The present disclosure relates to economical multi-scale reinforced composites comprising carbon fiber-reinforced co-continuous immiscible polymer blends (IMPBs) of a polysulfone, such as a polyarylethersulfone (PSU) and a polyaryletherketone, such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK).
The development of co-continuous immiscible polymer blends (IMPBs) offer versatility in tailoring physical properties via synergistic combinations of the blend components, and is more economical than chemical synthesis and development of a new polymer. Additional physical property enhancements are possible by fiber reinforcement of the lower viscosity phase to achieve fiber self-alignment within the IMPB composite during processing, as in fiberglass reinforced polypropylene blended with HDPE, (FRPP)/HDPE. The oriented FRPP/HDPE composite requires only ⅓ of the fibers versus a randomly oriented fiberglass reinforced polymer in order to achieve the same properties as measured along a particular axis. This translates to lower costs and less wear on processing equipment.
Fiber-reinforced PEEK is a useful fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composite useful for fabrication of various lightweight yet strong component parts in the high-end polymer market. However, the cost of PEEK is relatively high. There is a need for more cost-effective fiber-reinforced high-end polymer materials.
The present disclosure presents solutions to meet these needs.
Thus, a primary goal of the present invention is to develop a high performance IMPB, and multi-scale reinforcement, of this IMPB to result in an amplified effect on the composite's properties through self-alignment of the reinforcing agents during processing. The high performance engineering-grade polymers utilized include PEEK and PSU as commercially available representatives of the polyaryletherketone and polysulfone families, respectively. The cost of PSU can be at least one-third the cost of PEEK, depending on the quantity purchased, so a co-continuous IMPB would reduce cost. It was discovered that addition of PSU dilutes the material cost of PEEK without sacrificing performance. The fiber-reinforcing agents were selected from carbon nanofiber (CNF) and chopped carbon microfiber (CF).
Advantages of utilizing IMPB concepts and multi-scale reinforcement include:
One aspect of the invention is directed to a co-continuous immiscible polymer blend of a polysulfone and a polyaryletherketone reinforced with a carbon fiber. The polysulfone can have the structure
The polyaryletherketone can be polyetheretherketone (PEEK), having the structure
The carbon fiber can be selected from the group consisting of chopped carbon microfiber (CF), carbon nanofiber (CNF) and mixtures thereof. The amount of the polysulfone in the polyaryletherketone can range from about 20% to about 50% by weight, or from about 40% to about 50% by weight, or the amount of polysulfone in the polyaryletherketone can be about 45% by weight.
The amount of carbon microfiber present in the co-continuous immiscible polymer blend can range from about 5% to about 30% by weight, or about 15% to about 25% by weight, or the amount of carbon microfiber present in the co-continuous immiscible polymer blend can be about 20% by weight. The amount of carbon nanofiber in the co-continuous immiscible polymer blend can range from about 0.5% to about 5% by weight, or about 1% to about 4% by weight, or the amount of carbon nanofiber in the co-continuous immiscible polymer blend can be about 2.5% by weight. Further, the carbon nanofiber can be present in an amount from about 0.5% to about 2% by weight together with carbon microfiber in an amount from about 5% to about 15% by weight. The carbon nanofiber can be present in an amount of about 1% by weight together with carbon microfiber in an amount of about 10% by weight.
Another aspect of the invention is directed to a method of preparing a co-continuous immiscible polymer blend of a polysulfone and a polyaryletherketone reinforced with a carbon fiber, comprising the steps of a) preparing a carbon fiber-reinforced polysulfone, containing a reinforcing amount of carbon microfiber, carbon nanofiber, or a mixture thereof, and b) blending the carbon fiber-reinforced polysulfone with a polyaryletherketone, optionally reinforced with a reinforcing amount of carbon microfiber, carbon nanofiber, or a mixture thereof, in a blend ratio where the viscosity ratio of the polymer components is equivalent to the composition ratio at constant processing temperature and shear rate.
