J Polym Eng 2015; 35(3): 257–266
Rahim Eqra, Kamal Janghorban* and Habib Daneshmanesh
Mechanical properties and toughening
mechanisms of epoxy/graphene nanocomposites
Abstract: Because of extraordinary physical, chemical and
mechanical properties, graphene nanosheets (GNS) are
suitable fillers for optimizing the properties of different
polymers. In this research, the effect of GNS content (up to
1 wt.%) on tensile and flexural properties, morphology of
fracture surface, and toughening mechanism of epoxy were
investigated. Results of mechanical tests showed a peak for
tensile and flexural strength of samples with 0.1 wt.% GNS
such that the tensile and flexural strength improved by 13%
and 3.3%, respectively. The Young’s modulus and flexural
modulus increased linearly with GNS content, although
the behavior of the Young’s modulus was more remark-
able. Morphological investigations confirmed this behavior
because the GNS dispersion in the epoxy matrix was uni-
form at lower contents and agglomerated at higher con-
tents. Finally, microscopical observation showed that the
major toughening mechanism of graphene-epoxy nano-
composites was crack path deflection, which changed the
mirror fracture surface of the pure epoxy to rough surface.
Keywords: epoxy; graphene; mechanical properties;
nanocomposite; toughening mechanism.
DOI 10.1515/polyeng-2014-0134
Received May 26, 2014; accepted September 10, 2014; previously
published online October 9, 2014
1 Introduction
Compared to the properties of conventional composites,
the properties of polymeric materials are enhanced signif-
icantly by the addition of nanofillers, without compromis-
ing their process ability, inherent mechanical properties
and light weights. Polymer nanocomposites have a unique
combination of mechanical, thermal and electrical
*Corresponding author: Kamal Janghorban, Department of
Materials Science and Engineering, Engineering School, Shiraz
University, P. O. Box 71348-15939, Shiraz, Iran,
e-mail: janghor@shirazu.ac.ir
Rahim Eqra and Habib Daneshmanesh: Department of Materials
Science and Engineering, Engineering School, Shiraz University,
P. O. Box 71348-15939, Shiraz, Iran
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Authenticated
Download Date | 7/1/15 1:07 PM
properties [1, 2], which are dependent on the morphol-
ogy, the homogenous dispersion, the types of fillers
and matrices, and also the interface bonding between
the matrix and the reinforcements [3, 4]. These types of
materials have been utilized in various fields of science
and engineering such as photovoltaic cells, electronics,
sensors, coatings and mechanical structures for many dif-
ferent applications such as aerospace industries, defense
systems, medical equipment and even in daily life.
Graphene has been used as a prominent nanofiller
since its discovery in 2004 by Navoselov et  al. [5]. It
has a two-dimensional honeycomb structure of carbon
atoms with sp2 bonds and, owing to its extraordinary
mechanical, chemical and electrical properties, is con-
sidered to be the most suitable nanofiller for optimizing
and improving the properties of polymers. Graphene can
be produced by four main methods: (1) chemical vapor
deposition (CVD), (2) epitaxial growth of graphene films
on electrically insulating substrates, (3) mechanical
exfoliation of graphene from bulk graphite (e.g., using
Scotch tape5) and (4) thermal or chemical reduction of
graphene derivatives such as graphene oxide. The fourth
method has the potential for producing graphene in bulk
quantities that are suitable for use in composite materi-
als [1, 6–11].
Highly cross-linked thermoset epoxy provides high
modulus and strength, good resistance to creep and cor-
rosion, and good performance at elevated temperatures.
Because of its excellent properties, it is widely used as
the main component for coating, adhesives and matrices
in various engineering fields, from structural composites
to microelectronics, such as spacecraft, and as impreg-
nating materials in the cryogenic environment and also
in superconducting cable technology. However, the high
cross-link density makes these materials inherently
brittle, leading to poor resistance to crack propagation
[12–14]. Therefore, epoxy-graphene nanocomposites have
attracted many researchers in recent years to improve
