Revealing nanoscale mechanisms of pyrolysis at phenolic resin/carbon fiber interface
Source abstract
Abstract
Carbon–carbon composites are a material commonly used in high heat flux heat environments, such as space missions for terrestrial re-entry. Phenolic resins have been used as carbon matrix precursors due to high char yields of 50 – 55%. In this work, molecular dynamics models of a phenolic resin matrix were polymerized and pyrolyzed in the presence of a carbon fiber (CF) surface using experimentally validated protocols to quantify the nanostructural and chemical evolution of the resin matrix as a function of distances from the resin/fiber interface. After pyrolysis, the predicted char yield was 64.2 ± 0.6%, indicating the presence of the CF surface aids in mass retention relative to a model of a pyrolyzed neat phenolic resin. Ring alignment analyses of the evolving pyrolyzed structures showed signs of templating as rings aligned with the CF surface. Filtering out non-aligned rings revealed bands of charred resin matrix equidistant from one another with similar spacing as that of graphene layers in graphite. The methodology presented helps reveal nanolength scale mechanisms of pyrolysis at resin/fiber interfaces and quantifies microstructural changes difficult to observe in situ, which is important to tailor processing parameters and optimize carbon composite manufacturing.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Carbon Nanotubes in Composites · Graphene research and applications · Fiber-reinforced polymer composites
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (49)
Show source-provided references
1. Savage G (1993) Carbon-Carbon composites. Springer10.1007/978-94-011-1586-5 ↗
2. Sheehan JE, Buesking K, Sullivan B (1994) Carbon-carbon composites. Annu Rev Mater Sci 24(1):19–44. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ms.24.080194.00031510.1146/annurev.ms.24.080194.000315 ↗
3. Gardziella A, Pilato LA, Knop A (2013) Phenolic resins: chemistry, applications, standardization, safety and ecology. Springer Science & Business Media
4. Pilato L (2013) Phenolic resins: 100 Years and still going strong. React Funct Polym 73(2):270–27710.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2012.07.008 ↗
5. Hirano K, Asami M (2013) Phenolic resins—100 years of progress and their future. React Funct Polym 73(2):256–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2012.07.00310.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2012.07.003 ↗
6. Ghosh S, Woodward C, Przybyla C (2020) Integrated computational materials engineering (ICME): advancing computational and experimental methods. Springer Nature10.1007/978-3-030-40562-5 ↗
7. Deshpande PP, et al (2020) Multiscale modelling of the cure process in thermoset polymers using ICME. In: American society of composites thirty-fifth technical conference. https://doi.org/10.12783/asc35/34889.10.12783/asc35/34889 ↗
8. D'Mello RJ, Waas AM, Maiaru M, Koon R (2020) Integrated computational modeling for efficient material and process design for composite aerospace structures, presented at the AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-0655.10.2514/6.2020-0655 ↗
9. Shah SS, Maiaru M (2018) Microscale analysis of virtually cured polymer matrix composites accounting for uncertainty in matrix properties during manufacturing. In Proceedings of the american society of composites - thirty-third technical conference, https://doi.org/10.12783/asc33/2595810.12783/asc33/25958 ↗
10. Hospital A, Goñi JR, Orozco M, Gelpí JL (2015) Molecular dynamics simulations: advances and applications. Adv Appl Bioinforma Chem. https://doi.org/10.2147/AABC.S7033310.2147/AABC.S70333 ↗
11. Thompson AP, Aktulga HM, Berger R, Bolintineanu DS, Brown WM, Crozier PS, In’t Veld PJ, Kohlmeyer A, Moore SG, Nguyen TD, Shan R (2022) LAMMPS-a flexible simulation tool for particle-based materials modeling at the atomic, meso, and continuum scales. Computr Phys Commun 271:108171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2021.10817110.1016/j.cpc.2021.108171 ↗
12. Monticelli L, Tieleman DP (2013) Force fields for classical molecular dynamics. Biomole Simul Methods Protocols 924:197–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-017-5_810.1007/978-1-62703-017-5_8 ↗
13. Gissinger JR, Jensen BD, Wise KE (2020) Reacter: a heuristic method for reactive molecular dynamics. Macromolecules 53(22):9953–9961. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.0c0201210.1021/acs.macromol.0c02012 ↗
14. Van Duin AC, Dasgupta S, Lorant F, Goddard WA (2001) ReaxFF: a reactive force field for hydrocarbons. J Phys Chem A 105(41):9396–9409. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp004368u10.1021/jp004368u ↗
