Modification of impact strength of polycarbonate composites with carbon nanotubes Prashant Jindal1*, Rajesh Kumar1, Prince Sharma2, Pradeep

Chandel2, Vikas Mangla2, Shailaja Pande3, Anisha Chaudhary3, B P Singh3, R B Mathur3, Meenakshi Goyal4 and V K Rattan4
1

University Institute of Engineering & Technology, Panjab University, Chandigarh-160014, INDIA

2

Gun Group, Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory, Sector-30, Chandigarh, INDIA

Carbon Technology Unit, Division of Engineering Materials, National Physical Laboratory, Dr. K.S. Krishnan Marg, New Delhi, 110012, INDIA

University Institute of Chemical Engineering & Technology, Panjab University, Chandigarh160014, INDIA

Abstract:A polymer based polycarbonate material has been used as base material to form composites using varying concentrations of carbon nanotubes (CNT) and subjected to impact to determine its dynamic strength. Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar was deployed as the instrument for impact testing of all these samples. It has been found, that a CNT concentration of around 0.5% is enough to enhance the impact strength of the polycarbonate by about 10% at a true strain of 25%. There are some other interesting features at lesser concentrations. We have also studied these composites under varying strain rates to study changes in their true stress-strain curve. The effect of concentration on impact strength has been analyzed by studying the SEM images. Keywords:A. Carbon Nanotubes; B. Impact behavior; B. stress/strain curves

Introduction:-

Light weight and impact resistant composite materials are being extensively studied under high and variable loading conditions so that they can be used on large scale to manufacture shields, jackets, resistant surfaces, shock and impact absorbers etc. [1, 2] Composites like graphite, PMMA and epoxy laminates have been tested over the past few years for their static and dynamic strengths[3-7]. The applications of such materials can be wide, depending on their load bearing capacity. Dynamic loading with large variation of strain rate applied to different composite has been discussed and published widely over the past decade or so [5 -7]. Generally, dynamic strength of such materials increases with increase in strain rate. Although, Hosur et al[5] report some deviations in this general behavior where the dynamic strength has been observed to fall after certain strain rate in some materials. Additionally, effect of direction of loading, geometry of specimen fibers, angular orientation of laminates and type of fracture for carbon/epoxy laminate composites on the stress strain behavior has also been studied. At smaller angles of orientation of laminates the impact strength is much higher at strain rates of nearly 1000/s or even higher. Laminates loaded along 00 possess higher impact strengths than the ones loaded along 900 under dynamic strain rates of nearly 800/s [5, 6].W. Chen et al [7] has worked on Epon and PMMA to find true stress strain variation under tensile and compressive loading and showed that dynamic strength for PMMA is nearly 110MPa for strain rates varying in the region of 3300/s and for Epon its 175MPa at a strain rate of 2500/s. However, it has been stressed that more varied database is needed to have a consensus on the pattern of the results.

Among the thermoplastic group of polymers, polycarbonates have attracted a great deal of attention due to their ability to be easily worked upon and mould ability. Their capability to resist temperature and impact makes them a common application material in house wares, laboratories and industries. A modification in their properties to suit specific requirements is an interesting proposition.

Ever since the synthesis of carbon nanotubes [8] and study that followed exploring mechanical and structural properties of carbon nanotubes [9-11], there has been wide ranging interests in scientific and engineering communities to exploit these for varying applications. The unusual mechanical strength of the carbon nanotubes revealing them as about 100 times stronger than steel motivates to fabricate and modify useful materials which are cheaply available in bulk form by embedding in these carbon nanotubes in various forms to make composites which have desired mechanical properties.

M. Kwiatowaska et al [12] have used thermal analysis techniques like dynamic mechanical thermal analysis (DMTA) and Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC) to find changes in mechanical properties of pure PBT and its composite with different concentrations of Carbon Nanotubes. DMTA results show change in elastic modulus with rise in temperature. At temperatures above 750C the modulus for pure PBT is about 30% lower than PBT with 0.2%CNT. The stress-strain curve also depicts higher stress for PBT-CNT composite than pure PBT.

We have chosen to exploit the useful properties of polycarbonates in combination with high strength of Carbon Nanotubes by making their composites, and hence analyze their dynamic properties. We fabricated polycarbonate composites with various concentrations of CNTs and subjected them to high strain rate impact using Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB).

Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar is a very useful equipment to study the behavior of materials under impact loading in the lab [13]. One obtains stress- strain behaviour of the specimen when subjected to impact or dynamic loading. Specimen undergoes a strain rate of 100 to 10,000/s by using this instrument and the specimen in the form of a disc has a diameter range between 10 to 20mm and thickness range between 5 to 10mm. Although the details of working of split Hopkinson bar set up are widely available in literature [14], however for the sake of clarity and completeness, we reproduce the main features here. The SHPB apparatus consists of two long slender bars as we call them input and output bars that sandwich a short specimen between them. A block diagram of a typical SHPB is shown in Fig. 1.

