Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 78 references

Comparing quantum, molecular and continuum models for graphene at large deformations

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Compared against density functional theory, the MM3 potential reproduces graphene's large-deformation response up to the instability point, while REBO+LJ and Tersoff agree only at small strains, and the DFT-calibrated continuum shell…

desk verdict A useful three-potential benchmark whose headline 'continuum agrees with DFT' is circular and whose 'uniaxial' loading is actually laterally clamped; deserves review after major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05090 v2 pith:7V2W7HR5 submitted 2019-08-14 physics.comp-ph

Aningi Mokhalingam , Reza Ghaffari , Roger A. Sauer , Shakti S. Gupta This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-ph
keywords graphenesingle-layersheetinteratomicpotentialsMM3potentialmoleculardynamicsdensityfunctionaltheoryhyperelasticshellmodelcarbonnanocone
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks which inexpensive model can stand in for density functional theory when a graphene sheet is stretched or bent far beyond the linear regime. It compares three interatomic potentials—MM3, REBO+LJ, and Tersoff—and a continuum shell model against DFT data for uniaxial stretch, biaxial stretch, and pure bending of single-layer graphene. The central finding is a ranking: the MM3 potential tracks the quantum reference up to the point of material instability, the REBO+LJ and Tersoff potentials drift away once deformations become moderate, and the DFT-calibrated shell model matches the reference throughout. A secondary finding is that only the Tersoff potential predicts an auxetic (negative Poisson ratio) response, in contrast to all other methods. If the comparison is right, MM3 and the shell model are the trustworthy choices for large-deformation graphene mechanics, while the popular Tersoff and REBO potentials should be limited to small strains.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the anisotropic hyperelastic strain-energy density $W(J_1,J_2,J_3)$ of the continuum model, written as a sum of dilatational, deviatoric, and bending parts: $W = W_{\mathrm{dil}}(J_1) + W_{\mathrm{dev}}(J_2,J_3;J_1) + W_b(\kappa_1,\kappa_2;J_1)$. The invariants enter as $J_1 = \ln J$ (logarithmic area change), $J_2$ (isotropic shear), and $J_3 = \tfrac{1}{8}(\lambda_1/\lambda_2 - \lambda_2/\lambda_1)^3\cos(6\theta)$ (directional shear relative to the armchair direction), with $\kappa_1,\kappa_2$ the principal curvatures entering the bending energy. The material constants are fitted to DFT data, and the model is discretized with a rotation-free isogeometric Kirchhoff–Love thin-shell finite element formulation. This energy carries the argument because stresses come from its derivatives with respect to the surface metric, bending moments from its curvature derivatives, and the pre-stretched vibration frequencies from the tangent stiffness and mass matrix through the eigenvalue problem $K\Delta\bar{u} = \omega^2 M\Delta\bar{u}$. The common loading protocol, an affine stretch of the edge atoms with the lateral stretch fixed at $\lambda_2 = 1$ for uniaxial loading, is what allows the three atomistic potentials and the shell model to be compared on the same footing as the DFT reference.

What would settle it

Recompute the uniaxial stretch of a graphene supercell with DFT under a free lateral boundary condition (transverse stress relaxed to zero) and compare the resulting stress–strain curve with the fixed-lateral-stretch DFT data used in the paper; if the two protocols diverge materially beyond $\lambda_1 \approx 1.1$, the reported MM3 and continuum agreement is an artifact of boundary-condition matching rather than a statement about potential accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a validity map for graphene models at large deformation. For a 10 nm × 10 nm single-layer graphene sheet under uniaxial stretch, the DFT-calibrated continuum model reproduces the DFT strain energy and stresses over the whole range considered, while MM3 agrees with DFT within about 5% up to a stretch of roughly $\lambda_1 \approx 1.15$ in uniaxial loading and $J_1 \approx 0.3$ in biaxial loading, after which MM3 hardens; REBO+LJ and Tersoff agree with DFT only in the small-deformation regime and then deviate sharply because their switching or cutoff functions activate once bonds stretch beyond about 0.17–0.18 nm. Only the Tersoff potential produces negative lateral stress, an auxetic response, under uniaxial stretch. For pure bending, all three potentials give bending stiffnesses above the DFT value of 1.49 eV, with MM3 showing the largest deviation in bending energy for carbon nanotubes. For vibrations, the transverse frequencies of a pre-stretched graphene sheet and a carbon nanocone computed with MM3 and the continuum model agree within about 95%, though at zero strain the molecular frequencies are roughly 15% higher, which the paper attributes to residual stresses absent in the continuum model. The paper also reports a chirality disagreement: molecular simulations make the armchair direction stiffer, while DFT and the continuum model make the zigzag direction stiffer, an effect traced to angle-bending energy at large deformation.

