effect of carbon nanomaterials embedded in a cementitious
TRANSCRIPT
Effect of Carbon
Nanomaterials Embedded in a Cementitious Matrix
CLARISSA ROE, BRITTANY BRODER, JASON WILSON,
DR. EDWARD KINTZEL, DR. KEITH ANDREW
Introduction
Background Information/Assumptions
Experiment
Images and Results
Conclusions
Future Plans/Improvements
Why?
Purpose: To see if carbon nanofibers have an
effect on the splitting tensile strength of small
gypsum columns.
Assumption 1: The more aggregate present in the
sample, the lower the splitting tensile strength.
Assumption 2: The more area of additive in
contact with cement, the stronger the product
will be.
Assumption 3: The more rounded the additive is,
the weaker the final product will be.
Materials Available
Hydro-Stone Gypsum Cement
Carbon Nanofibers (CNF)
Single Walled Carbon Nanotubes
(SWNT)
Buckminsterfullerene (C60)
Graphene Oxide (GO)
Single Walled Carbon Nanotubes
Diameter: 0.7 to 1.4 nanometers.
Compared to Cement?
Compressive Strength
Hydrostone gypsum cement: 10,000 psi or
0.06895 GPa (Ultracal- 0.047- 0.054 GPa)
Single strands of SWNT : 40.6 GPa
Tensile Strength
Steel: 0.51-0.62 GPa
CNT: 13-52 GPa
Ultracal gypsum cement: (dry) .046-.050 GPa
Retrieved from: http://www.nanocomptech.com/what-are-carbon-
nanotubes
C60 and Graphene Oxide
C60 Young’s Modulus
C60 : 20 ± 5 GPa
Gypsum cement- 1.45- 1.72 GPa
Graphene Oxide (GO) Sheets
Average tensile strength- 24.7 ± 4.5 GPa
Steel: 0.51-0.62 GPa
Ultracal gypsum cement: (dry) .046-.050 GPa
C-60 image retrieved from: http://www.jameshedberg.com/scienceGraphics.php?sort=all&id=c60-buckyball-atoms-red
Graphene Oxide image retrieved from:
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/763713?lang=en®ion=US
Experiment
Part I- Gypsum Discs (all concentrations)
Imaged discs with varying concentrations of CNF
Part II- Gypsum Columns (bolded concentrations)
Gathered splitting strength data
Imaged discs
CNF CNF % by mass
SWNT 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
C60 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Graphene Oxide 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Part II- Gypsum Columns
Sample sizes = ~ 2 in (5.08 cm) height, ~ 1 in (2.54
cm) diameter
3.1:1 ratio of cement to water (0.32 water:
cement)
?
Splitting Tensile Strength
Blanks samples broke within 34-42 seconds. CNT samples broke within
1 min, 30 seconds.
Average S.T.S of CNT in psi
a = 600 ± 30 (psi)
b = -(30 ± 8) *103 (psi/concentration)
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9%
Ave
rag
e S
plit
tin
g T
en
sile
Str
en
gth
(p
si)
CNT Concentration (%)
509.3
570.4
527.5
304.3
Average S.T.S of C60 in psi
a = 500 ± 8 (psi)
b = -(1 ± 2)*103 (psi/concentration)
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9%
Ave
rag
e S
plit
tin
g T
en
sile
Str
en
gth
(p
si)
C60 Concentration (%)
509.3 501.3 484.1492.8
Average S.T.S of GO in psi
a =500 ± 40 (psi)
b =-(7 ± 9) x 103 (psi/concentration)
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9%
Ave
rag
e S
plit
tin
g T
en
sile
Str
en
gth
(p
si)
Graphene Oxide Concentration (%)
509.3
572.7
450.8471.0
Percentage Change of Strength
of CNF Samples vs. Blanks
CNF Concentration (%) SWNT vs.
Blanks (%)
C60 vs.
Blanks (%)
GO vs.
