See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/231099844

Three-point bending Young's modulus of nanowires

Article  in  Measurement Science and Technology · September 2008

DOI: 10.1088/0957-0233/19/11/115703

CITATIONS READS

22 879

3 authors, including:

Ping Zhou C.W. Wu

Dalian University of Technology Dalian University of Technology
97 PUBLICATIONS   1,329 CITATIONS    131 PUBLICATIONS   2,399 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nanobiotechnology View project

Precision machining View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ping Zhou on 28 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IOP PUBLISHING MEASUREMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Meas. Sci. Technol. 19 (2008) 115703 (5pp) doi:10.1088/0957-0233/19/11/115703

Three-point bending Young’s modulus of

nanowires
Ping Zhou1, Chengwei Wu1 and Xiaodong Li2
1
Department of Engineering Mechanics, State Key Laboratory of Structure Analysis for Industrial
Equipment, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, People’s Republic of China
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of South Carolina, 300 Main Street, Columbia,
SC 29208, USA
E-mail: cwwu@dlut.edu.cn and lixiao@engr.sc.edu

Received 18 June 2008, in final form 10 August 2008

Published 22 September 2008
Online at stacks.iop.org/MST/19/115703

Abstract
The three-point bending Young’s modulus (E) of nanowires was studied by a finite element
method. It was found that the constraint conditions at the nanowire ends, the ratio of the
suspended length of the wire to the wire diameter and the deflection of the wire all work
together to contribute to the measurement errors of the Young’s modulus. Yielding of the
deposited material used to fix the nanowire ends leads to a decrease in the slope of the
load–deflection curve. The three-point bending criteria for nanowires have been established.
A modified equation for the measurement of the three-point bending Young’s modulus of
nanowires is proposed.

Keywords: Young’s modulus, three-point bending, nanowires

1. Introduction manipulation convenience [4, 6–15]. For simplification, here

One-dimensional (1D) nanostructures such as nanotubes,
nanowires and nanobelts have significant applications
as nanoscale interconnects and active components of
electronic and optoelectronic devices, sensors, actuators and
nanoelectromechanical systems (NEMS). The functionality
and/or reliability of those nanodevices are determined by
the mechanical properties of individual 1D nanostructures.
Although many 1D nanostructures of different materials
have been synthesized/fabricated by various techniques, their
mechanical properties, in particular the Young’s modulus, have
not been well explored. Mechanical properties of materials
are size dependent [1]. The extremely small dimensions of
1D nanostructures impose a tremendous challenge to many
existing testing and measuring techniques for experimental
studies of their Young’s modulus. The methods that have
been developed for measuring the Young’s modulus of
1D nanostructures include uniaxial tensile loading using a
nanomanipulation stage [2], thermal/electric-field-induced
resonance [3], three-point bending with an atomic force
microscope (AFM) tip [4] and nanoindentation [5].
Among the various approaches, the AFM three-point
bending method has been widely used to determine the
Young’s modulus of 1D nanostructures because of its
we limit our focus to nanowires. The AFM three-point bending
method involves clamping a nanowire across a trench by the
self-adhesion between the wire and substrate [4], a polymer
adhesive [15] or the electron-beam-induced deposition (EBID)
process [8,11], as illustrated in figure 1. In the AFM three-
point bending test, the midpoint of the suspended nanowire
is subjected to a force applied by the AFM tip. The applied
force and the corresponding deflection (displacement in the
z direction) at the midpoint are recorded and then used to
calculate the Young’s modulus of the wire. The three-point
beam bending theory for a beam with two ends fixed has been
widely used to calculate the Young’s modulus of a nanowire
as follows [16]:
E = F L3 /(192 dI ), (1)
where F is the applied force at the midpoint, L is the suspended
length of the wire, d is the deflection of the wire at the midpoint
and I is the section inertia moment of the wire.For a circle-
section wire, I = π r4/4 [16], where r is the radius of the
wire. Note that equation (1) is based on the following four
assumptions: (i) the two ends of the wire are perfectly fixed
(rigid constraint), (ii) the suspended length of the wire is much
larger than the wire diameter, (iii) the weight of the wire is
negligible and (iv) the deflection of the wire is very small. If

