Materials Characterization 161 (2020) 110122

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Characterization
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matchar

Microstructure and mechanical properties of Cu-graphene composites T

produced by two high pressure torsion procedures
⁎
Galiia Korznikovaa, , Tomasz Czeppeb, Gulnara Khalikovaa, Dmitry Gunderovc,
Elena Korznikovaa, Lidia Litynska-Dobrzynskab, Maciej Szlezyngerb
a
Institute for Metals Superplasticity Problems, RAS, Khalturin str. 39, 450001 Ufa, Russia
b
Institute of Metallurgy and Materials Sciences, PAS, Reymonta 25 St, 30-059 Krakow, Poland
c
The Institute of Molecule and Crystal Physics, USC RAS, 151 Prospekt Oktyabrya, 450075 Ufa, Russia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: True bulk nanostructured composites promising for a wide range of applications however being difficult to
Cu-graphene composite produce using established engineering techniques. Most of previous works aimed to design of Cu graphene
High pressure torsion composite used the approach of high temperature sintering inevitably associated with growth of Cu grains.
Severe plastic deformation Another advantageous approach of composites consolidation allowing to avoid heating of the sample is shear
Microhardness
deformation under high pressure that has been earlier used for Al – graphene composite. Our work reports the
Tensile strength
first attempt of Al-graphene composite consolidation by means of is high pressure torsion (HPT). Two-step
processing by constrained and non-constrained HPT was applied to produce bulk Cu-graphene composite with
nanoscaled Cu grains laminated by graphene. After the constrained HPT high and low graphene content layers
were interspersed in the microstructure. The second step of not-constrained HPT led to the refinement of gra-
phene agglomerates to the range of 10 nm and Cu grains to the range of 100 nm with quite uniform distribution
of graphene, preserving the equiaxial shape of the grains seldom in case of the composite structure. The process
significantly increased microhardness of Cu-graphene composite from 1450 to 1900 MPa in the edge region after
consolidation with even more pronounced increase from 1900 to 2950 after following constrained HPT.
However, infusion of graphene resulted in a prominent decrease of both ductility from 15 to 4% and strength of
the material. Brittle failure with low value of critical fracture stress should be related to the role of graphene as
an obstacle for the dislocation movement. The dynamic recrystallization in the Cu-graphene composite during
severe plastic deformation by not-constrained HPT suggests also that dispersed graphene may play role in the
dislocation sinking at the micro-grains boundaries. The obtained results contribute to figuring out the major
issues of Cu and graphene interaction under pressure and can be helpful in validation of prospective research
plan in this field.

1. Introduction
In recent years rapid advances in nanotechnology enable the de-
velopment of advanced metal matrix nanocomposites for structural
engineering and applications in functional devices. Development or
enhancement of power electronic devices with increased specific power
and packing density has led to increased requirements for effective heat
dissipating materials with increased strength and ductility as well as
high electric and thermal conductivity. Existing bulk materials are not
always able to meet the requirements of rapidly growing technologies
and in this case a novel class of 2D materials with unique properties
[1–4] can provide new possibilities for different class of applications.
Graphene, having a two-dimensional structure is considered as a good
reinforcing component for composites in order to improve their me-
chanical and functional properties, since graphene has an extremely
high 1 TPa elastic modulus and a yield strength of 130 GPa [5]. Also,
2D graphene has high mobility of ultrahigh-energy carriers
(15,000 cm2 V−1 s−1) [6] alongside with high thermal conductivity
4840–5300 Wm−1 K−1 at room temperature [7,8]. Graphene na-
nosheets revealing unique electrical, mechanical and thermal properties
are attractive reinforcements for fabrication of light weight, high
strength and high performance metal-matrix composites. In fact, at first

