Shear and extensional rheology of carbon nanofiber suspensions

The morphology and rheology of carbon nanofiber (CNF) suspensions were studied. The CNFs, produced by decomposing organic vapors at elevated temperature in the presence of metal catalysts, have characteristic diameter and length of 100 nm and 20–100 μm, respectively. The CNFs, as delivered, have a strong tendency to clump into mm-sized agglomerates. The efficacy of CNF/glycerol-water suspensions was studied vs. two processing parameters: mechanical sonication and chemical treatment. Experimental measurements revealed that sonication alone reduces the size of CNF clumps from millimeter to micrometer scale, but cannot achieve uniform dispersion. The chemically untreated sonicated suspensions contain clumps of nanofibers with a characteristic size of 20×50 μm, together with smaller aggregations of partially dispersed nanofibers. In response to this unsatisfactory dispersion, the effect of acid treatment before dispersion was investigated. This acid treatment, which makes the surface of the CNFs more hydrophilic, greatly improves dispersion in the aqueous solution: treatment followed by sonication results in a uniform dispersion of individual nanofibers. At the same time, however, we observed that surface treatment and subsequent sonication greatly shorten the nanofibers.The rheology of CNF/glycerol-water suspensions is highly non-Newtonian both in shear and extensional flows, with strong dependence on the dispersion, particle length, and concentration of the CNFs. As the solvent is Newtonian, all of the elastic and strain-rate dependent behavior in the CNF/aqueous suspensions derives from the addition of nanofibers. The steady shear viscosity of the untreated-sonicated (poorly dispersed, with longer fibers) suspensions is highly shear thinning with a viscosity that increases three orders of magnitude as concentration varies from 0.5 wt% to 5 wt%. Beyond 5 wt% the suspensions are too viscous to be effectively mixed by sonication. When the CNFs are chemically treated and then sonicated (resulting in much better dispersion but shorter fibers), the viscosity exhibits little shear thinning, and only varies by a factor of two from pure solvent to 5 wt%. In small amplitude oscillatory shear measurements, we found strong indications of elastic behavior in both the treated and untreated suspensions, with elastic modulus G′ greater than loss modulus G′′. In particular, for both systems G′ exhibits a low-frequency plateau when nanofiber concentration is 3 wt% or above, a characteristic of elastic solidlike response. Again, there is a strong dependence on CNF dispersion and fiber length: At low frequencies, the elastic modulus of the 5 wt% untreated suspension (with agglomerates and longer fibers) is four orders of magnitude larger than that of the 5 wt% treated suspension (with uniformly dispersed, shorter fibers). In addition, G′ of untreated suspensions is a much stronger function of concentration than that of treated suspensions, indicative of network formation.The rheology and morphology of nanofiber suspensions were related by identifying morphology of the suspensions with the assumptions of the kinetic theory-based elastic and rigid dumbbell constitutive models; the approach is to specify the parameters in the kinetic theory models in terms of microscale morphological features measured in the SEM. Of those investigated, the elastic dumbbell model with anisotropic hydrodynamic drag is the most successful, effectively modeling the small amplitude oscillatory shear and steady shear behavior of the treated sonicated suspensions. As for the treated unsonicated and untreated sonicated suspensions, which contain mesoscale agglomerates not present in the underlying assumptions of the dumbbell models, it is discovered that the elastic dumbbell with parameters assigned from morphological measurements predicts the correct trends in the steady shear experiments, but fails to accurately predict the small amplitude oscillatory shear experiments.

[1]  K. Lozano,et al.  Nanofiber‐reinforced thermoplastic composites. I. Thermoanalytical and mechanical analyses , 2001 .

[2]  D. Schiraldi,et al.  Processing, structure, and properties of fibers from polyester/carbon nanofiber composites , 2003 .

[3]  Arthur K. Doolittle,et al.  Studies in Newtonian Flow. II. The Dependence of the Viscosity of Liquids on Free‐Space , 1951 .

[4]  Howard Brenner,et al.  Rheology of a dilute suspension of axisymmetric Brownian particles , 1974 .

[5]  D. Kalyon,et al.  Viscoelastic material functions of noncolloidal suspensions with spherical particles , 1997 .

[6]  M. Jhon,et al.  Rheology of Poly(ethylene oxide)/Organoclay Nanocomposites , 2001 .

[7]  Michael Schmidt,et al.  Reological behaviour of concentrated monodisperse suspensions as a function of preshear conditions and temperature: an experimental study , 2002 .

[8]  R. Larson,et al.  The rheology of layered liquids: lamellar block copolymers and smectic liquid crystals , 1993 .

[9]  W. D. Heer,et al.  Electrostatic deflections and electromechanical resonances of carbon nanotubes , 1999, Science.

[10]  John W. Mintmire,et al.  Electronic and structural properties of carbon nanotubes , 1995 .

