Yu Wanga,
Chunhui Yanga,
Yuan Chengb and
Yingyan Zhang*a
aSchool of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Sydney, NSW 2751, Australia. E-mail: yingyan.zhang@uws.edu.au; Fax: +61 2 47360833; Tel: +61 2 47360606
bInstitute of High Performance Computing, A*STAR, Singapore 138632
First published on 18th September 2015
Owing to the superior thermal conductivity of graphene, nanocomposites with graphene fillers dispersed in a polymer matrix become promising in thermal management applications, e.g. serving as thermal interface materials (TIMs) in high power microelectronic devices. However, the thermal conductivity of graphene-based nanocomposites is constrained by the high interfacial thermal resistance between the graphene fillers and polymer matrix. This research focuses on changing graphene–paraffin interfacial thermal transport by employing various treatment methods. Using molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, the effectiveness of hydrogenation, defecting and doping on reducing the graphene–paraffin interfacial thermal resistance is closely investigated. We found that the interfacial thermal resistance can be considerably reduced by the hydrogenation of graphene, while it is insensitive to defecting and doping. From the simulation results of the graphene–paraffin nanocomposites under tensile loading, a lower Young’s modulus and lower tensile strength are observed for the paraffin filled with hydrogenated graphene. The results clearly show that the hydrogenation of graphene exerts opposite effects on the thermal and mechanical properties of graphene–paraffin nanocomposites. Thus hydrogenation is suggested to be used wisely in the graphene–paraffin nanocomposite so as to improve its interfacial thermal conductance at the minimum cost of its mechanical strength.
Hydrogenation, defecting and doping are widely used in engineering the properties of graphene. Hydrogenation of graphene can be achieved by different processes. For example, Elias et al.19 found that hydrogenated graphene can be obtained by exposing graphene in low-pressure cold hydrogen plasma for 2 hours. Ryu et al.20 used an electron beam to initiate a reaction between hydrogen atoms and graphene to form hydrogenated graphene. Graphene grown using processes including chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and epitaxial growth is not perfect. Various types of defects such as single vacancy, double vacancy and Stone–Wales defects (SW) may be generated.21 In order to tailor the properties of graphene, defects can also be created intentionally.22 Doping of graphene involves the substitution of carbon atoms with other atoms of similar mass such as boron and nitrogen. It can be achieved by using CVD and electrothermal reactions.23,24 In the literature, abundant reports are available on the effects of hydrogenation, defecting and doping on the thermal properties of pristine graphene.25–29 However, their effects on the interfacial thermal transport properties in graphene–polymer composites have not been well understood. The high interfacial thermal resistance is one of the main barriers in developing advanced graphene-based composite TIMs. It is of great significance to understand how hydrogenation, defecting and doping modulate thermal transport across the interfaces between graphene and polymer.
In terms of the mechanical properties of graphene-based nanocomposites, extensive investigations have been carried out. It has been reported that the mechanical properties of polymers can be greatly improved by the addition of graphene fillers.30,31 For example, Rafiee et al.32 synthesized graphene–epoxy nanocomposites. They found that at a low filler weight fraction of 0.1%, the Young’s modulus and tensile strength of the nanocomposites could be remarkably enhanced by 31% and 40% over pristine epoxy, respectively. Zhao et al.33 fabricated nanocomposites based on exfoliated graphene sheets and poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA). At a loading of 1.8 vol% graphene, they obtained a 150% improvement in tensile strength and a 10-fold increase in Young’s modulus over pure PVA. Based on previous studies, it is known that the presence of hydrogen leads to a remarkable reduction in the tensile strength and stiffness of graphene.34 However, how hydrogenation affects the overall mechanical properties of graphene-based composites still remains unknown. The reliable application of the graphene-based composite TIMs in a thermal environment also depends on the TIM’s mechanical integrity. It is thus of great importance to understand how the mechanical properties of the composites are influenced by various treatments such as hydrogenation.
In this paper, we investigate the thermal and mechanical properties of graphene–paraffin nanocomposites. Firstly, thermal transport across graphene–paraffin interfaces is investigated by using molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. The effectiveness of hydrogenation, defects and dopants in reducing the graphene–paraffin interfacial thermal resistance is systematically examined. Different coverages of hydrogen, defects and dopants (up to 4.17%) are considered. Secondly, using MD simulations, the mechanical properties of graphene–paraffin composites subjected to uniaxial tensile loading are investigated with the aim to explore the hydrogenation effect. The results reported herein can serve as a general guideline for future experimental studies on the design of graphene-based nanocomposites.