Load-bearing premise

The ranking rests on treating the DFT data used in the paper as the true answer for graphene at large stretch, and on assuming that the loading in Eq. (24)—where the lateral stretch is held fixed at $\lambda_2 = 1$ during uniaxial stretching—imposes the same deformation state as the DFT calculations; if the quantum reference used a different strain control, the error levels and the MM3-versus-Tersoff ranking could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MM3 can be trusted for large-deformation graphene simulations up to the onset of instability, roughly 10–15 percent stretch, making it the safest of the three potentials for studies of bending and pre-stretched vibration.
  • REBO+LJ and Tersoff should be confined to small strains when quantitative agreement with quantum results is required, because their switching and cutoff functions introduce artifacts once bonds stretch beyond about 0.17–0.18 nm.
  • The DFT-calibrated anisotropic shell model can stand in for DFT in nonlinear membrane problems and in computing how vibration frequencies change with pre-stretch, with about 95 percent agreement against MM3 for the modes studied.
  • Any auxetic claim for graphene under uniaxial tension should be treated with suspicion, since in this comparison only the Tersoff potential produces a negative Poisson ratio, against DFT, MM3, REBO+LJ, and the continuum model.
  • Pre-stretch monotonically increases transverse vibration frequencies in both the atomistic and continuum descriptions, and the zero-stretch offset between them points to residual stresses that continuum models should account for.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the continuum model was calibrated on the same DFT data it is checked against, its close agreement is partly by construction; a true validation would predict DFT results at deformation states not used in the fit, or compare with independent experimental stress–strain data.
  • The cutoff-induced stress jumps in REBO+LJ and Tersoff suggest the ranking could change if smoother switching functions or different cutoff parameters were used, so the conclusion is specific to these standard parameterizations rather than to the general potential forms.
  • The discrepancy in chirality ranking—molecular models finding the armchair direction stiffer while DFT and the continuum model find the zigzag direction stiffer—means large-strain anisotropy conclusions depend on model choice; experimental measurement of direction-dependent strength would arbitrate.
  • The study is quasi-static and near zero Kelvin; extending the same comparison to finite temperature, which the paper flags as future work, would test whether MM3's advantage survives thermal activation and whether the Tersoff auxetic response persists.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper compares three interatomic potentials (MM3, REBO+LJ, and Tersoff) and a DFT-calibrated hyperelastic shell model for single-layer graphene under uniaxial-like and biaxial in-plane stretching and pure bending, and it reports modal analyses of a pre-stretched graphene sheet and a carbon nanocone. The central empirical claims are that the continuum model reproduces DFT reference data, that MM3 is accurate up to the material instability point, that REBO+LJ and Tersoff are accurate only for small deformations, and that Tersoff uniquely predicts auxetic behavior. The paper also reports that MM3 and the continuum model predict transverse frequency variations within about 95% agreement.

Significance. If the potential ranking holds, the paper provides useful practical guidance for choosing an empirical potential for large-deformation graphene simulations, and the parameter tables for the potentials and the material model are valuable. The manuscript is transparent that the continuum model's membrane constants were calibrated directly from the same DFT data used for comparison, so the reported 'excellent agreement' of the continuum model is a check of the fit rather than an independent validation. The independent content is mainly the MM3-versus-REBO/LJ/Tersoff comparison, and the strength of that comparison depends on whether the molecular boundary conditions reproduce the DFT deformation protocol. The modal analysis is a consistency check between two models rather than an independent test against quantum data.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2.1, Eq. (24)] The boundary condition called 'uniaxial' fixes the lateral stretch at λ2 = 1, so the molecular and continuum simulations actually produce a biaxial-clamped deformation state. The paper does not document the strain control used in the DFT reference data of Ref. [51]. If those DFT calculations imposed a different lateral condition, such as a stress-free contraction, then the energy, stresses, and error metric E(X) in Eq. (25) compare different thermodynamic paths, and the quantitative agreement claims (e.g., 'within about 5% up to λ1 = 1.15' and 'excellent agreement' for the continuum model) are not supported. The authors should either reproduce the DFT cell and strain protocol or recompute the comparisons under the exact lateral constraint used by Shirazian et al.
  2. [Section 4.2.2, Table 2] The continuum model's membrane constants in Table 2 are fitted to DFT data from Ref. [51] and Ref. [62], and the paper then reports agreement with the same DFT data to within about 0.05%. As the text itself states, this agreement is a direct consequence of the calibration. The abstract and conclusions should not present the continuum-DFT agreement as independent predictive validation; an out-of-sample test, for example against DFT data not used in the calibration or against a different loading path, is needed to support the claim that the continuum model is a generally reliable surrogate for DFT.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4.2.3, Figs. 4 and 5] The abstract claim that REBO+LJ and Tersoff 'agree only for small deformations' is inconsistent with the paper's own stress results. In Fig. 4, σ11 from REBO+LJ and Tersoff follows DFT up to λ1 = 1.19 in the armchair direction, and in Fig. 5 it follows DFT up to λ1 = 1.25 in the zigzag direction, while MM3 deviates earlier in the zigzag case beyond λ1 = 1.13. The ranking of the potentials therefore depends on whether one considers strain energy, longitudinal stress, or lateral stress, and on the loading direction. The summary in Section 4.5 and the conclusions should be qualified to avoid over-generalizing the ranking.
  4. [Section 4.4.1] The modal analysis compares MM3 frequencies with the continuum model using a bending stiffness taken from Table 3 (QM value 0.238 nN·nm ≈ 1.49 eV), whereas the MM3-based bending stiffness computed in Table 4 is 2.11 eV. The paper attributes the ≈15% zero-strain frequency difference to residual stresses not present in the continuum model, but the two models also differ in their bending stiffness. Because the continuum model is calibrated to DFT membrane data, the reported frequency-variation agreement is a consistency check between MM3 and the continuum model rather than an independent validation of MM3 against DFT; the text should state this limitation explicitly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.2.1] The text states that the periodic box is deformed with a stretch increment of 0.1 Å; a stretch increment should be dimensionless, or the sentence should be rephrased in terms of strain.
  2. [Section 4.2.3, Eq. (25)] The error metric E(X) normalizes by max(X_DFT), which can produce very large or misleading errors when the DFT reference quantity crosses zero, as happens for σ22; the metric should be defined more robustly or its limitations should be stated.
  3. [Section 4.3, Table 5] The paper appropriately notes that the CNT-based approach to bending stiffness is problematic because relaxed CNTs change radius, but it still reports Table 5 without a correction; the discussion should be moved into the main text or the table should be removed.
  4. [Reference [51]] The DFT reference [51] is a short PAMM abstract; the authors should cite the underlying original DFT computations or provide the computational details, including functional, k-point sampling, cell size, and strain control, so that the protocol match can be checked.
  5. [Section 4.4.1, Fig. 13] The caption of Fig. 13 says 'all-edge-clamped', but Eq. (24) prescribes edge displacements; please clarify whether rotational degrees of freedom are also constrained in the molecular and continuum models.
  6. [General] There are several typos, including 'discusssed' in Section 4.2.3, 'anisotory' in Section 4.2.3, and 'isotopic' in Table 1, which should be 'isotropic'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Continuum-model agreement with DFT is an in-sample fit check; the MM3-vs-DFT ranking remains independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Table 2 caption; Sec. 4.2.2 (Eq. (25) error metric)]
    "Table 2 caption: 'Hyperelastic material constants determined by fitting to DFT calculations based on generalized gradient approximation (GGA) according to Kumar and Parks [62] and Shirazian et al. [51].' Sec. 4.2.2: 'The continuum results are in excellent agreement with those from DFT simulations for the whole range under study (within ≈ 0.05% error). This is due to the fact, that the continuum model has been calibrated directly from DFT data [51].'"