their mechanical, thermal and electrical properties
[3, 4, 11–17]. In these studies, the uniform distribu-
tion of graphene in epoxy matrix and the improvement
of its interface to achieve the effect of graphene filler
have been investigated [4, 18–20]. The results of these
research studies show that the mechanical properties
258      R. Eqra et al.: Polymer nanocomposites
of graphene-epoxy nanocomposites enhanced when the
graphene content reached a peak and then decreased [4,
11–14]. Also, the thermal, electrical and especially dielec-
tric characteristics and electromagnetic shielding (EMS)
of epoxy improved with graphene [3, 15–17]. Acceptable
interface bonding and uniform dispersion were obtained
by using appropriate functional and dispersing agents [4,
18–20]. Little information, however, has been reported on
the bending characteristics, fracture surface morphology
and toughening mechanism of graphene-epoxy nano-
composites. In contrast, because of the many types of
thermoset epoxy resins with different properties and the
dependency of graphene characteristics on the produc-
tion method, further research is necessary to optimize the
properties of new graphene-epoxy nanocomposites. In
this work, graphene nanosheets (GNS) were synthesized
by thermal expansion and reduction of graphene oxide,
then graphene epoxy nanocomposites based on bysphe-
nol-F resin were fabricated with different compositions.
Subsequently, the tensile and bending characteristic,
fracture surface morphology and toughening mechanism
of these nanocomposites were investigated.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Materials
Graphite powder (art. no. 1.04206.2500), acetone and other
materials for the synthesis of GNS such as sulfuric acid,
nitric acid, potassium chlorate, hydrochloric acid and
barium chloride were purchased from Merck (­Darmstadt,
Germany). Epoxy resin (M506) based on bisphenol-F and
the hardener (HA11) polyamine were supplied by Mavad
Mokarrar Company (Tehran, Iran).
2.2 Prepartion of GNS
The GNS were prepared by the thermal expansion and
reduction method [20]. Sulfuric acid (114 ml, 98 wt.%)
and nitric acid (67 ml, 67 wt.%) with 6 g of graphite were
stirred and mixed in ice-water bath. After 15 min, potas-
sium chlorate (63 g) was added gradually to the mixture
and the mixture was blended for 96 h. The mixture was
then washed with hydrochloric acid solution (0.1 mol/l),
and this continued until all sulfate ions disappeared and
nothing remained to react with the barium chloride solu-
tion. Afterward, this graphite oxide was dried at 70°C.
Then 3 g of this graphite oxide was held for 30  s under
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Authenticated
Download Date | 7/1/15 1:07 PM
thermal shock condition at 1050°C in nitrogen atmos-
phere. In this step, the thermal shock caused a very large
expansion (up to 200%) and the graphite oxide sheets
were simultaneously exfoliated, reduced and changed to
GNS. Finally, the GNS were prepared for nanocomposite
production by sonication of these sheets in acetone at
400 W of power for 4 h
2.3 Graphene-nanocomposite production
The produced GNS with acetone were agitated using an
ultrasonic instrument under 100  W for 2 h. Then epoxy
resin was added to the solution and sonicated under
the aforementioned condition for 90 min. Acetone was
removed under vacuum at 60°C for 18 h. Afterward, a
hardener was added and mixed by a magnetic stirrer.
This mixture was degassed in a vacuum chamber and
was injected into the tensile and bending sample mold.
Curing was finished after 7 days. A reference sample of
pure epoxy was also produced. The processing sequence
is shown in Figure 1.
2.4 Characterization
The purity of the graphite, graphite oxide and GNS was
studied using a GNR Explorer diffractometer with Cu Kα
radiation (λ = 1.54 Å) at 40 kV. The morphology of GNS and
the fracture surface of the nanocomposites and epoxy
sample were examined by a scanning electron microscope
(SEM, Leica Cambridge S360, Cambridge, England, UK).
The dispersed GNS in acetone were dropped onto a glass
lam, allowed to dry and then coated with gold for SEM
Graphene agitation by ultrasonic in
acetone
Epoxy resin with graphene agitation by
ultrasonic in acetone
Removal of acetone
Hardner addition and degassing
Injection of nanocomposites
Figure 1 Schematic of the processing procedure.

