4.6 Article

Torsional fracture of carbon nanotube bundles: a reactive molecular dynamics study

期刊

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 24, 期 24, 页码 15068-15074

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d2cp01589g

关键词

-

资金

  1. Brazilian research agency CNPq
  2. Brazilian research agency FAPESP
  3. Brazilian research agency FAP-DF
  4. Brazilian Research Council FAP-DF [00193 -00000853/2021 -28, 00193 -00000811/2021 -97]
  5. CNPq [302236/2018 -0]
  6. FAPDF [00193 -00000857/2021-14]
  7. ABIN grant [08/2019]
  8. Fundacao de Apoio a Pesquisa (FUNAPE) [02/2002]
  9. IFD/UnB [23106.090790/2020-86]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research finds that the torsional fracture patterns of carbon nanotube bundles are diameter-dependent and can be influenced by tube chirality. Larger tube diameters result in higher plasticity of the bundle sample under torsional loading. Armchair-based bundles have higher accumulated energies and higher critical angles for bundle fracture compared to bundles composed of zigzag or chiral nanotubes.
Carbon nanotubes individually show excellent mechanical properties, being one of the strongest known materials. However, when assembled into bundles, their strength reduces dramatically. This still limits the understanding of their scalability. Here, we perform reactive molecular dynamics simulations to study the mechanical resilience and fracture patterns of carbon nanotube bundles (CNTBs) under torsional strain. The results revealed that the fracture patterns of CNTBs are diameter-dependent. The larger the tube diameter, the higher the plasticity degree of the bundle sample when subjected to torsional loading. Tube chirality can also play a role in distinguishing between the CNTBs during the torsion process. Armchair-based CNTBs have higher accumulated energies and, consequently, higher critical angles for the bundle fracture when contrasted with CNTBs composed of zigzag or chiral nanotubes. Remarkably, the CNTB torsional fracture can yield nanodiamondoids.

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

4.6
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