    The membrane constants of the continuum model (α̂, ε, μ0, μ1, β̂, η0, η1) are determined by fitting to the DFT data of [51]/[62]. Section 4.2.2 then compares the same continuum response with that identical DFT set through Eq. (25) and reports nearly perfect agreement as evidence of the model's validity. That agreement is mathematically the in-sample residual of the fit, so the claimed 'result' that the continuum model agrees with DFT is true by construction, not an independent confirmation.

full rationale

The molecular-potential ranking is a genuinely independent part of the paper. The MM3, REBO+LJ, and Tersoff parameters are not fitted to the DFT data of Shirazian et al. [51] or Kumar & Parks [62], so the findings that MM3 agrees up to about 1.15 stretch, that REBO+LJ and Tersoff agree only for small deformations, and that Tersoff gives auxetic response are empirical results from the paper's own simulations. The DFT reference, although produced partly by the same group in [51], is an ab initio calculation and therefore counts as external evidence under the rules; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The one clear circular step is the continuum-model 'validation': Table 2 says the membrane constants were fitted to DFT data, and Sec. 4.2.2 reports excellent agreement with those same data as evidence of validity. The bending stiffness in Table 3 comes from external QM values, and the modal analyses are cross-model consistency checks rather than circular predictions. Because the continuum-versus-DFT agreement reduces to a fit check but the main molecular-potential claims and the auxetic finding stand independently, the appropriate score is 6: partial circularity confined to one fitted comparison.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the DFT reference data, the assumed equivalence between constrained molecular boundary conditions and the DFT cell, the imported continuum constitutive model, and the standard virial stress definition. No new physical entities are introduced. The continuum material constants are fitted parameters, which makes the continuum-versus-DFT comparison circular in part.

free parameters (2)
  • Continuum membrane constants {alpha, epsilon, mu0, mu1, beta, eta0, eta1} = Kumar-Parks set: 1.53, 93.84 N/m, 172.18 N/m, 27.03, 5.16, 94.65 N/m, 4393.26 N/m; Shirazian set: 1.435, 103.9 N/m…
    These constants in Eqs. (10)-(12) are fitted to DFT data from [51] and [62]. The continuum-versus-DFT agreement is therefore determined by this fit and is not an independent prediction.
  • Bending stiffness cb = 0.133, 0.225, 0.238 nN nm (from literature, Table 3)
    Chosen from prior atomistic and quantum models. It enters Eq. (11) and controls bending and vibration frequencies. It is not fitted in this paper, but it is load-bearing for the modal results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DFT calculations of Shirazian et al. [51] and Kumar & Parks [62] provide accurate reference energies and stresses for graphene at large strain
    All comparisons use these datasets as ground truth, and no alternative or independent validation is provided.
  • domain assumption The constitutive form W(J1, J2, J3) in Eqs. (9)-(13) can represent graphene's anisotropic hyperelastic response
    The continuum model is imported from Ghaffari and Sauer [1, 61]; this paper does not derive the form from atomistics.
  • domain assumption Applying affine edge displacements Eq. (24) with fixed lateral stretch produces the same deformation state as the periodic DFT cell used to fit the continuum model
    The paper keeps lambda2 = 1 and calls the loading uniaxial; equivalence to the DFT reference deformation is assumed rather than demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Virial stress averaged per atom with area AI (Eqs. (3)-(4)) equals the continuum Cauchy stress
    Used to compare molecular stresses with DFT and continuum results; the paper follows standard practice but does not justify the equivalence for the highly stretched state.
  • domain assumption Lowest eigenfrequencies of the mass-weighted Hessian from MM (Tinker Vibrate) correspond to continuum shell eigenfrequencies from Eq. (23) under the same boundary conditions
    This underpins the 95% modal agreement claim; the paper notes a residual-stress mismatch at zero stretch but does not model it in the continuum.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparing quantum, molecular and continuum models for graphene at large deformations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7V2W7HR5

