화학공학소재연구정보센터
Korean Journal of Materials Research, Vol.20, No.9, 478-482, September, 2010
Modeling of CNTs and CNT.Matrix Interfaces in Continuum-Based Simulations for Composite Design
E-mail:
A series of molecular dynamic (MD), finite element (FE) and ab initio simulations are carried out to establish suitable modeling schemes for the continuum-based analysis of aluminum matrix nanocomposites reinforced with carbon nanotubes (CNTs). From a comparison of the MD with FE models and inferences based on bond structures and electron distributions, we propose that the effective thickness of a CNT wall for its continuum representation should be related to the graphitic inter-planar spacing of 3.4 A. We also show that shell element representation of a CNT structure in the FE models properly simulated the carbon-carbon covalent bonding and long-range interactions in terms of the load-displacement behaviors. Estimation of the effective interfacial elastic properties by ab initio simulations showed that the in-plane interfacial bond strength is negligibly weaker than the normal counterpart due to the nature of the weak secondary bonding at the CNT-Al interface. Therefore, we suggest that a third-phase solid element representation of the CNT-Al interface in nanocomposites is not physically meaningful and that spring or bar element representation of the weak interfacial bonding would be more appropriate as in the cases of polymer matrix counterparts. The possibility of treating the interface as a simply contacted phase boundary is also discussed.
  1. Choi YK, Sugimoto K, Sing SM, Gotoh Y, Ohkoshi Y, Endo M, Carbon, 43, 2199 (2005)
  2. Rul S, Lefevre-schlick F, Capria E, Laurent C, Peigney A, Acta Mater., 52, 1061 (2004)
  3. Zhong R, Cong H, Hou P, Carbon, 41, 848 (2003)
  4. Wang L, Choi H, Myoung JM, Lee W, Carbon, 47, 3427 (2009)
  5. Kim S, Lee H, Kim J, Son CS, Kim D, Korean J. Mater. Res., 20(1), 25 (2010)
  6. Liu YJ, Chen XL, Mech. Mater., 35, 69 (2003)
  7. Meguid SA, Wernik JM, Cheng ZQ, Int. J. Solid. Struct., 47, 1723 (2010)
  8. Li CY, Chou TS, Compos. Sci. Tech., 66, 2409 (2006)
  9. Yakobson BI, Brabec CJ, Bernholc J, Phys. Rev. Lett., 76, 2511 (1996)
  10. Zhou X, Zhou JJ, Ou-Yang ZC, Phys. Rev. B, 62, 13692 (2000)
  11. Lu JP, Phys. Rev. Lett., 79, 1297 (1997)
  12. Kudin KN, Scuseria GE, Yakobson BI, Phys. Rev. B, 64, 235406 (2001)
  13. Li C, Chou TW, Int. J. Solid. Struct., 40, 2487 (2003)
  14. Tserpesa KI, Papanikos P, Compos. B Eng., 36, 468 (2005)
  15. Odegard GM, Gates TS, Nicholson LM, Wise KE, Compos. Sci. Tech., 62, 1869 (2002)
  16. Tersoff J, Phys. Rev. B, 37, 6991 (1988)
  17. Vodenticharova T, Zhang LC, Phys. Rev. B, 68, 165401 (2003)
  18. Troullier N, Martins JL, Phys. Rev. B, 43, 1993 (1991)
  19. Ru CQ, Phys. Rev. B, 62, 9973 (2000)
  20. Lee W, Jang S, Kim MJ, Myoung JM, Nanotechnology, 19, 285701 (2008)
  21. Cook RD, Finite Element Modeling for Stress Analysis, p. 105-144, John Wiley & Sons, NY, USA (1995). (1995)
  22. Haque A, Ramasetty A, Compos. Struct., 71, 68 (2005)