Strain measuring Gauge A

Strain measuring Gauge B

Striker/Projectile

Input Bar

Specimen

Output Bar

Fig.1 represents a schematic block diagram of Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar

High gas pressure usually acts as a source of impact which propels a projectile or a striker which is used to strike one end of the input bar. A compressive stress wave is generated that immediately begins to traverse towards the specimen. When this wave hits the specimen, it partially gets transmitted through it and reaches the output bar while some part is reflected back in the input bar. Usually, an irreversible plastic deformation is caused in the specimen due to this complete process which lasts less than a millisecond. The reflected pulse is reflected as a wave in tension or compression, whereas the transmitted pulse remains opposite to the reflected pulse which is based on the impedance of the sample. The wave signal measurements are done with the help of strain gauges A (measuring incident and reflected components) and B (measuring transmitted component) attached on the input and output bars respectively. The waves are a measure of strains which are calibrated to find stress and strain in the specimen.

The incident strain ( ) and reflected strain ( as:-

) add algebraically to transmitted strain ( )

(1) The force on specimen ( ) due the impact of striker on input bar is the mean of force on the ) and force on the interface of specimen-output bar ( )

interface of specimen-input bar ( as

(2)

Stress on the specimen ( area of the specimen (

) is related to force on the specimen through the cross sectional /4) facing the input bar as:-

(3)

Force expression on input and output bars can also be written in the form of elastic modulus (E), strains and diameter ( ) of the bars.

(4)

(5)

These equations result in relationship of stress in the specimen to the transmitted strain as

(6)

Similarly the strain rate in the specimen (ds/dt) is related to the wave velocity ( ) inside the bar, transmitted strain and length ( ) of the bar [14] as

(7) The strain gauges pick the transmitted and reflected strains and hence generate the stress strain curves based on above equations. Strain can be calculated from equation (7) by integrating over the time period of impact. In the subsequent sections we focus on our experimental procedure, present results using SPHB, and topography images of impacted and un impacted samples of varying concentrations. Finally, discussion and conclusion has been presented.

2. Experimental

2.1 Synthesis of MWCNT Multi walled carbon nanotubes(MWCNT) were synthesized by thermal decomposition of toluene in presence of iron catalyst obtained from organometallic ferrocene. The details of the experimental set up are given elsewhere [15]. The diameter of the tubes is in the range of 1060 nm and their lengths ranging in several microns. The purity of these tubes as determined from Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) was ~90 %.

2.2 Preparation of MWCNT-Polycarbonate composite

As-synthesized MWCNT were ultrasonically dispersed in Tetrahydrofuran (THF) for 2h to obtain a stable suspension of CNTs in THF. The suspensions were then mixed with solutions of polycarbonate (PC) in THF to obtain a series of mixtures of MWCNT /PC containing different volume percent (vol. %) of MWCNT varying from 0.1 to 2 vol. %. The mixtures were then stirred on a magnetic stirrer for 24h to obtain a uniform dispersion of MWCNT in PC. Thin polymer films were casted on a petri dish (Diameter 4 ) and allowing the solvent to evaporate over 24hrs followed by drying in oven. The resulting films had a thickness of about 0.25-0.3mm. Blank PC films were also cast by the same technique. MWCNT-PC bulk composites were prepared by a two-step method of solvent casting followed by compression molding using as-synthesized MWCNT. In this method solvent casted films were cut into pieces and stacked in a mold of diameter around 10 mm with 5mm thickness. The final samples were prepared by the compression moulding in Hydraulic press at temperature 1700C.

The polycarbonate composites were fabricated by polymerization process [3] at National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi. We used these composites of polycarbonates in the shape of a cylindrical disc with diameter around 10mm and thickness around 5mm with different concentrations of CNTs and compared their dynamic strengths at high strain rates using SHPB. The variation parameter here is only the concentration not the geometry or orientation of the inner structure of specimen.

Our setup for SHPB at Terminal Ballistic Research Laboratory, Chandigarh comprised of two high strength maraging steel with yield strength ~ 1750MPa, diameter 20mm and length 2000mm. The projectile diameter was 20mm and length was 300mm. Strain gauges of 120,

900 tee rosette precision stain gauges designated as EA-06-125TM-120) wee used. For wave shaping a 1.5mm OFHC Copper wave shaper was used.

This projectile of length 300mm was hit on samples of different compositions one by one which were sandwiched between the two bars. The projectile was shot at different velocities for various samples, producing stress-strain curves for different strain rate. Strain rates for our experiment varied in the range 1576 to 4017/s. Some of the data so collected had to be discarded due to non compatibility with dynamic equilibrium. Data in which force curves on the two surfaces of the sample do not match is not in dynamic equilibrium. A sample which was out of dynamic equilibrium has been shown in Fig.2 which shows large variations between force on the surface of the sample (F1) facing input bar and force on surface of the sample (F2) facing output bar.

