A novel atomistic approach to determine strain-gradient elasticity constants: Tabulation and comparison for various metals, semiconductors, silica, polymers and the (Ir) relevance for nanotechnologies

By R. Maranganti, P. Sharma. 2007

255 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/31fd6bf5b9e5f301d8051ec5b80ff8cbb3eafb2e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Materials Chemistry

Citations in the corpus

Curvature-dependent surface energy and implications for nanostructures (2011, background): “The typical elemental materials (without defects) on which atomistic calculations have been performed exhibit very low characteristic nonlocal length scales and indeed surface energy effects dominate—see for example Maranganti and Sharma (2007a, 2007b).”
Investigation of the size effects in Timoshenko beams based on the couple stress theory (2011, methodology): “In addition to the experimental methods, the atomistic simulation can also be employed to evaluate the material length scale parameter [20].”
Flexoelectricity in soft materials and biological membranes (2014, methodology): “As motivated by Maranganti and Sharma (2007), the characteristic nonlocal elastic length scale can be approximated by the radius of gyration.”
Analysis of the tilted flat punch in couple-stress elasticity (2016, background): “…microstructure, like ceramics, composites, cellular materials, foams, masonry, bone tissues, glassy and semi-crystalline polymers, is strongly influenced by the microstructural characteristic lengths, especially in the presence of large stress (or strain) gradients (Maranganti and Sharma 2007).”
Gradient elasticity in statics and dynamics: An overview of formulations, length scale identification procedures, finite element implementations and new results (2011, background): “…and stability versus the ability to describe dispersive wave propagation have led to a lot of discussion, see for instance the early study of Mindlin and Tiersten (1962) and more recently Yang and Guo (2005) or Maranganti and Sharma (2007) where this dilemma was called the ‘‘sign paradox’’.”