0957-0233/08/115703+05$30.00 1 © 2008 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK

Meas. Sci. Technol. 19 (2008) 115703
Figure 1. Schematic of a three-point bending test of a nanowire.
all four assumptions are met, the force, F, is proportional to
the deflection, d; as a result, the Young’s modulus can be easily
measured as long as F and d are obtained.
Among the above four assumptions, a perfect clamp for
rigid constraint is difficult to achieve. However, for a simply
supported wire without any constraint at the two ends of the
wire, the bending Young’s modulus of the wire can be obtained
by [16]
E = F L3 /(48 dI ), (2)
which is four times higher than that of the fixed-end wire
predicted by equation (1). However, a simply supported
nanowire is also difficult to realize due to the high adhesion
between the nanowire and substrate. For the AFM three-point
bending test of a nanowire with two ends fixed, the measured
Young’s modulus should fall in the range between the values
predicted by equations (1) and (2). This may be one of the
reasons why the reported Young’s modulus values by different
groups with different clamp conditions are discrepant. The
basic assumption (ii), i.e. slender beam assumption, is also an
important factor which affects the measurement results. Chen
et al [10,15] studied this factor, and their experimental results
showed that the length/diameter ratio dramatically affects the
deflection of the nanowires.
In this paper, we report, for the first time to our knowledge,
a finite element analysis of the three-point bending Young’s
modulus of nanowires. We discovered that the constraint
conditions at the nanowire ends, the ratio of the suspended
length of the wire to the wire diameter and the deflection of
the wire all work together to contribute to the measured errors
of the Young’s modulus. Some typical load–deflection curves
are shown in section 3, such as the increase of slope caused
by large deformation and the decrease of slope caused by the
yielding of the deposited material. It is useful for analyzing
the load–deflection curve obtained in the experiments. In this
study, we established general three-point testing criteria for
accurately determining the Young’s modulus of nanowires.
2. Finite element modeling
Considering the symmetrical characteristic of the fixed-end
nanowire structure, the finite element analytical model can be
2
P Zhou et al
Figure 2. Schematic of the grid of a finite element model.
simplified as a quarter of the system, as shown in figure 2.
Here we study a nanowire with two ends fixed onto the
substrate with a trench by EBID or polymer adhesive. The
deformation of the substrate is negligible as normally treated
in experiment due to its high stiffness and strength. The force
applied by the AFM tip is generally too small to press the
nanowires into a hard substrate. Therefore, the substrate is
treated as a rigid surface. The deformation of the nanowire
and the deposited material is studied in the present paper. Two
types of deposition profiles are considered in the present study,
as shown in figure 2. In case A, it is assumed that the space
between the nanowire and the substrate is totally impregnated
with the deposited material. In case B, we assume that there
is a hollow space under the nanowire end because the primary
electrons cannot directly strike into the substrate surface [17].
Therefore, the condition as shown in case B may be a general
one in real experiments.
Three-dimensional (3D) ten-node solid elements are
used in the finite element analysis. Symmetric boundary
conditions are applied in all the symmetry surfaces. A vertical
displacement is applied at the midpoint (x = L/2 + ld). The
geometry parameters used in the analysis are r = 50 nm,
wd = 160 nm and ld = 200 nm, and the grid lengths of the wire
and the deposited material are 10 nm and 5 nm, respectively.
The material of the nanowire is considered as a
homogeneous elastic solid with a Young’s modulus E =
70 GPa. The deposited material is modeled as a perfectly
elastoplastic material, satisfying the Von Mises yield criterion
[18]. Its Young’s modulus is taken as Ed = 40 GPa, and
the yield stress is taken as 1 GPa based on the hardness of
the deposited material measured by Ding et al [17]. The
deposited material tested by Ding et al [17] is hydrogenated
amorphous carbon deposits from EBID of a paraffin precursor,
and its mechanical performance depends on the accelerating
voltage. In order to discuss the influence of the failure of
the deposited material, the yield stresses of 100 MPa and
500 MPa are assumed for different deposited materials. The
yield stresses of polymer and metal are close to 100 MPa and
500 MPa, respectively.
Meas. Sci. Technol. 19 (2008) 115703 P Zhou et al