Compounding may be performed in a batch mixer or extruder that imparts repetitive high shear rates, elongational flow and distributive mixing. Longer mixing times provide enhanced nano-morphology of the immiscible polymer blend. Furthermore, the morphological properties are tunable by modification of the mixing process. In one embodiment, the shear rate is between about 150 and about 950 s−1. In another embodiment, the shear rate is between about 250 and about 750 s−1. In one embodiment the mixing is performed using a single screw extruder that includes one or more mixing elements that impart uniform shear flow in combination with extensional and distributive mixing.
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
As disclosed herein, a number of ranges of values are provided. It is understood that each intervening value, to the tenth of the unit of the lower limit, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, between the upper and lower limits of that range is also specifically disclosed. Each smaller range between any stated value or intervening value in a stated range and any other stated or intervening value in that stated range is encompassed within the invention. The upper and lower limits of these smaller ranges may independently be included or excluded in the range, and each range where either, neither, or both limits are included in the smaller ranges is also encompassed within the invention, subject to any specifically excluded limit in the stated range. Where the stated range includes one or both of the limits, ranges excluding either or both of those included limits are also included in the invention. The term “about” generally refers to plus or minus 10% of the indicated number. For example, “about 10%” may indicate a range of 9% to 11%, and “about 20” may mean from 18 to 22. Other meanings of “about” may be apparent from the context, such as rounding off, so, for example “about 1” may also mean from 0.5 to 1.4. Similarly, “about 0.2” may encompass the value 0.22.
One aspect of the invention is directed to a co-continuous immiscible polymer blend of a polysulfone and a polyaryletherketone reinforced with a carbon fiber. The polysulfone can have the structure
The polyaryletherketone can be polyetheretherketone (PEEK), having the structure
PEEK is a semi-crystalline, high temperature polyaryl etherketone and is processed at 360° C. PSU is an amorphous, high temperature polymer and is also processed at 360° C. PSU was targeted as the second polymer based on the high processing temperature restriction and its viscosity, which is lower than PEEK. In one embodiment, fiber self-alignment occurs during processing of the PSU/PEEK IMPB when the PSU phase is reinforced with CF and/or CNF prior to processing with PEEK. This provides enhanced mechanical and electrical properties over PEEK alone. In a further embodiment, the PEEK phase is also reinforced with CNF and/or CF and then processed with CNF and/or CF reinforced PSU. Other potential reinforcing agents include graphene, fiberglass (FG), natural fibers (NF), etc.
The carbon fiber can be selected from the group consisting of chopped carbon microfiber (CF), carbon nanofiber (CNF) and mixtures thereof. The amount of the polysulfone in the polyaryletherketone can range from about 20% to about 50% by weight, or from about 30% to about 50% by weight, or from about 40% to about 50% by weight, or the amount of the polysulfone in the polyaryletherketone can be about 45% by weight.
The amount of carbon microfiber present in the co-continuous immiscible polymer blend can range from about 5% to about 30% by weight, or about 10% to about 30%, or about 15% to about 25% by weight, or the amount of carbon microfiber present in the co-continuous immiscible polymer blend can be about 20% by weight. The amount of carbon nanofiber in the co-continuous immiscible polymer blend can range from about 0.5% to about 5% by weight, or about 1% to about 4% by weight, or about 2% to about 3%, or the amount of carbon nanofiber in the co-continuous immiscible polymer blend can be about 2.5% by weight. Further, the carbon nanofiber can be present in an amount from about 0.5% to about 2%, or about 1% to about 2% by weight together with carbon microfiber in an amount from about 5% to about 15%, or about 7% to about 13% by weight. The carbon nanofiber can be present in an amount of about 1% by weight together with carbon microfiber in an amount of about 10% by weight.
Another aspect of the invention is directed to a method of preparing a co-continuous immiscible polymer blend of a polysulfone and a polyaryletherketone reinforced with a carbon fiber, comprising the steps of a) preparing a carbon fiber-reinforced polysulfone, containing a reinforcing amount of carbon microfiber, carbon nanofiber, or a mixture thereof, and b) blending the carbon fiber-reinforced polysulfone with a polyaryletherketone, optionally reinforced with a reinforcing amount of carbon microfiber, carbon nanofiber, or a mixture thereof, in a blend ratio where the viscosity ratio of the components is equivalent to the composition ratio at constant processing temperature and shear rate.
