Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 656

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Thickness of graphene and single-wall carbon nanotubes

Huang, Y., Wu, J., Hwang, K. C.·2006·Physical Review B

Abstract

Young's modulus and the thickness of single wall carbon nanotubes (CNTs) obtained from prior atomistic studies are largely scattered. In this paper we establish an analytic approach to bypass atomistic simulations and determine the tension and bending rigidities of graphene and CNTs directly from the interatomic potential. The thickness and elastic properties of graphene and CNTs can also be obtained from the interatomic potential. But the thickness, and therefore elastic moduli, also depend on type of loading (e.g., uniaxial tension, uniaxial stretching, equibiaxial stretching), as well as the nanotube radius $R$ and chirality when $R<1\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathrm{nm}$. This explains why the thickness obtained from prior atomistic simulations is scattered. This analytic approach is particularly useful in the study of multiwall CNTs since their stress state may be complex even under simple loading (e.g., uniaxial tension) due to the van der Waals interactions between nanotube walls. The present analysis also provides an explanation of Yakobson's paradox that the very high Young's modulus reported from the atomistic simulations together with the shell model may be due to the not-well-defined CNT thickness.

Overview

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 · 10.1103/physrevb.74.245413

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 656

Metadata

Authors
Huang, Y., Wu, J., & Hwang, K. C.
Venue
Physical Review B
Published
2006-12-12
Volume
74
Issue
24
ISSN
  • 1098-0121 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-235X
OpenAlex
W2036239313
Cited by
656
References
1
FWCI
18.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.