Blanks (%)
0 0 0 0
0.1 11.9 -1.6 12.4
0.2 3.6 -4.9 -11.5
0.8 -40 -3.2 -7.5
• Positive percentage values indicate an increase in strength
• Negative values indicate a decrease in strength.
• The addition of SWNT resulted in more increases in strength, while
the addition of C60 resulted in more decreases in strengths.
Conclusions
CNT- As more SWNT were added, the weaker the concrete
became.
SWNT exhibited more of the expected behavior of aggregates
in cementitious materials.
C60- As more C60 was added, the strength did not
drastically change.
GO- As more GO added, the weaker the concrete
became, though not as drastically as CNT.
Future
Plans/Improvements Improvements
More samples
Better quality gypsum. A different batch of Hydrostone gypsum could yield different results. Ultracal is more consistent.
Use Portland Cement, as that is the most common concrete ingredient and would have more applications
More effective/ consistent preparation methods and curing environments
Future Plans
Possible gypsum has been found on Mars. Research could be done to see if gypsum could be used in structure formation.
Cost Analysis
Homeland Security
Connection
Assist in rebuilding of natural disaster sites
Protection from natural disasters (earthquakes,
fires, etc.) and terrorism (bombings, crashes, etc.)
by improving building materials
References Atteberry, J. (2016). How Does a Scanning Electron Microscopes Work Its Magic? PREVNEXT. Retrieved March 12, 2016, from http://science.howstuffworks.com/scanning-
electron-microscope3.htm-
AZoM.com (2016, July 20). Properties: Stainless steel - grade 304 (UNS S30400). Retrieved July 25, 2016, from http://www.azom.com/properties.aspx?ArticleID=965
Cao, C., Daly, M., Singh, C. V., Sun, Y., & Filleter, T. (2015). High strength measurement of monolayer graphene oxide. Carbon, 81, 497–504. doi:10.1016/j. carbon.2014.09.082
Cunningham, C., Townsend, F., & Fagundo, F. (1983-1984). The Development of Micro-Concrete for Scale Model Testing of Buried Structures. Engineering and Services Laboratory Air Force Engineering and Services Center. Retrieved April 10, 2016.
Cole, S., Buis, A., & Webster, G. (2011, December 7). NASA mars Rover finds mineral vein deposited by water. Retrieved July 16, 2016, from http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2011-377
Department of Homeland Security. Ensure Resilience to Disasters. Retrieved November 9, 2016, from https://www.dhs.gov/building-resilient-nation
Department of Homeland Security. Prevent Terrorism and Enhance Security. Retrieved November 9, 2016, from https://www.dhs.gov/prevent-terrorism-and-enhance-security
Energy-dispersive detector (EDS). (n.d.). Retrieved April 12, 2016, from http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/geochemsheets/eds.html
Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Sector Strategies Performance Report. Retrieved April 5, from https://archive.epa.gov/sectors/web/pdf/performanceclr.pdf
Gong, K., Pan, Z., Korayem, A. H., Qiu, L., Li, D., Collins, F., . . . Duan, W. H. (2015). Reinforcing Effects of Graphene Oxide on Portland Cement Paste. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 27(2). doi:10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0001125
Grdic, Z., Toplicic-Curcic, G., & Stojic, N. (2010). Concrete aggregate and cement mass content effects on compressive strength. Facta universitatis - series: Architecture and Civil Engineering, 8(4), 413–423. doi:10.2298/fuace1004413g
Gypsum Association, (2013, December 10). Gypsum through the ages. Retrieved July 15, 2016, from https://www.gypsum.org/about/gypsum-101/history-gypsum/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fYlKUUyj4M)
Harris, H. G., & Sabnis, G. M. (1999). Structural modeling and experimental techniques. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Hoen, S., Chopra, N. G., Xiang, X.., Mostovoy, R., Hou, J., Vareka, W. A., & Zettl, A. (1992). Elastic properties of a van der Waals solid: C 60. Physical Review B, 46(19), 12737–12739. doi:10.1103/physrevb.46.12737
