Wenjie
Xia
a,
Jake
Song
b,
Zhaoxu
Meng
a,
Chen
Shao
c and
Sinan
Keten
*ac
aDepartment of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208, USA. E-mail: s-keten@northwestern.edu; Tel: 847 491 5282
bDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208, USA
cDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208, USA
First published on 23rd May 2016
Polymers reinforced with multi-layer graphene (MLG) phases are promising candidates for new materials with high modulus, strength and toughness. Drawing inspiration from nacre's layered “brick and mortar” structure, here we propose molecular scale design strategies to improve the mechanical performance of MLG–polymer layer-by-layer nanocomposites. We present a coarse-grained molecular dynamics (CG-MD) study of interfacial failure mechanisms of MLG domains embedded in a poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) matrix through pull-out simulations. Our simulations reveal two distinct deformation and failure mechanisms that greatly influence the toughness and energy dissipation of the system: pull-out failure, which occurs along the MLG–PMMA interface, and yielding failure, which occurs within the graphitic phase through the sliding of staggered graphene sheets. For any length of the graphitic assembly, the energy dissipated per layer from MLG yielding is greater than that of MLG pull-out. Theoretical continuum analysis further reveals that there exists a critical number of layers of graphene, beyond which the failure mode changes from yielding to pull-out. Our modeling framework provides effective strategies to design graphene–polymer layered nanocomposites with optimal toughness, and advance the mechanical performance of nanomaterials.
Design, System, ApplicationGraphene, in addition to its impressive thermal and electrical transport properties, is a promising structural material with remarkable stiffness and strength. However, to harness graphene in load-bearing applications, its low fracture toughness must be overcome. A promising strategy is to use layered nanocomposite architectures found in natural materials such as nacre, which are known to have high toughness due to their ability to dissipate tremendous amounts of energy under large deformation. However, to fully utilize this design strategy, nanoscale mechanisms that govern mechanical properties of graphene-based nanocomposites must be understood. Using multi-scale molecular models of multi-layer graphene and polymer nanocomposites, we probe these molecular failure mechanisms as a function of design parameters such as interfacial interaction and graphene nanostructure configurations. Our work lends key insight into structural failure mechanisms broadly pertaining to multi-layered assemblies of 2D nanomaterials with polymers, and provides guidelines on optimal design of such nanocomposites. |
Considerable efforts have been engaged in designing high performance nanocomposites that employ a layer-by-layer assembly or similar lamellar structures, mostly involving polymer-clay or ceramic (e.g. alumina) microphases.8–10 The focus has recently been turned to graphene and its derivatives such as graphene oxide (GO) to take advantage of their exceptional strength and modulus.10–15 The layered structuring of graphene nanocomposites is advantageous in many ways. For one, the intercalation of polymeric domains with hard graphene-based sheets can significantly increase its mechanical properties while retaining the ductility of the polymer matrix.16–18 Moreover, the brick-and-mortar arrangement of graphene within a staggered multi-layer graphene (MLG) architecture can dramatically improve the toughness of graphene-based nanocomposites. This is due to their self-healing van der Waals interfaces, which allow MLGs to dissipate significant amounts of energy upon large deformation,19 in stark contrast to single continuous graphene sheets that undergo brittle failure.14,20,21 A recent study has illustrated a proof-of-concept demonstration of MLG for armor applications, where micro-scale projectile experiments established the superior energy dissipation capacity of MLG compared to conventional protective materials such as steel and Kevlar.2
In order to harness the superior properties of nacre-inspired graphene structures in polymer nanocomposites, it is crucial to understand the interfacial mechanics between staggered graphene layers and polymer layers. Although prior studies have investigated the interfacial shearing mechanisms of other fibrous materials such as carbon and glass fibers,22,23 cellulose nanocrystals and fibers,24–26 and single and multi-walled carbon nanotubes,27–30 the interfacial shear responses that occur between polymer matrices and staggered 2-D materials such as MLGs remain to be fully explored. As such, the present study aims to characterize the interfacial shearing mechanisms of layer-by-layer MLG and polymer assemblies to optimize the design process of mechanically robust materials. Taking the advantages of our recently developed coarse-grained molecular dynamics (CG-MD) models of MLG31 and poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA),32 we design a nacre-inspired layered architecture of MLG–PMMA nanocomposites (Fig. 1a) as recently studied in experiments and simulations.12,33 Utilizing the developed CG techniques and by performing pull-out test simulations, we are able to characterize the interfacial behaviors of the designed system as well as identify critical sizes of MLG that govern deformational behaviors. We discuss these results in the context of theoretical framework based on continuum mechanics models and CG-MD simulations, and present effective optimization strategies to design mechanically robust nacre-inspired polymeric nanocomposite systems.