imaging. The tensile and bending properties of the nano-
composite samples were measured under a 100-kN load
cell with a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min based on the
ASTM D638-03 standard. Three-point flexural test was per-
formed on samples 10 mm wide, 100 mm long and 4 mm
thickness with a support span of 60  mm at a constant
cross-head speed of 1 mm/min according to the ASTM D790
standard using a mechanical tester [Hegwald Peschke (HP)
inspect 50, Germany]. The Fourier transform infrared (FTIR)
spectra of GNS and nanocomposite samples were obtained
using a Tensor 27 FTIR (Bruker, Ettlingen, Germany)
between 500 and 4000 cm-1. The GNS or the nanocomposite
sample powder mixture with the KBr powders was molded
into discs for this characterization. Raman spectroscopy
characterization was done using a SENTERRA-2009 system
(Bruker) with a 785-nm Ar laser between 200 and 3500 cm-1.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Characterization of GNS
The XRD results of graphite, graphite oxide and gra-
phene are shown in Figure 2. Graphite shows a sharp
peak at 2θ = 26.5°, which is related to the diffraction of the
repeated plane of graphite with an interlayer distance of
3.35 Å according to Bragg’s law (nλ = 2dsinθ). A relatively
low peak at 2θ = 12.6° confirmed that the graphite planes
intercalated and graphite oxide formed with an interlayer
spacing of 7.8 Å at the oxidation step. GNS did not show
any peak, indicating that the graphite oxide was simul-
taneously exfoliated and reduced during the thermal
25,000
Graphite
20,000
Graphite oxide
Synthesized graphene
Intensity (a.u.)
15,000
10,000
5000
0
0 10 20 30
2θ
Figure 2 XRD patterns of the graphite, graphite oxide and synthe-
sized graphene.
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Download Date | 7/1/15 1:07 PM
R. Eqra et al.: Polymer nanocomposites      259
expansion step and the GNS were successfully formed
with disordered planes.
The Raman spectroscopy method is a well-estab-
lished technique for characterizing GNS. The G band at
nearly 1590  cm-1 relates to the zone center phonons of
E2g symmetry at the Γ point of the first Brillouin zone of
graphite and includes bond stretching of sp2 carbon pairs
in the graphite plane [14, 21]. The D band at approximately
1350  cm-1 is attributed to the K-point phonon of the A1g
symmetry, which is associated with disordered sp3 hybrid-
ized carbon, present as impurities and defects in the gra-
phene structure, and its intensity is dependent on the
presence of six-fold aromatic rings. Thus, the ratio of the
intensities of the D and G bands (ID/IG) is usually indica-
tive of the relative disorder present in graphitic structures
[22–24]. Figure 3 shows the Raman spectra of graphite,
graphite oxide and synthesized GNS. For graphite, the
strong G band at 1580 cm-1 is reflected to the highest equi-
librium stretching of sp2 hybridized carbon atom in its
planes and the weak D band at 1310 cm-1 is due to the edge
effect and inherent defects [21, 23]. In contrast, the ID/IG
ratio of 0.35 of graphite confirmed its relatively low defect
structure. Meanwhile, oxidation of graphite substantially
changed its structure such that the G band was broadened
and the D band showed a higher relative intensity, which
was attributed to the increase in impurities and defects
in the graphite structure. Thus the ID/IG ratio rose to 1.75.
Moreover, the intensity of the D and G bands decreased
and increased, respectively, during the transformation of
graphite oxide to graphene by the heat reduction process
due to graphite “self-healing” [21, 25], which caused the
reduction in the ID/IG ratio to 1.3. Unlike in other research
reports [21, 25], the shift of the G band was not observed
in thermally reduced graphene, which can be attributed
to the higher disorder of the graphite used in this research
Purchased graphite
ID/IG=0.35
Intensity (a.u.)
Synthesized graphite oxide
ID/IG=1.75
Synthesized graphene
ID/IG=1.3
40 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Wavenumber (cm-1)
Figure 3 Raman spectra of the graphite, graphite oxide and synthe-
sized graphene.
Authenticated
 260      R. Eqra et al.: Polymer nanocomposites

