Comparison of fracture properties of cellulose nanopaper, printing paper and buckypaper
Source abstract
Abstract
Cellulose nanopaper consists of a dense fibrous self-binding network composed of cellulose nanofibres connected by physical entanglements, hydrogen bonding, etc. Compared with conventional printing paper, cellulose nanopaper has higher strength and modulus because of stronger fibres and inter-fibre bonding. The aim of this paper is to investigate the fracture properties of cellulose nanopaper using double edge notch tensile tests on samples with different notch lengths. It was found that strength is insensitive to notch length. A cohesive zone model was used to describe the fracture behaviour of notched cellulose nanopaper. Fracture energy was extracted from the cohesive zone model and divided into an energy component consumed by damage in the material and a component related to pull-out or bridging of nanofibres between crack surfaces which was not facilitated due to the limited fibre lengths for the case of nanopapers. For comparison, printing paper which has longer fibres than nanopaper was tested and modelled to demonstrate the importance of fibre length. Buckypaper, a fibrous network made of carbon nanotubes connected through van der Waals forces and physical entanglements, was also investigated to elaborate on the influence of inter-fibre connections.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Cellulose Research Studies · Material Properties and Processing · Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (42)
Show source-provided references
1. Gea S, Reynolds CT, Roohpur N, Soykeabkaew N, Wirjosentono B, Bilotti E, Peijs T (2010) Biodegradable composites based on poly(epsilon-caprolactone) and bacterial cellulose as a reinforcing agent. J Biobased Mater Bioenergy 4:384–39010.1166/jbmb.2010.1108 ↗
2. Gea S, Bilotti E, Reynolds C, Soykeabkeaw N, Peijs T (2010) Bacterial cellulose–poly(vinyl alcohol) nanocomposites prepared by an in situ process. Mater Lett 64:901–90410.1016/j.matlet.2010.01.042 ↗
3. Gea S, Torres F, Troncoso O, Reynolds C, Vilasecca F, Iguchi M, Peijs T (2007) Biocomposites based on bacterial cellulose and apple and radish pulp. Int Polym Proc 22:497–50110.3139/217.2059 ↗
4. Arévalo R, Peijs T (2016) Binderless all-cellulose fibreboard from microfibrillated lignocellulosic natural fibres. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 83:38–4610.1016/j.compositesa.2015.11.027 ↗
5. Sehaqui H, Liu AD, Zhou Q, Berglund LA (2010) Fast preparation procedure for large, flat cellulose and cellulose/inorganic nanopaper structures. Biomacromol 11:2195–219810.1021/bm100490s ↗
6. Henriksson M, Berglund LA, Isaksson P, Lindstrom T, Nishino T (2008) Cellulose nanopaper structures of high toughness. Biomacromol 9:1579–158510.1021/bm800038n ↗
7. Eichhorn SJ, Dufresne A, Aranguren M, Marcovich NE, Capadona JR, Rowan SJ, Weder C, Thielemans W, Roman M, Renneckar S, Gindl W, Veigel S, Keckes J, Yano H, Abe K, Nogi M, Nakagaito AN, Mangalam A, Simonsen J, Benight AS, Bismarck A, Berglund LA, Peijs T (2010) Review: current international research into cellulose nanofibres and nanocomposites. J Mater Sci 45:1–3310.1007/s10853-009-3874-0 ↗
8. Shi Z, Zang S, Jiang F, Huang L, Lu D, Ma Y, Yang G (2012) In situ nano-assembly of bacterial cellulose–polyaniline composites. RSC Adv 2:1040–104610.1039/C1RA00719J ↗
9. Klemm D, Heublein B, Fink HP, Bohn A (2005) Cellulose: fascinating biopolymer and sustainable raw material. Angew Chem Int Edit 44:3358–339310.1002/anie.200460587 ↗
10. Watanabe K, Tabuchi M, Morinaga Y, Yoshinaga F (1998) Structural features and properties of bacterial cellulose produced in agitated culture. Cellulose 5:187–20010.1023/A:1009272904582 ↗
11. Berglund LA, Peijs T (2010) Cellulose biocomposites-from bulk moldings to nanostructured systems. MRS Bull 35:201–20710.1557/mrs2010.652 ↗
12. Nogi M, Iwamoto S, Nakagaito AN, Yano H (2009) Optically transparent nanofiber paper. Adv Mater 21:1595–159810.1002/adma.200803174 ↗
13. Huang J, Zhu HL, Chen YC, Preston C, Rohrbach K, Cumings J, Hu LB (2013) Highly transparent and flexible nanopaper transistors. ACS Nano 7:2106–211310.1021/nn304407r ↗
14. Syverud K, Stenius P (2009) Strength and barrier properties of MFC films. Cellulose 16:75–8510.1007/s10570-008-9244-2 ↗
15. Stachewicz U, Peker I, Tu W, Barber AH (2011) Stress delocalization in crack tolerant electrospun nanofiber networks. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 3:1991–199610.1021/am2002444 ↗
