolutionary algorithm for the prediction of twodimensional materials. Phys. Rev. B 93, 54117 (2016).
 192.
Singh, A. K. et al. Genetic algorithm prediction of twodimensional groupIV dioxides for dielectrics. Phys. Rev. B 95, 155426 (2017).
 193.
Chmiela, S. et al. Machine learning of accurate energyconserving molecular force fields. Sci. Adv. 3, e1603015 (2017).
 194.
Botu, V., Batra, R., Chapman, J. & Ramprasad, R. Machine learning force fields: construction, validation, and outlook. J. Phys. Chem. C. 121, 511–522 (2017).
 195.
Song, Z., Artyukhov, V. I., Yakobson, B. I. & Xu, Z. Pseudo Hall–Petch strength reduction in polycrystalline graphene. Nano Lett. 13, 1829–1833 (2013).
 196.
Okada, M. et al. Direct chemical vapor deposition growth of WS_{2} atomic layers on hexagonal boron nitride. ACS Nano 8, 8273–8277 (2014).
 197.
Kobayashi, Y. et al. Growth and optical properties of highquality monolayer WS_{2} on graphite. ACS Nano 9, 4056–4063 (2015).
 198.
Huang, J. et al. Largearea synthesis of monolayer WSe_{2} on a SiO_{2}/Si substrate and its device applications. Nanoscale 7, 4193–4198 (2015).
 199.
Chen, L. et al. Stepedgeguided nucleation and growth of aligned WSe_{2} on sapphire via a layeroverlayer growth mode. ACS Nano 9, 8368–8375 (2015).
 200.
Eichfeld, S. M. et al. Highly scalable, atomically thin WSe_{2} grown via metal–organic chemical vapor deposition. ACS Nano 9, 2080–2087 (2015).
 201.
Yanase, T. et al. Chemical vapor deposition of NbS_{2} from a chloride source with H_{2} Flow: orientation control of ultrathin crystals directly grown on SiO_{2}/Si substrate and charge density wave transition. Cryst. Growth Des. 16, 4467–4472 (2016).
 202.
Friday, M., Angeles, L., Reyeslillo, S. & Rabe, K. Bulletin of the American Physical Society APS March Meeting 2018. 2018 (2018).
 203.
Hotta, T. et al. Molecular beam epitaxy growth of monolayer niobium diselenide flakes. Appl. Phys. Lett. 109, 133101 (2016).
 204.
Efetov, D. K. et al. Specular interband Andreev reflections at van der Waals interfaces between graphene and NbSe_{2}. Nat. Phys. 12, 328–332 (2016).
 205.
Zhou, L. et al. Largearea synthesis of highquality uniform fewlayer MoTe_{2}. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137, 11892–11895 (2015).
 206.
Farahani, H., Rajabpour, A. & Reyhani, A. Interfacial thermal resistance between fewlayer MoS_{2} and silica substrates: a molecular dynamics study. Comput. Mater. Sci. J. 142, 1–6 (2018).
 207.
Hong, Y., Ju, M. G., Zhang, J. & Zeng, X. C. Phonon thermal transport in a graphene/MoSe_{2} van der Waals heterobilayer. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 20, 2637–2645 (2018).
 208.
Filippova, V. P., Kunavin, S. A. & Pugachev, M. S. Calculation of the parameters of the LennardJones potential for pairs of identical atoms based on the properties of solid substances. Inorg. Mater. Appl. Res. 6, 1–4 (2015).
 209.
AlMatar, A. K. & Rockstraw, D. A. A generating equation for mixing rules and two new mixing rules for interatomic potential energy parameters. J. Comp. Chem. 25, 660–668 (2004).
 210.
Hiura, H., Miyazaki, T. & Kanayama, T. Formation of metalencapsulating Si cage clusters. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1733–1736 (2001).
 211.
Mundin, K. C. & Ellis, D. E. Stochastic classical molecular dynamics coupled to functional density theory: applications to large molecular systems. Braz. J. Phys. 29, 199–214 (1999).
 212.
Morris, G. M. et al. van Der Waals Potential Energy (2003). Available at: http://www.img.bio.unigoettingen.de/mswww/internal/manuals/autodock/AD3.a.0UserGuide.html (Accessed 23 March 2019).
 213.
Lewis, L. J. & Mousseau, N. Tightbinding moleculardynamics studies of defects and disorder in covalently bonded materials. Comput. Mater. Sci. 12, 210–241 (1998).
 214.
Turner, G. W., Chushak, Y. G. & Bartell, L. S. Molecular dynamics investigation of transient nucleation in the freezing of clusters of SeF_{6}. J. Phys. Chem. A 108, 1666–1670 (2004).
 215.
Monajjemi, M., Ketabi, S., Hashemian Zadeh, M. & Amiri, A. Simulation of DNA bases in water: comparison of the Monte Carlo algorithm with molecular mechanics force fields. Biochem 71, S1–S8 (2006).
 216.
Landron, C. et al. Liquid alumina: detailed atomic coordination determined from neutron diffraction data using empirical potential structure refinement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4839–4842 (2001).
 217.
Bartell, L. S. & Xu, S. Molecular synamics examination of an anomalous phase of TeFe molecules. J. Phys. Chem. 95, 8939–8941 (1991).
Acknowledgements
K.M. and L.Q.C. are partially supported by the Hamer Professorship at Penn State, Louisiana Tech University, the National Science Foundation 2D Crystal Consortium – Material Innovation Platform (2DCCMIP) under NSF cooperative agreement DMR1539916, and the NSFCAREER under NSF cooperative agreement CBET1943857. Y.Z.J. is supported by the I/UCRC Center for Atomically Thin Multifunctional Coatings (ATOMIC) seed project SP00117 and the 2DCCMIP. This project is also partly supported by DoEARPAE OPEN, NASAEPSCoR, Louisiana EPSCoROIA1541079 (NSF(2018)CIMMSeed18 and NSF(2018)CIMMSeed19), and LEQSF(201518)LaSPACE. J.W.J. is supported by the Recruitment Program of Global Youth Experts of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grant Number 11822206, and the Innovation Program of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission under Grant Number 201701070009E00019. H.S.P. acknowledges the support of the Mechanical Engineering Department at Boston University. A.C.T.v.D., D.Y., and Y.S. acknowledge funding from the Fluid Interface Reactions, Structures and Transport (FIRST) Center, an Energy Frontier Research Center funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Basic Energy Science for MXene forcefield development and application work.
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to collecting the references and outlining the review paper. K.M. drafted the review. All authors participated in revising the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Momeni, K., Ji, Y., Wang, Y. et al. Multiscale computational understanding and growth of 2D materials: a review. npj Comput Mater 6, 22 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s4152402002802
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Further reading

Adaptive simulations enable computational design of electron beam processing of nanomaterials with supersonic microjet precursor
Computational Materials Science (2021)

Shearinduced diamondization of multilayer graphene structures: A computational study
Carbon (2020)

Fatigue analysis and fracture toughness of graphene reinforced carbon fibre polymer composites
Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures (2020)

Ab initio quantum dynamics of charge carriers in graphitic carbon nitride nanosheets
The Journal of Chemical Physics (2020)

Surface Oxidation Modulates the Interfacial and Lateral Thermal Migration of MXene (Ti3C2Tx) Flakes
The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters (2020)