Advertisement

Mechanical properties of carbon nanotube- and graphene-reinforced Araldite LY/Aradur HY 5052 resin epoxy composites: a molecular dynamics study

  • S. Faragi
  • A. Hamedani
  • Gh. AlahyarizadehEmail author
  • A. Minuchehr
  • M. Aghaie
  • B. Arab
Original Paper
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Mechanical properties of graphene- and carbon nanotube-reinforced Araldite LY 5052/Aradur HY 5052 epoxy resins were investigated by molecular dynamics simulations. The COMPASS II force field was implemented in the simulations. Mechanical properties of the reinforced araldite/aradur resin epoxy system with CNT reveal the highest Young’s, bulk, and shear modulus alongside the lowest Poisson ratio for 4.5% wt CNT; as Young’s modulus was enhanced from 3.36 to 4.92 GPa. For values higher than 4.5% CNT, improving trend of properties ceases. This is due to the fact that in higher percentages of CNTs, agglomeration happens, which leads to the lower strength of the system. The results also indicated that by increasing weight percentage of CNT, the glass transition temperature of the system increases. Moreover, for higher diameters of CNT, not only have mechanical properties been improved but the glass transition temperature has also been enhanced. The results of the graphene-reinforced resin epoxy system imply that optimum desirable properties are acquired in lower concentrations of graphene. As in higher densities, the tendency of graphene sheets to form van der Waals bonds leads to the agglomeration in the system, worsening the properties. The sample with 8.8% graphene holds the highest values of Young’s and shear modulus, whereas the highest bulk modulus and lowest density is for the sample with 4.6% graphene. Glass transition temperatures of the samples increased by adding graphene overall. However, samples with more than 8.8% did not follow the same rising trend.

Keywords

Araldite LY 5052/Aradur HY 5052 epoxy resins Carbon nanotube and graphene reinforcement Mechanical properties Molecular dynamics simulation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The support from Shahid Beheshti University is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Jeyranpour F, Alahyarizadeh G, Minuchehr A (2016) The thermo-mechanical properties estimation of fullerene-reinforced resin epoxy composites by molecular dynamics simulation – a comparative study. Polymer (Guildf) 88:9–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.POLYMER.2016.02.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shokuhfar A, Arab B (2013) The effect of cross linking density on the mechanical properties and structure of the epoxy polymers: molecular dynamics simulation. J Mol Model 19:3719–3731.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00894-013-1906-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Farhadinia M, Arab B, Jam JE (2016) Mechanical properties of CNT-reinforced polymer Nano-composites: a molecular dynamics study. Semnan Univ 3:113–121.  https://doi.org/10.22075/MACS.2016.473 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang X, Wen H, Wu Y, Zhang X, Wen H, Wu Y (2017) Computational thermomechanical properties of silica–epoxy nanocomposites by molecular dynamic simulation. Polymers (Basel) 9:430.  https://doi.org/10.3390/polym9090430 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arash B, Wang Q, Varadan VK (2015) Mechanical properties of carbon nanotube/polymer composites. Sci Rep 4(6479).  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06479
  6. 6.
    Han Y, Elliott J (2007) Molecular dynamics simulations of the elastic properties of polymer/carbon nanotube composites. Comput Mater Sci 39:315–323.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMMATSCI.2006.06.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anjana R, Sharma S, Bansal A (2016) Molecular dynamics simulation of carbon nanotube reinforced polyethylene composites. J Compos Mater doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998316674264
  8. 8.
    Lu C-T, Weerasinghe A, Maroudas D, Ramasubramaniam A (2016) A comparison of the elastic properties of graphene- and fullerene-reinforced polymer composites: the role of filler morphology and size. Sci Rep 6:31735.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep31735 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pandele AM, Ionita M, Iovu H (2014) Molecular modeling of mechanical properties of the chiston based graphene composites. U.P.B. Sci Bull 76(1)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lin F, Xiang Y, Shen H-S (2017) Temperature dependent mechanical properties of graphene reinforced polymer nanocomposites – a molecular dynamics simulation. Compos Part B Eng 111:261–269.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2016.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kochetov R, Andritsch T, Morshuis PHF, Smit JJ (2010) Thermal and electrical behaviour of epoxy-based microcomposites filled with Al2O3 and SiO2 particles. In: 2010 IEEE international symposium on electrical insulation. IEEE pp 1–5. http://doi.org/10.1109/ELINSL.2010.5549745Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nassar A, Nassar E (2013) Study on mechanical properties of epoxy polymer reinforced with NanoSiC particles. Nanosci Nanoeng 1:89–93.  https://doi.org/10.13189/NN.2013.010201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ge Z, Zhang W, Huang C, Luo Y (2018) Study on epoxy resin toughened by Epoxidized Hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene. Materials (Basel) 11:932.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11060932 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barbosa AQ, da Silva LFM, Abenojar J, Figueiredo M, Öchsner A (2017) Toughness of a brittle epoxy resin reinforced with micro cork particles: effect of size, amount and surface treatment. Compos Part B Eng 114:299–310.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2016.10.072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Qi B, Zhang QX, Bannister M, Mai Y-W (2006) Investigation of the mechanical properties of DGEBA-based epoxy resin with nanoclay additives. Compos Struct 75:514–519.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPSTRUCT.2006.04.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sun H, Jin Z, Yang C, Akkermans RLC, Robertson SH, Spenley NA, Miller S, Todd SM (2016) COMPASS II: extended coverage for polymer and drug-like molecule databases. J Mol Model 22(47).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00894-016-2909-0
  17. 17.
    Jiang Z, Zhang H, Zhang Z, Murayama H, Okamoto K (2008) Improved bonding between PAN-based carbon fibers and fullerene-modified epoxy matrix. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 39:1762–1767.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2008.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li D-X, Liu B-L, Liu Y, Chen C (2008) Predict the glass transition temperature of glycerol–water binary cryoprotectant by molecular dynamic simulation. Cryobiology 56:114–119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CRYOBIOL.2007.11.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jeyranpour F, Alahyarizadeh G, Arab B (2015) Comparative investigation of thermal and mechanical properties of cross-linked epoxy polymers with different curing agents by molecular dynamics simulation. J Mol Graph Model 62:157–164.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JMGM.2015.09.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huntsman Corporation (2012) Araldite LY 5052/Aradur 5052. Advanced Materials. Huntsman Corporation, The Woodlands, TXGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rieth M, Schommers W (2006) Modeling and simulation of carbon nanotube/polymer composites. In: Handbook of theoretical and computational nanotechnology. American Scientific, Valencia, CA, pp 1–33Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Engineering DepartmentShahid Beheshti UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringNorth Tehran BranchIslamic AzadIran

Personalised recommendations