Mechanical and Electrical Testing of Nanocomposites Containing Carbon Nanotubes

LAB REPORT 2:
MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL TESTING OF

NANOCOMPOSITES CONTAINING CARBON
NANOTUBES
Date of Submission: 21 November 2006
By
________________________________
Harsh Menon
menon387@erau.edu
Submitted to Dr. David Lanning, Jr.

Department of Aerospace Engineering
College of Engineering
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements
Of
ES 321.02 Engineering Materials Science

Fall 2006
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Prescott, Arizona
Carbon Nanotubes i 5/11/2008
ABSTRACT
In this lab, different concentrations of carbon nanotubes were mixed with epoxy to create
nanocomposites. The nanocomposites were subjected to a Vickers hardness test, a three-
point bend test and an electrical conductivity test. Data from the tests was used to
determine properties such as ultimate tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, Vickers
hardness and electrical conductivity. The experimental values were then compared to
“book” values for nanotubes and for epoxy. The nanocomposite’s properties were found
to be closer to those of epoxy. After fracture, the specimen were viewed under a scanning
electron microscope to determine the nature of the bonding between the nanotubes and
the epoxy. The nanotubes were found to clump together and did not mix homogeneously
with the epoxy.
Nanocomposites are particulate composites with carbon nanotubes as the reinforcement

phase and a polymer (epoxy) as the matrix phase. Carbon nanotubes are sheets of
graphene that have been curled or coiled up. They exists as single sheets of graphene and
are called single walled nanotubes (SWNT) or exist as multiple sheets of graphene and
are called multiwalled nanotubes (MWNT). The nanocomposites fabricated in the lab
contained MWNTs.
Data from the experiment and analysis led to a threshold hypothesis which postulated
upper and lower thresholds in the concentrations of the nanocomposite beyond which the
nanotube dominates or the epoxy dominates. The hypothesis was used to explain the
mechanical properties and the electrical properties to a certain extent. The wide scatter of
experimental data for the electrical properties was the primary reason why the hypothesis
could not be used to explain the electrical properties.
This paper introduces the fabrication methods and the testing methods employed on the
nanocomposites and presents results of their mechanical and electrical properties. A
discussion on trends in the properties and comparison with “book” values is also
presented. Future recommendations are also presented.
Carbon Nanotubes ii 5/11/2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................i
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................ii
LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................v
LIST OF SYMBOLS....................................................................................vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1
2.0 THEORY...................................................................................................2
2.1 STRUCTURE OF CARBON..............................................................................2
2.1 WHAT ARE CARBON NANOTUBES?................................................................3
2.2 PROPERTIES OF NANOTUBES.........................................................................6
2.3 NANOCOMPOSITES......................................................................................9
2.4 TYPES OF TESTS.........................................................................................9
3.0 APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES......................................................14
3.1 APPARATUS......................................................................................14
3.2 PROCEDURES...................................................................................17
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................33
6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................35

Carbon Nanotubes iii 5/11/2008
7.0 ATTRIBUTIONS...................................................................................37
8.0 APPENDIX A: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS........................................38
LIST OF FIGURES
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................i
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................v
1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1
2.0 THEORY...................................................................................................2
Figure 2.1: Hybridization of atomic orbitals....................................................................3

Figure 2.2: Graphical representation of chiral vector..........................................................4

Figure 2.3: Different nanotube configurations.................................................................5
Figure 2.4: Variation of yielding strain with strain rate and temperature............................7
2.3 NANOCOMPOSITES......................................................................................9
2.4 TYPES OF TESTS.........................................................................................9
Figure 2.5: Three-point bend test.......................................................................................10

Carbon Nanotubes iv 5/11/2008
3.1 APPARATUS......................................................................................14
Figure 3.1: Rectangular Plastic Holder.............................................................................14

Figure 3.2: Three-point Bend Setup..................................................................................15
Figure 3.3: Vickers Hardness Tester..................................................................................16
Figure 3.4: Scanning Electron Microscope.......................................................................17
3.2 PROCEDURES...................................................................................17
Figure 4.1: Vickers hardness data in graphical form.....................................................23

Figure 4.2: Variation of ultimate bending stress with concentration of nanotubes.......24
Figure 4.3: Variation of modulus of elasticity with concentration of nanotubes............25
Figure 4.5: Variation of resistivity with nanotube concentration. ....................................28
Figure 4.6: Variation of conductivity with nanotube concentration..................................29
Figure 4.7: 2% Nanocomposite under a Scanning Electron Microscope..........................30
Figure 4.8: Clumped Structure of Nanocomposite...........................................................31
Figure 4.9: Carbon Nanotubes...........................................................................................32
6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................35
7.0 ATTRIBUTIONS...................................................................................37

Carbon Nanotubes v 5/11/2008
LIST OF TABLES
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................i
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................v
1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1
2.0 THEORY...................................................................................................2
Figure 2.1: Hybridization of atomic orbitals....................................................................3

Figure 2.2: Graphical representation of chiral vector..........................................................4

Figure 2.3: Different nanotube configurations.................................................................5
Table 2.1: Comparison of different shapes of nanotubes.....................................6
Table 2.2 : Mechanical properties of nanotubes..................................................6

Figure 2.4: Variation of yielding strain with strain rate and temperature............................7
Table 2.3 : Thermal properties of nanotubes........................................................8
2.3 NANOCOMPOSITES......................................................................................9
2.4 TYPES OF TESTS.........................................................................................9
Figure 2.5: Three-point bend test.......................................................................................10

Carbon Nanotubes vi 5/11/2008
3.1 APPARATUS......................................................................................14
Figure 3.1: Rectangular Plastic Holder.............................................................................14

Figure 3.2: Three-point Bend Setup..................................................................................15
Figure 3.3: Vickers Hardness Tester..................................................................................16
Figure 3.4: Scanning Electron Microscope.......................................................................17
3.2 PROCEDURES...................................................................................17
Figure 4.1: Vickers hardness data in graphical form.....................................................23

Figure 4.2: Variation of ultimate bending stress with concentration of nanotubes.......24
Figure 4.3: Variation of modulus of elasticity with concentration of nanotubes............25
Table 4.3: Comparison to theoretical values.....................................................26
Figure 4.5: Variation of resistivity with nanotube concentration. ....................................28
Figure 4.6: Variation of conductivity with nanotube concentration..................................29
Figure 4.7: 2% Nanocomposite under a Scanning Electron Microscope..........................30
Figure 4.8: Clumped Structure of Nanocomposite...........................................................31
Figure 4.9: Carbon Nanotubes...........................................................................................32
6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................35
7.0 ATTRIBUTIONS...................................................................................37
Table 9.1: Vickers hardness test data.................................................................39