15. Joshi KL, Raman S, Van Duin AC (2013) Connectivity-based parallel replica dynamics for chemically reactive systems: from femtoseconds to microseconds. J Phys Chem Lett 4(21):3792–3797. https://doi.org/10.1021/jz401922310.1021/jz4019223 ↗
16. Jiang D-E, Van Duin AC, Goddard WA III, Dai S (2009) Simulating the initial stage of phenolic resin carbonization via the ReaxFF reactive force field. J Phys Chem A 113(25):6891–6894. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp902986u10.1021/jp902986u ↗
17. Desai TG, Lawson JW, Keblinski P (2011) Modeling initial stage of phenolic pyrolysis: graphitic precursor formation and interfacial effects. Polymer 52(2):577–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2010.11.01810.1016/j.polymer.2010.11.018 ↗
18. Izumi A, Nakao T, Shibayama M (2012) Atomistic molecular dynamics study of cross-linked phenolic resins. Soft Matter 8(19):5283–5292. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2SM25067E10.1039/C2SM25067E ↗
19. Qi T, Bauschlicher CW Jr, Lawson JW, Desai TG, Reed EJ (2013) Comparison of ReaxFF, DFTB, and DFT for phenolic pyrolysis. 1. Molecular dynamics simulations. J Phys Chem A 117(44):11115–11125. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp408109610.1021/jp4081096 ↗
20. Bauschlicher CW Jr, Qi T, Reed EJ, Lenfant A, Lawson JW, Desai TG (2013) Comparison of ReaxFF, DFTB, and DFT for phenolic pyrolysis. 2. Elementary reaction paths. J Phys Chem A 117(44):11126–11135. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp408113w10.1021/jp408113w ↗
21. Monk JD, Haskins JB, Bauschlicher CW Jr, Lawson JW (2015) "Molecular dynamics simulations of phenolic resin: construction of atomistic models. Polymer 62:39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2015.02.00310.1016/j.polymer.2015.02.003 ↗
22. Shudo Y, Izumi A, Hagita K, Nakao T, Shibayama M (2016) Large-scale molecular dynamics simulation of crosslinked phenolic resins using pseudo-reaction model. Polymer 103:261–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2016.09.06910.1016/j.polymer.2016.09.069 ↗
23. Shudo Y, Izumi A, Hagita K, Nakao T, Shibayama M (2017) Structure-mechanical property relationships in crosslinked phenolic resin investigated by molecular dynamics simulation. Polymer 116:506–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2017.02.03710.1016/j.polymer.2017.02.037 ↗
24. Zhong Y, Jing X, Wang S, Jia Q-X (2016) Behavior investigation of phenolic hydroxyl groups during the pyrolysis of cured phenolic resin via molecular dynamics simulation. Polym Degrad Stab 125:97–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2015.11.01710.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2015.11.017 ↗
25. Izumi A, Shudo Y, Hagita K, Shibayama M (2018) Molecular dynamics simulations of cross-linked phenolic resins using a united-atom model. Macromol Theory Simul 27(4):1700103. https://doi.org/10.1002/mats.20170010310.1002/mats.201700103 ↗
26. Harpale A, Sawant S, Kumar R, Levin D, Chew HB (2018) "Ablative thermal protection systems: pyrolysis modeling by scale-bridging molecular dynamics. Carbon 130:315–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2017.12.09910.1016/j.carbon.2017.12.099 ↗
27. Purse M, Holmes B, Sacchi M, Howlin B (2022) Simulating the complete pyrolysis and charring process of phenol–formaldehyde resins using reactive molecular dynamics. J Mater Sci 57(15):7600–7620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-022-07145-410.1007/s10853-022-07145-4 ↗
28. Yan Y, Xu J, Liu S, Wang M, Yang C (2023) Reactive force-field MD simulation on the pyrolysis process of phenolic with various cross-linked and branched structures. Chem Eng Sci 272:118606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2023.11860610.1016/j.ces.2023.118606 ↗
29. Gissinger JR, Zavada SR, Smith JG, Kemppainen J, Gallegos I, Odegard GM, Siochi EJ, Wise KE (2023) Predicting char yield of high-temperature resins. Carbon 202:336–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2022.11.00210.1016/j.carbon.2022.11.002 ↗
30. Gallegos I, Kemppainen J, Gissinger JR, Kowalik M, Van Duin AC, Wise KE, Gowtham S, Odegard GM (2023) Establishing physical and chemical mechanisms of polymerization and pyrolysis of phenolic resins for carbon-carbon composites. Carbon Trends 12:100290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cartre.2023.10029010.1016/j.cartre.2023.100290 ↗
31. Kemppainen J, Gallegos I, Krieg AS, Gissinger JR, Wise KE, Kowalik M, King JA, Gowtham S, Van Duin AC, Odegard GM (2023) Evolution of glassy carbon derived from pyrolysis of furan resin. ACS Appl Eng Mater 1(10):2555–2566. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsaenm.3c0036010.1021/acsaenm.3c00360 ↗