(ID/IG = 0.35) compared to the values of 0.05 and 0.2 used in

other research studies.
Figure 4 shows a direct comparison between FTIR
spectra of the graphite, graphite oxide and synthesized
GNS. The peaks at 1050, 1440 and 1625 cm-1 and the strong
broadened peak at about 3430  cm-1 are attributed to the
C-O stretching vibrations of the epoxide groups, the C-OH
stretching vibrations of the carboxyl groups, the C = O
stretching vibrations of the carbonyl groups and the O-H
stretching vibrations of the hydroxyl groups, respectively
[12, 25, 26]. As seen in the figure, the peaks did not change
in the synthesized process of graphene. Furthermore, the
intensity of the peaks increased in the oxidation of graph-
ite, which was assigned to the oxygen functionalities in the
graphite oxide. After the formation of reduced graphene,
the bands around 1050, 1440, 1625 and 3430 cm-1 were still Figure 5 SEM image of the synthesized graphene.
present on the graphene surface with lower intensities [22,
27]. A scanning electron microscope image of the synthe-
sized GNS is illustrated in Figure 5. Wrinkled disordered 14, 18, 28]. By further increase of GNS content (zone II),
sheets of the synthesized graphene were observed in this the strength dropped sharply by crack initiation in the
figure and were confirmed by the XRD results. agglomerated regions of GNS. Meanwhile, the strain to
fracture of nanocomposite decreased slightly because the
crack propagation was blocked or deflected by the GNS.
3.2 Tensile characteristics In zone III (0.3–0.5 wt.%), the nanocomposite strength
gently decreased, but the strain to fracture of nanocom-
The uniaxial tension test results are illustrated in Figure 6. posites decreased, which could be attributed to easy
The strength and strain to fracture of pure epoxy and crack propagation through a closed and large number
nanocomposite samples are shown in Figure 7. In zone I, of agglomerated regions. The strength and strain to
with a GNS content of 0.1 wt.%, the strength and strain fracture of nanocomposites are almost flattened in zone
of composite samples increased to 13% and 3.1%, respec- IV because the GNS were nearly saturated in the epoxy
tively, compared to the pure epoxy samples, due to a good matrix. The above results show that the GNS act as a rein-
dispersion and excellent intrinsic strength (130 GPa) of forcement in zone I but as a defect in zone II and zone III.
the GNS that were applied to reinforce the composites. In contrast, the roughness or total fracture surface
The same results were reported by other researchers [12, increased with increasing GNS content up to 0.5 wt.% and

Graphite
90
Graphite oxide
80
Synthesized graphene Strain rate: 0.002 S-1
70
Absorbance (a.u.)

60
Stress (MPa)

50
Pure epoxy
40
0.1 wt.% graphene
30
0.3 wt.% graphene
20
0.5 wt.% graphene
10 1 wt.% graphene
0
500 1500 2500 3500 4500 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Wavenumber (cm-1) Strain

Figure 4 FTIR spectra of the graphite, graphite oxide and synthe- Figure 6 Stress-strain curves of the nanocomposite samples and
sized graphene. pure epoxy.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 7/1/15 1:07 PM
 R. Eqra et al.: Polymer nanocomposites      261

90 12 5
11.5
4.5
85
I II III IV 11
Tensile strength (MPa)

Strength
Strain 10.5 4
80

Toughness (J/cm3)
10

Strain (%)
3.5
75 9.5
9 3
70
8.5
2.5
65 8
7.5 2
60 7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.5
Graphene (wt.%) 1
0 0.5 1 1.5
Figure 7 Effect of the graphene content on the tensile strength and Graphene (wt.%)
strain to fracture of the nanocomposite samples and pure epoxy.
Figure 9 Toughness of the nanocomposite samples.