Kumar, S., Kolay, P., Malla, S., & Mishra, S. (2012). Effect of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes on Mechanical Strength of Cement Paste. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 24(1), 84–91. doi:10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0000350
Mixing Instructions. (n.d.). Retrieved April 3, 2016, from http://plaster.com/mixing.html
Modulus of elasticity or young’s Modulus - and tensile Modulus for common materials. Retrieved July 15, 2016, from http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-d_417.html
Reference (Cont.) Nanocomp Technologies | Nanotechnology. (n.d.). Retrieved April 4, 2016, from http://www.nanocomptech.com/what-are-carbon-nanotubes
Nemati, K. M. (2015, January 3). Aggregates for Concrete. Retrieved November 9, 2016, from http://courses.washington.edu/cm425/aggregate.pdf
Portland Cement Association, (2015). Concrete cracks- A shrinking problem. Retrieved July 15, 2016, from http://www.cement.org/for-concrete-books-learning/materials-applications/architectural-and-decorative-concrete/focus-on-floors/concrete-shrinkage (https://www.usg.com/content/dam/USG_Marketing_Communications/united_states/product_promotional_materials/finished_assets/usg-gypsum-misconceptions-white-paper-en-IG1847.pdf)
Preparation and Mechanical Properties of Graphene Oxide: Cement Nanocomposites. (n.d.). Retrieved April 2, 2016, from http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/276323/
SABNIS, G. M., & WHITE, R. N. (1967). A Gypsum Mortar for Small-Scale Models. ACI Journal Proceedings, 64(11), . doi:10.14359/7606
Scanning Electron Microscope. (n.d.). Retrieved March 12, 2016, from https://www.purdue.edu/ehps/rem/rs/sem.htm
Sideri, S. (2014). Feasibility study of functionalized graphene for compatibility with cement hydrates and reinforcement steel (Unpublished master's thesis). CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY. doi:http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/215326/215326.pdf
Sigma Aldrich. (2016). Carbon nanotube, single-walled. Retrieved July 25, 2016, from http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/724777?lang=en®ion=US
Size and Scale. (n.d.). Retrieved April 4, 2016, from http://education.mrsec.wisc.edu/36.htm
The Effect of Aggregate Properties on Concrete. Retrieved November 9, 2016, from http://www.engr.psu.edu/ce/courses/ce584/concrete/library/materials/aggregate/aggregatesmain.htm
Tokushi Kizuka, Kazuma Saito, Kun’ichi Miyazawa, Young’s modulus of crystalline C60 nanotubes studied by in situ transmission electron microscopy, Diamond and Related Materials, Volume 17, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 972-974, ISSN 0925-9635, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diamond.2008.02.038 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925963508002227)
Ulloa, E. (2013). Fullerenes and their Applications in Science and Technology. Introduction to Nanotechnology. Retrieved March 29, 2016, from http://web.eng.fiu.edu/~vlassov/EEE-5425/Ulloa-Fullerenes.pdf
USG. (2014, April 29). HYDRO-STONE® Gypsum Cements. Retrieved from https://www.usg.com/content/dam/USG_Marketing_Communications/united_states/sds/usg-hydro-stone-gypsum-cement-sds-en-52000000012.pdf
Zu, M., Lu, W., Li, Q., Zhu, Y., Wang, G., & Chou, T. (2012). Characterization of Carbon Nanotube Fiber Compressive Properties Using Tensile Recoil Measurement. ACS Nano,6(5), 4288-4297. doi:10.1021/nn300857d
Yu, M.-F., Files, B. S., Arepalli, S., & Ruoff, R. S. (2000). Tensile Loading of Ropes of Single Wall Carbon Nanotubes and Their Mechanical Properties. Physical Review Letters, 84(24), 5552–5555. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.84.5552
Why Gypsum?
Increased resistance to fire when used in gypsum
boards
Gypsum > Portland Cement for several reasons:
No shrink cracks- Common with regular concrete, when
cement becomes concrete, it loses water and as a result,
a decrease in its volume. This leads to cracking in the
material and will allow other structural problems to occur.
