Finite element analysis of the effect of interlayer on interfacial stress transfer in layered graphene nanocomposites

doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2018.12.012

Abstract

Abstract:

Understanding the roles of interlayers in reinforcement efficiencies by layered graphene is very important in order to produce strong and light graphene based nanocomposites. The present paper uses the finite element method to evaluate the interfacial strain transfers and reinforcement efficiencies in layered graphene-polymer composites. Results indicate that the presence of compliant interlayers in layered graphene plays significant roles in the transfers of strain/stress from matrix to graphene and subsequently the reinforcement effectiveness of layered graphene. In general, the magnitude of shear strain transferred onto the rigid graphene decreases as the thickness of the interlayer increases. This trend becomes insignificant as the graphene becomes sufficiently large (s>25,000). The shear strain at the interface of graphene-matrix is also greatly influenced by the interlayer modulus. A stiffer interlayer would result in a higher shear strain transferred on the graphene. The performance of the interlayers is further affected by the property of the composite and the architecture of the layered graphene stack. If a composite contains more graphene phase, the efficiency of reinforcement by a layered graphene becomes improved. If a graphene stack contains more interlayers, the effectiveness of reinforcement at the edges of the graphene becomes negatively affected.

Key words: Interlayer, Layered graphene, Nanocomposites, Interfacial stress transfer, Finite element method

C.C. Roach, Y.C. Lu. Finite element analysis of the effect of interlayer on interfacial stress transfer in layered graphene nanocomposites[J]. J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2019, 35(6): 1147-1152.

Figures/Tables 11

Fig. 1. Finite element model for a composite with a three-layered graphene stack: (a) the shell element model of a layered graphene nanocomposite, (b) the cross-sectional view of the shell element.

Table 1 Summary of the properties of layered graphene used in the finite element modeling.

Interlayer thickness, t_i (nm)	0.34, 1, 2
Interlayer modulus, E_i (GPa)	0.01, 0.1, 1, 2.1, 5, 10
Interlayer Passion’s ratio, ν_i	0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.49
Numbers of layers in graphene sheet	1, 3, 5, 7, 9
Volume fraction of layered graphene, V_g (%)	0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10
Aspect ratio of layered graphene sheet, L/t	74, 198, 333, 740, 2613, 7002, 11764

Fig. 2. Sketch showing the model of monolayer graphene within a polymer resin used to drive the shear-lag model.

Fig. 3. Comparison of interfacial shear strain in the graphene-epoxy composite computed from the finite element method and the shear-lag model.

Fig. 4. Effect of interlayer thickness on interfacial shear strain transfer. The graphene volume fraction is 5% and the interlayer modulus is 0.01 GPa. The graphene length L = 3400 nm.

Fig. 5. Effect of interlayer size on interfacial shear strain transfer. The graphene volume fraction is 5% and the interlayer modulus is 0.01 GPa. (a) L = 340 nm and (b) L = 12,000 nm.

Fig. 6. Effect of interlayer modulus on interfacial shear strain transfer. The graphene volume fraction is 5% and the graphene aspect ratio of 10,000. (a) The interface thickness is 0.34 nm and (b) the interface thickness is 2 nm.

Fig. 7. Relation of interfacial shear strain and interlayer modulus.

Fig. 8. Effect of interlayer Poisson’s ratio on interfacial shear strain transfer. The graphene volume fraction is 5% and the graphene aspect ratio is 3333.

Fig. 9. Effect of graphene volume fraction on interfacial shear strain transfer of graphene-matrix composites. The graphene volume fraction is 5% and the graphene length is 3400 nm.

Fig. 10. Effect of the number of interlayer in a graphene stack on interfacial shear strain transfer. The graphene volume fraction is 5% and the graphene length is 3333. The inset shows the force balance in a multi-layered graphene stack.