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gfkorznikova@gmail.com (G. Korznikova), t.czeppe@imim.pl (T. Czeppe), gulnara.r.khalikova@gmail.com (G. Khalikova),
dimagun@mail.ru (D. Gunderov), elena.a.korznikova@gmail.com (E. Korznikova), l.litynska@imim.pl (L. Litynska-Dobrzynska),
m.szlezynger@imim.pl (M. Szlezynger).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2020.110122
Received 9 October 2019; Received in revised form 4 January 2020; Accepted 5 January 2020
Available online 10 January 2020
1044-5803/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
G. Korznikova, et al.
little attention was focused on graphene reinforced metal matrix com-
posites (MMC) while a significant improvement was achieved for
polymer-matrix composites due to the superior thermal conductivity of
graphene and its effect on increasing thermal stability of polymers
[9,10]. There are many reasons for the further development of metal-
graphene composites [11,12]. Recently, copper-carbon composites with
a number of different reinforcements have been considered as very
promising for the inventing a new generation of management materials
in power electronics, since thermal expansion coefficient of these
composites is compatible with the material of chips [6]. In [13,14] the
reversed anisotropic behavior between thermal conductivity and coef-
ficient of thermal expansion as a function of graphene nanosheets
fraction was reported revealing the nontrivial dependence of the com-
posite properties on its structure and composition. However, the im-
portant problems in the synthesis of the MMCs exist, associated with the
poor dispersion of the graphene in the matrix and weak interfacial
bonding. In a result the graphene MMC composites appear to be
strengthened only slightly. In a recent work of Chu et al. [15] it was
shown that introduction of defects in the initial graphene structure can
enhance the interfacial adhesion of graphene with Cu matrix thus as-
sisting in fair improvement of the final product. Another effective tool
of governing the properties of carbon based materials was reported to
be chemical doping [16].
Different processing methods can be used to synthesize graphene-
metal composites, namely: chemical or mechanical mixing of graphene
with metals, reduction of graphene oxide to the graphene subsequent to
the chemical mixing and electrodeposition [11,17,18]. The methods of
bulk MMCs fabrication usually consist of two steps: mixing of the
processed powders and consolidation of them. Different types of severe
plastic deformation (SPD) as high pressure torsion, cold drawing, equal-
channel angular pressing etc. have recently been used for the second
step of MMCs consolidation and final fabrication [19–23]. The SPD
processing supplies a possibility to obtain bulk samples with a nano-
crystalline structure, without pores and contamination. Introducing a
high equivalent strain the SPD process with no temperature increase,
which might lead to the oxidation of graphene and metallic matrix can
be used to eliminate defects and to improve distribution of the nano-
scale reinforcements in MMCs. The application of the SPD processes for
preparation of the carbon nanotubes (CNTs) reinforced Al, Mg and Cu
matrix composites has been widely reported in [20,22,23], while few
reports concentrated on the graphene reinforced MMCs [24].
The paper presents results of the investigations concerning micro-
structure and properties of Cu-graphene composites produced by con-
solidation of the copper plates with graphene layers by the direct use of
the two step processing by high pressure torsion (HPT). For the com-
parison, consolidated samples of pure Cu plates with no graphene ad-
dition were investigated as well.
2. Experimental procedure: materials and processing
The applied method of the Cu-graphene MMC processing consisted
of several steps. The copper matrix was composed of thin sheets. The
sheets were produced from the pieces of hot rolled Cu of the 99.9%
purity by rolling at room temperature. The final thickness of the sheets
was 80 μm. After rolling, the sheets were subjected to the annealing at
450 °C during 30 min, which resulted in a completely recrystallized Cu
structure [25]. Next, round-shaped plates with a diameter of 20 mm
were cut by spark erosion from the thin sheets. Finally, 20 round plates
poured into graphene were stacked and deformed by means of the
constrained HPT. In the HPT processing the grooved Bridgman anvils
20 mm in diameter, 6 GPa pressure and 10 revolutions were applied.
The fraction of graphene in the samples was about 1 wt%. For com-
parison, an additional set of 20 Cu plates was processed in the same
way but without graphene. During deformation processing some copper
was expelled. Final thickness of the achieved disc shaped samples was
1 mm while the diameter was 20 mm (Fig. 1a). At the end of the
2
Materials Characterization 161 (2020) 110122
processing the supplementary deformation was performed by the non-
constrained HPT. This time the flat anvils with a diameter of 10 mm and
the same pressure of P = 6 GPa and revolutions reduced to 5 were
applied.
The graphene used in the MMC production was supplied by the
Angstron Mat.N006-010P, being the mixture of the graphene and nano-
graphite, with the sheets of lateral dimensions 50–90 nm, containing
1–4 layers [26] (Fig. 1b).
The microstructure was analysed by scanning electron microscope
Tescan Mira 3LMH at the cross sections of the samples in BSE mode.
EBSD analysis was carried out on the same scanning electron micro-
scope using the OXFORD HKL Channel 5 microanalysis system.
Further the microstructure was investigated by the transmission
electron and scanning transmission electron microscopy (TEM, STEM)
and composition was analysed by the EDX system. The TECNAI FEI, G2
FEG/200 kV equipped with EDS Phoenix (EDAX comp.) microscope was
used. The thin foils were prepared with use of the focused ion beam
system (FIB) from the cross-section of the disc-samples.
The microhardness was measured by the Vickers method, using the
instrument AFFRI DM8A “Micromet 5101” with a diamond indenter (a
pyramid with an apex angle of 136°), under a load of 1 N (100 g) and
with the load holding time of 10 s. The surface of the samples for the
microhardness measurements was prepared by polishing with the dia-
mond paste AFM 5/3.
For the tensile tests special installation reported previously in [27]
was used. The photo of the equipment is given on Fig. 1c. The speci-
mens for the tensile tests were cut by electric-spark erosion at half the
radius of the sample that corresponds to the equivalent deformation
[9]. Scheme of cutting is shown on Fig. 1d. The working part of the
samples had dimensions of 1 × 0.25 × 4 mm, the tests were performed
at room temperature with the strain rate of 1 × 10−3 s−1 until fracture
of the sample. The traverse movement is detected by an optical sensor
with an accuracy of 3 mkm. The accuracy of load registration was 1%.
3. Results and discussion
The microstructures at the cross section of both samples, composite
and Cu after constrained HPT processing are presented in Fig. 2. The
samples were homogenous, without visible pores and other defects. In
the Cu-sample not containing graphene, traces of interfaces between
the original sheets were preserved also after the processing (Fig. 2a).
They remained straight, while the thickness of the plates was half of
that of the plates before the constrained HPT deformation (Fig. 2a). In
the case of as-fabricated Cu-graphene composite (Fig. 2b), the traces of
interfaces between the plates were not visible, while a layered structure
with curved dark layers indicates a significant redistribution of the
graphene between the copper layers. However, also in this case the
macro-structure of the composite remains quite homogenous. Such
morphology as for the Cu-graphene composite is typically caused by
instabilities of the interfaces between dissimilar metals induced by the
HPT processing [29]. In the presented composition of materials the
wavy microstructure suggests that the instability of interfaces may be
introduced also by the different concentration of the graphene at the
metallic Cu layers modifying its local micro-hardness.
SEM microstructures of the both samples revealing the band struc-
ture in the case of the Cu-graphene composite are presented in Fig. 3. As
is visible in Fig. 3b, at high magnifications, the dark bands in Fig. 2b
consist of graphene agglomerates in the copper matrix. The distribution
of graphene is generally uniform in individual bands, nevertheless some
bands reviled increased or decreased graphene content. This may be
caused by the chemical interaction between the pure Cu and free bonds
in graphene sheets. May be, more homogeneous distribution of gra-
phene could be achieved by higher degree of deformation. The grain
structure of copper was revealed in both samples. After constrained
HPT processing the grains of copper in both samples are almost
equiaxial, about 300 nm in dimensions, not elongated in the stress
G. Korznikova, et al. Materials Characterization 161 (2020) 110122