16. Hagman A, Nygårds M (2012) Investigation of sample-size effects on in-plane tensile testing of paperboard. Nord Pulp Pap Res J 27:295–30410.3183/NPPRJ-2012-27-02-p295-304 ↗
17. Li J (2015) Investigation of the fracture resistance of paper utilizing a modified linear elastic fracture mechanics model. Master Dissertation, Miami University
18. Ostlund S, Niskanen K, Karenlampi P (1999) On the prediction of the strength of paper structures with a flaw. J Pulp Pap Sci 25:356–360
19. Seth RS, Page DH (1974) Fracture resistance of paper. J Mater Sci 9:1745–175310.1007/BF00541741 ↗
20. Makela P (2002) On the fracture mechanics of paper. Nord Pulp Pap Res J 17:254–27410.3183/NPPRJ-2002-17-03-p254-274 ↗
21. Yuhara T, Kortschot MT (1993) A simplified determination of the J-Integral for paper. J Mater Sci 28:3571–358010.1007/BF01159839 ↗
22. Westerlind BS, Carlsson LA, Andersson YM (1991) Fracture toughness of liner board evaluated by the J-integral. J Mater Sci 26:2630–263610.1007/BF00545548 ↗
23. Seth RS (1995) Measurement of in-plane fracture toughness of paper. Tappi J 78:177–183
24. Tanaka A, Yamauchi T (2000) Deformation and fracture of paper during the in-plane fracture toughness testing—examination of the essential work of fracture method. J Mater Sci 35:1827–183310.1023/A:1004797023064 ↗
25. Wanigaratne DMS, Batchelor WJ, Parker IH (2002) Comparison of fracture toughness of paper with tensile properties. Appita J 55:369–385
26. Goutianos S, Sørensen BF (2016) The application of J integral to measure cohesive laws under large-scale yielding. Eng Fract Mech 155:145–16510.1016/j.engfracmech.2016.01.004 ↗
27. Sorensen BF, Goutianos S, Jacobsen TK (2009) Strength scaling of adhesive joints in polymer-matrix composites. Int J Solids Struct 46:741–76110.1016/j.ijsolstr.2008.09.024 ↗
28. Li S, Thouless MD, Waas AM, Schroeder JA, Zavattieri PD (2005) Use of a cohesive-zone model to analyze the fracture of a fiber-reinforced polymer-matrix composite. Compos Sci Technol 65:537–54910.1016/j.compscitech.2004.08.004 ↗
29. Mohammed I, Liechti KM (2000) Cohesive zone modeling of crack nucleation at bimaterial corners. J Mech Phys Solids 48:735–76410.1016/S0022-5096(99)00052-6 ↗
30. Yang QD, Thouless MD (2001) Mixed-mode fracture analyses of plastically-deforming adhesive joints. Int J Fract 110:175–18710.1023/A:1010869706996 ↗
31. Zechner J, Janko M, Kolednik O (2013) Determining the fracture resistance of thin sheet fiber composites—paper as a model material. Compos Sci Technol 74:43–5110.1016/j.compscitech.2012.10.007 ↗
32. Goutianos S, Arevalo R, Sorensen BF, Peijs T (2014) Effect of processing conditions on fracture resistance and cohesive laws of binderfree all-cellulose composites. Appl Compos Mater 21:805–82510.1007/s10443-013-9381-0 ↗
33. Ansari F, Skrifvars M, Berglund LA (2015) Nanostructured biocomposites based on unsaturated polyester resin and a cellulose nanofiber network. Compos Sci Technol 117:298–30610.1016/j.compscitech.2015.07.004 ↗
34. Hervy M, Santmarti A, Lahtinenc P, Tammelin T, Lee KY (2017) Sample geometry dependency on the measured tensile properties of cellulose nanopapers. Mater Des 121:421–42910.1016/j.matdes.2017.02.081 ↗
35. Henriksson M, Henriksson G, Berglund LA, Lindstrom T (2007) An environmentally friendly method for enzyme-assisted preparation of microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) nanofibers. Eur Polym J 43:3434–344110.1016/j.eurpolymj.2007.05.038 ↗
36. Zendehbad SM, Yang G (2016) Analysis of bacterial cellulose/ionic liquid MWCNTs via cyclic voltammetry. Adv Chem Eng Sci 6:34–4210.4236/aces.2016.61004 ↗
37. Zendehbad SM (2015) Controllable fabrication of BC based on time growth. Int J Mater Sci Appl 4:299–302
38. Skrzetuska E, Puchalski M, Krucińska I (2014) Chemically driven printed textile sensors based on graphene and carbon nanotubes. Sensors 14:16816–1682810.3390/s140916816 ↗
39. Nanocyl (2016) Technical Data Sheet: NC7000™. http://www.nanocyl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/DM-TI-02-TDS-NC7000-V08.pdf . Accessed 27 Mar 2017
40. Morel S, Lespine C, Coureau JL, Planas J, Dourado N (2010) Bilinear softening parameters and equivalent LEFM R-curve in quasibrittle failure. Int J Solids Struct 47:837–85010.1016/j.ijsolstr.2009.11.022 ↗
41. Abaqus (2011) Analysis user’s manual. Simulia, Providence, RI
42. Mollon V, Bonhomme J, Elmarakbi AM, Arguelles A, Vina J (2012) Finite element modelling of mode I delamination specimens by means of implicit and explicit solvers. Polym Test 31:404–41010.1016/j.polymertesting.2011.12.008 ↗