| Literature DB >> 29207543 |
Mingyang Zhou1,2, Xiaoni Qu3,4, Lingbao Ren5,6, Lingling Fan7,8, Yuwenxi Zhang9,10, Yangyang Guo11,12, Gaofeng Quan13,14, Qi Tang15,16, Bin Liu17,18, Hao Sun19,20.
Abstract
Carbon nanotube (CNT)-reinforced AZ31 matrix nanocomposites were successfully fabricated using a powder metallurgy method followed by hot extrusion. The influence of CNTs on microstructures, mechanical properties, and wear properties were systematically investigated by optical microscope (OM), scanning electron microscope (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), hardness test, tensile test, and wear test. The results revealed that the nanocomposites showed a slightly smaller grain size compared with the matrix and uniform distribution that CNTs could achieve at proper content. As a result, the addition of CNTs could weaken basal plane texture. However, the yield strength and ultimate tensile strength of the composites were enhanced as the amount of CNTs increased up to 2.0 wt. %, reaching maximum values of 241 MPa (+28.2%) and 297 MPa (+6.1%), respectively. The load transfer mechanism, Orowan mechanism, and thermal mismatch mechanism played important roles in the enhancement of the yield strength, and several classical models were employed to predict the theoretical values. The effect of CNT content on the friction coefficient and weight loss of the nanocomposites was also studied. The relationships between the amount of CNTs, the friction coefficient, and weight loss could be described by the exponential decay model and the Boltzmann model, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: carbon nanotube; metal matrix nanocomposites; strengthening mechanisms; texture; wear behavior
Year: 2017 PMID: 29207543 PMCID: PMC5744320 DOI: 10.3390/ma10121385
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Purity and particle sizes of metal powders used in this study.
| Materials | Mg | Al | Zn |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purity (%) | >99.9 | >99.8 | >99.8 |
| Particle size (μm) | 45 | 10 | 10 |
Figure 1Sketch diagram of the fabrication process.
Theoretical and experimental densities of AZ31 and its nanocomposites. CNTs: carbon nanotubes.
| Material | Theoretical Density (g/cm3) | Experimental Density (g/cm3) | Porosity (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| AZ31 | 1.7703 | 1.7637 ± 0.0011 | 0.4 ± 0.06 |
| AZ31-0.5 wt. % CNTs | 1.7719 | 1.7327 ± 0.0017 | 2.2 ± 0.09 |
| AZ31-1.0 wt. % CNTs | 1.7734 | 1.7291 ± 0.0035 | 2.5 ± 0.20 |
| AZ31-2.0 wt. % CNTs | 1.7766 | 1.7298 ± 0.0013 | 2.6 ± 0.07 |
| AZ31-4.0 wt. % CNTs | 1.8136 | 1.7173 ± 0.0024 | 5.3 ± 0.13 |
Figure 2XRD (X-ray diffraction) patterns (taken perpendicular to the extrusion direction) of the AZ31 magnesium alloy and its nanocomposites.
Texture results of AZ31 and its nanocomposites (taken perpendicular to the extrusion direction) based on X-ray diffraction.
| Material | Plane | I/Imax | |
|---|---|---|---|
| AZ31 | Basal | 0.10 | |
| Prism | 1.00 | ||
| Pyramidal | 0.67 | ||
| AZ31-0.5 wt. % CNTs | Basal | 0.04 | |
| Prism | 1.00 | ||
| Pyramidal | 0.49 | ||
| AZ31-1.0 wt. % CNTs | Basal | 0.03 | |
| Prism | 1.00 | ||
| Pyramidal | 0.69 | ||
| AZ31-2.0 wt. % CNTs | Basal | 0.04 | |
| Prism | 1.00 | ||
| Pyramidal | 0.97 | ||
| AZ31-4.0 wt. % CNTs | Basal | 0.04 | |
| Prism | 1.00 | ||
| Pyramidal | 0.94 | ||
Figure 3OM (optical microscope) graph of the as-extruded AZ31 and its nanocomposites: (a) AZ31, (b) AZ31-0.5 wt. % CNTs (Carbon nanotubes), (c) AZ31-1.0 wt. % CNTs, (d) AZ31-2.0 wt. % CNTs, (e) AZ31 wt. % CNTs.
Figure 4Grain size of the as-extruded AZ31 and its composites.
Figure 5SEM (scanning electron microscope) images of the CNT distribution in the as-extruded composites with 1 wt. % CNTs.
Figure 6Curves of microhardness and relative density with the addition of varying amounts of CNTs.
Figure 7Effect of the addition of varying amounts of CNTs on the mechanical properties of the composites.
Mechanical properties of the as-extruded AZ31 and its nanocomposites.
| Material | YS (MPa) | UTS (MPa) | Elongation (%) | Microhardness (HV) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AZ31 | 188 ± 5.2 | 280 ± 4.5 | 14.4 ± 1.2 | 81.1 ± 1.1 | |
| AZ31-0.5 wt. % CNTs | 215 ± 3.5 | 291 ± 3.8 | 13.3 ± 1.8 | 85.5 ± 2.1 | |
| AZ31-1.0 wt. % CNTs | 235 ± 4.8 | 293 ± 5.5 | 10.9 ± 1.1 | 87.2 ± 1.8 | |
| AZ31-2.0 wt. % CNTs | 241 ± 4.3 | 297 ± 3.6 | 9.2 ± 2.0 | 81.4 ± 1.7 | |
| AZ31-4.0 wt. % CNTs | 228 ± 6.5 | 283 ± 5.8 | 6.9 ± 2.8 | 78.3 ± 1.4 | |
Figure 8Plots of yield strength of the composites theoretically predicted by different models and experimentally obtained in this study.
Figure 9Plots of the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of the composites theoretically predicted by different models and experimentally obtained in this study.
Figure 10SEM images of the fracture surfaces of the as-extruded AZ31 composites and its nanocomposites: (a) AZ31, (b) AZ31-1.0 wt. % CNTs, (c) AZ31-0.5 wt. % CNTs, (d) AZ31-1.0 wt. % CNTs, (e) AZ31-2.0 wt. % CNTs and (f) AZ31-2.0 wt. % CNTs ((a,b) are low magnification images, and (c–f) are high magnification images).
Figure 11Friction coefficient variation as a function of CNTs content in the as-extruded AZ31 matrix at different normal loads.
Regression equations of the friction coefficient versus the content of CNTs (wt. %).
| No. | Load (N) | Equations | R-Square |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5 | 0.9940 | |
| 2 | 10 | 0.9992 | |
| 3 | 50 | 0.9762 |
Figure 12Wear mass loss variation as a function of CNT content in the as-extruded AZ31 matrix at different normal loads.
Regression equations of the mass loss versus the content of CNTs (wt. %).
| No. | Load (N) | Equations | R-Square |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5 | 0.97141 | |
| 2 | 10 | 0.9595 | |
| 3 | 50 | 0.9657 |