There was a factor of 2 missing in Eq. (36) in the original paper [1] and this error in Eq. (36) has propagated throughout the rest of the paper [1]. For the sake of brevity, only the affected equations are listed in the following:
(36)
(37)
(38)
(39)
(40)
(44)
(45)
(46)
(50)
(53)
(58)
(59)
(61)
(62)
(63)
(70)
(71)
(72)
(73)
(74)

Because the values of the estimates by the energy method have changed due to the corrections of the formulas (71), (72), and (73), Table 3 and Eq. (74) in Ref. [1] are changed for correction. Corresponding to the changes in Table 3, we have added two more cases for Tables 1 and 2 to produce higher estimates for the critical threshold length lcr. The nondimensional parameter x in the above equations was introduced in Eq. (33) of [1].

Table 1

Coefficient c in the critical threshold length formula

Case 1Case 2Case 3Case 4Case 5Case 6Case 7Case 8
α0.50.70.80.90.950.990.990.99
β1.52222234
c6.871478.9669610.264612.932616.29427.862431.894535.1045
Case 1Case 2Case 3Case 4Case 5Case 6Case 7Case 8
α0.50.70.80.90.950.990.990.99
β1.52222234
c6.871478.9669610.264612.932616.29427.862431.894535.1045
Table 2

Estimates of the critical threshold length by the force method

Case 1Case 2Case 3Case 4Case 5Case 6Case 7Case 8
lcr/req54.658771.327181.6492102.871129.61221.63253.70279.24
lcr (A°)601.245784.598898.141131.581425.72437.932790.733071.6
Case 1Case 2Case 3Case 4Case 5Case 6Case 7Case 8
lcr/req54.658771.327181.6492102.871129.61221.63253.70279.24
lcr (A°)601.245784.598898.141131.581425.72437.932790.733071.6
Table 3

Estimates of the critical threshold length by the energy method

CircleTwo circlesElliptic function
lcr/req281.92301.713237.89
lcr (A°)3101.113318.842616.79
CircleTwo circlesElliptic function
lcr/req281.92301.713237.89
lcr (A°)3101.113318.842616.79

It is interesting to note that Eq. (71) is exactly the same analytical expression for the critical threshold length developed by Zhou et al. [2], even though their result was obtained by a different method.

Because of the changes brought about due to the corrections of the formulas, one sentence in the paragraph between Eq. (65) and Eq. (66) in Sec. 6 of Ref. [1] should be changed as follows: “Even though there is no rational way to single out a ‘true’ solution from the above cases, let us use Cases 5 and 7 as our lower and upper estimates, respectively.” The changes in the lower and upper estimates for the critical threshold length of the (5,5) armchair carbon nanotube are reflected in the updated values in Eqs. (70) and (74). Similarly, updated normalized critical threshold lengths obtained by the force method and the energy method are shown in the revised Figs. 7 and 9.
Fig. 7

Normalized critical threshold length lcr/req as a function of x obtained by the force method

Fig. 7

Normalized critical threshold length lcr/req as a function of x obtained by the force method

Close modal
Fig. 9

Normalized critical threshold length lcr/req as a function of x obtained by the force method and the energy method

Fig. 9

Normalized critical threshold length lcr/req as a function of x obtained by the force method and the energy method

Close modal
There were typographical errors in the sentence just above Eq. (40) and in Eq. (54) in the original paper [1]. λcr in the sentence just above Eq. (40) should be changed to lcr, and Eq. (54) should be corrected as follows:
(54)

References

1.
Mikata
,
Y.
,
2010
, “
Approximate Solutions for a Self-Folding Problem of Carbon Nanotubes
,”
ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol.
,
132
, p.
011013
.10.1115/1.3184084
2.
Zhou
,
W.
,
Huang
,
Y.
,
Liu
,
B.
,
Hwang
,
K. C.
,
Zuo
,
J. M.
,
Buehler
,
M. J.
, and
Gao
,
H.
,
2007
, “
Self-Folding of Single- and Multiwall Carbon Nanotubes
,”
Appl. Phys. Lett.
,
90
, p.
073107
.10.1063/1.2535874