@misc{pith2026190805090,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparing quantum, molecular and continuum models for graphene at large deformations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7V2W7HR5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05090}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, the validity and accuracy of three interatomic potentials and the continuum shell model of Ghaffari and Sauer [1] are investigated. The mechanical behavior of single-layered graphene sheets (SLGSs) under uniaxial stretching, biaxial stretching and pure bending is studied for this comparison. The validity of the molecular and continuum models is assessed by direct comparison with density functional theory (DFT) data available in the literature. The molecular simulations are carried out employing the MM3, Tersoff and REBO+LJ potentials. The continuum formulation uses an anisotropic hyperelastic material model in the framework of the geometrically exact Kirchhoff-Love shell theory and isogeometric finite elements. Results from the continuum model are in good agreement with those from DFT. The results from the MM3 potential agree well up to the point of material instability, whereas those from the REBO+LJ and Tersoff potentials agree only for small deformations. Only the Tersoff potential is found to yield auxetic response in SLGSs under uniaxial stretch. Additionally, the transverse vibration frequencies of a pre-stretched graphene sheet and a carbon nanocone are obtained using the continuum model and molecular simulations with the MM3 potential. The variations of the frequencies from these approaches agree within an error of 5%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05090 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distribution function of the bond length after relaxation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pre-stressed SLGS: Stretch along the (a) zigzag and (b) armchair direction, and (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the total potential energy of a square SLGS under uniaxial stretch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Variation of (a) stress \sigma 11 and (b) error E(\sigma 11) according to Eq. (25) as a function of stretch \lambda 1 in the armchair direction. from the MM3 potential shows gradual hardening. \sigma 11 computed from the other two potentials 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Variation of (a) stress \sigma 11 and (b) error E(\sigma 11) according to Eq. (25) as a function of stretch \lambda 1 in the zigzag direction. Similarly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution function of the bond length for stretch along the (a) armchair and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Variation of (a) stress \sigma 22 and (b) error E(\sigma 22) according to Eq. (25) as a function of stretch \lambda 1 in the armchair direction. To explain this exceptional behavior of the Tersoff potential, we have performed simulations without the constraints on the …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Variation of (a) stress \sigma 22 and (b) error E(\sigma 22) according to Eq. (25) as a function of stretch \lambda 1 in the zigzag direction. of the MM3 potential in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the dominant energy terms of the MM3 potential when the square [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Variation of (a) surface tension \gamma and (b) error E(\gamma ) according to Eq. (25) as a function of dilatation \scrJ 1. 4.3 Out-of-plane bending of SLGS In molecular simulations, the bending stiffness of the SLGS can be calculated in two different ways. They both …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Variation of the bending energy with the bending curvature for (a) armchair and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Mode shapes of a relaxed square graphene sheet determined by a MM simulation: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Frequencies of a 10 nm \times 10 nm, all-edge-clamped graphene sheet under (a) uniaxial stretch along the armchair direction, (b) uniaxial stretch along the zigzag direction and (c) pure dilatation. than in the zigzag direction. This mild anisotropic response is attri…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Variation in the total potential energy (a) and frequencies (b) of a CNC under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Mode shapes of a relaxed simply-supported carbon nanocone determined by MM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [51]

    Shirazian, R

    F. Shirazian, R. Ghaffari, M. Hu, and R.A. Sauer. Hyperelastic material modeling of graphene based on density functional calculations. PAMM, 18(1):e201800419, 2018. doi: 10.1002/pamm.201800419. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10. 1002/pamm.201800419

    work page doi:10.1002/pamm.201800419 2018

  2. [62]

    Kumar and D.M

    S. Kumar and D.M. Parks. On the hyperelastic softening and elastic instabilities in graphene. Proc. Royal Soc. Lond. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. , 471(2173), 2014. ISSN 1364-5021. doi: 10.1098/rspa.2014.0567. URL http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing. org/content/471/2173/20140567. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2014.0567

    work page arXiv 2014

  3. [1]

    Ghaffari and R.A

    R. Ghaffari and R.A. Sauer. A new efficient hyperelastic finite element model for graphene and its application to carbon nanotubes and nanocones. Finite Elem Anal Des , 146: 42--61, 2018. ISSN 0168-874X. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2018.04.001. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168874X17309782

    work page doi:10.1016/j.finel.2018.04.001 2018

  4. [2]

    Novoselov, A.K

    K.S. Novoselov, A.K. Geim, S.V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S.V. Dubonos, I.V. Grigorieva, and A.A. Firsov. Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films. Sci- ence, 306(5696):666--669, 2004. ISSN 0036-8075. doi: 10.1126/science.1102896. URL https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5696/666

    doi:10.1126/science.1102896 2004

  5. [3]

    C. Lee, X. Wei, J.W. Kysar, and J. Hone. Measurement of the elastic properties and intrinsic strength of monolayer graphene. Science, 321(5887):385--388, 2008. ISSN 0036-

    work page 2008

  6. [4]

    L. Tang, Y. Wang, Y. Li, H. Feng, J. Lu, and J. Li. Preparation, structure, and electrochemical properties of reduced graphene sheet films. Adv. Funct. Mater. , 19 (17):2782--2789, 2009. ISSN 1616301X. doi: 10.1002/adfm.200900377. URL https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adfm.200900377

    work page doi:10.1002/adfm.200900377 2009

  7. [5]

