Finite element modeling and analysis of zigzag and armchair type single wall carbon nanotube
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A carbon nanotube (CNT) possesses superior mechanical, electrical and optical properties. The stiffness and flexibility is much higher than those of conventional fibers. Various investigators have carried out various experiments as well as theoretical analysis which show that the carbon nanotubes possess superior mechanical properties. The model development in this work is based on the assumption that carbon nanotubes, when subjected to loading, behave like space-frame structures. The bonds between carbon atoms are considered as connecting load-carrying members, while the carbon atoms as joints of the members. To create the finite element (FE) models, nodes are placed at the locations of carbon atoms and the bonds between them are modeled using ANSYS spring element. The present work predicts the Young’s modulus variation with respect to different wall thickness. The compiled result shows the Young’s modulus variation as well as the comparison of zigzag and armchair type of carbon nanotube due to different loading conditions. The results would act as a useful tool for developing new nano composites.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it