Figure 3. Influence of the suspended length on the load–deflection

Figure 4. Influence of the deposited material size on the
curve of a nanowire fixed perfectly at its ends.
deflection–force curve. The indicated elastic moduli are obtained at
the deflection of 10 nm.
3. Results and discussion

The variation of the force–deflection curve with the suspended

length of the nanowire is shown in figure 3. The two ends of the
nanowire are perfectly fixed, i.e. the fixed end giving a zero
displacement and a zero rotation angle. The finite element
analysis shows that the ratio of the suspended length to the
radius of the nanowire must be greater than 20 to ensure an
error within 6%. The error, er, is defined as
er = (Fa − Fn )/Fn × 100%, (3)
where Fn is the force obtained by the numerical solution and
Fa is the force obtained by the analytical solution. When
equation (1) is used for calculating the Young’s modulus of the
nanowire, the errors of the calculated modulus and the applied
force are concurrent. The variation of the error–deflection
curve with the suspended length is shown in the inset of
figure 3. It can be seen that based on equation (1) the
force–deflection curve should be linear (solid line). However,
Figure 5. Influence of the yield stress of the deposited material (σ y)
the actual force–deflection exhibits a nonlinear characteristic. and the hollow space width between the lower surface stagnation
This nonlinear characteristic is caused by the large deformation line of the wire end and substrate on the deflection–force curve.
of the beam; thus the basic assumption (iv) of equation (1)
is invalid. The error of the initial slope is due to the basic
assumption (ii) of equation (1). When the beam is not a not markedly affect the test accuracy. The errors are about
slender beam (the ratio of the suspended length to beam radius 29.2%, 31.3% and 33.3% for the thicknesses of the deposited
is large enough), the warping of the cross-section results in the material, hc, of 90, 35 and 10 nm, respectively. The width of
invalidity of equation (1). The corresponding error remains the hollow space affects the measured Young’s modulus more
constant in the small deflection regime (less than 10 nm) based than the thickness of the deposited material. This is because
on the linear relationship given in equation (1) for the Young’s the deposited material is more effective to fix the lower surface
modulus and the applied force. of the nanowire end than to fix the upper surface.
The effect of the nanowire end constraint conditions on the The effect of the hollow space width on the load–
force–deflection curve is still, to a large extent, unknown. The deflection curve, when the plastic deformation (yield stress:
analysis models used in this study are illustrated in insets A and 100 MPa, 500 MPa and 1 GPa, respectively) of the deposited
B of figure 2. The numerical results with different sizes of the material is considered, is shown in figure 5. It is well known
deposited material are simplified and shown in figure 4. It can that the initial linear portion of a force–deflection curve should
be seen that when the deposited material totally impregnates be used to calculate the Young’s modulus of the nanowire. If a
into the space between the nanowire end and the substrate gradually decreasing slope is observed in the measurement of
(without hollow), the thickness of the deposited material will the force–deflection curve, the deposited material may reach

3
Meas. Sci. Technol. 19 (2008) 115703 P Zhou et al

Figure 6. Influence of the deposited material size on the experimental estimation error.