Expand into any crevice it can find and will secure itself to
that space. This allows the user to avoid having to create
crevices.
Gypsum uses water only for hydration and will set evenly.
This is unlike calcium aluminate cement or Portland
cement, where an uneven thickness in the pouring of the
cement will result in uneven drying and shrinkage.
AVERAGE SPLIT TENSILE STRENGTHS
AND UNCERTAINTY FOR SWNT
COLUMNS
CNF Concentration (%) Average S.T.S (psi) Uncertainty (psi)
0 509.3 40.1
0.1 570.4 35.3
0.2 527.5 23.5
0.8 304.3 27.2
AVERAGE SPLIT TENSILE STRENGTHS
AND UNCERTAINTY FOR C60
COLUMNS
CNF Concentration (%) Average S.T.S (psi) Uncertainty (psi)
0 509.3 40.1
0.001 501.3 101.0
0.002 484.1 45.8
0.008 492.8 45.3
AVERAGE SPLIT TENSILE STRENGTHS
AND UNCERTAINTY FOR GRAPHENE
OXIDE COLUMNS
CNF Concentration (%) Average S.T.S (psi) Uncertainty (psi)
0 509.3 40.1
0.001 572.7 38.9
0.002 450.8 49.0
0.008 471.0 21.8
Percent Change Between the
Average Strengths of the CNF
Samples
CNF Concentration (%) SWNT vs. C60 (%) SWNT vs. GO (%) C60 vs GO (%)
0 0 0 0
0.1 13.8 -0.42 -12.5
0.2 8.9 17.0 7.4
0.8 -38.2 -35.4 4.6
• Positive values indicate an increase in strength
• Negative values indicate a decrease in strength.
• The addition of SWNT resulted in an approximately 14% stronger
sample than the C60, but a 0.42% decrease in strength when
compared to GO.
• The choice of which CNF is appropriate for usage depends on the
magnitude of the increase/decrease and how much CNF would
need to be added.
Electron Dispersion
Spectroscopy
• EDS detects x-rays,
absorbs the
energy, and
initiates an
electrical charge.
• Note that carbon
is on the lower end
of the spectrum.
Image obtained from http://amptek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/lew_8.png
Scanning Electron
Microscope
Instead of light, electrons to produce an image.
Better than traditional microscopes
Better sample focus
More ability to control the magnification due to
electromagnets instead of lenses
Higher resolution.
Allows more of a sample to be imaged.
How Does It Work?
Electrons are emitted from the electron gun and travel downward towards the sample.
Electron beam passes through multiple electromagnetic lenses and can be focused on a particular spot on the sample.
When the electron beam hits the sample, it interacts with the sample electrons and causes three types of emissions- secondary electrons, backscattered electrons, and X-rays.
Specific detectors, located towards the bottom of the figure, attract the emissions and depending on the intensity, can produce various shades of black and white images corresponding to the elemental composition of the sample.
Image retrieved from: https://www.purdue.edu/ehps/rem/rs/sem.htm-
Emissions
Images retrieved from: http://www.seallabs.com/how-sem-works.html and http://www.seallabs.com/how-sem-eds-works.html
Why Splitting Tensile
Strength (S.T.S)?
Cement structures have a large compressive
strength, but low tensile strength.
S.T.S provides data that illustrate the carbon
nanofibers bridging across the cement mixture
Related to compression, but gives more
applicable data.
After a 28-day curing period, the addition of
0.03% by mass GO sheets increased the compressive strength of OPC by 46% and the split
tensile strength by 50%.
External Comparisons
(SABNIS & WHITE, 1967)
a =400 ± 50 (psi)
b =-70 ± 50 (psi)
a= (400 ± 40) psi
b= (-70 ± 50) psi
a =300 ± 20 (psi)
b =-30 ± 30 (psi)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Sp
littin
g T
en
sile
Str
en
gth
(p
si)
Aggregate/Gypsum Ratio
0.3 (W/G)
0.35 (W/G)
0.4 (W/G)