(1) |
To investigate the interfacial mechanics and deformational behaviors of the MLG–PMMA nanocomposite, we perform steered molecular dynamics (SMD) simulations. All simulations are carried out using LAMMPS.35 The energy of the system is first minimized using the conjugate gradient algorithm. The system is then equilibrated through a dynamics run for ∼2 ns at 300 K. During the SMD simulation, one edge of the graphene sheet at each layer in the MLG is pulled by applying a force F generated by a stiff harmonic spring: F = kSMD [vt − y(t)], where kSMD = 1000 kcal mol−1 Å−2 is the spring constant and v = 0.0001 Å fs−1 is the pulling velocity. Our previous work has shown the adopted spring constant and velocity to be reasonable in determining accurate force readings from SMD simulations.19,36 All SMD simulations are carried out at a temperature of 300 K, and therefore the PMMA layer is well below its glass transition temperature (Tg) of about 380 K as measured from our simulations. Throughout the SMD simulations, we confine the PMMA layer on both sides of the y-axis by a repulsive harmonic potential wall in the x–z plane. The reason for applying the wall is to keep the layered geometry and prevent large deformations in the PMMA phase during MLG pull-out test, ensuring clean interfacial shearing between MLG and PMMA phases. This is similar to the constraints applied on the polymer matrix by fixing polymer atoms as reported in previous pull-out simulation studies.37 This is reasonable as the force contribution from the deformation of a glassy polymer matrix is negligible compared to that arising from the graphene–polymer interface. It should be noted, however, that the polymer deformation becomes significant when the graphene–polymer interfacial interaction is very strong or when the temperature is close to or above the Tg, and thus this assumption needs to be revisited accordingly.
(2) |
(3) |
Next, we calculate the interfacial shear strength τs between the graphene and polymer through pull-out test simulations of a single small graphene flake on top of a polymer layer. During the pulling process, a spring force is applied to one end of the graphene sheet and the atoms of the bottom polymer layer are fixed (inset in Fig. 2c). The interfacial shear strength τs can be obtained from the stress–displacement response as shown in Fig. 2c. At the critical displacement of ∼10 Å, the shear stress reaches the maximum point corresponding to τs ∼ 0.11 GPa. As displacement increases, the shear stress starts to decay. This arises from a static-to-dynamic transition in the stick-slip friction, where strength is always higher in the first slippage event. This constitutive interfacial behavior is similar to those observed in the fiber pull-out experiments. The interfacial shear stiffness K can be determined from the initial slope of the stress–displacement curve as shown in Fig. 2c. We have also calculated τs with varying the interfacial interaction strength εgp between graphene and polymer (Fig. 2d). Our results indicate that the value of τs increases with increasing εgp with nearly a linear scaling relationship for the range of values tested. The interfacial interaction parameter can be tuned by surface modifications on graphene, and this results simply shows that increasing the interfacial energy will result in greater shear stiffness and shear strength.
We address two questions pertaining to the interfacial mechanical response of the MLG–PMMA layered nanocomposites: (1) what are the failure mechanisms of such layered nanostructure systems? (2) What are the strategies of optimizing the toughness of such systems? To answer these questions, we carry out pull-out simulations on our MLG–PMMA nanocomposite system to get insight into the interfacial properties. Our simulations reveal two different modes of failure: a pull-out mode which corresponds to MLG–PMMA interfacial failure in the case of thicker MLG assemblies, and a yielding mode which occurs within the MLG through the sliding of staggered graphene sheets (Fig. 3a). This observation is also schematically illustrated in Fig. 3b. We observe that for a given interfacial interaction strength εgp and embedded length L, the failure mode of MLG changes from yielding to pull-out as the number of layers N increases. This is quantitatively shown in the force–displacement (F–d) curves from our simulations (Fig. 4a). As N increases, peak force initially increases until it saturates after a critical number of layers, Ncr. This indicates the transition of failure modes from yielding to pull-out occurring at Ncr. The peak force remains constant for large N since the pull-out force is independent of the number of layers and instead depends on interfacial shear properties between graphene and PMMA. For all F–d curves, we observe an initial increase in force, followed by a gradual decay upon transitioning from static to dynamic friction.