Table 9.2: Three-point bend test data.................................................................39
Table 9.3: Electrical properties of nanocomposites...........................................40
Table 9.4: Raw data from three-point bend test.................................................40
Carbon Nanotubes vii 5/11/2008
LIST OF SYMBOLS
A area in2
C chiral vector
E modulus of elasticity lb/in2
Es strain energy lb-in
G conductance siemen (S)
I moment of inertia in4
L distance in
M moment lb-in
MO apparent number of conducting channels

in a carbon nanotube
P force lb
R resistance ohm
V volume
in3
Y Young’s Modulus lb/in2
b width in
h height in
y distance above neutral axis in
δ deflection in
ε strain in/in
ρ resistivity ohm-meter
σ bending stress lb/in2

Carbon Nanotubes viii 5/11/2008
σc conductivity S/meter
n carbon nanotube index
m carbon nanotube index
max maximum
a carbon nanotube direction vector
1 direction vector along zigzag bonds
2 direction vector used with vector a1 to define

the rolling direction of the carbon nanotube
Carbon Nanotubes ix 5/11/2008
Carbon Nanotubes 1 5/11/2008
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Carbon nanotubes have emerged as “as a miracle material that could revolutionize a
number of industries” (Kanellos, 2003). They are essentially sheets of graphene coiled
into a cylinder. They come in two forms – single walled nanotubes (SWNT) and
multiwalled nanotubes (MWNT). The SWNTs have a single sheet of graphene, while the
MWNTs have several sheets of graphene.
After their discovery in 1991 by Ijima, carbon nanotubes have been at the cutting edge of
technology. Their have a range of properties that make them unique and diverse in their
applications. They have extraordinary mechanical properties with a modulus of elasticity
of over 1 Tera Pascal and stiffness equal to that of diamond (NASA, 2006). The electrical
properties of nanotubes have been the main driver of the research on SWNTs and
MWNTs. One of the few extraordinary electrical properties of SWNTs is that they have
been shown to exhibit superconductivity (Gorman, 2001).
The extraordinary strength of carbon nanotubes has led people to hypothesize future
applications for them. People have conjectured the use of carbon nanotubes to create
space elevators (David, 2002). In the field of electronics, carbon nanotubes are at the
forefront in nanoelectronics. The ability of nanotubes to behave as both metals and
semiconductors allows them to be used on projects such as quantum wires and quantum
dots (artificial atoms) to name a few (Asaravala, 2005).
However, even though a lot of research has been done on carbon nanotubes, there are still
deficiencies in knowledge on carbon nanotubes. A lot of these voids are being filled by
investigating the basics of carbon nanotubes and understanding their mechanical and
electrical properties. The field of carbon nanotubes is still a relatively new one and
therefore, any work done with carbon nanotubes quantifies the properties of nanotubes
and helps detect deviations from the expected behavior.
The purpose of this lab was to investigate the mechanical and electrical properties of
nanocomposites containing epoxy and different concentrations of MWNTs ranging from
0% to 12% of the total weight of the nanocomposite. The nanocomposites were subjected
to a Vickers hardness test, a three-point bend test and an electrical conductivity test.
This report documents the fabrication process and the testing process of the
nanocomposites and graphically shows trends in the experimentally obtained values of
Vickers hardness, utltimate tensile strength, modulus of elasticity and electrical resistivity
and conductivity. The experimental values are compared to “book” values to determine
whether the epoxy or the nanotubes dominated the behavior of the nanocomposites.
Finally, snapshots of the fractured surface of the nanocomposites as seen from a scanning
electron microscope are shown. Future recommendations are also presented.
2.0 THEORY
2.1 Structure of Carbon
A carbon atom has 6 electrons. The electronic configuration of carbon is written as

1s22s22p2. The electronic configuration represents the different orbitals of the atom and
the number of electrons in each orbital. The electronic configuration of carbon shows that
it has 2 electrons in the 1s orbital, 2 in the 2s orbital and 2 in the 2p orbital.
Carbon forms covalent bonds. Covalent bonds are formed by the sharing of electrons
between different atoms. There are two types of bonds that can form between different
atoms:
1. σ Bond / Sigma Bond

The σ Bond is a molecular bond formed by sharing of electrons in s-orbitals (Atkins
& Paula, 2002). All single bonds are sigma bonds.
2. π Bond / Pi Bond
The π Bond is a molecular bond formed by the pairing of electrons in two p-orbitals
that approach side by side (Atkins & Paula, 2002). A π Bond can form only if there is
already a sigma bond between the bonding atoms.
One of the methods by which chemical bonding occurs in atoms like carbon, is
hybridization. Hybridization is the “mixing of a set of atomic orbitals on an atom to form
a new set of hybrid orbitals with the same total electron capacity and with properties and
energies intermediate between those of the original unhybridized orbitals” (Whitten,
2007).
During hybridization in carbon, an electron from the 2s orbital is moved to a higher

excited p orbital resulting in a final electronic configuration of 1s22s12p3. The process of
hybridization is one in which the atom produces hybrid orbitals by combining s and p
orbitals. If three 2p orbitals and one 1s orbital combine, it results in sp3 hybridization. If
two 2p orbitals and one 1s orbital combine, it produces sp2 hybridization. The process of
hybridization is illustrated on the next page.
Figure 2.1: Hybridization of atomic orbitals

(Banks, 2000).
The figure above shows that the s and p orbitals have been combined to form 4 hybrid
orbitals. These hybrid orbitals have the same energy and take part in molecular bonding.
2.1 What are Carbon Nanotubes?
Carbon nanotubes were discovered by Ijima who produced this “new type of finite
carbon structure consisting of needle-like tubes” using an arc-discharge evaporation
technique (1991). In the simplest form, carbon nanotubes consist of “a graphene sheet
which has been rolled up into a cylinder” (Kelsall, 2005). Graphene is a two dimensional
honeycomb structure of sp2-bonded carbon atoms (Dragoman & Dragoman, 2006). The
carbon nanotubes may consist of a single rolled sheet of graphene or multiple rolled
sheets of graphene. The single rolled sheets are called single-walled nanotubes (SWNT),
while the multiple rolled sheets are called multiwalled nanotubes (MWNT) (Wilson,
2002). SWNTs are “typically 1-20 nm in diameter but can be up to 100mm in length”
(Kelsall, 2005).
Carbon nanotubes can be used in a wide variety of applications ranging from chemical
purification and catalysis to field emission devices for flat panel displays.
Theoretically, there are an infinite number of permutations for the tube structure of
SWNTs (Kelsall, 2005). The conventional method of defining the rolling process is
through the use of a chiral vector C, defined in Equation 2.1 below:
C = na1 + ma 2 Equation 2.1
where n and m are integers and a1 and a2 are vectors defining the rolling direction. The
equation above can be understood by using the image on the next page.
Figure 2.2: Graphical representation of chiral vector

