Calibration and adjustment of mechanical property prediction model for poly(vinyl alcohol)-enhanced carbon nanotube buckypaper manufacturing

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Buckypaper is a free-standing carbon nanotube (CNT) sheet used to improve handling and manufacturability of CNT-based nanocomposites. To enhance the mechanical properties and manufacturing efficiency of buckypaper, polymeric binders, such as poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA), are often added into the CNT network during the manufacturing process. This paper describes a physics-based model to predict the elastic modulus of PVA-enhanced buckypaper and a statistical approach to calibrate and adjust the model based on physical experiments. Compared to the physics-based model alone, the hybrid model can provide more accurate predictions for the Young’s modulus of PVA-enhanced buckypaper and give a 95 % confidence interval on the prediction. One of the inputs for this model, the average length of carbon nanotubes, was calibrated using maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). The bias of this model was adjusted by estimating a bias function. Both the calibration parameter and adjustment function were estimated from a set of experimental measurements. The improvement in making a prediction was validated by comparing the performance of the physics-based model, statistical model, and statistics-enhanced physics model at a new experiment point. The hybrid model provides a more accurate prediction than either the physics-based model or statistical model does. This model calibration technique provides an effective tool for nanomanufacturing process design and material property prediction.

Keywords

Nanostructures Mechanical properties Finite element analysis Bayesian additive model Buckypaper 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jones DEH (1996) Science of fullerenes and carbon nanotubes—Dresselhaus, MS, Dresselhaus, G, Eklund,PC. Nature 381(6581):384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pham GT et al (2008) Mechanical and electrical properties of polycarbonate nanotube buckypaper composite sheets. Nanotechnology 19(32):325705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yakobson BI, Smalley RE (1997) Fullerene nanotubes: C-1000000 and beyond. Am Sci 85(4):324–337Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thostenson ET, Ren ZF, Chou TW (2001) Advances in the science and technology of carbon nanotubes and their composites: a review. Compos Sci Technol 61(13):1899–1912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harik VM (2002) Mechanics of carbon nanotubes: applicability of the continuum-beam models. Comput Mater Sci 24(3):328–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kukovecz A et al (2008) Multiwall carbon nanotube films surface-doped with electroceramics for sensor applications. Phys Status Solidi B Basic Solid State Phys 245(10):2331–2334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen IWP et al (2010) Charge-induced asymmetrical displacement of an aligned carbon nanotube buckypaper actuator. Carbon 48(4):1064–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kang IP et al (2006) A carbon nanotube strain sensor for structural health monitoring. Smart Mater Struct 15(3):737–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Suppiger D, Busato S, Ermanni P (2008) Characterization of single-walled carbon nanotube mats and their performance as electromechanical actuators. Carbon 46(7):1085–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Park JG et al (2009) Electromagnetic interference shielding properties of carbon nanotube buckypaper composites. Nanotechnology 20(41):415702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simien D et al (2008) Influence of nanotube length on the optical and conductivity properties of thin single-wall carbon nanotube networks. ACS Nano 2(9):1879–1884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coleman JN et al (2003) Improving the mechanical properties of single-walled carbon nanotube sheets by intercalation of polymeric adhesives. Appl Phys Lett 82(11):1682–1684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joseph VR, Melkote SN (2009) Statistical adjustments to engineering models. J Qual Technol 41(4):362–375Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xiong Y et al (2009) A better understanding of model updating strategies in validating engineering models. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 198(15-16):1327–1337CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cox HL (1952) The elasticity and strength of paper and other fibrous materials. Br J Appl Phys 3(Mar):72–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kallmes O, Perez M, Bernier G (1978) Mechanistic theory of the load-elongation properties of paper-descriptive summary. Paper Technol Ind 19(9):311–312Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lu W, Carlsson LA (1996) Micro-model of paper. Part 2: statistical analysis of the paper structure. Tappi J 79(1):203–210Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goudsmit S (1945) Random distribution of lines in a plane. Rev Mod Phys 17(2-3):321–322MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miles RE (1973) Various aggregates of random polygons determined by random lines in a plane. Adv Math 10(2):256–290MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sastry AM, Wang CW, Berhan L (2001) Deformation and failure in stochastic fibrous networks: scale, dimension and application. Probabilistic Methods Fatigue Frac 200:229–250Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cheng X et al (1999) Investigation of failure processes in porous battery substrates: part II—simulation results and comparisons. J Eng Mater Technol-Trans ASME 121(4):514–523MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang CW, Sastry AM (2000) Structure, mechanics and failure of stochastic fibrous networks: part II—network simulations and application. J Eng Mater Technol-Trans ASME 122(4):460–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berhan L et al (2004) Mechanical properties of nanotube sheets: alterations in joint morphology and achievable moduli in manufacturable materials. J Appl Phys 95(8):4335–4345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Berhan L, Yi YB, Sastry AM (2004) Effect of nanorope waviness on the effective moduli of nanotube sheets. J Appl Phys 95(9):5027–5034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zaeri MM et al (2010) Mechanical modelling of carbon nanomaterials from nanotubes to buckypaper. Carbon 48(13):3916–3930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Box GEP, Hunter WG (1962) Useful method for model-building. Technometrics 4(3):301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen W et al (2006) Some metrics and a Bayesian procedure for validating predictive models in engineering design. In: ASME 2006 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. American Society of Mechanical EngineersGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reese CS et al (2004) Integrated analysis of computer and physical experiments. Technometrics 46(2):153–164MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kennedy MC, O'Hagan A (2001) Bayesian calibration of computer models. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol 63:425–450MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Easterling RG, Berger JO (2002) Statistical foundations for the validation of computer models. In: Computer Model Verification and Validation in the 21st Century Workshop, Johns Hopkins University. CiteseerGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hasselman T et al (2005) A case study in model improvement for vehicle crashworthiness simulation. In: 23rd International Modal Analysis ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang SC, Chen W, Tsui KL (2009) Bayesian validation of computer models. Technometrics 51(4):439–451MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kan Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Arda Vanli
    • 3
    • 4
  • Chuck Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ben Wang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Georgia Tech Manufacturing InstituteGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Industrial and Manufacturing EngineeringFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  4. 4.High Performance Manufacturing InstituteFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  5. 5.School of Materials Science and EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations