Cited by 197Nanomaterials and Printing TechnologiesAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting MaterialsAdvanced Materials and Mechanics

Stretchability and compliance of freestanding serpentine-shaped ribbons

Open access
Widlund, Thomas, Yang, Shixuan, Hsu, Yung-Yu, Lu, Nanshu·2014·International Journal of Solids and Structures

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.07.025

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The EA value of the twining electrodes is 0.08 N, while traditional silicone rubber- and PI-based extraneural electrodes have EA values of ~5000 and 40 N, respectively.

    “By taking advantage of the mesh serpentine design (44–46), the EA value is greatly decreased to 0.08 N (fig. S8); comparatively, the EA values of traditional silicone rubber– and PI-based extraneural electrodes are ~5000 and 40 N, respectively (note S3).”
  • The applied stresses on the nerve and the reliability of the Au layer can be further improved by increasing the stretchability of the twining electrode.

    “In addition, the applied stresses on the nerve and the reliability of the Au layer can be further improved by increasing the stretchability of the twining electrode according to previous works (44–47).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Widlund, T., Yang, S., Hsu, Y.-Y., & Lu, N.
Affiliations
  • Arts et Métiers (FR)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • MC10 (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Lu, Nanshu
Venue
International Journal of Solids and Structures
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-11
Volume
51
Issue
23-24
Pages
4026-4037
ISSN
0020-7683 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2004412381
Cited by
197
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4
FWCI
6.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
International Journal of Solids and Structures (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1160494, 1301335)
  • Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation (1301335)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Nanomaterials and Printing Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Advanced Materials and Mechanics
Keywords
stretchability, compliance, stretchable electronics, inorganic materials, intrinsic strain, buckling, curved beams, arc radius, arc angle, arm length, effective stiffness, bio-integrated electronics, shape optimization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review