(Wilson, 2002).
Using the image above, Wilson (2002) mentions a method to understand the chiral vector
and the different configurations it leads to as listed below:
1. The two parallel lines in the figure represent axes (Tube Axis) where the graphene
is rolled up to create the nanotube
2. A is a point on one of the lines which intersects one of the carbon atoms
3. The armchair line is a line that travels across each hexagon separating them into
two equal halves
4. The vector n a1 is placed horizontally on the graphite sheet along the zigzag bonds
5. The vector m a2 is placed at an angle such that the armchair line bisects the angle
made with the vector n a1. This ensures that the sum of the two vectors is above
the armchair line and as a result, n a1= m a2
Rolling the nanotube along the direction mentioned above results in the formation of
an armchair nanotube. Nanotubes are represented with the indices n and m as (n,m)
(Meyyappan, 2005). Since n=m for armchair nanotubes, they are represented as (5,5:
6,6…). The location of the second vector m a2 changes the type of nanotube formed.
If m a2 is set equal to 0, then a zigzag configuration results which is represented as
(9,0:10,0…). All other possibilities result in a chiral nanotube. All three types of
nanotubes can be seen in the figure on the next page.
Figure 2.3: Different nanotube configurations

(Wilson, 2002).
In the figure above, the topmost figure represents the zigzag configuration, the figure in
between represents the armchair configuration while the figure at the bottom shows the
chiral configuration. A comparison of the properties of these three types of nanotubes is
tabulated below:
Table 2.1: Comparison of different shapes of nanotubes

(Wilson, 2002).
Nanotube Lattice Parameter Interlayer Spacing Density

(nm) (nm) (g cm-3)
Armchair 1.678 0.338 1.34
Zigzag 1.652 0.341 1.33
Chiral 1.652 0.339 1.40
The three different nanotubes exist in SWNTs as well as MWNTs. However, in the case
of MWNTs, the structure becomes more complicated because each different layer of
graphene can consist of a different nanotube structure.
2.2 Properties of Nanotubes
The bonding in carbon nanotubes is sp2 which means that one s-orbital and two p-orbitals
have been hybridized and are taking part in covalent bonding. When the graphene sheet is
rolled over to form a nanotube, then the electrons get confined in a particular direction
and rehybridization occurs (Meyyappan, 2005). Rehybridization involves the hybrid
orbitals getting hybridized again. In rehybridization, three sigma bonds go slightly out of
plane and the pi bond orbitals becomes more delocalized outside the nanotube
(Meyyappan, 2005). The three sigma bonds are responsible for the mechanical strength
of carbon nanotubes and the delocalized pi bond is responsible for the superior electrical
and thermal properties of nanotubes.
Mechanical Properties
The strength of carbon nanotubes is directly related to the strength of the sigma bonds.
“Experimental results and theoretical calculations have shown that carbon nanotubes are
as stiff as or stiffer than diamond with the highest Young’s modulus and tensile strength”
(Meyyappan, 2005). The table below lists the Young’s modulus, tensile strength and
density for MWNTs, SWNTs and compares it with that of graphite and steel:
Table 2.2 : Mechanical properties of nanotubes

(Meyyappan, 2005).
Young’s Modulus Tensile Strength Density

(GPa) (GPa) (g cm-3)
MWNT 1200 150 2.6
SWNT 1054 75 1.3
Graphite 350 2.5 2.6

Steel 208 0.4 7.8
As can be seen in the table above, MWNTs have a higher Young’s modulus, tensile
strength and density thant SWNTs. Theory and experiment show that carbon nanotubes
can “sustain up to 15% tensile strain before fracture” (Meyyappan, 2005).
The Young’s modulus of a SWNT (for axial strains) is given by Equation 2.2 below
(Meyappan, 2007)
1  2 Es
Y Equation 2.2
V  2
where Y is the Young’s modulus, V is the volume of the nanotube, Es is the strain energy
and ε is the axial strain that the nanotube is subjected to.
The response of nanotubes to increased axial strains results in two structural changes. The
response to a compressive strain is sideways buckling and collapse (Meyyappan, 2005).
Under a tensile strain, plastic failure occurs through the formation of Stone-Wales (SW)
bond rotation induced defects in the nanotube lattice (Meyyappan, 2005). The SW defects
can be understood as a 90 degree rotation of the carbon-carbon bond in the lattice plane.
The SW defects are believed to be even capable of changing the chirality of the nanotube
(Meyyappan, 2007). Application of higher tensile loads and stretching leads to plastic
flow, necking and eventual failure of the nanotube (Meyappan, 2005).
The breaking or yielding strain for SWNTs has been found to be 5-6% of the applied load
and about 12% of the applied load for MWNTs (Meyappan, 2005). The yielding strain
though is very sensitive to the temperature and strain rate as can be seen in the figure
below:
Figure 2.4: Variation of yielding strain with strain rate and temperature
(Meyyappan, 2005).
As can be seen in the figure above, the yielding strain at lower temperatures and slower
strain rates is much higher than the yield strain for higher temperatures and higher strain
rates. Several computational models and theories have been predicted and are being used
to understand the behavior of carbon nanotubes.
Electrical Properties
The electronic properties of carbon nanotubes are closely related to those of graphite.
Since carbon nanotubes are formed by rolling graphene sheets, the electrons tend to be
restricted to one dimension and are hence only allowed to move freely alone the tube
axis. Carbon nanotubes are thus one-dimensional conductors and can behave as either
metals or semiconductors (Kelsall, 2005). Theoretical calculations suggest that one third
of the tube is metallic and two thirds of the tube is semiconducting (Meyyappan, 2005).
Conductivity in carbon nanotubes has been found to be a function of the diameter of the
nanotube (Wilson, 2002). Experiments have confirmed that a single SWNT or a MWNT
behave like a quantum wire because of the fact that the electrons are confined to move
along the tube axis. The conductance for a SWNT or a MWNT is given by Equation 2.3
from Meyyappan (2005)
G  (12.9k ) 1 MO Equation 2.3
where G is the conductance and MO is the apparent number of conducting channels.

The resistivity of SWNTs and MWNTs is found to decrease with temperature and the
room temperature values are found to be much higher than 0.4μΩm (the resisitivity for
graphite) (Meyyappan, 2007).
Thermal Properties
The thermal properties of SWNTs and MWNTs are found to be quite similar to that of
graphite. In fact, at temperatures above 100K, SWNTs and MWNTs “follow or are close
to the specific heat relation of graphite, about 700 mJ/gK” (Meyappan, 2005). However,
at lower temperatures, there is a marked deviation from the properties of graphite.
Just like electrical conductivity, thermal conductivity is one dimensional in nanotubes
(Meyappan, 2005). The table below lists some of the thermal properties of SWNTs and
MWNTs:
Table 2.3 : Thermal properties of nanotubes

(Meyyappan, 2005).
Nanotube Heat Capacity (T<100K) Thermal Conductivity

mJ/gK W/mK
SWNT 0.3 3000
MWNT 2-10 1600-1800
From the table above, the SWNTs appear to have higher thermal conductivity thatn
MWNTs, but lower heat capacity than MWNTs.
2.3 Nanocomposites
One potentially important use of carbon nanotubes is in particulate composites as the

reinforcement phase of the composite. Composites with nanotubes are called
nanocomposites. The structural, electrical and thermal of these nanocomposites depend
on how the carbon nanotubes couple with the matrix phase of the nanocomposite.
The purpose of nanocomposites is to obtain a mixture of a polymer and nanotubes with

the hope of getting the best of both worlds. A whole new range of multifunctional
materials such as high-strength porous ceramics can come from nanocomposites.
Potential applications include radiation protectection, lightning protection, stress sensors,
high strength and lightweight parts, organic LEDs and paintable polymers to name a few
(Meyyappan, 2005).
As mentioned in the previous section, carbon nanotubes are much stronger and lighter
than steel. However, to take advantage of their strength in nanocomposites, the carbon
nanotubes should be homogenously dispersed and aligned with the polymer matrix
(Meyyappan, 2005). Composites with isotropically aligned nanotubes generally have
much lower mechanical strength than composites with aligned nanotubes (Meyyappan,
2005).
The electrical properties of nanocomposites depend on the concept of percolation.