was approximately fixed at higher GNS content (Figure 8). in Figure 10. This result was pointed out by other research-
As shown in Figure 9, however, the total energy required to ers, too [12, 14, 28].
produce this surface (toughness or total area under stress
and strain curve) decreased after the addition of 0.1 wt.%
of GNS content. This contradiction confirmed that the pro- 3.3 Flexural characteristics
duction of new fracture surface required less energy owing
to the agglomeration of GNS. Also, the dramatic decline in Flexural test results are illustrated in Figures 11, 12 and
toughness in the range of 0.3–0.5 wt.% of GNS content con- 13. As shown in Figures 12 and 13, the flexural strength
firmed that the toughness did not considerably decrease and flexural strain enhanced and reached 3.3% and 29%,
while the GNS were acting as a reinforcement, even after respectively, for the 0.1 wt.% nanocomposite sample com-
the initiation of cracks due to the agglomeration of GNS pared to pure epoxy, and decreased with increasing GNS
(zone II in Figure 7). However, GNS noticeably enhanced content. Similar information has been reported by other
the elastic modulus of the nanocomposites owing to their investigators [25, 29]. Like the tension results, the flexural
excellent elastic modulus (1000 GPa), which is illustrated strength and flexural strain increased up to 0.1 wt.% GNS

A B C

Figure 8 SEM images of the epoxy-graphene nanocomposite samples. (A) 0.1 wt.%, (B) 0.5 wt.% and (C) 1 wt.%.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 7/1/15 1:07 PM
 262      R. Eqra et al.: Polymer nanocomposites

3.5

3
Young’s modulus (GPa)

2.5

2
Strain rate: 0.002 S-1
1.5

0.5

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Figure 12 Flexural strength of the nanocomposite samples and
Graphene (wt.%) pure epoxy.

Figure 10 Effect of the graphene content on the Young’s modulus of

the nanocomposite samples.
the tensile strength remained greater up to 1 wt.%. It is
attributed to the better tensile properties of graphene
relative to its flexural properties. The agglomeration char-
due to the reinforcement effect of GNS and then decreased
acteristic of graphene, which acts as a defect in epoxy
as the GNS content increased owing to its agglomeration.
matrix, is more destructive in the reduction of flexural
The flexural modulus of nanocomposite samples is shown
strength of nanocomposite samples. In contrast, tensile
in Figure 14 as a function of the GNS content. The flexural
strain to fracture was reduced below the pure epoxy at
modulus increased slightly as the GNS content increased,
0.5 wt.% graphene content owing to the large number
and 7% enhancement with respect to pure epoxy was
attained for 1 wt.% GNS. The flexural strength and the
flexural modulus did not dramatically increase by adding
GNS fillers, but flexural strain was remarkably enhanced
for 0.1 wt.% GNS, which indicates a good interface
bonding of GNS with epoxy, and the growth of crack in
nanocomposites was delayed. In contrast, compared with
tensile strength and tensile modulus, the flexural strength
and flexural modulus of the nanocomposite samples did
not increase significantly, which points to better tensile
properties than the flexural properties of GNS.
The general results of tensile and flexural tests are
illustrated in Table 1. As shown in the table, the flexural
strength of nanocomposite samples containing 0.5 wt.% Figure 13 Flexural strain of the nanocomposite samples and pure
graphene was less than that of the pure epoxy. Meanwhile, epoxy.

Figure 11 Flexural stress-strain curves of the nanocomposite Figure 14 Effect of the graphene content on the flexural modulus of
samples and pure epoxy. the nanocomposite samples.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 7/1/15 1:07 PM
 R. Eqra et al.: Polymer nanocomposites      263

PIOE of closely agglomerated regions of graphene that caused

7.5
5
7.3
0.59
0
easier crack propagation through nanocomposite samples
than the pure epoxy.

