4.7 Article

Ultrafast carbon nanotubes growth on recycled carbon fibers and their evaluation on interfacial shear strength in reinforced composites

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-84419-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research and Development Agency (ANID) [120138]
  2. FONDEQUIP [EQM150139]
  3. Fondecyt initiation [11160285]
  4. Fondecyt [11170002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the impact of adding carbon nanotubes (CNTs) on the interlaminated resistance of recycled carbon fibers (RCFs) was investigated using thermolysis and Poptube techniques. The results demonstrate that CNTs can be successfully grown on RCFs and have a certain effect on reducing resistance.
The global demand for products manufactured with carbon fibers (CFs) has increased in recent years; however, the waste generated at the end of the product lifetime has also increased. In this research, the impact of the addition of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) on the interlaminated resistance of recycled carbon fibers (RCFs) was studied. In this work, a recycling process of the composite material was applied via thermolysis to obtain the CFs, followed by the growth of CNTs on their surface using the Poptube technique. The recycling temperature were 500 degrees C and 700 degrees C; and ferrocene and polypyrrole were used to grow CNTs on CFs surface. CNTs were verified by Raman spectroscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Finally, to determine the interlaminar resistance, a double cantilever beam (DCB) test was performed. The results indicate that with Poptube technique, CNTs can be grown on RCFs using both impregnations. Thermolysis recycling process at 500 degrees C allowed CFs without resin residues and without visible damage. The DCB tests showed a decrease in the fracture resistance in mode I loading of 34.9% for the polypyrrole samples and 29.3% for the ferrocene samples compared with the virgin carbon fibers (VCFs) samples with a resistance of 1052.5 J/m(2).

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