The failure mode transition as a function of N can also be predicted from continuum theory. Neglecting the force contribution from the axial deformation of polymer (polymer stiffness is two orders of magnitude lower than that of MLG), the force per unit width F required to propagate interfacial crack along the MLG–PMMA interface can be determined from the continuum fiber pull-out model:41
F = F∞ tanh(αL) | (4) |
2F∞ tanh(αL) = σmNh | (5) |
From simulations and theoretical predictions, it is clear that failure modes have a great impact on energy dissipation in the nanocomposite system, which directly controls the toughness. Fig. 4b shows the results of the work of fracture (W) normalized by N for different N, which corresponds to energy dissipation per layer. We observe that W/N is maximized at N values that are in the yielding regime. This is because the yielding mode of failure involves the sliding of graphene surfaces – precisely due to the staggered architecture of the MLGs – which can dissipate tremendous amount of energy upon tensile loading. In recent supersonic ballistic experiments by Lee et al.,2 it has been demonstrated that the energy dissipation of MLG is roughly an order of magnitude higher than protective materials such as steel and Kevlar. Our recent study also shows that by arranging the MLG in a staggered architecture, the energy dissipated through interlayer sliding can be manifolds higher than that of continuous sheets that fail due to covalent bond breaking.19 By contrast, in pull-out mode, the work required to fracture the interface between MLG and PMMA is mainly governed by the surface energy, which is weakly dependent on N and strongly dependent on interfacial interaction strength εgp. Therefore, as N increases beyond Ncr, W/N decreases with increasing N (roughly following a scaling of 1/N as shown by the dashed curve), indicating a loss in energy dissipation efficiency upon entering the pull-out failure regime.
Given the reasonable agreement between continuum theory and simulations, we can use theory to extend this analysis to arbitrary values of L and εgp to understand how Ncr will depend on these parameters. Using data we have on the shear strength and shear stiffness as a function of εgp for different values of L, we can predict the critical number of layers Ncr as a function of L for εgp. As shown in Fig. 5, the value of Ncr increases initially with the length L, and then saturates at very large L ∼ 400 nm. This saturation effect at large L is due to the non-uniform shear stress distribution along the MLG–PMMA interface as predicted by the continuum model. Increasing εgp will increase Ncr for a given value of L. However, the length scale where Ncr starts to saturate is almost invariant with εgp. Considering these effects, tuning key parameters N, L and εgp is central for designing systems with superior toughness.
Our results provide several potential strategies to optimize performance of graphene-based nacre-inspired nanocomposites. As graphene nanocomposites are often strong but brittle, we may employ MLG components and tailor N to be below Ncr to optimize energy dissipation, which triggers yielding failure and therefore increases the toughness of the nanocomposite. This may be achieved by dispersing larger aggregates of MLG, for instance by sonication or other processing methods. The greater energy dissipation capacity of MLG-based nanocomposites may make them preferable over more brittle nanocomposite systems such as carbon nanotube (CNT)-based nanocomposites when toughness is a key criterion. Additionally, we may tailor N to be above Ncr such that the graphene–polymer interface would be the yielding area, allowing for the graphene layer to remain intact even at large deformations. This may have some advantages in applications where the graphitic phase needs to remain intact even at large deformation to maintain good thermal/electrical properties. Ncr can also be tailored by changing the overall length of the system L, and of course, energy dissipation can generally be enhanced by increasing εgpvia methods such as surface functionalization. For systems with very large L, MLG yielding may eventually lead to fragmentation of the continuous layers into short fibers, which then promote further energy dissipation via pull-out in a cascade fashion. This is a more complicated scenario that would involve evolutionary models, but the current study already lays out the foundation for tackling these issues.
In addition to shear-related mechanisms, other factors may contribute to the mechanical performance of graphene nanocomposites as well. For instance, nanoscale interphase formation can significantly influence the chain dynamics of the confined polymer, as observed in many studies.42–46 In the MLG–PMMA system, this implies that thermomechanical properties such as Tg and modulus can be tuned by modifying the polymer thickness H and interfacial interaction strength εgp through surface functionalization. Additionally, strain localization within MLG and fracture behavior of polymers can affect bulk mechanical properties, along with crack-propagation mechanisms and the overall distribution of the phases. Particularly, large deformation behavior of the polymers may become very important when the interfacial shear strength is greater than the strength of polymer. This could be achieved by the covalent crosslinks at the interface leading to strong interfacial interactions. While our investigation into the interfacial properties is by no means exhaustive, it provides a good starting point for establishing strategies to harness the dissipation mechanisms intrinsic to multi-layer graphene for diverse engineering applications. We anticipate that the models developed here could also be extended to other multilayer fillers, such as cellulose nanocrystals and 2D nanomaterials.47,48
Our prediction of failure modes has important implications for designing MLG nanocomposites. In the case where the MLG domains or “platelets” are too thick (large N) or too short (small L), our analysis reveals two routes towards improving composite toughness. The first route is to break down the MLG into smaller assemblies such that N ≤ Ncr, and the second route is to carry out surface functionalization to create stronger, compatible interfaces with the polymer matrix. Both methods activate MLG yielding as an energy dissipation mechanism, which effectively maximizes the amount of new surface area created during the failure process. Our findings advocate the use of nacre-inspired architectures in order to improve the strength and toughness of graphene-based nanocomposites, while providing ideal design strategies within this framework.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 |