4.7 Article

Mechanical, electrical and thermal properties of aligned carbon nanotube/polyimide composites

期刊

COMPOSITES PART B-ENGINEERING
卷 56, 期 -, 页码 408-412

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.08.064

关键词

Carbon nanotubes; Polyimide; Nanocomposite; Spray winding; Multi-functional

资金

  1. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China [2007AA03Z101]
  2. State Key Program of National Natural Science of China [51035003]
  3. Natural Science Foundation for the Youth [50803010, 60904056]
  4. National Science Foundation for Post-doctoral Scientists of China [20100470664]
  5. Shanghai Post-doctoral Research Funded Project [09R21410100]
  6. Program of Introducing Talents of Discipline to Universities [B07024]
  7. Shanghai University Young Teacher Training Program
  8. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
  9. Chinese Scholarship Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have high strength and modulus, large aspect ratio, and good electrical and thermal conductivities, which make them attractive for fabricating composite. The poly(biphenyl dianhydride-p-phenylenediamine) (BPDA/PDA) polyimide has good mechanical and thermal performances and is herein used as matrix in unidirectional carbon nanotube composites for the first time. The strength and modulus of the composite increase by 2.73 and 12 times over pure BPDA-PDA polyimide, while its electrical conductivity reaches to 183 S/cm, which is 1018 times over pure polyimide. The composite has excellent high temperature resistance, and its thermal conductivity is beyond what has been achieved in previous studies. The improved properties of the composites are due to the long CNT length, high level of CNT alignment, high CNT volume fraction and good CNT dispersion in polyimide matrix. The composite is promising for applications that require high strength, lightweight, or high electrical and thermal conductivities. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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