4.5 Article

Fracture fingerprint of polycrystalline C3N nanosheets: Theoretical basis

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmgm.2021.107899

关键词

Fracture toughness; Carbon nanosheet; Polycrystalline; Crack propagation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The fracture behavior of polycrystalline carbon nanosheets, modeled using heterogeneous graphitic carbon nitride, was studied through molecular dynamics simulations. It was found that increasing the number of grain boundaries and crack length resulted in a significant decrease in Young's modulus, while small cracks exhibited higher fracture toughness. This theoretical approach can be generalized to capture the unique fracture fingerprint of different types of polycrystalline carbon structures.
Polycrystalline carbon nanosheets are composed of several randomly rotated monocrystalline regions facing each other in grain boundaries-the cause of stress concentration-that affects the mechanics of 2D carbon nanostructures. They have been widely used in different fields, particularly in electronic devices. Herein, heterogeneous graphitic carbon nitride (C3N) was considered as typical of polycrystalline carbon nanosheets for modelling its fracture behavior. The number of grains with random configuration, temperature, and crack length were systematically changed to track the mode and the intensity of failure of model nanosheets. Molecular dynamics simulations predictions unraveled the interatomic interaction in the C-C and C-N bonds. An increase in the number of grain boundaries from 3 to 25 as well as the length of crack led to more than 70% fall in the Young's modulus of polycrystalline carbon platelets. Stress intensity factor decreased against temperature, but increased by crack length enlargement demonstrating higher fracture toughness of small cracks. This theoretical approach can be generalized to capture the unique fracture fingerprint of polycrystalline carbon structures of different types. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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