32. Gallegos I, Varshney V, Kemppainen J, Odegard GM (2025) Investigating the structure–property correlations of pyrolyzed phenolic resin as a function of degree of carbonization. Nanoscale Adv 7:1582–1595. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4NA00824C10.1039/D4NA00824C ↗
33. Kemppainen J, Gissinger JR, Odegard GM (2024) LUNAR: automated input generation and analysis for reactive LAMMPS simulations. J Chem Inf Model 64(13):5108–5126. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.4c0073010.1021/acs.jcim.4c00730 ↗
34. Aktulga HM, Fogarty JC, Pandit SA, Grama AY (2012) Parallel reactive molecular dynamics: numerical methods and algorithmic techniques. Parallel Comput 38(4–5):245–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parco.2011.08.00510.1016/j.parco.2011.08.005 ↗
35. Stukowski A (2009) Visualization and analysis of atomistic simulation data with OVITO–the open visualization tool. Modell Simul Mater Sci Eng 18(1):015012. https://doi.org/10.1088/0965-0393/18/1/01501210.1088/0965-0393/18/1/015012 ↗
36. Humphrey W, Dalke A, Schulten K (1996) VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J Mol Graph 14(1):33–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7855(96)00018-510.1016/0263-7855(96)00018-5 ↗
37. Heinz H, Lin T-J, Kishore-Mishra R, Emami FS (2013) Thermodynamically consistent force fields for the assembly of inorganic, organic, and biological nanostructures: the INTERFACE force field. Langmuir 29(6):1754–1765. https://doi.org/10.1021/la303884610.1021/la3038846 ↗
38. Sun H, Mumby SJ, Maple JR, Hagler AT (1994) An ab initio CFF93 all-atom force field for polycarbonates. J Am Chem Soc 116(7):2978–2987. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00086a03010.1021/ja00086a030 ↗
39. Patil SU, Radue MS, Pisani WA, Deshpande PP, Xu H, Al-Mahmud H, Dumitrică T, Odegard GM (2020) Interfacial characteristics between flattened CNT stacks and polyimides: a molecular dynamics study. Comput Mater Sci 185:109970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2020.10997010.1016/j.commatsci.2020.109970 ↗
40. Deshpande PP, Radue MS, Gaikwad P, Bamane S, Patil SU, Pisani WA, Odegard GM (2021) Prediction of the interfacial properties of high-performance polymers and flattened CNT-reinforced composites using molecular dynamics. Langmuir 37(39):11526–11534. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.1c0180010.1021/acs.langmuir.1c01800 ↗
41. Pisani WA, Radue MS, Patil SU, Odegard GM (2021) Interfacial modeling of flattened CNT composites with cyanate ester and PEEK polymers. Compos B Eng 211:108672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.10867210.1016/j.compositesb.2021.108672 ↗
42. Pisani WA, Wedgeworth DN, Roth MR, Newman JK, Shukla MK (2021) Computational prediction of mechanical properties of PA6–graphene/carbon nanotube nanocomposites. J Phys Chem C 125(28):15569–15578. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.1c0341010.1021/acs.jpcc.1c03410 ↗
43. Bamane SS, Gaikwad PS, Radue MS, Gowtham S, Odegard GM (2021) Wetting simulations of high-performance polymer resins on carbon surfaces as a function of temperature using molecular dynamics. Polymers 13(13):2162. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym1313216210.3390/polym13132162 ↗
44. Sachdeva G et al (2022) Mechanical response of polymer/BN composites investigated by molecular dynamics method. J Mater Res 37(24):4533–4543. https://doi.org/10.1557/s43578-022-00725-910.1557/s43578-022-00725-9 ↗
45. Pisani WA, Roth MR, Shukla MK, Wedgeworth DN, Newman JK (2023) Exploration of two polymer nanocomposite structure-property relationships facilitated by molecular dynamics simulation and multiscale modeling. https://doi.org/10.21079/11681/46713.10.21079/11681/46713 ↗
46. Kashmari K, Patil SU, Kemppainen J, Shankara G, Odegard GM (2024) Optimal molecular dynamics system size for increased precision and efficiency for epoxy materials. J Phys Chem B 128(17):4255–4265. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.4c0084510.1021/acs.jpcb.4c00845 ↗
47. Kowalik M, Ashraf C, Damirchi B, Akbarian D, Rajabpour S, Van Duin AC (2019) Atomistic scale analysis of the carbonization process for C/H/O/N-based polymers with the ReaxFF reactive force field. J Phys Chem B 123(25):5357–5367. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b0429810.1021/acs.jpcb.9b04298 ↗
48. Gillespie R (1963) The valence-shell electron-pair repulsion (VSEPR) theory of directed valency. J Chem Educ 40(6):295. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed040p29510.1021/ed040p295 ↗
49. Bro R, Smilde AK (2014) Principal component analysis. Anal Methods 6(9):2812–2831. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3AY41907J10.1039/C3AY41907J ↗