Full text loading...
(a) The initial mesa pattern used to fabricate freestanding microtubes. The main scrolling directions of the bilayer are  and . (b) FESEM image of an array of microtubes. The regions in the white dashed lines are magnified in (c). (d) FESEM image of a twin tube, the scale bar is .
Nanorobotic manipulation of a freestanding microtube. (a) Placing a microtube on the backside of an AFM cantilever. Inset: Cutting of a microtube from the Si substrate. (b) Rotating a microtube on an AFM cantilever. Inset: AFM cantilever with a hole on its backside.
Bending tests of freestanding microtubes. (a) A microtube is buckled locally with a bending angle of 95.5° and by the manipulator probe. (b) The tube recovers to its original shape after the probe is removed. (c) The curves show that the local diameter of tube from a top-view SEM image depends on the tube axis.
(a) Experimental curve of force vs displacement resulting from buckling tests for 61.6 and long microtubes with 1.6 turn (tube a) and 1.2 turn (tube b), respectively. The Euler buckling regions of the long tube are marked in the diagram. (b) A tube is stable under axial compressive load. (c) Euler buckling of a long tube. (d) The tube recovered from its postbuckling state. (e) The tube was fractured when the load is larger than . Inset: The fractured region of the tube.
Article metrics loading...