4.7 Article

A simulation study on the effects of shear flow on the microstructure and electrical properties of carbon nanotube/polymer composites

期刊

POLYMER
卷 52, 期 22, 页码 5178-5185

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2011.08.041

关键词

CNT/Polymer composites; Fiber-level simulations; Electrical properties

资金

  1. The German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) [DFG BA 1341/11-1]
  2. U.S. Department of Agriculture [2010-65504-20406]
  3. NIFA [581282, 2010-65504-20406] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We employ a fiber-level simulation technique to simulate carbon nanotube (CNT)/polymer composites in simple shear flow. This model incorporates CNT flexibility, irregular CNT equilibrium shapes and CNT interactions. Electrical conductivity of the composites is determined using a resistor network algorithm. Tunneling resistance of the insulating matrix film between nanotubes is also considered. We show that the rate of imposed shear flow influences the composite conductivity by facilitating the formation or destruction of the conductive aggregates. In addition, the conductivity evolution during shearing for different concentrations is investigated. At low concentration, percolating clusters form and break simultaneously which causes large conductivity fluctuations during the simulations. When sufficiently large concentrations are reached, percolating clusters persist during shearing and the conductivity fluctuations decrease. In agreement with previous research we determine that increasing the shear rate causes alignment of the nanotubes in the flow direction. We show that upon shearing at constant shear rate, the system attains a state with substantially constant electrical conductivity, nanotube orientation and agglomerate size that is a function of the applied shear rate. The state reached for a given shear rate is independent of the initial state of orientation and aggregation. (C) 2011 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