Compounding may be performed in a batch mixer or extruder that imparts repetitive high shear rates, elongational flow and distributive mixing. Longer mixing times provide enhanced nano-morphology of the immiscible polymer blend. Furthermore, the morphological properties are tunable by modification of the mixing process. In one embodiment, the shear rate is between about 150 and about 950 s−1. In another embodiment, the shear rate is between about 250 and about 750 s−1. In one embodiment the mixing is performed using a single screw extruder that includes one or more mixing elements that impart uniform shear flow in combination with extensional and distributive mixing.
An immiscible polymer blend of PSU/PEEK was processed and thermal, mechanical, and morphological properties investigated. Morphology analysis shows two very fine, distinct phases, indicating very good mixing during processing. The benefits of adding PSU to form a PSU/PEEK immiscible polymer blend include, (1) mechanical property enhancement in impact resistance and tensile % strain to yield, (2) processing aid, (3) cost reduction and (4) potential for self-alignment of carbon fibers and nanofibers within the total PEEK composite.
Examples of the thermoplastic resins and carbon fiber reinforcements used in the following examples are listed in Table 1.
The processing equipment employed included, a Negri Boss V55-200 Injection Molding machine disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 9,533,432, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference, and a Randcastle single screw extruder (SSE) with multiple AFEM elements used for pre-compounding CNF and/or CF into the PSU phase. Prior to each processing step, PSU, PSU composites, PEEK and PEEK composites were dried at about 160° C. for more than 12 hours.
The PSU/PEEK samples were dry-blended and directly injection molded. The molder was operated at 100 RPMs, which imparts a maximum shear rate of 315 s−1. The viscosity of PSU and PEEK at a temperature and shear rate of 360° C. and 315 s−1 is 619.9 and 750.4 Pa-s, respectively. The dual phase, co-continuous structure is predicted to occur when the viscosity ratio of the components is equivalent to the composition ratio at a constant processing temperature and shear rate. The co-continuous region of the PSU/PEEK IMPB is predicted to occur at 45/55% PSU/PEEK. Thus, the PSU/PEEK IMPB was prepared at 0, 20, 40, 45, 50, 60, 80, and 100 weight % PSU in PEEK.
CNF-PSU, CF-PSU, and CNF-CF-PSU were melt-blended using the SSE, ground, dry-blended with PEEK, and injection molded at 0, 20, 40, 45, 50, 60, 80, and 100 weight % PSU composite in PEEK. The SSE was operated at 180 RPM and 342° C. while preparing CNF, CF, and CNF-CF/PSU composites.
The CNF-CF-PEEK composite was prepared in two processing steps. First, 20% CF was melt-blended with PEEK using Randcastle SSE at 180 RPM and 360° C. Second, 2.5% CNF was melt-blended with the 20CF-PEEK composite using the injection molding machine at 100 RPM and 360° C. In this case, the injection molding machine was operated as an extruder to produce extrudate for grinding.
Representative materials systems investigated for this invention are listed in Table 2. The composition ratios were the same for each composite at 0, 20, 40, 45, 50, 60, 80, and 100 weight % of the PSU or PSU reinforced composite within PEEK or the PEEK composite.
The thermal and mechanical properties, as well as the morphological structure of the PSU/PEEK IMPB were determined. The thermal properties were characterized using a TA Instruments Q1000 DSC operated in standard heat/cool/reheat mode over a temperature range of 20-400° C. at 10° C./min. The mechanical properties were determined in uniaxial tension using a MTS Q Test/25 Universal Testing Machine, according to ASTM D638. The notched Izod impact resistance was determined using an Instron Dynatup POE 2000 Impact Tester, according to ASTM D256. The average impact velocity was 3.46 m/s. Impact resistance is calculated as the total energy absorbed upon impact divided by the specimen thickness (approximately 3.3 mm). The morphology analysis was completed using a Zeiss Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (FESEM) on specimens fractured at liquid nitrogen temperatures with a 5-6 nm gold coating applied to the fracture surface. The fracture surface is perpendicular to the extrusion direction.