3107 
3034 
3101 
2907 
2890 
Flexural 
modulus (MPa)

3.4 FTIR spectroscopy results

Figure 15 shows the FTIR spectrum of nanocompos-

ite samples and pure epoxy. The broad band around
-25.6 
1.48 
21.3 
29.7 
0 
PIOE 

3300  cm-1 is attributed to the stretching vibration of the

hydroxyl groups (O-H). The peaks at 2925 and 2855 cm-1 are
4.54 
6.19 
7.4 
7.91 
6.1 
Flexural 
strain (%)

related to the stretching vibration group (C-H) in the CH2

and CH3 bands, respectively. The peaks at 1726, 1226 and
1103 cm-1 are in the range of the stretching vibration bands
of the carbonyl (C = O), carboxyl (C-OH) and epoxide (C-O)
-2.57 
-1.25 
0 
3.3 
0 
PIOE 

groups, respectively.

3.5 Raman spectroscopy results

94.5 
95.79 
97 
100.2 
97 
Flexural strength 
(MPa)

The Raman spectroscopy of nanocomposite samples is

shown in Figure 16. The D band remained constant and
its intensity increased with increasing GNS content. The
0.1, 0.3 and 1 wt.% nanocomposite samples exhibited the
– 
158 
– 
32.9 
0 
PIOE 

G-band position at 1610, 1600 and 1580 cm-1, respectively,

which showed the G-band position moving to the left as
– 
3690 
– 
1900 
1430 
Tensile modulus 
(MPa)

the GNS content increased. The above results indicated

that, with the increase in GNS content of the nanocompos-
ite samples, the amount of GNS agglomeration increased
[12, 22]. The same results were obtained in the tension
characterization section.
-5.1 
-7 
2 
3.1 
0 
PIOE 

3.6 M
 orphology and toughening
mechanisms
9.3 
9.1 
10 
10.1 
9.8 
Tensile strain 
to fracture (%)

Figure 17 shows the morphology of the fracture surface

of epoxy samples with the addition of GNS. In contrast,
Table 1 Summary of the tensile and flexural test results.

2.2 
4.3 
7.3 
13 
0 
PIOE 

71 
72.5 
74.6 
78.6 
69.5 
Tensile strength 
(MPa)

PIOE, Percent increase over pure epoxy.

1 wt.% graphene  
0.5 wt.% graphene 
0.3 wt.% graphene 
0.1 wt.% graphene 
 
 

Pure epoxy
Sample

Figure 15 FTIR spectra of the nanocomposite samples and pure

epoxy.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 7/1/15 1:07 PM
 264      R. Eqra et al.: Polymer nanocomposites

1600
0.1 wt.% graphene
but GNS in the nanocomposite samples act as an obstacle
1400 0.3 wt.% graphene to prevent the crack growth and straight extent of the frac-
ture surface. This caused a crack growth path deflection,
Raman intensity (a.u.)

1200 1 wt.% graphene

1000
800
600
400
200
0 nanocomposite samples at 0.1 wt.% GNS content can be
1000 1200 1400 1600
Wavenumber (cm-1)
Figure 16 Raman spectra of the nanocomposite samples.
Figure 18 shows the morphology of epoxy and its nano-
composites parallel to the tension axes. As seen in the
figure, the smooth and mirror fracture surface of the
tension test of the pure epoxy sample is converted to
rough surface by adding GNS (Figure 17A,B). Acceptable
interface bonding and agglomeration of GNS in the epoxy
matrix are shown in Figure 17C and D, respectively. Fur-
thermore, the smooth surface of the pure epoxy sample
caused crack growth and the extent of the failure of the
surface to spread easily without any barrier (Figure 18A),
which improved the toughness of the nanocomposites
(Figure 18B and C). Another toughening mechanism is the
GNS pullout, which is shown in Figure 17C. It should be
mentioned that tensile stress is transferred to the GNS and
stretches it in the tension direction (Figure 18C). Finally,
the enhancement of the mechanical properties of the
1800 2000
attributed to the homogeneous dispersion of graphene,
which was confirmed by the uniform fracture surface
shown in Figure 17B, and the formation of cracks in the
agglomeration area of GNS at higher graphene contents,
which has destructive effects on the mechanical proper-
ties, is shown in Figure 18D.
Figure 19 illustrates the flexural fracture surface of
the nanocomposite samples and pure epoxy. Similar to
the tension results, the mirror fracture surface of pure
epoxy changed to rough surface for the nanocomposite
samples owing to the reinforcement of graphene and its
crack path deflection toughening mechanism (Figure
19A–C). The agglomeration produced by the increased
amount of GNS in the nanocomposite samples is shown
in Figure 19D.