Fig.2 Dynamic force history for pure polycarbonate sample, where F1 is the force on surface of the sample facing input bar and F2 is the force on surface of the sample facing output bar.

Then we took a longer projectile of length 600mm to increase the loading duration which resulted in achieving dynamic equilibrium. We show in Fig.3 a typical measured data for a sample where dynamic equilibrium was achieved for a short span of time, for which readings were valid and considered for further analysis.

Fig.3 Dynamic force history for pure polycarbonate sample, where F1 is the force on surface of the sample facing input bar and F2 is the force on surface of the sample facing output bar.

3. Results

The experimental procedure explained above was performed on samples of different concentrations for different strain rates. Table-1 shows the specifications of the samples and results of the experiments performed.

Table-1 Specifications of the samples and results of the experiments performed.

Parameters

Measured Value

Specimen dimensions(mm) Diameter Thickness

Remarks

Polycarbonate samples Max Strain rate (s-1) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%) Max Strain rate (s-1) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%) Max Strain rate (s-1) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%) Max Strain rate (s-1) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%) Max Strain rate (s-1) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%) 1994 104 25 3900 96 229 1576 99 45 3300 92 154 2778 94 112 9.95 4.82 Sample was totally crushed 9.97 4.9 Sample broke into pieces 10 4.92 9.8 4.8 10 5 Sample not in dynamic equilibrium

Max Strain rate (s-1) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%)

1350 94 39

9.90

4.80

Max Strain rate (s-1) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%) Max Strain rate (s-1) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%) Max Strain rate (s-1) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%) Max Strain rate (s-1) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%) Max Strain rate (s-1) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%)

Polycarbonate samples with 1% CNT 2018 10 5 93 27 2547 102 92 2926 102 116 3133 102 136 1643 104 53 Polycarbonate samples with 0.1% CNT 2778 10 5 95 108 2609 92 99 10 4.9 Sample failed 10.04 5.09 Sample not in dynamic equilibrium 9.96 5.10 5.15 9.87 5.16 9.88

Max Strain rate (s ) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%) Max Strain rate (s-1) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%)

-1

Max Strain rate (s-1) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%) Max Strain rate (s-1) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%) Max Strain rate (s-1) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%) Max Strain rate (s-1) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%) Max Strain rate (s-1) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%) Max Strain rate (s-1) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%) Max Strain rate (s-1) Max True Stress(MPa) Max. True Strain (%)

3200 92 144 4017 91

10

Sample failed

9.50

4.61

287 Polycarbonate samples with 0.5% CNT 2186 9.98 4.93 106 73 2768 105 108 3599 106 179 2032 110 66 2845 109 113 10 5 9.97 5 10 5 10 5

We pick the data for samples of all concentrations (0%, 0.1%, 0.5% and 1.0% of CNTs in polycarbonates), which were under similar strain rates. This helps us to make a proper comparison. We plot, in Fig.4 a comparative true stress-strain curve for all such samples under a strain rate in the range of 2700 to 3000/s.

160 140 120

T S rue tress (MP ) a

100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50
T e S in(% ru tra ) S m le w 0%C a 2778/s a p ith NT t S m le w 1%C a 2926/s a p ith NT t S m le w 0.1%C a 2778/s a p ith NT t S m le w 0.5%C a 2768/s a p ith NT t

Fig.4 representing comparison of true stress and strain for samples of different concentrations of CNT in polycarbonate.

An analysis of the true stress as a function of concentration of CNTs in polycarbonates as picked up from Fig.4, at 25% true strain has been shown separately in Fig.5

As can be observed from Fig.5, there is transition of decrease of flow stress by nearly 4% from 0% to 0.1% and then an increase of flow stress from 0.1 to 0.5% by nearly 14%,

Fig.5 Represents variation of flow stress vs concentration of CNT in polycarbonates at a true strain of 25%.

It is also evident that flow stress which is a measure of dynamic strength increases up to 105MPa by making composites of polycarbonates with CNTs concentration of only 0.5%. We notice a small dip in strength for concentrations up to 0.1% of CNTs.

Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) images were also taken of the samples used in Fig. 4 and 5 to analyze any difference in topography under impact. The SEM images under nearly similar impact conditions on all the samples have been given in Fig. 6. We also present pure and 1.0% CNT composite in Fig. 7 for comparison.

6(a)

6(b)

6(c)

6(d)

Fig-6. SEM Images of samples of varying concentration of CNT under impact. 6(a) has CNT concentration of 0% under strain rate-2778/s, 6(b) of 0.1% under strain rate-2778/s, 6(c) of 0.5% under strain rate-2768/s and 6(d) of 1.0% under strain rate-2926/s

7(a)

7(b)

Fig.7 SEM Images of samples of varying concentration of CNT under no impact. 7(a) has CNT concentration of 0% and 7(b) of 1%.