Percolation describes the range of compositions where a three-dimensional network of
the filler or matrix phase is formed (Meyappan, 2005). When percolation is reached, the
conductivity increases dramatically because of the formation of a conductive path in the
nanocomposite (Meyyappan, 2005). Research has shown that the “interfacial region
between the polymer matrix and the nanotubes influences the conductivity of the
composite and the percolation behavior” (Meyappan, 2005).
2.4 Types of Tests
A wide variety of tests can be performed on nanocomposites to determine important

properties such as hardness, electrical conductivity etc. Three tests were performed on
nanocomposites in this lab and they are explained below:
1. Three-point Bend Test
The three-point bend test is performed on nanocomposites to determine the tensile

strength of the composite. The nanocomposite cannot be tested with a tensilte tester
because it would break when placed in the grips of the tensile tester. The setup for the
three-point bend test can be seen on the next page.
Figure 2.5: Three-point bend test.
The figure above shows a specimen placed between two pins a distance L apart, subjected
to a concentrated force P at the center of L. Using Appendix G of Gere’s Mechanics of
Materials (2004), we can show that the maximum deflection at the center of the beam is
given by Equation 2.4:
PL3
 max  Equation 2.4
48 EI
where P is the force acting at the center of the beam, L is the distance between the
supports, E is the modulus of elasticity of the beam and I is the moment of inertia of the
beam. If the deflection is know, the equation above can be re-arranged to solve for E, the
modulus of elasticity.
The ultimate bending stress can also be calculated from the three-point bend test. The
ultimate bending stress is given by Equation 2.5 below:
M
 y Equation 2.5
I
where σ is the ultimate bending stress, M is the moment applied, y is the distance above
the neutral axis and I is the moment of inertia.
The moment at the center of the beam in Figure 2.5 can be calculated using Equation 2.6
below:
PL
M Equation 2.6
4
where M is the moment, P is the applied force and L is the distance between the supports.
The moment of inertia can be calculated from the cross-section of the beam by using
Equation 2.7 on the next page.
bh3
I Equation 2.7
12
where I is the moment of inertia, b is the cross-sectional width of the beam and h is the
cross-sectional height of the beam.
Putting Equation 2.6 and Equation 2.7 into Equation 2.5 results in a relationship between
bending stress and the basic parameters of the specimen and the setup, shown in Equation
2.8 below:
12 PL h 3 PL
  Equation 2.8
4bh3 2 2 bh 2
where σ is the ultimate bending stress, P is the applied load, L is the distance between the
supports, b is the cross-sectional width and h is the cross-sectional height.
2. Vickers Hardness Test
The Vickers Hardness Test is a hardness test in which a “very small diamond indentor
having pyramidal geometry is forced into the surface of the specimen” (Callister, 2004).
The loads range from 1-1000 grams. The pyramidal indentation is viewed under a
microscope and the distance between the diagonals (both left to right and top to bottom)
is measured and averaged and converted to a hardness number designated by HV.
The Vickers Hardness Test is classified as a microhardness test because of the low
magnitude of the load applied in the test and because of the indentor size. The Vickers
Hardness Test is ideal for measuring the hardness of nanocomposites. The indentation is
small enough that it doesn’t destroy the strength of the specimen. The small nature of the
indentation also helps determine the strength in a localized region of the specimen.
3. Conductivity Test
The conductivity of a nanocomposite is determined by coating the ends of the

nanocomposite with a conducting material such as silver epoxy. The terminals of a
multimeter are then connected to the two ends and the resistivity and conductivity across
the nanocomposite can be measured.
The conductivity of the nanocomposite ties in to the concept of percolation. If there is an

established connection throughout the nanocomposite, then the resistivity will be very
low and the conductivity very high. Resistance is related to the resistivity of a material by
Equation 2.9:
L
R Equation 2.9
A
where R is the resistance, ρ is the resistivity, L is the length of the material and A is the
cross-sectional area.
The resistance of the material is related to the conductance by Equation 2.10 below:
1
R Equation 2.10
G
where R is the resistance and G is the conductance.

The conductivity is related to the resisitivity by Equation 2.7 as shown below:
1
c  Equation 2.11

where σc is the conductivity and ρ is the resistivity.
2.5 Expected Results
A wide variety of nanocomposites were tested in the laboratory with different

compositions of carbon nanotubes. Considering equal amounts of bonding and mixture,
the nanocomposites with higher concentrations of nanotubes should be harder with a
higher modulus of elasticity and higher conductivity than the other nanotubes.
If the nanotubes are aligned in the nanocomposite and dominate the behavior of the
nanocomposite, the properties of the nanocomposite should be similar to that of MWNTs.
Using the information presented earlier, we can predict that the ultimate tensile strength
should be around 150 GPa or 21.7 Msi. The modulus of elasticity should also be around
1200 GPa or 174 Msi.
If the nanotubes are mixed isotropically and do not dominate the behavior of the
nanocomposite, then the nanocomposite should have properties similar to that of epoxy.
The ultimate tensile strength of pure epoxy is 70 MPa or 0.01 Msi. Its flexural modulus is
2.5 GPa or 0.36 Msi (MATWEB, 2006).
3.0 APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES
3.1 APPARATUS
The following equipment was used in the experiment:
 One (1) rectangular plastic holder with a rectangular hole in the center of it as
shown below,
Figure 3.1: Rectangular Plastic Holder.
 One (1) strip of 100 grit sanding paper,
 One (1) 120 water grinder,
 One (1) bottle of MER Corporation catalytic mutliwalled carbon nanotubes,
 EZ-LAM 60 Epoxy from Aerospace Composite Products©,
 One (1) digital weighing scale,
 One (1) respirator,
 One (1) pair of gloves,
 Two (2) C-clamps,

• One (1) three-point bend setup for the tensile tester, which can be seen in Figure
3.1: Three-point Bend Setup shown below:
Figure 3.2: Three-point Bend Setup

(Lanning, 2006).
• One (1) bottle of silver epoxy,
• One (1) Vernier callipers,
• One (1) Micrometer,
• One (1) Vickers Hardness Tester, as shown in the Figure 3.2: Vickers Hardness
Tester on the next page.
Figure 3.3: Vickers Hardness Tester