A B

C D

Figure 17 SEM images. (A) The mirror fracture surface of pure epoxy. (B) The fracture surface of the 0.1 wt.% nanocomposite sample.
(C) The fracture surface parallel to tension axes of the 0.1 wt.% nanocomposite sample. (D) The fracture surface of the 1 wt.% nanocomposite
sample.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 7/1/15 1:07 PM
 R. Eqra et al.: Polymer nanocomposites      265

A B

Graphene nanosheets

C D

Stretched graphene
nanosheets Crack

Figure 18 SEM images of the fracture surface parallel to tension axes. (A) Pure epoxy. (B) 0.1 wt.% nanocomposite sample. (C) 0.3 wt.%
nanocomposite sample. (D) 1 wt.% nanocomposite sample.

4 Conclusions epoxy samples increased by 13% and 3.1%, respectively.

By further increase of GNS content, the nanocomposite
With loading GNS of up to 0.1 wt.%, the tensile strength strength decreased significantly owing to the crack initia-
and strain of composite samples compared to the pure tion in the agglomerated regions of GNS. The toughness

A B

C D

Agglomeration

Figure 19 SEM images of the flexural fracture surface. (A) The mirror surface of pure epoxy. (B, C) 0.1 wt.% nanocomposite sample.
(D) 0.5 wt.% nanocomposite sample.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 7/1/15 1:07 PM
266      R. Eqra et al.: Polymer nanocomposites
of the nanocomposite samples increased, which was
the result of the GNS content and was not considerably
reduced until the GNS acted as a reinforcement even
after the initiation of cracks due to the agglomeration of
GNS. GNS noticeably enhanced the elastic modulus of the
nanocomposite samples owing to their excellent elastic
modulus.
The flexural strength and flexural strain were
enhanced and reached 3.3% and 29.7%, respectively, for
the 0.1 wt.% nanocomposite sample compared to pure
epoxy, and decreased with increasing GNS content. The
flexural modulus increased slightly as the GNS content
increased, and a 7% enhancement with respect to pure
epoxy was attained for the 1  wt.% GNS. The flexural
strength and flexural modulus did not dramatically
increase by adding GNS fillers, but flexural strain was
remarkably enhanced, which confirmed the good inter-
face bonding of GNS with epoxy.
Compared with tensile strength and tensile modulus,
the flexural strength and flexural modulus of the nano-
composite samples did not increase dramatically, which
points to the better tensile properties rather than the
flexural properties of GNS. The tensile strain to fracture
and the flexural strength of the nanocomposite samples
were less than those of pure epoxy at 0.5 wt.% graphene
content, but the tensile strength of the nanocomposite
samples remained greater than that of pure epoxy, up to
1 wt.% GNS.
The major toughening mechanism of graphene-
epoxy nanocomposites is crack path deflection by
GNS, which caused the mirror fracture surface of pure
epoxy to convert to the rough fracture surface of epoxy
containing GNS, although the graphene pullout was
also seen in the fracture surface of graphene-epoxy
nanocomposites.
References