a b

d
c

Fig. 1. The samples of Cu/graphene laminated composite (left) and pure Cu (right) produced by the constrained HPT (a). The structure of the used flakes of
multilayer graphene (b). General view of tensile test machine (c) and scheme of test samples cutting from HPT processed discs (d).

a b
Fig. 2. The microstructures of the constrained HPT processed samples (a) pure Cu foils and (b) Cu-graphene composite.

3
G. Korznikova, et al. Materials Characterization 161 (2020) 110122

a b
Fig. 3. SEM microstructure of the samples after constrained HPT processing: (a) pure Cu and (b) Cu-graphene composite.

d = 304 ± 6 nm d = 292 ± 8 nm
a b
Fig. 4. EBSD maps of the samples after constrained HPT: (a) pure Cu and (b) Cu-graphene composite.

Table 1 direction, as could be expected after HPT deformation. The EBSD

Comparison of the microhardness of the samples Cu and Cu-graphene compo- analysis (Fig. 4) confirms that the size of the Cu equiaxial grains in both
site subjected to the constrained HPT processing, measured at the cross-section samples after constrained HPT consolidation was about 300 nm. The
(Fig. 1a, b). grains' looks also recrystallized.
Place at the section (Fig. 2a, b) Sample Microhardness, МPа Microhardness measurements for the samples after constrained HPT
were carried out on the cross sections (Fig. 2a). Taking into account
Top/edge, r = R Cu 1440 that shear strain in the deformation by the HPT increases with the
Cu-graphene 1870
Middle/centre, r = 0 Cu 1410
diameter and achieves minimum value in the centre and maximum at
Cu-graphene 1850 the edge of the sample, the measurements were made both in the
Bottom/edge, r = R Cu 1460 centre, (r = 0) and at the very edge (r = R). As illustrate the traces of
Cu-graphene 1900 the measurements visible in Fig. 2a, b, microhardness was measured
from the bottom to the top of the cross section. The distribution of the
microhardness was found to be inhomogeneous through the thickness
of the Cu-graphene sample and rather homogeneous in the case of the
Cu-pure sample. The results of microhardness measurements after