    Stankovich, D.A

    S. Stankovich, D.A. Dikin, G.H.B. Dommett, K.M. Kohlhaas, E.J. Zimney, E.A Stach, R.D. Piner, S.B.T. Nguyen, and R.S. Ruoff. Graphene-based composite materials. Nature, 442(7100):282--286, 2006. ISSN 00280836. doi: 10.1038/nature04969. URL https://doi. org/10.1038/nature04969

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04969 2006

  8. [6]

    Bunch, A.M

    J.S. Bunch, A.M. van der Zande, S.S. Verbridge, I.W. Frank, D.M. Tanenbaum, J.M. Parpia, H.G. Craighead, and P.L. McEuen. Electromechanical resonators from graphene sheets. Science, 315(5811):490--493, 2007. ISSN 0036-8075. doi: 10.1126/science.1136836. URL http://science.sciencemag.org/content/315/5811/490

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1136836 2007

Show all 78 references
  1. [7]

    Westervelt

    R.M. Westervelt. Graphene nanoelectronics. Science (New York, N.Y.), 320(5874):324--5,

  2. [8]

    Ge and K

    M. Ge and K. Sattler. Observation of fullerene cones. Chem. Phys. Lett. , 220(3):192-- 196, 1994. ISSN 0009-2614. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2614(94)00167-7. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0009261494001677. 22

    1994

  3. [9]

    Liu and B.I

    Y. Liu and B.I. Yakobson. Cones, pringles, and grain boundary landscapes in graphene topology. Nano Lett., 10(6):2178--2183, 2010. doi: 10.1021/nl100988r. URL https://doi. org/10.1021/nl100988r. PMID: 20481585

    2010 doi

  4. [10]

    Charlier and G.M

    J.C. Charlier and G.M. Rignanese. Electronic structure of carbon nanocones. Phys. Rev. Lett., 86:5970--5973, Jun 2001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.5970. URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.5970

    2001 doi

  5. [11]

    Adisa, B.J

    O.O. Adisa, B.J. Cox, and J.M. Hill. Open carbon nanocones as candidates for gas storage. J. Phys. Chem. C , 115(50):24528--24533, 2011. doi: 10.1021/jp2069094. URL https: //doi.org/10.1021/jp2069094

    2011 doi

  6. [12]

    Z. Xu, D. Zheng, B. Ai, and W. Zhong. Autonomous pump against concentration gra- dient. Sci. Rep., 6(1), 2016. doi: 10.1038/srep23414. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ srep23414

    2016 doi

  7. [13]

    Kudin, G.E

    K.N. Kudin, G.E. Scuseria, and B.I. Yakobson. C 2F, BN, and C nanoshell elasticity from ab initio computations. Phys. Rev. B , 64:235406, Nov 2001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.64. 235406. URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.64.235406

    2001 doi

  8. [14]

    Z. Ni, H. Bu, M. Zou, H. Yi, K. Bi, and Y. Chen. Anisotropic mechanical proper- ties of graphene sheets from molecular dynamics. Physica B , 405(5):1301--1306, 2010. ISSN 09214526. doi: 10.1016/j.physb.2009.11.071. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. physb.2009.11.071

    2010 doi

  9. [15]

    Van Lier, C

    G. Van Lier, C. Van Alsenoy, V. Van Doren, and P. Geerlings. Ab initio study of the elastic properties of single-walled carbon nanotubes and graphene. Chem. Phys. Lett., 326 (1-2):181--185, 2000. ISSN 00092614. doi: 10.1016/S0009-2614(00)00764-8. URL http: //www.sciencedirect....

    doi

  10. [16]

    Reddy, S

    C.D. Reddy, S. Rajendran, and K.M. Liew. Equilibrium configuration and contin- uum elastic properties of finite sized graphene. Nanotechnology, 17(3):864--870, 2006. ISSN 09574484. doi: 10.1088/0957-4484/17/3/042. URL https://doi.org/10.1088\% 2F0957-4484\%2F17\%2F3\%2F042

    2006 doi

  11. [17]

    Konstantinova, S.O

    E. Konstantinova, S.O. Dantas, and P.M.V.B. Barone. Electronic and elastic properties of two-dimensional carbon planes. Phys. Rev. B , 74:035417, Jul 2006. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevB.74.035417. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.74.035417

    2006 doi

  12. [18]

    F. Liu, P. Ming, and J. Li. Ab initio calculation of ideal strength and phonon instability of graphene under tension. Phys. Rev. B , 76:064120, Aug 2007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB. 76.064120. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.76.064120

    2007 doi

  13. [19]

    Faccio, P.A

    R. Faccio, P.A. Denis, H. Pardo, C. Goyenola, and A.W. Mombr\' u. Mechanical properties of graphene nanoribbons. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter , 21(28):285304, 2009. URL http://stacks.iop.org/0953-8984/21/i=28/a=285304

    2009

  14. [20]

    Sakhaee-Pour

    A. Sakhaee-Pour. Elastic properties of single-layered graphene sheet. Solid State Commun., 149(1-2):91--95, 2009. ISSN 00381098. doi: 10.1016/j.ssc.2008.09.050. URL http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.ssc.2008.09.050

    2009 doi

  15. [21]

    Gao and P

    Y. Gao and P. Hao. Mechanical properties of monolayer graphene under tensile and compressive loading. Physica E Low Dimens. Syst. Nanostruct. , 41(8):1561--1566, 2009. ISSN 13869477. doi: 10.1016/j.physe.2009.04.033. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. physe.2009.04.033. 23

