The validity of surface stress relief as a driving force for surface reconstruction was questioned in the particular case of the (110) face of face-centered cubic transition metals. Within the tight-binding second moment potential, both the surface energy and surface stress were calculated before and after (1 x 2) missing-row reconstruction. This showed that reconstruction was energetically favourable for Au and Pt, and not for Ni or Cu; as observed experimentally. It was also found that it enhanced surface stress along the dense direction for all of the elements, and along the less dense direction for those elements which reconstructed. It was concluded that surface stress relief was definitely not the driving force for this reconstruction.

Relation between Surface Stress and (1 x 2) Reconstruction for (110) FCC Transition Metal Surfaces. S.Olivier, A.Saúl, G.Tréglia: Applied Surface Science, 2003, 212-213, 866-71