Clay-Polymer Nanocomposites 2017
DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-323-46153-5.00012-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dynamic Mechanical Analysis of Clay–Polymer Nanocomposites

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
20
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
5
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This also shows that the CNF reached the highest C at 10 wt% content, while the CNCs showed the highest value at 20 wt%. In addition, a supportive parameter can be used for characterizing particle interaction with the polymer matrix, known as a reinforcement efficiency factor— r [ 59 ]. The nanocomposite’s storage modulus ( E c ) and the polymer matrix’s storage modulus ( E m ) values are related by an empirical relationship, which can be written using Einstein’s considerations for suspensions with rigid particles [ 57 , 60 ]: where V f —the volume fraction of a particle in the composite.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This also shows that the CNF reached the highest C at 10 wt% content, while the CNCs showed the highest value at 20 wt%. In addition, a supportive parameter can be used for characterizing particle interaction with the polymer matrix, known as a reinforcement efficiency factor— r [ 59 ]. The nanocomposite’s storage modulus ( E c ) and the polymer matrix’s storage modulus ( E m ) values are related by an empirical relationship, which can be written using Einstein’s considerations for suspensions with rigid particles [ 57 , 60 ]: where V f —the volume fraction of a particle in the composite.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As expected, r for CNCs showed a higher value than that for CNF nanocomposites, 8.7 and 2.2, respectively. Dispersion issues resulting in agglomerates and imperfect bonding or a reduced contact surface between nanoparticles and the polymer influence the nanocomposite’s storage modulus values [ 59 ]. CNFs, similarly to previous observations, offered limited performance at contents above 10 wt%, as indicated by the r factor that had almost identical values for 10 to 30 wt% nanocomposites (1.45 and 1.5, respectively).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The tanδ versus temperature graphs are generally utilized to obtain the glass transition temperatures (T g ) of samples, as in this work. [34][35] Whole viscoelastic data obtained from DMA are also tabulated in Table 2. Introduction of MO modifier led to 15% increase in storage modulus, as shown in Figure 5 (onset of the graph at 40 C).…”
Section: Dynamic Mechanical Analysis Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As anticipated, the MIL-53-NH 2 /MMA-based composites exhibit lower damping factor (tan ) compared to pure polymeric material, agreeing well with commonly observed trends (Table S8). 54 Furthermore, the shape of the stress-strain curves for 3DP polymeric and MOF based materials suggests the brittle nature of the acrylate crosslinked systems, whose chemical composition defines mechanical properties expressed in terms of Young's modulus (E), stress ( R ) and strain at break ( R ) values (Table S8) Certainly, the brittle behaviour of 3DP composite can also be noted on corresponding cross-section views ( Figure 4E, I and J), where typical brittle fracture patterns and cracks can be observed. It is worth noting that the MOF filler commonly contributes to an earlier rupture of 3DP composite, presumably due to formation of discretely localized heterogeneous inclusions and defects that can contribute to the origin and propagation of cracks.…”
Section: Please Do Not Adjust Marginsmentioning
confidence: 99%