4
G. Korznikova, et al. Materials Characterization 161 (2020) 110122

a b
Fig. 5. The structure of the samples of pure Cu (a) and Cu-graphene composite after additional non-constrained HPT processing.

constrained HPT are presented in Table 1. It should be remembered that
for the Cu-graphene composite the table shows the HV data for bands
containing a high graphene content.
As results from the Table 1 in the edge regions of the disc samples,
microhardness is only slightly higher than in the central area (r = 0),
which clearly proves similar deformation hardening process in the case
of the constrained HPT deformation process. The difference of the mi-
crohardness between the Cu and Cu graphene samples is remarkable,
about 30%, both in the centre and in the edge regions (r = R). Some
microhardness variation at the similarly located points at the cross
–sections visible for both samples are insignificant, in the range of 2%.
Thus, the process of constrained HPT performed on the Cu-graphene
composite, processed at P = 6 GPa, with 10 revolutions of anvils
supplied very homogeneous sample both from the point of view of the
microstructure and microhardness.
In an attempt to achieve further remarkable increase in micro-
hardness the non-constrained HPT processing was applied to the ma-
terial cut from the constrained HPT samples. For this process flat anvils
with diameter of 10 mm and the same hydrostatic pressure P = 6 GPa
were used but less, 5 revolutions was applied.
This step of processing supplied the samples of the thickness of
about 100 nm. The optical microstructures are shown in Fig. 5 while
SEM microstructures in Fig. 6. As can be seen from Fig. 6a, after ad-
ditional HPT processing, in the pure Cu sample the grain size decreased
and shape of the grains became strongly elongated. In difference, the
additional deformation of Cu-graphene composite resulted in dis-
appearance of the separated bands (Fig. 6b). The distribution of gra-
pheme became quite uniform, the average dimensions of the graphene
agglomerates decreased, while their amount increased. The additional
processing introduced remarkable refinement both of the Cu grains and
of graphene agglomerates (Fig. 6b).
The microstructure and composition of the composite sample was
investigated by the STEM and TEM as well. The STEM microstructure
and analysis from the area are shown in Fig. 7a, b.
The microstructure reveals gray and white areas related to the Cu
grains and dark areas related to the carbon-rich agglomerates. The EDX
analysis confirmed that only two elements are present in the processed
sample: Cu matrix and some small amount of C, roughly estimated to be
about 1.5 wt%. The TEM microstructures registered in the techniques of
bright and dark field (BF and DF respectively) and selected area dif-
fraction pattern (SADP) are shown in Figs. 8, 9 and 10. The SADP
(Figs. 8c, 10c) has continuous ring type character confirming very
dispersed structure of the Cu matrix, while all the plane distances cal-
culated from the SADP (Fig. 10c) fits to the elemental Cu. In the BF
microstructures shown in Figs. 8a and 9a the dark and gray Cu grains
are visible as well as white graphene agglomerates. In the DF micro-
structures from the same places the bright grains are Cu grains re-
spectful to the SADP. The DF technique confirms nearly equiaxial shape

a b
Fig. 6. The SEM microstructure of the samples of pure Cu (a) and Cu-graphene composite after additional HPT processing.

5
G. Korznikova, et al. Materials Characterization 161 (2020) 110122

a b
Fig. 7. STEM microstructure (a) and the composition analysis (b) from the area marked in (a) on the cross-section of the Cu-graphene composite after the final non-
constrained HPT processing.

of the grains, while the microstructures in Fig. 10 confirm formation of
the very small graphene agglomerates in the range of 10 nm as well as
nano-twins in the Cu matrix.
In Figs. 11–12 the HREM images of the Cu grains and graphene
particles are visible.
In Fig. 11a two variants of twins in the Cu grains are visible while in
the Fig. 11b the graphene particle passed by one variant of nano-twins
may be noticed. The straight twin boundaries indicate that the gra-
phene nano-platelets are embedded inside the twinned Cu grain in
agreement with [30]. The HREM image of an individual nano-particle
of graphene is shown in Fig. 12. While the plane distance of 0.21 nm fits
to the Cu (111) planes, the distance 0.31 nm between crystallographic
planes in the locally ordered domains in graphene particle is related to
the (0001) planes along Z axis in graphene structure [30].

a b

c
Fig. 8. TEM microstructure and SADP from the Cu-graphene composite sample processed by the non-constrained HPT: (a) BF, (b) DF technique, (c) SADP confirming
polycrystalline structure of the matrix.