References

[1]	C.C. Roach, Y.C. Lu, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 33 (2017) 827-833.
[2]	E.P. Giannelis, Adv. Mater. 8 (1996) 29-35.
[3]	P.C. LeBaron, Z.Wang, T.J. Pinnavaia, Appl. Clay Sci. 15 (1999) 11-29.
[4]	S.S. Ray, M. Okamoto, Prog. Polym. Sci. 28 (2003) 1539-1641.
[5]	S. Pavlidou, C.D. Papaspyrides, Prog. Polym. Sci. 33 (2008) 1119-1198.
[6]	H. Kim, A.A. Abdala, C.W. Macosko, Macromolecules, 43 (2010), 6515-6530, CrossRefView Record in Scopus.
[7]	R. Verdejo, M.M. Bernal, L.J. Romansanta, M.A. Lopez-Manchado, J.Mater. Chem. 21 (2011) 3301-3310.
[8]	V. Singh, D. Joung, L. Zhai, S. Das, S.I. Khondaker, S. Seal, Prog. Mater. Sci. 56 (2011) 1178-1271.
[9]	J.R. Potts, D.R. Dreyer, C.W. Bielawski, R.S. Ruoff, Polymer 52 (2011) 5-25.
[10]	M. Alexandre, P. Dubois, Mater. Sci. Eng. R 28 (2000) 1-63.
[11]	F. Hussain, M. Hojjati, M. Okamoto, R.E. Gorga, J. Compos. Mater. 40 (2006) 1151-1175.
[12]	J.S. Bunch, A.M. vander Zande, S.S. Verbridge, I.W. Frank, D.M. Tanenbaum, J.M. Parpia, H.G. Craighead, P.L. McEuen, Science 315 (2007) p. 490.
[13]	Y. Chen, C. Yi, C. Ke, Appl. Phys. Lett. 106 (2015), Article 101907.
[14]	H.L. Cox, Br. J. Appl. Phys. 3 (1952) 72-79.
[15]	A.H. Nayfeh, Fibre Sci. Technol. 10 (1977) p. 195.
[16]	M.R. Piggott, Comp. Sci. Technol. 30 (1987) p. 295.
[17]	J.A. Nairn, Mech. Mater. 26 (1997) 63-80.
[18]	C.H. Hseuh, Trends Polym. Sci. 10 (1995) p. 336.
[19]	Local mechanics concepts for composite material systems, L.N. McCartney, J.N. Reddy, K.L. Reifsnider (Eds.), Proceedings of IUTAM Symposium(1992), 251-282.
[20]	J.A. Nairn, Int. J. Solids Struct. 34 (1997) p. 1255.
[21]	Y.M. Han, H.T. Hahn, R.B. Croman, Comp. Sci. Technol. 31 (1987) p. 165.
[22]	R.J. Young, I.A. Kinloch, L. Cong, K.S. Novoselov, Compos. Sci. Technol. 72 (2012) 1459-1476.
[23]	L. Gong, I.A. Kinloch, R.J. Young, I. Riaz, R. Jalil, K.S. Novoselov, Adv. Mater. 22 (2010) 2694-2697.
[24]	L. Gong, R.J. Young, I.A. Kinloch, I. Riaz, R. Jalil, K.S. Novoselov, ACS Nano 6 (2012) 2086-2095.
[25]	I.M. Daniel, O. Ishai, Engineering Mechanics of Composite Materials, Oxford University Press, New York (2006), pp.60.
[26]	A.C. Ferrari, J.C. Meyer, V. Scardaci, C. Casiraghi, M. Lazzeri, F. Mauri, I.V. Grigorieva, A.A. Firsov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 187401-187405.
[27]	C. Lee, X. Wei, J.W. Kysar, J. Hone, Science 321 (2008) 385-388.
[28]	L.M. Malard, M.A. Pimenta, G. Dresselhaus, M.S. Dresselhaus, Phys. Rep. 473 (2009) 51-87.
[29]	C.H. Lui, Z. Li, Z. Chen, P.V. Klimov, L.E. Brus, T.F. Heinz, Nano Lett. 11 (2010) 164-169.
[30]	W. Zhu, V. Perebeinos, M. Freitag, P. Avouris, Phys. Rev. B. 80 (2009), Article 235402.
[31]	J.T. Ye, M.F. Craciun, M. Koshino, S. Russo, S. Inoue, H.T. Yuan, H. Shimotani, A.F. Morpurgo, Y. Iwasa, PNAS 108 (2011) 13002-13006.
[32]	S. Latil, V. Meunier, L. Henrard, Phys. Rev. B, 76 (2007), 201402(R).
[33]	C. Gomez-Navarro, M. Burghard, K. Kern, Nano Lett. 8 (2008) 2045-2049.
[34]	G. Anagnostopoulos, C. Androulidakis, E.N. Koukaras, G. Tsoukleri, I. Polyzos, J. Parthenios, K. Papagelis, C. Galiotis, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 7 (2015) 4216-4223.
[35]	A. Weerasinghe, C.T. Lu, D. Maroudas, A. Ramasubramaniam, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 9 (2017) 23092-23098.