    2009 doi

  16. [22]

    H. Zhao, K. Min, and N.R. Aluru. Size and chirality dependent elastic properties of graphene nanoribbons under uniaxial tension. Nano Lett. , 9(8):3012--3015, 2009. ISSN 15306984. doi: 10.1021/nl901448z. URL https://doi.org/10.1021/nl901448z

    2009 doi

  17. [23]

    Scarpa, S

    F. Scarpa, S. Adhikari, and A.S. Phani. Effective elastic mechanical properties of single layer graphene sheets. Nanotechnology, 20(6), 2009. ISSN 09574484. doi: 10.1088/0957-4484/20/6/065709. URL https://doi.org/10.1088\%2F0957-4484\%2F20\% 2F6\%2F065709

    2009 doi

  18. [24]

    Pei, Y.W

    Q.X. Pei, Y.W. Zhang, and V.B. Shenoy. A molecular dynamics study of the mechani- cal properties of hydrogen functionalized graphene. Carbon, 48(3):898--904, 2010. ISSN 00086223. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2009.11.014. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. carbon.2009.11.014

    2010 doi

  19. [25]

    Georgantzinos, G.I

    S.K. Georgantzinos, G.I. Giannopoulos, and N.K. Anifantis. Numerical investigation of elastic mechanical properties of graphene structures. Mater. Des., 31(10):4646--4654, 2010. ISSN 02641275. doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2010.05.036. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.matdes.2010.05.036

    2010 doi

  20. [26]

    Gupta and R.C

    S.S. Gupta and R.C. Batra. Elastic properties and frequencies of free vibrations of single- layer graphene sheets. J. Comput. Theoretical Nanosci. , 7(10):2151--2164, 2010. ISSN 15461955. doi: 10.1166/jctn.2010.1598. URL https://doi.org/10.1166/jctn.2010. 1598

    2010

  21. [27]

    Liu, C.W

    T.H. Liu, C.W. Pao, and C.C. Chang. Effects of dislocation densities and distributions on graphene grain boundary failure strengths from atomistic simulations. Carbon, 50 (10):3465--3472, 2012. ISSN 00086223. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2012.03.012. URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j....

    2012 doi

  22. [28]

    Kalosakas, N.N

    G. Kalosakas, N.N. Lathiotakis, C. Galiotis, and K. Papagelis. In-plane force fields and elastic properties of graphene. J. Appl. Phys. , 113(13), 2013. ISSN 00218979. doi: 10. 1063/1.4798384. URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4798384

    2013 doi

  23. [29]

    Alzebdeh

    K.I. Alzebdeh. An atomistic-based continuum approach for calculation of elastic properties of single-layered graphene sheet. Solid State Commun. , 177:25--28, 2014. ISSN 0038-1098. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssc.2013.09.017. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/articl...

    2014 doi

  24. [30]

    Genoese, N.L

    A.Genoese, A. Genoese, N.L. Rizzi, and G. Salerno. On the derivation of the elastic properties of lattice nanostructures: The case of graphene sheets. Compos. B Eng. , 115: 316--329, 2017. ISSN 1359-8368. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.064. URL http://www.s...

    2017 doi

  25. [31]

    Singh and B.P

    S. Singh and B.P. Patel. Nonlinear elastic properties of graphene sheet using mm3 poten- tial under finite deformation. Compos. B Eng. , 136:81--91, 2018. ISSN 1359-8368. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.10.024. URL http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/...

    2018 doi

  26. [32]

    Allinger, Y.H

    N.L. Allinger, Y.H. Yuh, and J.H. Lii. Molecular mechanics. the mm3 force field for hydrocarbons. 1. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 111(23):8551--8566, 1989. doi: 10.1021/ja00205a001. URL https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00205a001

    1989 doi

  27. [33]

    J. Tersoff. Modeling solid-state chemistry: Interatomic potentials for multicomponent systems. Phys. Rev. B , 39:5566--5568, Mar 1989. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.39.5566. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.39.5566. 24

    1989 doi

  28. [34]

    D.W. Brenner. Empirical potential for hydrocarbons for use in simulating the chemical vapor deposition of diamond films. Phys. Rev. B , 42:9458--9471, Nov 1990. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevB.42.9458. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.42.9458

    1990 doi

  29. [35]

    Brenner, O.A

    D.W. Brenner, O.A. Shenderova, J.A. Harrison, S.J. Stuart, B. Ni, and S.B. Sinnott. A second-generation reactive empirical bond order (REBO) potential energy expression for hydrocarbons. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter , 14(4):783--802, 2002. ISSN 09538984. doi: 10.1088/0953-8984/14...

    2002 doi

  30. [36]

    Stuart, A.B

    S.J. Stuart, A.B. Tutein, and J.A. Harrison. A reactive potential for hydrocarbons with intermolecular interactions. J. Chem. Phys. , 112(14):6472--6486, 2000. doi: 10.1063/1. 481208. URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.481208

    doi

  31. [37]

    Chenoweth, A.C.T van Duin, and W.A Goddard

    K. Chenoweth, A.C.T van Duin, and W.A Goddard. ReaxFF Reactive Force Field for Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Hydrocarbon Oxidation. J. Phys. Chem. A , 112(5): 1040--1053, 2008. ISSN 1089-5639. doi: 10.1021/jp709896w. URL http://pubs.acs.org/ doi/abs/10.1021/jp709896w

    2008 doi

  32. [38]

    Lebedeva, A.S

    I.V. Lebedeva, A.S. Minkin, A.M. Popov, and A.A. Knizhnik. Elastic constants of graphene: Comparison of empirical potentials and DFT calculations. Physica E Low Dimens. Syst. Nanostruct. , 108:326--338, 2019. ISSN 1386-9477. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.physe.2018.11.025. U...