(Lanning, 2006).
The Vickers Hardness Tester is a device used to perform microhardness tests. It

applies loads ranging from 25g to 1000g and uses a diamond pyramid shape indentor
to make indentations on the specimen.
• One (1) Multimeter,
• One (1) Cardboard box,
• One (1) Wooden Screen,
• One (1) Scanning Electron Microscope, as can be seen in Figure 3.3: Scanning
Electron Microscope on the next page.
Figure 3.4: Scanning Electron Microscope

(Lanning, 2006).
3.2 PROCEDURES
The following procedures were used for the nanocomposite layout part of the experiment,
which was completed on October 31, 2006 at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University:
1.0 The class was divided into three (3) teams with two (2) students per team for the
experiment.
2.0 The team obtained one rectangular plastic holder with a rectangular hole in the center
of it.
3.0 The team grinded the bottom surface of the rectangular holder using a 120 water
grinder for one minute.
4.0 The team grinded the bottom surface of the rectangular holder and the insides of the
hole in the holder using 240 sand paper.
hole in the holder 400 sand paper.
hole in the holder using 1500 sand paper.
7.0 The team rinsed the rectangular holder with water and wiped it using paper towels.
8.0 The team took the grinded holder and went to the Materials Lab where the composite
layout was going to take place.
9.0 The team chose a certain part of the table where the composite would be left to dry
for a period of hours.
10.0The team cleaned the surface of the table and then applied wax to the surface of the
table.
11.0The team applied wax to the bottom surface of the rectangular holder.
12.0The team placed the rectangular holder on the waxed surface of the table with the
bottom surface of the rectangular holder making contact with the surface of the table.
13.0The rectangular holder was then clamped to the table using two C-clamps.
14.0One of the team members then put on gloves and a respirator to handle the carbon
nanotubes.
15.0The team member took an empty cup.
16.0The team member filled it with a little bit of epoxy.
17.0The cup with the epoxy was placed on a digital weighing scale.
18.0Steps 16.0 – 17.0 were repeated until 14 grams of epoxy were obtained in the cup.
19.0The team member then added a few grams of carbon nanotubes to the epoxy under
the fume hood.
20.0The cup with the nanotubes and the epoxy was placed on a digital weighing scale.
21.0Steps 19.0-20.0 were repeated until the digital weighing scale read 14.28 grams.
22.0The carbon nanotubes were left in the epoxy until all the teams had obtained their
cups with their desired amount of epoxy and carbon nanotubes.
23.0The nanotubes in the epoxy were then stirred gently for a period of 5 minutes.
24.0The mixture of nanotubes and epoxy was gently poured into the rectangular hole in
the rectangular holder on the table. Care was taken to ensure that the mixture did not
pile up on one side and that the top surface was smooth.
The nanocomposite was then tested on two separate days. The following procedures were
performed on November 7, 2006 and November 9, 2006:
1.0 The team obtained the hardened nanocomposite in the rectangular plastic holder.
2.0 The nanocomposite was pushed out of the hole in the rectangular plastic holder.
3.0 The top surface of the nanocomposite was subjected to wet sanding using water and a
100 grit sanding paper under the fume hood.
4.0 The top surface of the nanocomposite was subjected to wet sanding using water and a
240 grit sanding paper under the fume hood.
5.0 The top surface of the nanocomposite was then left to dry under the fume hood for a
period of approximately 5 minutes.
6.0 Silver epoxy was then applied generously to the sides of the nanocomposite under the
fume hood.
7.0 The nanocomposite with the silver epoxy was left to dry under the fume hood for 9
minutes.
8.0 The length and width of the nanocomposite were measured using a Vernier caliper.
9.0 The thickness of the nanocomposite was measured at 4 different locations using a
micrometer.
10.0The measurements from the 4 different locations were then averaged to give the
average thickness of the nanocomposite.
Vickers Hardness Testing
11.0The nanocomposite was then placed in a Vickers Hardness Tester.
12.0The nanocomposite was positioned so that the indentation would be made in the end
regions of the sample and not in the center region.
13.0The revolving table at the top of the Vickers Hardness Tester was turned to the
microscope lens.
14.0The position of the nanocomposite was adjusted so that the indentation would be
made in a clear region of the nanocomposite.
15.0The revolving table was turned from the lens to the indentor.
16.0The nanocomposite was raised using a crank shaft on the side of the Vickers
Hardness Tester, so that it was close to the indentor, but not making any contact.
17.0The load dial on the Vickers Hardness Tester was turned to a 25 lb load.
18.0The start button was pushed.

19.0The indentor made the indentation.
20.0The revolving table was turned from the indentor to the lens.
21.0The pyramid shaped indentation was observed under the microscope.
22.0The dial with the micrometer was zeroed.
23.0The other dial was moved until the two lines in view were at the left corner of the
pyramid.
24.0The dial with the micrometer was moved until one of the lines was at the right corner
of the pyramid.
25.0The reading on the micrometer was recorded.
26.0The viewing lens was turned 90 degrees.
27.0The dial with the micrometer was zeroed.
28.0The other dial was moved until the two lines in view were at the top corner of the
pyramid.
29.0The dial with the micrometer was moved until one of the lines was at the bottom
corner of the pyramid.
30.0The reading on the micrometer was recorded.
31.0The two recorded measurements were then averaged to obtain an average value for
the diameter of the pyramid shaped indentation.
32.0The average value and the load applied were then used to obtain the hardness of the
nanocomposite using a table of Vickers Hardness values.
33.0Steps 12.0-32.0 were then repeated for loads of 50 lb and 100 lb in different regions
of the nanocomposite.
Conductivity Testing
34.0The nanocomposite was then placed on a wooden block.
35.0The two terminals of a multimeter were connected to the two silver epoxy coated
ends of the nanocomposite.
36.0The resistance and conductance of the nanocomposite were measured.