The carbon reinforced PSU composites were melt-blended using a Randcastle single screw extruder of Example 2 followed by injection molding, using the Negri Bossi injection molding machine and are listed in Table 3. The 2.5 CNF-20CF-PSU composite was achieved slightly differently than the others. The first melt-blending step using the Randcastle single screw extruder incorporated either the 2.5 CNF into the PSU or the 20 CF into the PSU, followed by a second processing step using the injection molding machine to add 20 CF to 2.5CNF-PSU or 2.5CNF to 20CF-PSU. All percentages were measured as weight percentages. Tensile and impact specimens were molded and tested according to ASTM D638 and D256, respectively. The tensile modulus, strength at yield and break, % strain at yield, and % strain at break appear in
The specific modulus and strength of aluminum 6061 is 25.9 GPa and 115 MPa, respectively. The specific yield strength, fracture strength, and modulus for these PSU composites are shown in Table 4. For the 20CF-PSU composite, the specific strength is over 100 MPa, and the specific modulus is almost 10 GPa.
PSU/PEEK
The mechanical properties in uniaxial tension were determined for all compositions of the PSU/PEEK IMPB. The stress-strain curves rise quickly to a peak and yield between 4% and 5% strain, after which, the stress decreases dramatically, plateaus, and then rises again. The average modulus per PSU/PEEK composition is displayed in
(CNF-PSU)/PEEK
The mechanical properties in uniaxial tension were determined for all compositions of the (CNF-PSU)/PEEK composite. The stress-strain curves rise quickly to a peak and yield between 4% and 5% strain. After yielding for 0%, 20%, and 40% (CNF-PSU) in PEEK, the stress decreases dramatically and plateaus, and then rises again before fracturing at greater than 70% strain. After yielding for 45, 50, and 60% (CNF-PSU) in PEEK, the stress decreases dramatically and plateaus before fracture between 40-65% strain. After yielding for 80% and 100% (CNF-PSU) in PEEK, the stress decreases dramatically and fracture occurs at less than 5% strain. The average modulus per (CNF-PSU)/PEEK composition is displayed in
(CF-PSU)/PEEK
The mechanical properties in uniaxial tension were determined for all compositions of the (CF-PSU)/PEEK composite. The stress-strain curves of the 20/80% (CNF-PSU)/PEEK sample behave similarly to the 100% PEEK sample but does fracture under 60% strain. For the remaining compositions, the stress-strain curves rise quickly to a peak and fracture at less than 5% strain. The average modulus per (CF-PSU)/PEEK composition is displayed in
(CNF-CF-PSU)/PEEK
The mechanical properties in uniaxial tension were determined for all compositions of the (CNF-CF-PSU)/PEEK composite. The stress-strain curves of the 20/80% (CNF-CF-PSU)/PEEK sample behave similarly to the 100% PEEK sample but does fracture under 50% strain. The 100% (CNF-CF-PSU) sample attains the highest strength value but fractures at 3.3% strain. The remaining compositions follow the stress-strain behavior of PEEK, except that they fracture between 3.4-14% strain. The average modulus per (CNF-CF-PSU)/PEEK composition is displayed in
(CNF-CF-PSU)/(CNF-CF-PEEK)
The mechanical properties in uniaxial tension were determined for all compositions of the (CNF-CF-PSU)/(CNF-CF-PEEK) composite. The stress-strain curves rise quickly to between 150 and 160 MPa and fracture between 2.2% and 3% strain. The average modulus per (CNF-CF-PSU)/(CNF-CF-PEEK) composition is displayed in
Impact Properties
PSU/PEEK
The Izod impact resistance was determined for all compositions of the PSU/PEEK IMPB and is displayed in
(CNF-PSU)/PEEK
The Izod impact resistance was determined for all compositions of the (CNF-PSU)/PEEK composite IMPB and is displayed in
(CF-PSU)/PEEK
The Izod impact resistance was determined for all compositions of the (CF-PSU)/PEEK composite IMPB and is displayed in
(CNF-CF-PSU)/PEEK
The Izod impact resistance was determined for all compositions of the (CNF-CF-PSU)/PEEK composite IMPB and is displayed in
(CNF-CF-PSU)/(CNF-CF-PEEK)
The Izod impact resistance was determined for all compositions of the (CNF-CF-PSU)/(CNF-CF-PEEK) composite IMPB and is displayed in
Morphological Structure
PSU/PEEK
The morphology of each PSUPEEK composition is revealed by electron micrograph images taken perpendicular to the machine or extrusion direction. Good mixing between the PSU and PEEK is evident by the fine structure and distribution of the two phases. PEEK is a semi-crystalline polymer and does attempt to increase density and shrink upon crystallization during cooling in the mold in a stepwise manner, while PSU is amorphous and does not attempt this type of step change in volume reduction.
