4.7 Article

Phosphate ceramics - carbon nanotubes composites:liquid aluminum phosphate vs solid magnesium phosphate binder

Journal

CERAMICS INTERNATIONAL
Volume 41, Issue 9, Pages 12147-12152

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.06.033

Keywords

Phosphate; Carbon nanotube; TGA; Mechanical properties; Ac conductivity

Funding

  1. Russian Foundation for fundamental research [RFFI 14-03-90028 Bel_a]
  2. Belarusian foundation for fundamental research [BRFFI F14R-026]
  3. European Comission FP7 programme [FP7 PIRSES-2012-318617 FAEMCAR, FP7-PEOPLE-2013-IRSES-610875 NAmiceMC]
  4. Tomsk State University Competitiveness Improvement Program
  5. Federal Focus program of Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation [14.577.21.0006, RFMEFI57714X0006]
  6. European Social Fund under the Global Grant measure [VP1-3.1-SMM-07-K-02-041]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Physical properties (thermal stability, compressive strength, electrical conductivity, and electromagnetic interference shielding ability) of phosphate composites based on liquid aluminum phosphate and solid magnesium phosphate binders with up to 2 wt% addition of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) are compared. Phosphate matrix proves to have a significant inhibiting effect on the oxidation of MWCNTs embedded into the ceramics, which starts at temperatures 100-150 degrees C higher than in free air. Moreover, thermal treatment of the composites at temperatures up to 800 degrees C enhances the mechanical properties of the ceramics. Addition of small amount of MWCNTs results in a further mechanical reinforcement of both types of host matrices. The compressive strength of ceramic composites based on solid binders is found to be 40-60 MPa higher than that of their liquid-binder-based counterparts, while their electrical percolation threshold is substantially lower than that of the aluminum-phosphate-based composites. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd and Techna Group S.r.l. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available