6
G. Korznikova, et al. Materials Characterization 161 (2020) 110122

a b
Fig. 9. TEM microstructure and SADP from the Cu-graphene composite sample processed by the non-constrained HPT in large magnification: (a) BF technique, (b) DF
technique.

As previously, the microhardness measurements after additional
HPT were carried out on the cross sections of both samples in the
central and edge areas. The results are presented in Table 2. As results
the additional non-constrained HPT processing of the Cu-graphene
composite led to the significant increase in microhardness, from
1900 MPa after constrained HPT to almost 3000 MPa in the edge region
and from the 1850 MPa up to 2300 MPa at the centre of the sample. In
the case of Cu sample the hardness increased largely but less than for
the Cu-graphene composite, from 1460 MPa at the edge to 1900 MPa
and at the centre from 1410 MPa to 1820 MPa. The heterogeneity of the
distribution of microhardness is due to the fact that the degree of strain
in case of HPT is in direct proportion to the radius and increases when
moving from centre to the edge of the sample [28].
The values of the microhardness of Cu-pure are noticeably lower
than in Cu-graphene sample after similar double HPT. Thus, the addi-
tion of graphene markedly increased the ability of Cu to deformation

a b

c
Fig. 10. TEM microstructure and SADP of the Cu-graphene composite sample processed by the non-constrained HPT in large magnification, BF, the same area in a
smaller (a) and larger (b) magnifications and SADP (c).

7
G. Korznikova, et al. Materials Characterization 161 (2020) 110122

a b
Fig. 11. HREM images and FFFT's (inserts) of the nano-twins in the Cu-graphene composite grains interaction with the graphene nano-platelet. (a) and (b) [011] zone
axis, twinning planes {111}.

The results are shown in Fig. 13. As visible, the Cu sample reveals yield
stress of about 500 MPa, followed by the plastic flow up to 16% of
elongation where the fracture took place at about 440 MPa stress to
fracture (Fig. 13a). A completely different behaviour revealed the
composite Cu-graphene (Fig. 13b). In this case no range of the plastic
deformation may be noticed while the critical fracture stress is as low as
about 250 MPa and the final elongation before fracture about 4%. Such
tensile properties as well as high hardness are typical for the ceramic or
glassy materials, e.g. bulk metallic glasses.
The fracture surfaces shown in Fig. 14 confirm the results of the
tensile tests, revealing plastic fracture morphology for the Cu sample
and the brittle fracture morphology for the Cu-graphene composite
sample after additional HPT processing.
As results from the tensile tests, inclusions of the graphene filler
processed by intensive deformation change the dominant deformation
mechanism of the Cu matrix. The graphene agglomerates spread be-
tween very refined Cu grains after the HPT processing become an ob-
stacles to the intergranular dislocation slip, which results in a brittle
fracture mechanism. Enhanced dislocation obstruction in nanolami-
nated graphene-Cu composite has recently been revealed by stress re-
laxation experiments [31]. In [32] authors performed a molecular dy-
namics study revealing that Cu/graphene interface can serve as a
resource for dislocation emission due to high stress concentrated on the
interface caused by lattice mismatch and shear modulus mismatch be-
Fig. 12. HREM: the graphene nano-platelet in the Cu-graphene composite tween Cu and graphene. Another important issue is the fact that dis-
grains. The planes distances marked.
locations are not able to penetrate through Cu/graphene interface and
only steps are left on the interface which results in high stress con-
Table 2 centration on the interface [32]. Mentioned fact can explain the de-
The microhardness of Cu-pure and Cu-graphene composite samples subjected to crease of total flow stress in the composite by comparison to pure Cu
additional non-constrained HPT processing. case and change the fracture type from viscous to the brittle one.
Microhardness, МPа A further reduction of the size of graphene agglomerates and
probably also more uniform distribution in the matrix could more ef-
Edge, r = R Centre, r = 0 fectively pin the grain boundaries, and therefore significantly reduce
matrix grain size. Moreover, easy intergranular dislocation movement
Cu/graphene composite 2950 2340
Cu 1900 1820 due to the very fine distribution of small graphene particles would in-
crease the tendency for dynamic recrystallization, and raise ultimate
strength.
harden during HPT.
To establish differences in deformation ability of the samples, a 4. Summary and conclusions
tensile test was performed on the Cu-pure and Cu-graphene composite
samples after the final step of processing that is not-constrained HPT. Bulk Cu-graphene composite with very dispersed Cu grains

8
G. Korznikova, et al. Materials Characterization 161 (2020) 110122

Fig. 13. Tensile tests for the samples of pure Cu (a) and Cu-graphene composite after additional non-constrained HPT processing.