At 20 wt % PSU in PEEK (a), PEEK is the primary matrix with well distributed nano-scale PSU fibers in intimate contact with the matrix. The PSU fiber diameter ranges from 200-500 nm. Most PSU fibers fractured, while others pulled out from the PEEK matrix and appear as holes. At 40 and 45 wt % PSU in PEEK (b) and (c), both phases appear to be continuous and intertwined with one another. The dual phase, co-continuous structure was predicted to occur at 45% PSU in PEEK. It is difficult to distinguish the PSU phase from the PEEK phase. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the PSU and PEEK domains are much less than 1,000 nm. Here, the PEEK phase attempts to shrink upon crystallization and applies hydrostatic like pressure on the PSU phase that inhibits the PEEK volume reduction. At 50 wt % PSU in PEEK (d), a phase inversion occurred, and PSU is the primary matrix with discrete PEEK fibers well distributed. At 50 and 60 wt % PSU in PEEK (d) and (e), the PEEK fiber diameter ranges from 200-1,000 nm, and the fibers appear to have shrunken away from the PSU matrix. This is due to the semi-crystalline nature of PEEK and the volume reduction that occurs upon crystallization during cooling from the melt. However, the 80 wt % PSU in PEEK micrograph shows intimate contact between the PEEK fiber and PSU matrix, which suggests lower crystallinity in the PEEK phase. Heat treating the blends may increase mechanical stress distribution between the phases.
The morphology of 100% (CNF-CF-PSU) and (CNF-CF-PEEK) is revealed by electron micrograph images taken at various scales and magnification. The images are taken perpendicular to the machine or extrusion direction. PEEK exhibits superior bonding with the carbon fiber, in comparison to PSU. The carbon nanofiber appears to bond with the polymers at the ends rather than along the length of the fiber. The two polymer phases are so well-mixed that they are nearly indistinguishable from one another.
Discussion
The addition of PSU to PEEK improves the impact resistance and % strain to yield while reducing costs. For example, by adding 20% PSU to PEEK, modulus, stress at yield and stress at break decrease only by 6, 2.3, and 6.7%, while impact resistance increases by 13.4%, compared to 100% PEEK. According to current resin prices for PSU ($17/1b) and PEEK ($46/1b) this would incur a savings of $5.80/1b. The addition of PSU to PEEK also acts like a processing aid and requires lower pressure during injection molding, making it easier to form complex shapes.
Furthermore, PSU has a lower viscosity than PEEK at the processing temperatures and provides a medium for self-alignment during processing of carbon fiber and carbon nanofibers within the total PSU/PEEK composite. This orientation effect will provide enhanced mechanical and electrical properties.
A summary of the impact resistance properties of the compositions of the invention is presented in the table below.