The reverse non-equilibrium molecular dynamics (RNEMD) simulation method based on Muller-Plathe’s approach41 was employed to investigate the thermal transport properties of the graphene–paraffin composites. In the present study, paraffin (C30H62) was chosen as the matrix material since it has been used as a thermal interface material in the thermal management of electronic devices.42,43 The paraffin blocks were initially built in Material Studio (Accelrys Inc., San Diego, CA) using the amorphous cell module, which generates disordered systems containing paraffin molecules in realistic equilibrium conformations. The paraffin blocks were then stacked with graphene sheets to form composites as shown in Fig. 1a. The composite has a size of 29 Å × 29 Å × 160 Å. Periodic boundary conditions were applied in all three directions. A small time step of 0.25 fs was used in the simulations. At the beginning of a simulation, an energy minimization was performed using the conjugate gradient algorithm. Then the composite model was annealed in a canonical NVT ensemble (i.e. a constant number of atoms, volume and temperature) for 500 ps with the temperature increasing from 300 K to 1000 K, and then cooling down to 300 K. Finally, the composite model was relaxed in an isothermal–isobaric NPT ensemble (i.e. a constant number of atoms, pressure and temperature) at 300 K and 1 atm for 500 ps. In the RNEMD simulation, a heat flux was imposed on an atomic system to form a temperature gradient. As shown in Fig. 1a, the heat source and sink regions are located in the middle and at the two ends of the composite model, respectively. A heat flux J was imposed between the heat source and sink regions by exchanging the kinetic energies between the hottest atom in the heat sink region and the coldest atom in the heat source region in a microcanonical NVE ensemble (i.e. a constant number of atoms, volume and energy). The exchange process was performed every 1000 time steps. The resultant heat flux J is given by
![]() | (1) |
RK = ΔT/J | (2) |
By averaging the data collected over a 500 ps period in the steady state, the final interfacial thermal resistance value was determined. The error bars were then calculated using the block averaging approach.44
The mechanical properties of the graphene–paraffin composites were explored by adopting a MD simulation method similar to that used by Frankland et al.45 As shown in Fig. 2, a composite model consisting of a graphene sheet sandwiched in a paraffin matrix was designed with a size of 29 Å × 29 Å × 80 Å. The armchair and zigzag edges of the graphene are orientated along the X and Y axes, respectively. Prior to the tensile loading, the composite model was relaxed similarly to the model described above. A tensile loading with a strain rate of 0.0005 ps−1 is applied in the X (armchair) direction as shown in Fig. 2. Based on the obtained stress–strain curves, the Young’s modulus and tensile strength can be obtained. The Young’s modulus was calculated as the initial slope of the stress–strain curve and the tensile strength was defined at the point where the peak stress is reached.
![]() | ||
Fig. 2 Composite composed of paraffin and graphene under tension (grey balls are carbon atoms and blue balls are hydrogen atoms). |
MD simulations were then performed to obtain the interfacial thermal resistance between paraffin and pristine graphene as a benchmark. A pristine graphene model with a planar size of 29 Å × 29 Å was placed into the paraffin blocks in Fig. 1a to construct the composite system. Based on eqn (2), the interfacial thermal resistance between paraffin and pristine graphene was calculated as RK0 = 0.669 ± 0.043 × 10−8 m2 K W−1. This value is in good agreement with 0.666–0.909 × 10−8 m2 K W−1 as obtained by other researchers.46,48,49 In the following, RK0 was used as a reference to check the effect of hydrogenation on the interfacial thermal resistance between paraffin and hydrogenated graphene, denoted as RK.
The hydrogen atoms were randomly distributed onto both sides of the graphene sheet and the H-coverage varied from 0.60% to 4.17%. The H-coverage is defined as the number of hydrogen atoms divided by the total number of carbon atoms in the graphene. Comparing the results with the interfacial thermal resistance between paraffin and pristine graphene RK0, relative interfacial thermal resistance RK/RK0 with respect to the H-coverage is illustrated in Fig. 3. It clearly shows that hydrogenation of graphene leads to a reduction of graphene–paraffin interfacial thermal resistance and this reduction increases with higher H-coverage. For example, with a 4.17% H-coverage, the interfacial thermal resistance between graphene and paraffin is reduced significantly by 11.6%.