laminated by graphene was obtained by the two steps of processing
including constrained and non-constrained HPT. After the constrained
HPT high and low graphene content layers were interspersed while the
consolidated sample of Cu plates without graphene demonstrated si-
milar grain size about 300 nm. The Cu grains were equiaxial and re-
crystallized in both cases. However a significant increase of micro-
hardness has been observed rising from 1410 MPa up to 1850 MPa at
the centre of the sample and from 1460 MPa to 1900 MPa in the edge
part.
The second step of not-constrained HPT led to the refinement of
graphene agglomerates and Cu grains and quite uniform distribution of
graphene preserving the equiaxial shape of the grains seldom in the
case of the composite structure. The process significantly increased
microhardness of Cu-graphene composite from 1900 to 2950 MPa in
the sample edge, however greatly decreasing both ductility and
strength of the material. In a result tensile tests demonstrated brittle
failure with low value of critical fracture stress of Cu-graphene com-
posite at room temperature what should be related to the role of gra-
phene as an obstacle for the dislocation movement. The dynamic re-
crystallization in the Cu-graphene composite during not-constrained
intensive deformation by HPT suggests also that dispersed graphene
may play role in the dislocation sinking at the micro-grains boundaries.
This conclusion is supported by previously reported results of molecular
dynamics simulation where it was shown that nucleation of dislocations
is facilitated on Cu-graphene boundaries thus decreasing the total flow
stress of the material [32].
The results are not trivial and require further study with use of the
Raman spectroscopy and grains surface layer investigation methods like
XPS as well as control of the graphene quality and content, allowing the
systematic study of the influence of graphene characteristics on the
physical and mechanical properties of the composites.
In conclusion, one can mention that the effect of graphene infusion
in Cu matrix on mechanical properties is quite ambiguous because
several issues contribute to the overall strength of the material. For
instance in both experimental [13,33] and simulation works [32,35,36]
increase of mechanical characteristics of the material was reported.
However, a detailed analysis allow us to conclude that in all above
listed works the precipitation hardening coming from graphene inclu-
sions is the main source responsible for increasing the strength of the
material. Thus in [15] authors report the 30–40% increase to
200–250 MPa of flow stress in Cu-graphene based composite by com-
parison to 180 MPa in the case of unreinforced Cu. In our work the
initial strength of the material is about 500 MPa due to high density of
strain induced defects, internal strains and contaminations of the initial
Cu powder. In this case the mechanism of the material softening caused
by facilitated the formation of dislocations [32] contributes to more

a b
Fig. 14. Fracture surfaces after tensile tests for the samples after additional HPT processing: (a) Cu sample and (b) Cu-graphene composite.