Although, we do not have here all topographic images under un impacted conditions, but it seems that low concentration of CNT (0.1%) as shown in Fig. 6(b) indicates highly fragmented topology. At such low concentrations, the inter tube distances are significantly large and bind to only local domains of polycarbonate. They do not seem to interact strongly between inter-domains. That seems to be the reason for reduced impact strength of the composite at concentration lower to around 0.1%. On the other hand, the samples of higher concentration of CNT show SEM images with reasonable integrity and due to decrease in inter-tube distance.

4. Discussion and Conclusion

This paper, reports the results of change in dynamic strength of polycarbonates due to varying concentration of carbon nanotubes in them. The measurements of impact strength have been done by using Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar. The stress-strain curves for various compositions have been presented. Further, impact strength of different compositions has been compared. It has been observed, that concentrations above 0.1% of CNTs in polycarbonates tend to increase the dynamic strength. Measurements have been performed only up to 1.0% of CNT in polycarbonates. The SEM images indicate that above concentrations of 0.1% there is a significant interlinking provided by CNTs with their base material. It would be interesting to observe the effect by further increasing the CNT concentration before deciding the practical usability of polycarbonates.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank Director, NPL for his support and permission to publish the results. We would also like to thank Dr. Rajeev Patnaik for his help in obtaining SEM images on their SEM in Geology Department, Panjab University. We would like to express our gratitude to Professor V.K. Jindal for guidance and suggestions at various levels.

REFERENCES

[1] Jonathan N. Coleman, Umar Khan, Werner J. Blau, Yurii K. Gunko, Small but strong: A review of the mechanical properties of carbon nanotubepolymer composites Carbon, Volume 44, Issue 9, August 2006, Pages 1624-1652

[2] P. Raju Mantena, Alexander H.D. Cheng, Ahmed Al-Ostaz and A.M. Rajendran, Blast and Impact Resistant Composite Structures for Navy Ships Composite Structures and Nano-Engineering Research The University of Mississippi

[3] Shailaja Pande, R.B. Mathur, B.P. Singh, T.L. Dhami, Synthesis and Characterization of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes-Polymethyl Methacrylate Composites Polymer Composites Volume 30 Issue 9, Pages 1312 1317(2008) [4] R.B. Mathur, Shailaja Pande, B.P. Singh, T.L. Dhami , Electrical and mechanical properties of multi-walled carbon nanotubes reinforced PMMA and PS composites, Polymer Composites Volume 29 Issue 7, Pages 717 727(2008) [5] Hosur MV, Alexander J, Vaidya UK, Jeelani S, High strain rate compression response of carbon / epoxy laminate composites, Composite Structures,2001; 52:405-417

[6] Amol Jadhav, Eyassu Woldesenbet, Su-Seng Pang, High strain rate properties of balanced angle-ply graphite/epoxy composites, Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 339346

[7] W. Chen, F. Lu, M. Cheng, Tension and compression tests of two polymers under quasistatic and dynamic loading, Polymer Testing 21 (2002) 113121

[8] S.Ijima and M. Endo, "Nanotube", special issue of Carbon 33,869(1995); T. W. Ebbesen, Phys. Today 49(X), 26(1996); P.M. Ajayan and T. W. Ebbesen, Rep. Prog. Phys. 60, 1025 (1997); A. Rubio, Condens. Matter News 6, 6( 1997), and references therein.

[9] Rodney S. Ruoff, Dong Qian, Wing Kam Liu, Mechanical properties of carbon nanotubes: theoretical predictions and experimental measurements, C. R. Physique 4 (2003) 993-1008 [10] A Sears and R. C. Batra, Phys. Rev. B 69, 235406 (2004). [11] M. S. Dresselhaus, G. Dresselhaus and P. C. Eklund. Science of Fullerenes and Carbon Nanotubes, Academic Press, San Diego, 1996

[12] M. Kwiatowaska, G. Broza, K. Schulte and Z.Roslaniec, The in-site synthesis of polybutylene terephthlalate/carbon nanotubes composites, Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 12(2006) 154-159

[13] H. Kolsky, An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials at very high rates of loading, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B62 (1949) 676700

[14] Advancements in the Split Hopkinson Bar Test by Michael Adam Kaiser (1998) http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/public/etd-41998-18465/materials/ETD.pdf

[15] Mathur R.B., Chatterjee S, Singh B.P. Growth of carbon nanotubes on carbon fibre substrates to produce hybrid/phenolic composites with improved mechanical properties, Composites Science and Technology, Volume 68, Issue 7-8, June 2008, Pages 1608-1615