Dynamic response of single-walled carbon nanotubes based on various shell theories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon nanotubes are used in several engineering applications because of their superior mechanical properties. Scientific works still need to be carried out, especially on their dynamic response. These studies mainly focus on modal analysis, considering zigzag and armchair nanotubes, and sometimes, varying chirality. However, these works do not present any results on the steady-state responses. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to perform different studies, in terms of the stiffness response, modal analysis and steady-state response of single-walled carbon nanotubes by using a 3D finite-element model of the single-walled carbon nanotube, under different types of boundary conditions, to provide more results in this field. The single-walled carbon nanotube is modeled as a space frame structure by using the Morse potential and as a thin shell model based on various shell theories. A static analysis is performed to compare the stress–strain behavior between the Morse potential and the thin shell model. A parametric study on chirality effects and aspect ratio is also conducted to determine which shell theory is more suitable to model the mechanical behavior of single-walled carbon nanotubes. Finally, the analysis of harmonic response is conducted to describe the steady-state response between both the models.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".