9
G. Korznikova, et al.
than double decrease of flow stress. However, in practical issues, the
question of thermal stability is a very important point and one can
suppose that the structural stability of the composite material will be
much higher than that of pure Cu thus providing the sustainability of its
properties.
In [32,34–36] it was shown that beside mechanical effect additions
of graphene can result in the increase of thermal and electrical prop-
erties of the material which is also an important aspect for applications.
Probably in case of Cu having a lot of applications connected to its high
conductivity characteristics a separate set of studies aimed on finding a
balanced Cu-graphene composite material with reasonable combina-
tions of physical and mechanical properties and enhanced thermal
stability could be performed.
Finally the work presents a pioneering study of Cu-graphene com-
posite obtained by high pressure torsion and provides novel issues in
understanding the mechanisms of strain induced materials interaction
and formation of composites with enhanced properties.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The investigations were realized in frame of the scientific coopera-
tion agreement between IMMS PAS and IMSP RAS for years 2018–2023.
The present work was supported by the state assignment of IMSP RAS in
the part concerning microhardness measurements, mechanical tests and
SEM studies. TEM experiments were performed in the Accredited
Laboratories of IMMS PAS. EAK is grateful for financial support to
Russian Foundation for Basic Research, grant No 18-32-20158.
Data availability
The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings cannot
be shared at this time as the data also forms part of an ongoing study.
References
[1] C. Lee, X. Wei, J.W. Kysar, J. Hone, Measurement of the elastic properties and
intrinsic strength of monolayer graphene, Science 321 (2008) 385–388.
[2] M. Pumera, Z. Sofer, 2D monoelemental arsenene, antimonene, and bismuthene:
beyond black phosphorus, Adv. Mater. 29 (2017) 1605299.
[3] L. Bai, N. Srikanth, E.A. Korznikova, J.A. Baimova, S.V. Dmitriev, K. Zhou, Wear
and friction between smooth or rough diamond-like carbon films and diamond tips,
Wear 372–373 (2017) 12–20.
[4] B. Liu, L. Bai, E.A. Korznikova, S.V. Dmitriev, A.W.-K. Law, K. Zhou, Thermal
conductivity and tensile response of phosphorene nanosheets with vacancy defects,
J. Phys. Chem. C 121 (2017) 13876–13887.
[5] A.V. Savin, E.A. Korznikova, S.V. Dmitriev, Simulation of folded and scrolled
packings of carbon nanoribbons, Phys. Solid State 57 (2015) 2348–2355, https://
doi.org/10.1134/S1063783415110293.
[6] X.M. Li, L. Tao, Z.F. Chen, H. Fang, X.S. Li, X.R. Wang, J.B. Xu, H.W. Zhu, Graphene
and related two-dimensional materials: structure-property relationships for elec-
tronics and optoelectronics, Appl. Phys. Rev. 4 (2017) 021306.
[7] A.A. Balandin, S. Ghosh, W. Bao, I. Calizo, D. Teweldebrhan, F. Miao, C.N. Lau,
Superior thermal conductivity of graphene, Nano Lett. 8 (2008) 902.
[8] S. Ghosh, I. Calizo, D. Teweldebrhan, E.P. Pokatilov, D.L. Nika, A.A. Baladin,
W. Bao, F. Miao, C.N. Lau, Extremely high thermal conductivity of graphene: pro-
spects for thermal management applications in nanoelectronic circuits, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 92 (2008) 151911.
[9] X. Yang, Z. Wang, M. Xu, R. Zhao, X. Liu, Dramatic mechanical and thermal in-
crements of thermoplastic composites by multi-scale synergetic reinforcement:
carbon fiber and graphene nanoplatelet, Mater. Des. 44 (2013) 74–80.
[10] M.E. Achaby, A. Qaiss, Processing and properties of polyethylene reinforced by
10
Materials Characterization 161 (2020) 110122
graphene nanosheets and carbon nanotubes, Mater. Des. 44 (2013) 81–89.
[11] S.C. Tjong, Recent progress in the development and properties of novel metal ma-
trix nanocomposites reinforced with carbon nanotubes and graphene nanosheets,
Mater. Sci. Eng. R 74 (10) (2013) 281–350.
[12] D. Zhang, Z. Zhan, Strengthening effect of graphene derivatives in copper matrix
composites, J. Alloys Compd. 654 (2016) 226–233.
[13] K. Chu, X. Wang, Y. Li, D. Huang, Z. Geng, X. Zhao, H. Liu, H. Zhang, Thermal
properties of graphene/metal composites with aligned graphene, Mater. Des. 140
(2018) 85–94.
[14] K. Chu, X. Wang, F. Wang, Y. Li, D. Huang, H. Liu, W. Ma, F. Liu, H. Zhang, Largely
enhanced thermal conductivity of graphene/copper composites with highly aligned
graphene network, Carbon 127 (2018) 102–112.
[15] K. Chu, J. Wang, Y. Liu, Z. Geng, Graphene defect engineering for optimizing the
interface and mechanical properties of graphene/copper composites, Carbon 140