It will be understood by those of skill in the art that numerous and various modifications can be made without departing from the spirit of the present invention. Therefore, it should be clearly understood that the various embodiments of the present invention described herein are illustrative only and are not intended to limit the scope of the present invention.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/844,544, filed May 7, 2019, which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5298214 | Morrow et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5789477 | Nosker et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5916932 | Nosker et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
6042765 | Sugahara et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6962431 | Luker | Nov 2005 | B1 |
7465605 | Raravikar et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7745528 | Prud'Homme et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7906053 | Torkelson et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
8167190 | Bullock et al. | May 2012 | B1 |
8303876 | Torkelson et al. | Nov 2012 | B1 |
8734696 | Torkelson et al. | May 2014 | B1 |
8871826 | Butzloff et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
9139440 | Felisari et al. | Sep 2015 | B2 |
9597657 | Zhamu et al. | Mar 2017 | B1 |
9896565 | Nosker et al. | Feb 2018 | B2 |
10253154 | Nosker et al. | Apr 2019 | B2 |
10329391 | Nosker et al. | Jun 2019 | B2 |
11059945 | Nosker et al. | Jul 2021 | B2 |
11098175 | Nosker et al. | Aug 2021 | B2 |
11174366 | Nosker et al. | Nov 2021 | B2 |
11225558 | Nosker et al. | Jan 2022 | B2 |
20050186378 | Bhatt | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20060047052 | Barrera et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060062986 | Magario et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20070099792 | Khabashesku et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20080279756 | Zhamu et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20090087661 | Eder | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20100124713 | Farrugia et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100147188 | Mamak et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100317790 | Jang et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110017955 | Zhamu et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110114189 | Crain et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110133134 | Varma et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110143058 | Nosker et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110186789 | Samulski et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110260116 | Plee et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20120065299 | Lukehart et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120068124 | Dickinson et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120142832 | Varma et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120264836 | Felisari et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120328946 | Bosnyak et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130018204 | Jeon et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130072613 | Miltner et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130295367 | Compton et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20140042390 | Gruner et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140058046 | Sawa et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140083752 | Walczak et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140094541 | Shah et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140141257 | Ranade et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140183415 | Song | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20150267030 | Nosker et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20160009561 | Coleman et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160332136 | Zhang et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20170207000 | Prestayko et al. | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20170218141 | Nosker et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170352868 | Zhamu et al. | Dec 2017 | A1 |
20190062521 | Nosker et al. | Feb 2019 | A1 |
20200362137 | Nosker et al. | Nov 2020 | A1 |
20210163747 | So | Jun 2021 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2909715 | Oct 2014 | CA |
101558455 | Oct 2009 | CN |
101817516 | Sep 2010 | CN |
103842422 | Jun 2014 | CN |
104884243 | Sep 2015 | CN |
104945659 | Sep 2015 | CN |
104945694 | Sep 2015 | CN |
105324241 | Feb 2016 | CN |
107400246 | Nov 2017 | CN |
2287244 | Feb 2011 | EP |
2612889 | Jul 2013 | EP |
2905256 | Aug 2015 | EP |