Three-point Bend Testing
37.0 A three-point bend setup was then placed in the Tensile Tester.
38.0A cardboard box was cut on the top face and the side face.
39.0The carboard box was placed on the three-point bend setup.
40.0The nanocomposite was placed on the three-point bend setup.
41.0The three-point bend setup was adjusted so that the center region of the
nanocomposite fit in between the two supporting ends of the setup.
42.0The tensile tester was adjusted so that the nanocomposite fit snugly in the three-point
bend setup.
43.0A wooden screen was placed in front of the setup to prevent scattering of shrapnel
from the nanocomposite in all directions.
44.0The computer program was activated and run until the nanocomposite failed.
45.0The two broken pieces of the nanocomposite were found in the cardboard box and
were taken to the scanning electron microscope.
46.0The smaller of the two pieces was placed at an angle and viewed under the scanning
electron microscope.
47.0Pictures of the fractured surface of the nanocomposite were taken with the scanning
electron microscope.
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A wide variety of concentrations of carbon nanotubes were tested in the laboratory from a
miniumum concentration of 0% of the total weight of the composite to a maximum of
12%. The results from the Vickers Hardness Test are tabulated in Table 9.1: Vickers
Hardness Test data in 9.0 Appendix B: Raw Data. A graphical representation of the data is
shown below:
Figure 4.1: Vickers hardness data in graphical form.
From the figure above, the hardness seems to demonstrate a local region of maxima
between 0% and 1.5% concentration. This is followed by a nearly constant region of
hardness until 8%, after which the hardness increases linearly to the 12% concentration
nanocomposite. This seems to suggest that the 8% concentration acts as a threshold
beyond which the carbon nanotubes dominate the behavior of the nanocomposite, as a
result of which the hardness increases almost linearly.
The 12% nanocomposite appears to be the hardest compared to all the other
concentrations with a hardness of 34.4 HV for a 25g load, 107 HV for a 50g load and
90.6 HV for a 100g load. This was predicted in 2.0 Theory assuming all other parameters
were equal. The 8% nanocomposite was predicted to be the next highest. However, this
is not the case for all three loads applied. In the 25g load category, the next highest
hardness value was for the pure epoxy specimen. In the 50g and 100g load categories, the
next highest was the 1.5% nanocomposite. A possible reason is that the pure epoxy is
harder than a homogenous mixture of carbon nanotubes below the threshold region
mentioned above. The epoxy dominates the behavior of the nanocomposites close to 0%
concentration. The initial almost linear increase in hardness can be used to hypothesize
the presence of another threshold between two regions. This threshold lies at
approximately 1%-1.5% concentration. The region to the left of the of the threshold
represents a region where the nanotubes complement the strength of the epoxy and the
region to the right represents a region where the nanotubes either decrease or do not
contribute to the hardness of the nanocomposite.
The data obtained from the three-point bend test is tabulated in Table 9.2: Three-point
bend test data in 9.0 Appendix B: Raw Data. The variation of the ultimate bending stress
with concentration of nanotubes is shown below:
Figure 4.2: Variation of ultimate bending stress with concentration of nanotubes.

The figure above shows that the 1.5% nanocomposite has the highest ultimate strength,
while the 5% nanocomposite has the highest modulus of elasticity followed by the 0.5%
nanocomposite and pure epoxy. The highest ultimate strength of the 1.5% nanocomposite
can be explained using the hypothesis described above. The 1.5% nanocomposite lies in
the left region of the threshold and hence complements the strength of the nanocomposite
giving the nanocomposite the highest ultimate strength. The 5% nanocomposite has the
next highest ultimate strengths. The 0.5% and pure epoxy specimen have the next highest
strengths. Their values tie in with the predictions made about the left region of the 1%-
1.5% threshold. The 5% nanocomposite does not fit in with the hypotheses postulated
earlier. A closer inspection of the cross-sectional area of 5% nanocomposite in Table 9.2:
Three-point bend test data shows that the area is 0.16 in2, which is much lower than the
cross-sectional areas for the other nanocomposites. This smaller cross-sectional area is
responsible for a lower moment of inertia which in turn results in a higher ultimate
bending stress. This could be a possible reason for the high ultimate bending stress of the
5% nanocomposite. Besides the peak at 5%, the graph shows a general decrease in
ultimate bending stress with increase in concentration.
The variation of modulus of elasticity with concentration of nanotubes is shown below:
Figure 4.3: Variation of modulus of elasticity with concentration of nanotubes.
From the figure above and Table 9.2: Three-point bend test data, the modulus of elasticity
of the 5% nanocomposite is 0.92 Msi, which is much higher than that of any of the other
specimen. The driving force behind this could be the small cross-sectional area of the
specimen which seems to play a bigger role in modulus of elasticity than it did in the
ultimate bending stress.
The 12% nanocomposite and 1.5% nanocomposite have the next highest values for the
modulus of elasticity. The high values of their moduli of elasticity tie in with earlier
predictions. The 12% nanocomposite represents the nanocomposite beyond the threshold
when carbon nanotubes dominate the behavior. The 1.5% composite represents the left
region of another threshold where the nanotubes couple with the epoxy to form a stronger
nanocomposite. There does not appear to be any trend with an increase or decrease of
concentration of nanotubes.
The values of ultimate bending strength and modulus of elasticity can be compared to
those of carbon nanotubes and epoxy to determine which species was the dominant one in
the nanocomposite. This is shown in Table 4.3: Comparison to theoretical values below:
Table 4.3: Comparison to theoretical values.

Laboratory MWNT Epoxy Percent Percent
Nanocomposite Difference Difference
(MWNT as (Epoxy as
original) original)
Ultimate 0.012 0.01 21.7 99.9% 20%
Bending
Strength
(Msi)
Modulus of 0.92 0.36 174 99.8% 155%
Elasticity
(Msi)
The table above shows that the nanocomposite behaves more like epoxy than like carbon
nanotubes, implying that the mixture was homogeneous and that epoxy dominated the
properties of the nanocomposite.
The graph on the next page shows the variation of displacement of the 2% nanocomposite
with increasing force applied during the three-point bend test.
180
160
y =2293.6x +4.871
140
120
100
Series1
80
Linear (Series1)
60
40
20
0
-0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
-20
Displacement (inches)
Figure 4.4: Force vs displacement for 2% nanocomposite.
The figure above shows that for nanocomposites the variation of displacement with force
is roughly linear. The graph above was corrected and moved to the right so that the line
went through the origin. Once the line was corrected, the force and displacement were
chosen from the points on the line. With the use of Equation 2.4 and Equation 2.8, the
modulus of elasticity and ultimate bending stress could be calculated.
This behavior of nanocomposites from Figure 4.2 shows that they do not plastically
deform. In 2.0 Theory, carbon nanotubes were discovered to be able to plastically deform
due to SW bond rotations. However, the low concentration of the carbon nanotubes and
the high concentration of epoxy might be responsible for the composite acting more like a
polymer and less like carbon nanotubes.
The resistance and conductance for the different nanocomposites is tabulated in Table
9.3: Electrical Properties of Nanocomposites in 9.0 Appendix B: Raw Data. The
resistance and conductance were used to obtain the resistivity and conductivity of the
nanocomposites using Equation 2.5 and Equation 2.7 in 2.0 Theory. The variation of
resistivity is shown in the graph on the next page.
Figure 4.5: Variation of resistivity with nanotube concentration.
From the figure above, the 1% nanocomposite has the highest resistivity followed by the
4% nanocomposite and the 1.5 % nanocomposite. The resistivities of all the
nanocomposites are quite varied ranging from 0 to 4.3 x 1010 MΩ-m. The variation of
conductivity is shown in the figure on the next page.
Figure 4.6: Variation of conductivity with nanotube concentration.
The 12% nanocomposite has the highest conductivity followed by the 2% nanocomposite
and the epoxy specimen. The conductivity values for all the other nanocomposites are
about the same. From Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3, the behavior of the 12% nanocomposite
is explainable by the hypothesis presented earlier. The high concentration of carbon
nanotubes helps in increasing conductivity. The next highest value of conductivity for the
2% nanocomposite seems inexplicable by the hypothesis.
From Figure 4.2, the wide scatter of data points for resistivity prevents any determination
of trends of resistivity or conductivity with concentration of nanotubes. The wide spread
of the data also implies that the data is prone to errors and might be inaccurate.
The high values for the 12% nanocomposite can also be explained by the large
concentration of carbon nanotubes and the concept of percolation. Percolation might have
been reached to a small extent in certain regions of the composite resulting in a higher
conductance than the other nanocomposites.
Further insight into the nature of the nanocomposite can be obtained by viewing it under
a scanning electron microscope. The figure on the next page shows the 2% carbon
nanocomposite as seen under a scanning electron microscope.
Figure 4.7: 2% Nanocomposite under a Scanning Electron Microscope.
As seen in the figure above, the nanocomposite shows a region of carbon nanotubes
clumped together. The brighter areas represent areas where epoxy is present. The figure
above suggests that the nanotubes and the epoxy did not mix together but formed clumps
throughout the nanocomposite. This is seen by reducing the resolution to 10 microns as
shown in the figure on the next page.
Figure 4.8: Clumped Structure of Nanocomposite.
The figure above shows the epoxy (brighter areas) and the carbon nanotubes in the darker
regions. The clumped structure might be responsible for weaker properties of the
composite since the nanotubes did not mix homogenously with the epoxy. Zooming into
the carbon nanotubes, once can determine the diameter of the nanotubes. The image on
the next page shows a better picture of the nanotubes.
Figure 4.9: Carbon Nanotubes

