Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T23:26:47.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tunneling Effects and Electrical Conductivity of CNT Polymer Composites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2011

S. Xu
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
O. Rezvanian
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
K. Peters
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
M.A. Zikry
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Get access

Abstract

A three-dimensional (3D) carbon nanotube (CNT) network computational model was developed to investigate the electrical conductivity and current flow in polymer composites with randomly dispersed CNTs. A search algorithm was developed to determine conductive paths for 3D CNT arrangements and to account for electron tunneling effects. Tunneled currents were obtained as a function of tunneling distance and matrix material. Several possible CNT conductive paths were obtained and finite-element representative volume elements (RVEs) were then used to predict current densities in different CNT arrangements. The predictions indicate that random CNT arrangements can be optimized for current transport.

Type
Other
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Hu, N., Masuda, Z., Yan, C., Yamamoto, G., Fukunaga, H., and Hashida, T., Nanotechnology, 215701–10, 19 (2008).Google Scholar
2. Nan, C.-W., Shen, Y., and Ma, J., Annual Review of Material Research, 131–51, 40 (2010).Google Scholar
3. Qian, H., Greenhalgh, E. S., Shaffer, M. S. P., and Bismark, A., Journal of Materials Chemistry, 4751–62, 20 (2010).Google Scholar
4. Li, C., and Chou, T.-W., Composites Science and Technology, 3373–9, 68 (2008).Google Scholar
5. Li, C., Thostenson, E. T., and Chou, T.-W., Applied Physics Letters, 223114–6, 91 (2007).Google Scholar
6. Dalmas, F., Dendievel, R., Chazeau, L., Cavaille, J.-Y., and Gauthier, C., Acta Materialia, 2923–31, 54 (2006).Google Scholar
7. Liu, Y. J., Chen, X. L., Mechanics of Materials, 69–81, 35 (2003).Google Scholar
8. Tserpes, K. I., Papanikos, P., Labeas, G., and Pantelakis, S. G., Theoretical and applied fracture mechanics, 51–60, 49 (2008).Google Scholar
9. Ashrafi, B., Hubert, P., Composites Science and Technology, 387–96, 66 (2006).Google Scholar
10. Hu, N., Karube, Y., Arai, M., Watanabe, T., Yan, C., Li, Y., Liu, Y., and Fukunaga, H., Carbon, 680–7, 48 (2010).Google Scholar
11. Simmons, J. G., Journal of Applied Physics, 1793–803, 34 (1963).Google Scholar
12. Hu, N., Karube, Y., Yan, C., Masuda, Z., and Fukunaga, H., Acta Materialia, 2929–36, 56 (2008).Google Scholar
13. Hu, N., Masuda, Z., Yamamoto, G., Fukunaga, H., Hashida, T., and Qiu, J., Composites: Part A, 893–903, 39 (2008).Google Scholar