[1] Galpaya D, Wang M, Liu M, Motta N, Waclawik E, Yan C.
­Graphene 2012, 1, 30–49.
[2] Du JH, Cheng HM. Macromol. Chem. Phys. 2012, 213,
1060–1077.
[3] De Bellis G, Tamburrano A, Dinescu A, Santarelli ML, Sarto MS.
Carbon 2011, 49, 4291–4300.
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Authenticated
Download Date | 7/1/15 1:07 PM
[4] Tkalya EE, Ghislandi M, De With G, Koning CE. Curr. Opin. Col-
loid Interface Sci. 2012, 17, 225–232.
[5] Navoselov KS, Geim AK, Morozov SV, Jiang D, Zhang Y, Dubonos
SV, Grigorieva IV, Firsov AA. Science 2004, 306, 666–9.
[6] Gong JR. Graphene — Synthesis, Characterization, Properties
and Applications. InTech: Rijeka, 2011.
[7] Wajid AS, Das S, Irin F, Tanvir Ahmed HS, Shelburne JL, Parviz
D, Fullerton RJ, Jankowski AF, Hedden RC, Green MJ. Carbon
2012, 50, 526–534.
[8] Kim H, Abdala AA, Macosko CW. Macromolecules 2010, 43,
6515–6530.
[9] Stankovich S, Dikin DA, Dommett GH, Kohlhaas KM, Zimney EJ,
Stach EA, Piner RD, Nguyen ST, Ruoff RS. Nat. Lett. 2006, 442,
282–286.
[10] Potts JR, Dreyer DR, Bielawski CW, Ruoff RS. Polymer 2011, 52,
5–25.
[11] Rafiee MA, Rafiee J, Wang Z, Song H, Yu ZZ, Koratkar N. ACS
Nano 2009, 3, 3884–3890.
[12] Shen XJ, Liu Y, Xiao HM, Feng QP, Yu ZZ, Fu SY. Compos. Sci.
Technol. 2012, 72, 1581–1587.
[13] Zaman I, Lip TM, Le QH, Ma J. 18th International Conference on
Composite Materials, South Korea, August 21–26, 2011.
[14] Chatterjee S, Wang JW, Kuo WS, Tai NH, Salzmann C, Li WL,
­Hollertz R, Nüesch FA, Chu BT. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2012, 531, 6–10.
[15] Tien DH, Park J, Han SA, Ahmad M, Seo Y. J. Kor. Phys. Soc.
2011, 59, 2760–2746.
[16] Tien DH, Park J, Han SA, Hong S, Seo Y. 18th International
­Conference on Composite Materials, Korea, 2011.
[17] Liang J, Wang Y, Huang Y, Ma Y, Liu Z, Cai J, Zhang C, Gao H,
Chen Y. Carbon 2009, 47, 922 –925.
[18] Wang X, Xing W, Zhang P, Song L, Yang H, Hu Y. Compos. Sci.
Technol. 2012, 72, 737–743.
[19] Yang SY, Lin WN, Huang YL, Tien HW, Wang JY, Ma CC, Li SM,
Wang YS. Carbon 2011, 49, 793 –803.
[20] Guo P, Song H, Chen X, Ma L, Wang G, Wang F. Anal. Chim. Acta
2011, 688, 146–155.
[21] Teng CC, Ma CC, Lu CH, Yang SY, Lee SH, Hsiao MC, Yen MY,
Chiou KC, Lee TM. Carbon 2011, 49, 5107–5116.
[22] Villar-Rodil S, Paredes JI, Martinez-Alonso A, Tascón JM.
J. Mater. Chem. 2009, 19, 3591–3593.
[23] Singh V, Joung D, Zhai L, Das S, Khondaker SI, Seal S. Prog.
Mater. Sci. 2011, 56, 1178–1271.
[24] Din Khan SU, Arora M, Wahab MA, Saini PJ. Polymers 2014,
2014, 1–7.
[25] Naebe M, Wang J, Amini A, Khayyam H, Hameed N, Li L, Chen Y,
Fox B. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 1–7; doi: 10.1038/srep04375.
[26] Yan Zhao Y, Liu W, Zheng H. 18th International Conference on
Composite Materials, Korea, August 21–26, 2011.
[27] Zhu X, Liu Q, Zhu X, Li C, Xu M, Liang Y. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci.
2012, 7, 5172–5184.
[28] Ovid’ko IA. Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 2013, 34, 19–25.
[29] Lee SY, Chong MH, Park M, Kim HY, Park SJ. Carbon Lett. 2014,
15, 67–70.