(Lanning, 2006).
Using the carbon nanotubes in the figure above, the diameter of the nanotubes can be
determined using the scale given in the figure. The diameter of the nanotubes is
determined to be about 0.08 microns or 80 nm.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This lab was aimed at creating nanocomposites using multiwalled carbon nanotubes
(MWNT) and determining the variation in strengths and electrical resisitivities of the
nanocomposites with different concentrations of the nanotubes. The first step of the lab
involved creating the nanocomposites. The MWNTs were mixed with epoxy and allowed
to form in a plastic holder. The nanocomposites were then physically measured, Vickers
Hardness tested and tensile tested using the three-point bend test. The resistivity of the
nanocomposite was also measured using a multimeter. After fracture in the bend test, the
specimen were viewed under a scanning electron microscope to gain insight into the
manner in which the nanotubes bonded to the epoxy.
Important parameters determined from the test were ultimate tensile strength, modulus of
elasticity, Vickers hardness and electrical resistivity. The variation of Vickers hardness
values led to a hypothesis based on thresholds. The hypothesis predicted an upper
threshold of 8% beyond which the carbon nanotubes began to dominate the behavior of
the nanocomposite. Analogous to the upper threshold, a lower threshold was also
predicted. However, the behavior of the nanocomposite at 1.5% was unusually high. In
order to explain this, another threshold was postulated at about 1%-1.5%. The region to
the left was believed to supplement the strength of the epoxy, while the region to the right
was believed to either not affect or decrease the strength of the epoxy. The hardness of
the other nanocomposites was roughly constant.
The high ultimate strengths and modulus of elasticity of the 5% nanocomposite was
attributed to the small cross-sectional area which worked to decrease the moment of
inertia and increase the ultimate tensile strength of the specimen. Except for the 5% peak,
the ultimate tensile strength showed a general decrease with increase in concentration of
nanotubes. However, no such trends could be established between the modulus of
elasticity and the concentration of nanotubes.
The conductivity showed a peak at 12% as expected by the hypothesis due the large
amount of carbon nanotubes. However, besides the peak, the behavior of the resistivity
was very erratic, with a wide scatter of data points. The wide variation implied that there
were inconsistencies in the data which further implied that the data was prone to error
and inaccurate.
The experimentally obtained values of strength and modulus were then compared to
“book” values for MWNTs and epoxy. The mechanical properties of the nanocomposite
turned out to be dominated by the epoxy and not the nanotubes.
The major limitation of the lab was the inaccuracy of the data and the lack of dominant
trends in the data. This could be traced back to the fabrication methods and had more
time been spent mixing the epoxy and the MWNTs, the data might have shown a more
pronounced variation with concentration of nanotubes. The fabrication methods are the
primary reason why the nanocomposites turned out to be dominated by the epoxy and not
the nanotubes.
A recommendation for the future would involve trying to align the carbon nanotubes. By
aligning the nanotubes, instead of homogenously mixing them, the properties of the
nanocomposite might be significantly increased. Also, a potential experiment would
involve seeing the variation of the properties of the nanocomposites with temperature.
Another future recommendation would be to use single walled nanotubes (SWNTs)
instead of MWNTs and observe the zigzag, armchair and chiral configurations under a
microscope.
6.0 REFERENCES
Asaravala, A. (2005). NASA Funds ‘Miracle Polymer’. Wired News, Retrieved

November 20, 2006 from
http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,67350,00.html
Atkins, P. & Paula J. D. (2002). Physical Chemistry Seventh Edition. New York: W.H.
Freeman and Company.
Banks, R. (2000). Bonding and Hybridization. Retrieved November 19, 2006, from Boise
State University, Chemistry Department web site:
http://chemistry.boisestate.edu/rbanks/inorganic/bonding%20and%20hybridizatio
n/bonding_hybridization.htm
Dragoman, M. & Dragoman, D. (2006). Nanoelectronics Principles and Devices. Boston:

Artech House.
Gere, J.M. (2004). Mechanics of Materials. Toronto: Thomson & Brooks/Cole.
Gorman, J. (2002). Carbon pods are more than a pack of peas. Science News, 161, 6, 93.
Ijima, S. (1991). Helical microtubes of graphitic carbon. Nature, 354, 56-58.
Kanellos, M. (2003). From cars to medicine, nanotubes may be the miracle material.
CNET News.com, Retrieved November 20, 2006 from http://news.com.com/2009-
1008-5091267.html
Kelsall, R.W., Hamley, I.W. & Geoghegan, M. (2005). Nanoscale Science and
Technology. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Lanning Jr. D. (2006). Lab Photos. Photos posted on T-drive under ES321 Folder and
inside Lab Photos Folder archived at T:\ES321\Lab Photos.
Meyyappan, M. (2005). Carbon Nanotubes Science and Applications. New York: CRC
Press.
Whitten, K.W., Davis, R. E., Peck, M. L. & Stanley, G.G. (2007). Chemistry Eighth
Edition. Belmont: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Wilson, M., Kannangara, K., Smith. G., Simmons M. & Raguse B. (2002).
Nanotechnology Basic Science and Emerging Technologies. New York: Chapman
& Hall/CRC.
(2006). Carbon Nanotubes. Retrieved November 20, 2006 from NASA Center for
Technology website: http://www.ipt.arc.nasa.gov/carbonnano.html
(2006). Overview – Epoxy, cast, Unreinforced. Retrieved November 20, 2006 from
MATWEB Material Property Data website:
http://www.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=O1700
7.0 ATTRIBUTIONS
Lab Instructor Dr. David Lanning Jr.
Team Member Jonathan McCormick
8.0 APPENDIX A: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
Calculation of Modulus of Elasticity using Equation 2.4
P  160lb
 max  0.0685in
L  2in
b  1.098in
h  0.2237in
bh3 1.098in  (0.2237in)3
I   1.024 103 in 4
12 12
PL 3
160lb  (2in)3
E   0.38  106 lb / in 2
48 I  max 48  1.024 103 in 4  0.0685in
Calculation of Ultimate Bending Stress using Equation 2.8
P  160lb
L  2in
b  1.098in
h  0.2237in
3 PL 3 160lb  2in
   8735lb / in 2  9000lb / in 2
2 bh 2
2 1.098in  (0.2237in) 2
Calculation of Resistivity and Conductivity using Equation 2.9-2.11
G  0.54nS
L  3.094in
A  0.2456in 2
RA A 0.2456in 2
    0.147 M   in  3.73  103 M   m
L GL 0.54nS  3.094in
1
   267.8nS / m

