4.7 Article

Mechanical properties of graphene papers

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmps.2012.01.002

关键词

Graphene paper; Crosslink; First-principles calculations; Deformable tension-shear model; Mechanical properties

资金

  1. Tsinghua University [2011Z02174]
  2. National Science Foundation of China [11002079]
  3. Key Program Grant [10832005]
  4. China 973 Program [2007CB936803]
  5. 863 Program [2008AA03Z302]
  6. Tsinghua National Laboratory for Information Science and Technology, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Graphene-based paper materials attract particular interests recently owing to their outstanding properties, the key of which is their layer-by-layer hierarchical structures similar to many biological materials such as bone, teeth and nacre, combining intralayer strong sp(2) bonds and interlayer crosslinks for efficient load transfer. Here we firstly study the mechanical properties of various interlayer and intralayer crosslinks through first-principles calculations, and then perform continuum model analysis for the overall mechanical properties of graphene-based paper materials. We find that there is a characteristic length scale l(0), defined as root Dh(0)/4G, where D is the stiffness of the graphene sheet, h(0) and G are height of interlayer crosslink and shear modulus respectively. When the size of the graphene sheets exceeds 3l(0), the tension-shear (TS) chain model, which is widely used for nanocomposites, fails to predict the overall mechanical properties of the graphene-based papers. Instead we proposed here a deformable tension-shear (DTS) model by considering elastic deformation of graphene sheets, also the interlayer and intralayer crosslinks. The DTS is then applied to predict the mechanical properties of graphene papers under tensile loading. According to the results we thus obtain, optimal design strategies are proposed for graphene papers with ultrahigh stiffness, strength and toughness. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据