Comparison of fracture properties of cellulose nanopaper, printing paper and buckypaper
- 816 Downloads
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.
KeywordsFracture Energy Bacterial Cellulose Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanic Cohesive Zone Model Printing Paper
Rui Mao would like to acknowledge the China Scholarship Council for their financial support.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 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 45:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Li J (2015) Investigation of the fracture resistance of paper utilizing a modified linear elastic fracture mechanics model. Master Dissertation, Miami UniversityGoogle Scholar
- 18.Ostlund S, Niskanen K, Karenlampi P (1999) On the prediction of the strength of paper structures with a flaw. J Pulp Pap Sci 25:356–360Google Scholar
- 22.Westerlind BS, Carlsson LA, Andersson YM (1991) Fracture toughness of liner board evaluated by the J-integral. J Mater Sci 26:2630–2636Google Scholar
- 23.Seth RS (1995) Measurement of in-plane fracture toughness of paper. Tappi J 78:177–183Google Scholar
- 25.Wanigaratne DMS, Batchelor WJ, Parker IH (2002) Comparison of fracture toughness of paper with tensile properties. Appita J 55:369–385Google Scholar
- 37.Zendehbad SM (2015) Controllable fabrication of BC based on time growth. Int J Mater Sci Appl 4:299–302Google Scholar
- 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
- 41.Abaqus (2011) Analysis user’s manual. Simulia, Providence, RIGoogle Scholar