According to the theoretical models of interfacial thermal transport,50 the interfacial thermal resistance is inherently limited by the overlap of the vibrational density of states (VDOS) of the two interfacing materials. In order to elucidate the underlying mechanisms for the effect of hydrogenation on the interfacial thermal resistance, the VDOS for paraffin, pristine graphene and hydrogenated graphene were calculated and displayed in Fig. 4. The VDOS were obtained by calculating the Fourier transformation of atomic velocities autocorrelation functions at an equilibrium state before the heat conduction starts. As shown in Fig. 4, the VDOS of pristine graphene displays peaks at about 53 THz and 10 to 18 THz, which is consistent with the results obtained by other researchers.46,51 The peaks at 53 THz and 10–18 THz represent the in-plane and out-of-plane phonon modes, respectively. The VDOS of paraffin displays several peaks at about 88 THz and 20 to 45 THz. The peak at 88 THz corresponds to the VDOS for optical phonons assigned to carbon–hydrogen (C–H) stretching vibrations. The peaks at 20 to 45 THz are presumably due to H–C–H bending and C–C stretching vibrations. Comparing the VDOS of paraffin to that of pristine graphene, it is readily seen that they have a poor VDOS overlap with each other. This poor VDOS overlap indicates a poor heat conduction between them, which leads to the high interfacial thermal resistance between paraffin and graphene, which is consistent with the previous studies.46,49,51 When the graphene is functionalized by hydrogen atoms, two extra VDOS peaks at about 49 THz and 87 THz appear, which can be due to the in-plane C–C stretching and out-of-plane C–H stretching vibrations, respectively (see Fig. 4). The peak at 49 THz does not overlap with the peaks of paraffin, so it may not be beneficial to the enhancement of interfacial thermal transport. However, the peak at 87 THz has a better overlap with the peak of paraffin at 88 THz, which could explain the hydrogenation-induced reduction of the graphene–paraffin interfacial thermal resistance, as seen in Fig. 3.
Next, the effects of defecting and doping on the thermal transport across the graphene–paraffin interfaces were investigated. Using the pristine graphene–paraffin interfacial thermal resistance as a reference, the effects of defecting and doping were studied through simulating the defective graphene and doped graphene in the composite system, respectively. The defects include single vacancy, double vacancy and SW. Boron and nitrogen were used as the dopants. The defects or dopants were randomly distributed in the graphene with different coverages up to 4.17%. Fig. 5 shows defective and doped graphene models with single vacancy defects, double vacancy defects, SW defects and dopants. The defective and doped graphene models were then placed into the composite systems depicted in Fig. 1a to carry out RNEMD simulations.
![]() | ||
Fig. 5 MD models of graphene with (a) single vacancy defects, (b) double vacancy defects, (c) SW defects and (d) dopants (grey and blue balls are carbon atoms, and red balls refer to dopant atoms). |
The relative interfacial thermal resistance RK/RK0 with respect to the coverage of defects and dopants is plotted in Fig. 6 and 7, respectively. It can be seen that the interfacial thermal resistance remains unchanged as the coverage of defects or dopants increases to 4.17%, which indicates that the graphene–paraffin interfacial thermal transport is insensitive to these structural modifications.
![]() | ||
Fig. 6 Variation of the relative interfacial thermal resistance with respect to the coverage of different defects. |
![]() | ||
Fig. 7 Variation of the relative interfacial thermal resistance with respect to the coverage of boron and nitrogen dopants. |
The VDOS for the defective and doped graphene at a coverage of 4.17% were calculated and shown in Fig. 8 and 9, respectively. It can be seen that the various types of defects or dopants weaken the VDOS peaks of graphene at both low and high frequency ranges. These results agree with the observations reported in previous works on defective and doped graphene.27–29 It has been suggested that both defects and dopants in graphene cause phonon scattering, which leads to the weakening of the VDOS peaks. However, in the context of this work, these modifications to the VDOS peaks of graphene have nearly no effect on their overlaps with the VDOS of paraffin. As a result, the graphene–paraffin interfacial thermal resistance was found to be insensitive to defects and dopants.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015 |