4.4 Article

Computational analysis of tunneling conduction in piezoresistive carbon nanotube polymer composites

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1045389X221128575

关键词

Piezoresistivity; carbon nanotubes; tunneling conduction; strain sensors; micromechanics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluates the modeling assumptions of piezoresistivity in carbon nanotube polymer composites to establish an approach with improved predictive accuracy. The effects of CNT extensibility, tunneling cross-section, and conduction channels on piezoresistive response are investigated.
Carbon nanotube polymer composites exhibit piezoresistivity that can be utilized for flexible strain sensors. Piezoresistive modeling is critical for improving sensor performance, but remains a challenging subject due to the complex CNT network microstructure and the various effects occurring at both the micro and nano scales. Tunneling conduction between CNTs is the primary mechanism underlying piezoresistivity in carbon nanotube polymer composites. Existing models have employed a myriad of assumptions on the CNT network kinematics and the tunneling conduction behavior, but their physical basis and effects have not been thoroughly studied. In this paper, a detailed evaluation on these modeling assumptions is presented with the goal of establishing an approach without ad hoc assumptions and improved predictive accuracy. A computational model that is capable of tracking the history of tunneling separation of each CNT junction is first constructed. The effects of CNT extensibility, tunneling cross-section, conduction channels are studied via statistical analysis of the tunneling conduction and comparison of computed piezoresistive response. It is found that CNT inextensibility leads to higher predicted piezoresistivity, the tunneling cross-section area in the Simmons approximation is a highly influential parameter, and the Landauer formula provides a more physically based approach that accounts for CNT properties.

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

4.4
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