    2019 doi

  33. [39]

    Liao, C.H

    M.L. Liao, C.H. Cheng, and Y.P Lin. Tensile and compressive behaviors of open- tip carbon nanocones under axial strains. J. Mater. Res. , 26(13):1577--1584, 2011. doi: 10.1557/jmr.2011.160. URL https://www.cambridge.org/core/article/ tensile-and-compressive-behaviors-of-openti...

    2011 doi

  34. [40]

    Kitipornchai, X.Q

    S. Kitipornchai, X.Q. He, and K.M. Liew. Continuum model for the vibration of multi- layered graphene sheets. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. , 72(7):1--6, 2005. ISSN 10980121. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.72.075443. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.72.075443

    2005 doi

  35. [41]

    Jiang, S

    S. Jiang, S. Shi, and X. Wang. Nanomechanics and vibration analysis of graphene sheets via a 2D plate model. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. , 47(4), 2014. ISSN 00223727. doi: 10.1088/0022-3727/47/4/045104. URL https://doi.org/10.1088\%2F0022-3727\%2F47\% 2F4\%2F045104

    2014 doi

  36. [42]

    Chowdhury, S

    R. Chowdhury, S. Adhikari, F. Scarpa, and M.I. Friswell. Transverse vibration of single- layer graphene sheets. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. , 44(20):205401, 2011. ISSN 0022-3727. doi: 10.1088/0022-3727/44/20/205401. URL http://stacks.iop.org/0022-3727/44/i= 20/a=205401?key=crossre...

    2011 doi

  37. [43]

    Atalaya, A

    J. Atalaya, A. Isacsson, and J.M. Kinaret. Continuum elastic modeling of graphene resonators. Nano Lett. , 8(12):4196--4200, 2008. doi: 10.1021/nl801733d. URL https: //doi.org/10.1021/nl801733d. PMID: 18956921

    2008 doi

  38. [44]

    M.D Dai, C.W Kim, and K. Eom. Nonlinear vibration behavior of graphene resonators and their applications in sensitive mass detection. Nanoscale Res. Lett. , 7(1):499, Sep

  39. [45]

    Khani, and S

    M.M.S Fakhrabadi, N. Khani, and S. Pedrammehr. Vibrational analysis of single- walled carbon nanocones using molecular mechanics approach. Physica E Low Di- mens. Syst. Nanostruct. , 44(7):1162--1168, 2012. ISSN 1386-9477. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.physe.2012.01.004. URL...

    2012 doi

  40. [46]

    Y.G. Hu, K.M. Liew, X.Q. He, Z. Li, and J. Han. Free transverse vibration of single-walled carbon nanocones. Carbon, 50(12):4418--4423, 2012. ISSN 0008-6223. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.carbon.2012.04.072. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0008622312004484

    2012 doi

  41. [47]

    Ansari, H

    R. Ansari, H. Rouhi, and A. Nasiri Rad. Vibrational analysis of carbon nanocones under different boundary conditions: An analytical approach. Mech. Res. Commun. , 56:130-- 135, 2014. ISSN 0093-6413. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechrescom.2013.12.010. URL http://www.scienced...

    2014 doi

  42. [48]

    Sakhaee-Pour, M.T

    A. Sakhaee-Pour, M.T. Ahmadian, and R. Naghdabadi. Vibrational analysis of single- layered graphene sheets. Nanotechnology, 19(8):085702, 2008. ISSN 0957-4484. doi: 10.1088/0957-4484/19/8/085702. URL http://stacks.iop.org/0957-4484/19/i=8/a= 085702?key=crossref.0e1f876493937bb...

    2008 doi

  43. [49]

    Singh and B.P

    S. Singh and B.P. Patel. Effect of initial strain and material nonlinearity on the non- linear static and dynamic response of graphene sheets. J. Sound Vib. , 423:373--400,

  44. [50]

    Singh and B.P

    S. Singh and B.P. Patel. Nonlinear elastic properties of graphene sheet under finite deforma- tion. Compos. Struct, 119:412--421, 2015. ISSN 0263-8223. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compstruct.2014.09.021. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0263822314004644

    2015 doi

  45. [52]

    Nocedal and S.J

    J. Nocedal and S.J. Wright. Numerical optimization. Springer, 1999

    1999

  46. [53]

    Computer Code Tinker Molecular Modelling Package 4.2

    J.W Ponder. Computer Code Tinker Molecular Modelling Package 4.2. 2004

    2004

  47. [54]

    Polak and G

    E. Polak and G. Ribiere. Note sur la convergence de m\' ethodes de directions conjugu\' ees. ESAIM: Math. Model. Num. - Mod\' elisation Math\' ematique et Analyse Num\' erique, 3(R1): 35--43, 1969. URL http://www.numdam.org/item/M2AN\.1969\.\.3\.1\.35\.0

    1969

  48. [55]

    Evans and B.L

    D.J. Evans and B.L. Holian. The nose--hoover thermostat. J. Chem. Phys. , 83(8):4069-- 4074, 1985. doi: 10.1063/1.449071. URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.449071

    1985 doi

  49. [56]