Table 1. Modified coefficients with a rigid substrate (left side) and an elastic substrate (right side in parentheses) for different wire lengths
and the elastic modulus ratio.
E/Eda
L/r 0.01 0.1 1 10
10 1.409 (1.470) 1.451 (1.545) 1.627 (1.768) 1.919 (2.110)
20 1.122 (1.137) 1.139 (1.171) 1.220 (1.270) 1.352 (1.423)
30 1.064 (1.073) 1.076 (1.094) 1.128 (1.159) 1.214 (1.257)
40 1.042 (1.048) 1.051 (1.064) 1.090 (1.112) 1.155 (1.184)
60 1.025 (1.029) 1.030 (1.039) 1.054 (1.070) 1.096 (1.118)
a
E is the Young’s modulus of the nanowire and Ed is the Young’s
modulus of the deposited material.

the yield status. Note that the results obtained above are based
on the assumption that the deposited material length ld is
200 nm. The effect of the deposited material length is
discussed below.
The effect of the deposited material size on the error,
when the deposited material totally impregnates into the space
between the nanowire and the substrate, is shown in figure 6.
The base size of the deposited material, as a starting point for
calculation, is ld/r = 10, hd/r = 6 and wd /r = 12. It can be
seen that the deposited material length has a greater effect than
the height and width. The larger the L/r of the nanowire, the
less the deposited material required. The error will approach
a constant with increasing deposited material size. It would
never be zero, except that the deposited material is perfectly
rigid and the length–radius ratio is large enough to satisfy the
four basic assumptions of equation (1).
As discussed above, there are several important factors
affecting the Young’s modulus measurements of nanowires,
such as the geometric sizes of the deposited material and the
nanowire, and the yield stress of the deposited material. It
is impossible to consider all the factors in the measurement.
What we can do is to deposit enough material without
hollow at the end of the beam. Then the Young’s modulus
should be calculated based on the initial linear portion of
the load–deflection curve. Considering the influences of the
Young’s modulus ratio and length/radius ratio, we suggest that
equation (1) should be modified as
E = κF L3 /(192 dI ), (4)
where κ is a modification coefficient varying from 1 (for
perfectly fixed ends) to 4 (for simply supported beam). The
modification coefficients for a solid contact end nanowire case
are listed in table 1. The thickness of the deposited material
is taken as hd = 2.4r and the width wd = 4r. In a practical
experiment, it is difficult to achieve a large size of deposited
material. The errors in the modification coefficients listed in
table 1 depend mainly on the Young’s modulus ratio and
geometric size ratio. When the Young’s modulus ratio ranges
from 0.01 to 10 and the length/radius ratio ranges from 10 to
60, our results are applicable. The preconditions are a deposit
without a hollow and relatively hard substrate.
The role of the deposited material is to restrict the beam
ends. The shape and Young’s modulus of the deposited
layer dominate the constraint condition. The errors decrease
with an increase in the Young’s modulus of the deposited

