| Literature DB >> 27502651 |
Ali Reza Ranjbartoreh1,2, Guoxiu Wang3.
Abstract
Molecular dynamic simulation method has been employed to consider the critical buckling force, pressure, and strain of pristine and defected single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT) under axial compression. Effects of length, radius, chirality, Stone-Wales (SW) defect, and single vacancy (SV) defect on buckling behavior of SWCNTs have been studied. Obtained results indicate that axial stability of SWCNT reduces significantly due to topological defects. Critical buckling strain is more susceptible to defects than critical buckling force. Both SW and SV defects decrease the buckling mode of SWCNT. Comparative approach of this study leads to more reliable design of nanostructures.Entities:
Keywords: Buckling; Molecular dynamic simulation; Single vacancy (SV) defect; Single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT); Stone–Wales (SW) defect
Year: 2010 PMID: 27502651 PMCID: PMC3211344 DOI: 10.1007/s11671-010-9776-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanoscale Res Lett ISSN: 1556-276X Impact factor: 4.703
Dimensions of armchair and zigzag SWCNTs
| Radius(Å) | Length(Å) | |
|---|---|---|
| Armchair (3,3) | 2.064 | 13.554 |
| Armchair (4,4) | 2.735 | 13.546 |
| Armchair (5,5) | 3.409 | 13.543 |
| Armchair (6,6) | 4.085 | 13.541 |
| Zigzag (3,0) | 1.216 | 15.121 |
| Zigzag (4,0) | 1.597 | 15.017 |
| Zigzag (5,0) | 1.982 | 14.982 |
| Zigzag (6,0) | 2.370 | 14.963 |
Figure 1Buckling behavior of armchair SWCNT with single vacancy (a) and Stone–Wales (b) defects.
Figure 2Buckling behavior of zigzag SWCNT with single vacancy (a) and Stone–Wales (b) defects.
Critical buckling force (F), pressure (P), and strain (ε) of pristine (P) SWCNTs and SWCNTs with Stone–Wales (SW) and single vacancy (SV) defects
| FP (nN) | PP (GPa) | εp | FSW(nN) | PSW(GPa) | εSW | FSV(nN) | PSV(GPa) | εSV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (3,3) | 0.740 | 8.644 | 0.477 | 0.376 | 4.392 | 0.102 | 0.309 | 3.614 | 0.083 |
| (4,4) | 1.048 | 9.239 | 0.718 | 0.452 | 3.981 | 0.129 | 0.491 | 4.325 | 0.157 |
| (5,5) | 0.864 | 6.112 | 0.488 | 0.786 | 5.560 | 0.453 | 0.535 | 3.785 | 0.187 |
| (6,6) | 1.003 | 5.924 | 0.658 | 0.942 | 5.562 | 0.625 | 0.552 | 3.258 | 0.199 |
| (3,0) | 0.329 | 6.522 | 0.135 | 0.256 | 5.086 | 0.105 | 0.226 | 4.478 | 0.063 |
| (4,0) | 0.365 | 5.513 | 0.167 | 0.162 | 2.439 | 0.042 | 0.273 | 4.124 | 0.093 |
| (5,0) | 0.329 | 3.999 | 0.136 | 0.248 | 3.016 | 0.099 | 0.279 | 3.389 | 0.097 |
| (6,0) | 0.365 | 3.715 | 0.167 | 0.176 | 1.786 | 0.049 | 0.289 | 2.949 | 0.106 |
Figure 3Increase in buckling mode with rising of the length.
Figure 5Critical buckling strains versus length of pristine, Stone–Wales (SW)-defected, and single vacancy (SV)-defected armchair (6,6) and zigzag (6,0) SWCNTs.
Figure 4Critical buckling forces versus length of pristine, Stone–Wales (SW)-defected, and single vacancy (SV)-defected armchair (6,6) and zigzag (6,0) SWCNTs.