    Fast parallel algorithms for short-range molecular dynamics

    Steve P. Fast parallel algorithms for short-range molecular dynamics. J. Comput. Phys. , 117(1):1--19, 1995. ISSN 0021-9991. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1995.1039. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002199918571039X

    1995

  50. [57]

    D.H. Tsai. The virial theorem and stress calculation in molecular dynamics. The Journal of Chemical Physics , 70(3):1375--1382, 1979. doi: 10.1063/1.437577. URL https://doi. org/10.1063/1.437577. 26

    1979 doi

  51. [58]

    R.J. Swenson. Comments on virial theorems for bounded systems. Am. J. Phys. , 51(10): 940--942, 1983. ISSN 0002-9505. doi: 10.1119/1.13390. URL http://aapt.scitation. org/doi/10.1119/1.13390

    1983 doi

  52. [59]

    J.E. Jones. On the determination of molecular fields.ii. from the equation of state of a gas. Proc. R. Soc. A , 106(738):463--477, 1924. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1924.0082. URL https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspa.1924.0082

    1924

  53. [60]

    Duong, F

    T.X. Duong, F. Roohbakhshan, and R.A. Sauer. A new rotation-free isogeometric thin shell formulation and a corresponding continuity constraint for patch boundaries. Comput. Methods in Appl. Mech. Eng. , 316(Supplement C):43--83, 2017. ISSN 0045-

    2017

  54. [61]

    Ghaffari, T.X

    R. Ghaffari, T.X. Duong, and R.A. Sauer. A new shell formulation for graphene structures based on existing ab-initio data. Int. J. Solids Struct. , 135:37--60, 2018. ISSN 0020-7683. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2017.11.008. URL http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/...

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    Q. Lu, M. Arroyo, and R. Huang. Elastic bending modulus of monolayer graphene. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. , 42(10):102002, 2009. URL http://stacks.iop.org/0022-3727/ 42/i=10/a=102002

    2009

  56. [64]

    Ghaffari and R.A

    R. Ghaffari and R.A. Sauer. A nonlinear thermomechanical formulation for anisotropic volume and surface continua. arXiv e-prints, abs/1901.00917, 2019. URL http://arxiv. org/abs/1901.00917

    1901 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Ghaffari and R.A

    R. Ghaffari and R.A. Sauer. Modal analysis of graphene-based structures for large deforma- tions, contact and material nonlinearities. J. Sound Vib. , 423:161--179, 2018. ISSN 0022- 460X. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2018.02.051. URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/scienc...

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    Bosak, M

    A. Bosak, M. Krisch, M. Mohr, J. Maultzsch, and C. Thomsen. Elasticity of single- crystalline graphite: Inelastic x-ray scattering study. Phys. Rev. B , 75:153408, Apr

  59. [67]

    Berinskii and A.M

    I.E. Berinskii and A.M. Krivtsov. On using many-particle interatomic potentials to com- pute elastic properties of graphene and diamond. Mech. Solids, 45(6):815--834, Dec 2010. ISSN 1934-7936. doi: 10.3103/S0025654410060063. URL https://doi.org/10.3103/ S0025654410060063

    2010 doi

  60. [68]

    Sgouros, G

    A.P. Sgouros, G. Kalosakas, C. Galiotis, and K. Papagelis. Uniaxial compression of sus- pended single and multilayer graphenes. 2D Mater. , 3(2):025033, jun 2016. doi: 10. 1088/2053-1583/3/2/025033. URL https://doi.org/10.1088\%2F2053-1583\%2F3\%2F2\% 2F025033. 27

    2016

  61. [69]

    Timoshenko and S

    S. Timoshenko and S. Woinowsky-Krieger. Theory of plates and shells . Engineering societies monographs. McGraw-Hill, 1959. URL https://books.google.de/books?id= rTQFAAAAMAAJ

    1959

  62. [70]

    Robert D. Blevins. Formulas for natural frequency and mode shapes . Van Nostrand Rein- hold Co., 1979

    1979

  63. [71]

    Huang, J

    Y. Huang, J. Wu, and K. C. Hwang. Thickness of graphene and single-wall carbon nan- otubes. Phys. Rev. B , 74:245413, Dec 2006. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.74.245413. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.74.245413

    2006 doi

  64. [72]

    Gupta, F.G

    S.S. Gupta, F.G. Bosco, and R.C. Batra. Wall thickness and elastic moduli of single- walled carbon nanotubes from frequencies of axial, torsional and inextensional modes of vibration. Comput. Mater. Sci. , 47(4):1049--1059, 2010. ISSN 0927-0256. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j...

    2010 doi

  65. [2007]

    URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.75.153408

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.75.153408. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.75.153408

    doi

  66. [2008]

    doi: 10.1126/science.1156936

    ISSN 1095-9203. doi: 10.1126/science.1156936. URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/18420920

  67. [2012]

    doi: 10.1186/1556-276X-7-499

    ISSN 1556-276X. doi: 10.1186/1556-276X-7-499. URL https://doi.org/10.1186/ 1556-276X-7-499. 25

    doi

  68. [2018]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2018.02.059

    ISSN 0022-460X. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2018.02.059. URL http: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022460X1830155X

    2018 doi

  69. [7825]

    URL http://www.sciencedirect

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2016.04.008. URL http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0045782516301657. Special Issue on Isogeometric Analysis: Progress and Challenges

    2016 doi

  70. [8075]

    URL https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ 321/5887/385

    doi: 10.1126/science.1157996. URL https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ 321/5887/385

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.