4
Meas. Sci. Technol. 19 (2008) 115703
material. Thus, development of new deposited materials
with higher Young’s modulus is needed to effectively reduce
the measurement errors. Nevertheless, even though all the
surfaces of the nanowire ends are completely fixed, the error
is still greater than 11% when L/r = 20. Therefore, the
observation of ‘the nanobeam end without lift-off after bending
test’ [6] might not be appropriate for justifying a perfectly fixed
end.
The calculation of the load–deflection curve in the present
paper is based on the assumption that the substrate’s Young’s
modulus is much higher than the nanowire’s Young’s modulus.
However, when the Young’s moduli of the substrate and
nanowire are the same or similar, the substrate elasticity may
start affecting the calculation of the Young’s modulus of the
nanowire. The changes of the modification coefficients are
also listed in table 1 (shown in parentheses) when the substrate
is elastic, but the substrate and nanowires are assumed to have
the same Young’s modulus. The results reported in [10, 15]
show that the three-point bending behavior is fitted best with
conditions for a fixed supported end when L/r is greater than
50. Our conclusion is consistent with these results.
4. Conclusions
Several important factors are found to affect the measurement
precision of the Young’s modulus of a nanowire in a three-
point bending experiment, including the constraint conditions
at the nanowire ends, the ratio of the suspended length of the
wire to the wire diameter and the deflection of the wire. The
classical model used for calculating the Young’s modulus of a
beam structure should be modified. To avoid a possible large
experimental error, first, the ratio of the suspended length to the
beam height (diameter) should be large enough (recommended
larger than 20). Secondly, the deposited material should be
impregnated into the space between the beam end and the
substrate as much as possible. Finally, the deposited material
(glue) should have both a higher Young’s modulus and a higher
yield stress than the nanowire to be measured.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (10421002, 10672035), and Specialized
Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education
(20060141007), the US National Science Foundation (CMMI-
0653651 and EPS-0296165), the ACS Petroleum Research
Fund (ACS PRF 40450-AC10) and the University of South
Carolina NanoCenter.
View publication stats
P Zhou et al
References
[1] Miller R E and Shenoy V B 2000 Size-dependent elastic
properties of nanosized structural elements
Nanotechnology 11 139–47
[2] Haque M A and Saif M T A 2002 In-situ tensile testing of
nano-scale specimens in SEM and TEM Exp. Mech.
42 123–8
[3] Poncharal P, Wang Z L, Ugarte D and De Heer W A 1999
Electrostatic deflections and electromechanical resonances
of carbon nanotubes Science 283 1513–6
[4] Salvetat J P, Bonard J M, Thomson N H, Kulik A J, Forro L,
Benoit W and Zuppiroli L 1999 Mechanical properties of
carbon nanotubes Appl. Phys. A 69 255–60
[5] Li X D, Gao H S, Murphy C J and Caswell K K 2003
Nanoindentation of silver nanowires Nano Lett. 3 1495–8
[6] Cuenot S, Demoustier-Champagne S and Nysten B 2000
Elastic modulus of polypyrrole nanotubes Phys. Rev. Lett.
85 1690–3
[7] Tan E P S and Lim C T 2004 Physical properties of a single
polymeric nanofiber Appl. Phys. Lett. 84 1603–5
[8] Wu B, Heidelberg A and Boland J J 2005 Mechanical
properties of ultra high-strength gold nanowires Nat. Mater.
4 525–9
[9] San Paulo A, Bokor J, Howe R T, He R, Yang P, Gao D,
Carraro C and Maboudian R 2005 Mechanical elasticity of
single and double clamped silicon nanobeams fabricated by
the vapor–liquid–solid method Appl. Phys. Lett.
87 053111
[10] Chen Y X, Dorgan B L, Mcllroy D N and Aston D E 2006 On
the importance of boundary conditions on nanomechanical
bending behavior and elastic modulus determination of
silver nanowires J. Appl. Phys. 100 104301
[11] Ni H and Li X D 2006 Young’s modulus of ZnO nanobelts
measured using atomic force microscopy and
nanoindentation techniques Nanotechnology 17 3591–7
[12] Jing G Y, Ji H, Yang W Y, Xu J and Yu D P 2006 Study of the
bending modulus of individual silicon nitride nanobelts via
atomic force microscopy Appl. Phys. A 82 475–8
[13] Ni H, Li X D and Gao H S 2006 Elastic modulus of
amorphous SiO2 nanowires Appl. Phys. Lett. 88 043108
[14] Tan E P S, Zhu Y, Yu T, Dai L, Sow C H, Tan V B C and Lim
C T 2007 Crystallinity and surface effects on the Young’s
modulus of CuO nanowires Appl. Phys. Lett. 90 163112
[15] Chen Y X, Stevenson I, Pouy R, Wang L D, Mcllroy D N,
Pounds T, Norton M G and Aston D E 2007 Mechanical
elasticity of vapour–liquid–solid grown GaN nanowires
Nanotechnology 18 135708
[16] Gere J M and Timoshenko S P 1972 Mechanics of Materials
(New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold)
[17] Ding W, Dikin D A, Chen X, Piner R D, Ruoff R S,
Zussman E, Wang X and Li X 2005 Mechanics of
hydrogenated amorphous carbon deposits from
electron-beam-induced deposition of a paraffin precursor
J. Appl. Phys. 98 014905
[18] Von Mises R 1913 Mechanik der Festen Korper im plastisch
deformablen zustand Gottinger. Nachr. Math.-Phys.
1 582–92