9.0 APPENDIX B: RAW DATA
Table 9.1: Vickers hardness test data.
Vickers Hardness Vickers Hardness Vickers Hardness

Weight Percent Carbon (25g) (50g) (100g)
Number Number Number
(HV) (HV) (HV)
12% 34.4 107 90.6
8% 12.1 15.6 15
4% 11.45 12.8 14.8
0% (pure epoxy) 16 15.5 15.8
2% 8.72 6.52 14.8
1% 14.9 13.4 15.8
5% 12.9 14.4 17.9
1.50% 7.34 16.15 20.85
0.50% 10.6 11.5 14
Table 9.2: Three-point bend test data.
Ultimate Strength Cross-Sectional Area Modulus of Elasticity

Weight Percent Carbon (psi) (in^2) (Msi)
12% 7600 0.26 0.51
8% 6300 0.24 0.21
4% 7507.2 0.21 0.39
0% (pure epoxy) 9937 0.22 0.42
2% 9400 0.24 0.30
1% 8800 0.20 0.45
5% 11500 0.16 0.92
1.50% 12300 0.22 0.50

0.50% 9900 0.20 0.48
Table 9.3: Electrical properties of nanocomposites.
Weight Percent Carbon Resistance Conductance Resistivity Conductivity

MΩ nS MΩ-m nS/m
12% 1.485 0 0.0033 303.44
8% 11.73 87.29 0.024 41.38
4% 21.8 11.19 0.039 25.5
0% (pure epoxy) OL (overload) 0.075 0.013 74.2
2% OL (overload) 0.54 0.0037 267.8
1% OL (overload) 0.04 0.043 23.2
5% - - 0 0
1.50% OL 0.05 0.037 27.22
0.50% OL 0 0 0
Table 9.4: Raw data from three-point bend test.
Force (lb) Displacement (inches)

0.120837 -0.0035
0.664601 -0.00318
0.845856 -0.00309
1.38962 -0.00282
1.933385 -0.00255
2.597986 -0.00229
2.900077 -0.00202
3.50426 -0.00168
4.108442 -0.00136
4.591788 -0.00108
5.256389 -0.00078
5.981408 -0.00048
6.283499 -0.0002
6.88768 8.62E-05
7.612699 0.00038
8.035627 0.000677
8.760645 0.000986
9.304408 0.001276
9.848172 0.001578
10.21068 0.001841
10.9357 0.002119
11.47946 0.002417
12.08364 0.002715
12.50657 0.003012
13.29201 0.003329
13.83577 0.003611
14.50037 0.003912
14.86288 0.004202
15.52748 0.004485
16.01082 0.004748
16.615 0.005034
17.03793 0.005297
17.82337 0.005595
18.12546 0.005869
18.85047 0.006144
19.39424 0.006445
20.11925 0.006747
20.48176 0.007017
21.08594 0.007323

Mechanical and Electrical Testing of Nanocomposites Containing Carbon Nanotubes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mechanical and Electrical Testing of Nanocomposites Containing Carbon Nanotubes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAB REPORT 2:

MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL TESTING OF

Date of Submission: 21 November 2006

Submitted to Dr. David Lanning, Jr.

ES 321.02 Engineering Materials Science

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Nanocomposites are particulate composites with carbon nanotubes as the reinforcement

2.1 STRUCTURE OF CARBON..............................................................................2

2.1 WHAT ARE CARBON NANOTUBES?................................................................3

2.2 PROPERTIES OF NANOTUBES.........................................................................6

2.4 TYPES OF TESTS.........................................................................................9

3.0 APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES......................................................14

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................33

6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................35

8.0 APPENDIX A: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS........................................38

2.1 STRUCTURE OF CARBON..............................................................................2

Figure 2.1: Hybridization of atomic orbitals....................................................................3

Figure 2.2: Graphical representation of chiral vector..........................................................4

2.4 TYPES OF TESTS.........................................................................................9

Figure 2.5: Three-point bend test.......................................................................................10

Figure 3.1: Rectangular Plastic Holder.............................................................................14

Figure 4.1: Vickers hardness data in graphical form.....................................................23

6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................35

8.0 APPENDIX A: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS........................................38

2.1 STRUCTURE OF CARBON..............................................................................2

Figure 2.1: Hybridization of atomic orbitals....................................................................3

Figure 2.2: Graphical representation of chiral vector..........................................................4

Table 2.2 : Mechanical properties of nanotubes..................................................6

2.4 TYPES OF TESTS.........................................................................................9

Figure 2.5: Three-point bend test.......................................................................................10

Figure 3.1: Rectangular Plastic Holder.............................................................................14

Figure 4.1: Vickers hardness data in graphical form.....................................................23

6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................35

8.0 APPENDIX A: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS........................................38

Table 9.1: Vickers hardness test data.................................................................39

E modulus of elasticity lb/in2

Es strain energy lb-in

G conductance siemen (S)

I moment of inertia in4

MO apparent number of conducting channels

Y Young’s Modulus lb/in2

y distance above neutral axis in

σ bending stress lb/in2

n carbon nanotube index

m carbon nanotube index

a carbon nanotube direction vector

1 direction vector along zigzag bonds

2 direction vector used with vector a1 to define

2.1 Structure of Carbon

A carbon atom has 6 electrons. The electronic configuration of carbon is written as

1. σ Bond / Sigma Bond

During hybridization in carbon, an electron from the 2s orbital is moved to a higher

Figure 2.1: Hybridization of atomic orbitals

2.1 What are Carbon Nanotubes?

C = na1 + ma 2 Equation 2.1

Figure 2.2: Graphical representation of chiral vector

Figure 2.3: Different nanotube configurations

Table 2.1: Comparison of different shapes of nanotubes

Nanotube Lattice Parameter Interlayer Spacing Density

2.2 Properties of Nanotubes

Table 2.2 : Mechanical properties of nanotubes

Young’s Modulus Tensile Strength Density

Graphite 350 2.5 2.6