(2018) 112–123.
[16] J.-G. Wang, H. Liu, H. Sun, W. Hua, H. Wang, X. Liu, B. Wei, One-pot synthesis of
nitrogen-doped ordered mesoporous carbon spheres for high-rate and long-cycle life
supercapacitors, Carbon 127 (2018) 85–92.
[17] A.M. Xavior, P.H.G. Kumar, Processing and characterization techniques of graphene
reinforced metal matrix composites (GRMMC); a review, Mater. Today: Proceedings
4 (2) (2017) 3334–3341.
[18] C.L.P. Pavithra, B.V. Sarada, K.V. Rajulapati, T.N. Rao, G. Sundararajan, A new
electrochemical approach for the synthesis of copper-graphene nanocomposite foils
with high hardness, Sci. Rep. 4 (2014) 4049.
[19] Y. Xue, B. Jiang, L. Bourgeois, P. Dai, M. Mitome, C. Zhang, M. Yamaguchi,
A. Matveev, C. Tang, Y. Bando, K. Tsuchiya, D. Golberg, Aluminum matrix com-
posites reinforced with multi-walled boron nitride nanotubes fabricated by a high-
pressure torsion technique, Mater. Des. 88 (2015) 451–460.
[20] M.R. Akbarpour, M. Farvizi, D.J. Lee, H. Rezaei, H.S. Kim, Effect of high-pressure
torsion on the microstructure and strengthening mechanisms of hot-consolidated
Cu–CNT nanocomposite, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 638 (2015) 289–295.
[21] J. Li, X. Zhang, L. Geng, Improving graphene distribution and mechanical properties
of GNP/Al composites by cold drawing, Mater. Des. 144 (2018) 159–168.
[22] H. Zare, M. Jahedi, M.R. Toroghinejad, M. Meratian, M. Knezevic, Microstructure
and mechanical properties of carbon nanotubes reinforced aluminum matrix com-
posites synthesized via equal-channel angular pressing, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 670
(2016) 205–216.
[23] S. Suarez, F. Lasserre, F. Soldera, R. Pippan, F. Mücklich, Microstructural thermal
stability of CNT-reinforced composites processed by severe plastic deformation,
Mater. Sci. Eng. A 626 (2015) 122–127.
[24] T. Czeppe, E. Korznikova, P. Ozga, M. Wrobel, L. Litinska-Dobrzynska,
G.F. Korznikova, A.W. Korznikov, P. Czaja, R. Socha, Composition and micro-
structure of the Al-multilayer grapheme composites achieved by intensive de-
formation, Acta Polonica A 126 (4) (2014) 921–927.
[25] T. Konkova, S. Mironov, A. Korznikov, M.M. Myshlyaev, S.L. Semiatin, Annealing
behavior of cryogenically-rolled copper, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 585 (2013) 178–189.
[26] J. Dutkiewicz, P. Ozga, W. Maziarz, P. Pstrus, B. Kania, P. Bobrowski, J. Stolarska,
Microstructure and properties of bulk copper matrix composites strengthen with
various kinds of graphene nanoplatelets, Mater. Sci. Eng. 628 (2015) 124–134.
[27] R.Z. Valiev, D.V. Gunderov, A.V. Lukyanov, V.G. Pushin, Mechanical behavior of
nanocrystalline TiNi alloy produced by severe plastic deformation, J. Mater. Sci. 47
(22) (2012) 7848–7853.
[28] E.A. Korznikova, S.Y. Mironov, A.V. Korznikov, A.P. Zhilyaev, T.G. Langdon,
Microstructural evolution and electro-resistivity in HPT nickel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A
556 (2012) 437–445.
[29] R. Kulagin, Y. Beygelzimer, Yu. Ivanisenko, A. Mazilkin, B. Straumal, H. Hahn,
Instabilities of interfaces between dissimilar metals induced by high pressure tor-
sion, Mater. Lett. 222 (2018) 172–175.
[30] Lian-Yi Chen, H. Konishi, A. Fehrenbacher, Chao Ma, Xu Jia-Quan, H. Choi, Xu Hui-
Fang, F.E. Pfefferkorn, Xiao-Chun Li, Novel processing route for bulk graphene
nanoplatelets reinforced metal matrix nanocomposites, Scr. Mater. 67 (2012)
29–32.
[31] Z. Li, L. Zhao, Q. Guo, Z. Li, G. Fan, C. Guo, D. Zhang, Enhanced dislocation ob-
struction in nanolaminated graphene/Cu composite as revealed by stress relaxation
experiments, Scr. Mater. 131 (2017) 67–71.
[32] S. Weng, H. Ning, T. Fu, N. Hu, Y. Zhao, C. Huang, X. Peng, Molecular dynamics
study of strengthening mechanism of nanolaminated graphene/Cu composites
under compression, Sci. Rep. 8 (2018) 3089.
[33] P. Goli, H. Ning, X. Li, C.Y. Lu, K.S. Novoselov, A.A. Balandin, Thermal properties of
graphene–copper–graphene heterogeneous films, Nano Lett. 14 (2014) 1497–1503.
[34] Y. Zhang, T. Gao, Y. Gao, S. Xie, Q. Ji, K. Yan, H. Peng, Z. Liu, Defect-like structures
of graphene on copper foils for strain relief investigated by high-resolution scanning
tunneling microscopy, ACS Nano. 5 (5) (2011) 4014–4022, https://doi.org/10.
1021/nn200573v.
[35] W. Peng, K. Sun, Effects of Cu/graphene interface on the mechanical properties of
multilayer Cu/graphene composites, Mech. Mater. 141 (2020) 103270.
[36] Q. Zhang, Y. Liu, T. Liao, C. Zhang, X. Wu, Y. Liu, M.S. Qurashi, F. Zheng, Q. Song,
P. Han, Graphene/Cu composites: electronic and mechanical properties by first-
principles calculation, Mater. Chem. Phys. 231 (2019) 188–195.