4.7 Article

Quantified analysis of 2D dispersion of carbon nanotubes in hardened cement composite using confocal Raman microspectroscopy

期刊

CEMENT AND CONCRETE RESEARCH
卷 166, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2023.107102

关键词

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs); Cement composite; Dispersion; Confocal Raman microspectroscopy; Quantification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dispersion of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) is crucial for the performance of nanocomposites. However, the evaluation of CNT dispersion is limited. This study visualized the macroscopic distribution of CNTs in hardened cement matrix using confocal Raman microspectroscopy and optical microscope. The dispersion efficiency and heterogeneity were quantified to assess the dispersion quality. The experimental results highlight the importance of well-dispersed CNT suspension and suggest evaluating ultrasonication with superplasticizers for dispersion in cement composites.
Dispersion of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) is the critical factor affecting the performance of nanocomposites; however, the quality of CNT dispersion could be indirectly understood due to the limitations of evaluation methods of the dispersion. This study aimed to visualize the macroscopic spatial distribution of CNTs in an as-is hardened cement matrix for the quantification of dispersion. Using a confocal Raman microspectroscopy equipped with an optical microscope, the major phases in cement, hydrates, and CNTs were identified from their characteristic Raman signals to construct the definitive phase map. The dispersion efficiency and heterogeneity were defined to quantify the fraction of CNT-affected region and the unevenness of CNT distribution. The experimental results demonstrate the importance of a well-dispersed stable state in CNT suspension and suggest that it is possible to evaluate the effectiveness of ultrasonication with superplasticizers that have been frequently adopted as a dispersion technique in hardened cement composites.

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