Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES
2003-01-2914
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.
For permission and licensing requests contact:
SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Fax:
724-772-4891
Tel:
724-772-4028
2003-01-2914
ABSTRACT
As is the case for conventional composites, the key to
the performance of polymer nanocomposites is the
quality of dispersion of the nano-reinforcement and the
interfacial interaction between the matrix and the
reinforcement phase. Optimization of these properties
requires various special and complicated treatments,
which are not always easy to determine. The aim of this
paper is to give some examples of the application of
different approaches to both thermoset and thermoplastic polymer nanocomposites, fabricated by different
means, such as solution, melt-processing, and in-situ
polymerization.
INTRODUCTION
PNCs have recently been receiving very much attention
due to their improved properties with modest density
gain, which constitutes their main advantage over
conventional composites [1,2]. However, their performance is controlled by the level of dispersion of nanoreinforcement and the interfacial interaction between the
matrix and reinforcement phase, which are not easy to
control in most cases. Due to the atomic scale of nanoreinforcements, their interaction with the matrix becomes
much greater than for the case of macro- and microreinforcements.
As a result, dispersion of nanoreinforcement in a polymer matrix is quite difficult and
thus often requires special and complicated treatments.
In addition, with respect to the issue of the reinforcing
effect, differences in chemistry and/or structure between
nano-reinforcements and polymers have a negative
impact on the interfacial interaction between the two
phases. Various treatments and modifications, focusing
either on the chemistry or the physics or the processing
procedure, have been proposed to solve such problems
but they all have notable disadvantages, such as
increased processing costs and/or complexity, or the
loss of different properties like impact, toughness, and
ductility. Such problems still remain unsolved in various
polymer systems [3-9]. In short, fabrication of nanocomposites faces various challenges.
This paper will discuss different issues involved in the
development of thermoplastic and thermoset nanocomposites by means of different processing techniques,
such as solution, melt-processing, and in-situ polymerization, within the scope of the strategic research
program on PNCs at the NRC-IMI. Different approaches
in terms of chemistry, physics and mechanics, which
have been developed and examined during the course
of this research program, will be presented.
3
2.5
1 wt% clay
2 wt% clay
4 wt% clay
2
1.5
1
0.5
140
160
180
200
220
240
2000
Intensity
1500
30B, 180 C
I30E, 140 C
I30E, 120 C
I30E, 70 C
Nanomer I30E
1000
500
3
2.8
2.6
4 wt% clay
No clay
2.4
2.2
50
6
2 (o)
10
80
110
140
Temperature ( C)
12
3.1
3
4 wt% clay
No clay
2.9
2.8
2.7
60
80
100
120
140
Temperature ( C)
160
180
b
Figure 4. DSC curves of the epoxy and epoxy nanocomposites cured with amine: a) the first scan and b) the
second scan.
2.2
2
Heat flow endo (W/g)
200
170
1.8
1.6
1.4
No clay
4 wt% clay
1.2
1
0.8
50
90
130
170
Temperature ( C)
210
250
Figure 5. DSC curves of the epoxy and epoxy nanocomposites cured with anhydride.
THERMOPLASTIC NANOCOMPOSITES
3.1
Strength
Modulus
2.9
95
2.7
90
2.5
85
100
2.3
PET
pure
65
2.2
Strength
Modulus
60
2
1.8
55
No coupling agent
1.6
50
1.4
45
Effect of intercalant
1.2
PP pure 1% 15A 2% 15A 4% 15A 1% 15A 2% 15A 4% 15A
CONCLUSION
The fabrication of PNCs is a very complicated issue,
which involves the utilization of various principles based
on fundamental chemistry, physics, thermodynamics,
and mechanics. In addition, it is very difficult to apply
general rules to PNC fabrication; instead each individual
case must be specifically reagrded.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge Mr. Y. Simard and Ms. M.
Plourde for the preparation and characterization of the
samples.
REFERENCES
1. M. Alexandre and P. Dubois, Materials Science and
Engineering, 28, 1-63 (2000).
2. L. A. Utracki and M. R. Kamal, Arabian J. Sci. Eng.,
27, 44 (2002).
3. P. B. Messersmith and E. P. Giannelis, Chem.
Mater., 1994, 6, 1719-1725.
4. T. Lan, P. D. Kaviratana, and T. J. Pinnavaia, J.
Phys. Chem. Solids, 1996, 57, 1005-1010.
5. J. M. Brown, D. Curliss, and R. A. Vaia, Chem.
Mater., 2000, 12, 3376-3384.
6. A. S. Zerda and A. J. Lesser, J. Polym. Sci., Polym.
Phys., 2001, 39, 1137-1146.
7. P. Butzloff, N. A. DSouza, T. D. Golden, and D.
Garrett, Polym. Eng. Sci., 2001, 41, 1794.
8. X. Kornmann, H. Lindberg, and L. A. Berglund,
Polymer, 2001, 42, 1303-1310.
9. I.-J. Chin, T. Thurn-Albrecht, H.-C. Kim, T. P. Russell, and J. Wang, Polymer, 2001, 42, 5947-5952.
10. M.-T. Ton-That, K. C. Cole, S. V. Hoa, and D. Shen,
Proc. Fourth Joint Canada-Japan Workshop on
Composites, Vancouver BC, Canada, Sept. 19-21,
2002, pp. 491-499.