A Model for Large Deflections of Nanobeams and Experimental Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bending tests are commonly used for characterization of materials at the nanoscale. Beams are also key elements of nanomechanical and nanoelectromechanical devices. This paper is motivated by recent experiments of large deflections of chromium cantilevers and modeling based on the classical large deflection beam theory to simulate experiments. A review of nanobeam experiments shows complex size dependency of elastic modulus that is influenced by beam thickness (or diameter) and end boundary conditions. A new large deflection beam model that accounts for surface energy effects is presented. It is shown that the model is capable of simulating experiments by using size-independent properties such as bulk elastic modulus and surface residual stress. The model is then used to explain the softening or stiffening behavior observed experimentally in nanocantilevers and relative size independence of clamped-clamped beams. Size dependence of elastic modulus (or stiffening/softening) is a modeling artifact introduced due to the use of classical elasticity theory for nanostructures and the current model shows that simulations based on classical beam theory require careful interpretation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".