[11]  T. Ebbesen,et al.  Exceptionally high Young's modulus observed for individual carbon nanotubes , 1996, Nature.

[12]  Arthur K. Doolittle,et al.  Studies in Newtonian Flow. I. The Dependence of the Viscosity of Liquids on Temperature , 1951 .

[13]  G. Batchelor The effect of Brownian motion on the bulk stress in a suspension of spherical particles , 1977, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[14]  M. Ishigami,et al.  Chemical treatment of carbon nanotubes , 1996 .

[15]  M. Bhattacharya,et al.  Dynamic and extensional properties of starch in aqueous dimethylsulfoxide , 2000 .

[16]  E. Giannelis,et al.  Rheology of End-Tethered Polymer Layered Silicate Nanocomposites , 1997 .

[17]  R. Powell,et al.  Suspensions of Rodlike Particles: Literature Review and Data Correlations , 1985 .

[18]  A. Gotsis,et al.  Extensional viscosity of a thermotropic liquid crystalline polymer , 2000 .

[19]  Christopher W. Macosko,et al.  Rheology: Principles, Measurements, and Applications , 1994 .

[20]  Thomas J. Dougherty,et al.  A Mechanism for Non‐Newtonian Flow in Suspensions of Rigid Spheres , 1959 .

[21]  R. Prud’homme,et al.  The use of opposed nozzles configuration in the measurements of the extensional rheological properties of emulsions , 1994 .

[22]  Charles M. Lieber,et al.  Nanobeam Mechanics: Elasticity, Strength, and Toughness of Nanorods and Nanotubes , 1997 .

[23]  A. Magnin,et al.  Rheometry of paints with regard to roll coating process , 1995 .

[24]  P. Williams,et al.  On the extensional viscosity of mobile polymer solutions , 1987 .

[25]  H. Giesekus A simple constitutive equation for polymer fluids based on the concept of deformation-dependent tensorial mobility , 1982 .

[26]  G. Batchelor,et al.  The stress generated in a non-dilute suspension of elongated particles by pure straining motion , 1971, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[27]  H. R. Warner,et al.  Kinetic theory and rheology of dumbbell suspensions with Brownian motion , 1971 .

[28]  R. Bird Dynamics of Polymeric Liquids , 1977 .

[29]  O. Harzallah,et al.  Rheological properties of suspensions of TiO2 particles in polymer solutions. 1. Shear viscosity , 2003 .

[30]  M. Schulz,et al.  Plasma coating of carbon nanofibers for enhanced dispersion and interfacial bonding in polymer composites , 2003 .

[31]  D. F. James,et al.  Molecular conformation during steady‐state measurements of extensional viscosity , 1995 .

[32]  G. Fuller,et al.  Extensional Viscosity Measurements for Low‐Viscosity Fluids , 1987 .

[33]  Rodney S. Ruoff,et al.  Mechanical and thermal properties of carbon nanotubes , 1995 .

[34]  W. E. Stewart,et al.  Hydrodynamic Interaction Effects in Rigid Dumbbell Suspensions. II. Computations for Steady Shear Flow , 1972 .

[35]  R. Bird,et al.  Anisotropic Effects in Dumbbell Kinetic Theory , 1985 .

[36]  M. Pasquali,et al.  Can extensional viscosity be measured with opposed-nozzle devices? , 1997 .

[37]  I. Krieger,et al.  Rheology of monodisperse latices , 1972 .

[38]  Xijun Fan,et al.  A Perturbation Solution for Rigid Dumbbell Suspensions in Steady Shear Flow. , 1984 .

[39]  S. Iijima Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon , 1991, Nature.

[40]  R. Larson The Structure and Rheology of Complex Fluids , 1998 .

[41]  D. V. Boger,et al.  Opposing-jet viscometry of fluids with viscosity approaching that of water , 1995 .

[42]  Malcolm L. H. Green,et al.  Mechanical damage of carbon nanotubes by ultrasound , 1996 .

[43]  F. Bates,et al.  Rheology of Ordered and Disordered Symmetric Poly(Ethylenepropylene)-Poly(ethylethylene) Diblock Copolymers , 1990 .

[44]  K. Seefeldt,et al.  Rheology of Polypropylene/Clay Hybrid Materials , 2001 .

[45]  Karen Lozano,et al.  A study on nanofiber-reinforced thermoplastic composites (II): Investigation of the mixing rheology and conduction properties , 2001 .

[46]  J. W. Goodwin,et al.  Extensional viscosity of aqueous solutions of SDS and PVP measured on the rheometrics RFX , 2000 .

[47]  I. Krieger,et al.  Rheological studies on sterically stabilized model dispersions of uniform colloidal spheres: II. Steady-shear viscosity , 1986 .

[48]  Riyi Shi,et al.  Decreased functions of astrocytes on carbon nanofiber materials. , 2004, Biomaterials.

[49]  D. A. Saville,et al.  Colloidal Dispersions: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS , 1989 .