H08-053571 | Feb 1996 | JP |
2003-138145 | May 2003 | JP |
2003-531802 | Oct 2003 | JP |
2004-162203 | Jun 2004 | JP |
2004-183127 | Jul 2004 | JP |
2007-524735 | Aug 2007 | JP |
2008-266577 | Nov 2008 | JP |
2009-542839 | Dec 2009 | JP |
2011-038078 | Feb 2011 | JP |
2011-513167 | Apr 2011 | JP |
2012500179 | Jan 2012 | JP |
2012-136712 | Jul 2012 | JP |
2013018825 | Jan 2013 | JP |
2013-507477 | Mar 2013 | JP |
2013-233790 | Nov 2013 | JP |
2015537075 | Dec 2015 | JP |
2016-509122 | Mar 2016 | JP |
2016519191 | Jun 2016 | JP |
2017531052 | Oct 2017 | JP |
6393743 | Sep 2018 | JP |
2018-158453 | Oct 2018 | JP |
6633703 | Jan 2020 | JP |
10-2011-0018024 | Feb 2011 | KR |
10-2012-0009978 | Feb 2012 | KR |
201915053 | Apr 2019 | TW |
07145918 | Dec 2007 | WO |
2009018204 | Feb 2009 | WO |
2009029984 | Mar 2009 | WO |
2010107763 | Sep 2010 | WO |
2010115173 | Oct 2010 | WO |
2011042800 | Apr 2011 | WO |
2011055198 | May 2011 | WO |
2012133303 | Jan 2012 | WO |
2012013303 | Feb 2012 | WO |
2012020099 | Feb 2012 | WO |
2012049121 | Apr 2012 | WO |
2013058181 | Apr 2013 | WO |
2013146213 | Oct 2013 | WO |
2014062226 | Apr 2014 | WO |
20140172619 | Oct 2014 | WO |
2015044478 | Apr 2015 | WO |
2015112088 | Jul 2015 | WO |
2016018995 | Feb 2016 | WO |
16106312 | Jun 2016 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Thomas Dooher et al. Novel thermoplastic yarnfor the through-thickness reinforcement of fibre-reinforced polymer composites; Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials , vol. 31(12) 1619-1633 (Year: 2018). |
Paton, et al: Scalable Production of Large Quantities of Defect-Free, Few-Layer Graphene by Shear Exfoliation in Liquids, Nature Mater, 13, Apr. 20, 2014 (Apr. 20, 2014) retrieved via the internet on Dec. 9, 2019 (Dec. 9, 2019) <url: https://www.nature.com/articles/nmat3944> Abstract. |
Whieb, Nofel Z: “Processing, Characteristics and Properties of CNT-Enhanced PA 66”, Published May 2, 2018, A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School—New Brunswick, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Oct. 2017. |
Tewatia, et al: “High Shear Melt-Processing of Polyetherethereketone Enhanced Polysulfone Immiscible Polymer Blends”, Antec Orlando, The Plastics Technology Conference, Orange County Convention Center, Orlando, FL, May 7-10, 2018. |
Tewatia, et al: “Multi-Scale Carbon (Micro/Nano) Fiber Reinforcement of Polyetheretherketone Using High Shear Melt-Processing”, Fibers, 2017, 5, 32; doi:10.3390/fib5030032, pp. 1-11. |
Lynch, et al: Applying Almmiscible Polymer Blend Concepts to Achieve an Amplified Orientation and Property Effect on Multi-scale Reinforced Compositions, Sep. 2012. |
Luker, K., “Summary Results of a Novel Single Screw Compounder”, SPE-ANTEC Technical Papers, 2007, pp. 459-463. |
Luker, K., “Randcastle Extrusion Systems, Inc—Microtruder Brochure”, III, 2008. |
Lynch, et al: “Development of Novel One-Step Hybrid Processing”, SPE-ANTEC Technical Papers, 2010, pp. 2076-2080. |
Jordhamo, et al: “Phase Continuity and Inversion in Polymer Blends and Simultaneous Interpenetrating Networks”, Polymer Engineering and Science, vol. 26, No. 8, Apr. 1986, pp. 517-524. |
Bao, et al: “Preparation of Graphene by Pressurized Oxidation and Multiplex Reduction and its Polymer Nanocomposites by Masterbatch-Based Melt Blending”, Journal of Materials Chemistry, Jan. 1, 2012, vol. 22, No. 13, pp. 6088-6096. |
Jonathan N. Coleman: “Liquid Exfoliation of Defect-Free Graphene, Accounts of Chemical Research”, 2013, vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 14-22. |
Dez-Pascual, et al: “High-Performance Nanocomposites Based on Polyetherketones”, Progress In Materials Science, Pergamon Press, GB, vol. 57, No. 7, Mar. 4, 2012 (Mar. 4, 2012), pp. 1106-1190, XP028514432, ISSN: 0079-6425, DOI: 10.1016/J.PMATSCI.2012.03.003 [retrieved on Mar. 29, 2012]. |
Choudhary, et al: “Polymer/Carbon Nanotube Nanoxomposites”, Aug. 17, 2011, Chapter 4, pp. 65-90. Retrieved from the Internet: <https://www.intechopen.com/books/carbon-nanotubes-polymer-nanocomposites/polymer-carbon-nanotube-nanocomposites>. |
Eda, et al: Chemically Derived Graphene Oxide: Towards Large-Area Thin-Film Electronics and Optoelectronics; Advanced Materials, 2010, vol. 22, pp. 2392-2415. |
Lu, et al.: “Preparation of Polyethylene/Expanded Graphite Intercalated Composites by In-situ Expanding Method”, China Plastics, Jul. 31, 2009, vol. 23, No. 7, pp. 49-54. |
Nixon, A.: “Understanding Graphene—Part 1”, Feb. 4, 2016. [retrieved Nov. 18, 2016]. Retrieved from the Internet: <http://investorintel.com/technology-metals-intel/understanding-graphene-part-1-graphene-and-graphite/>. |
Novoselov et al., “Electric Field Effect in Atomically Thin Carbon Films,” Science (2004); 306:666-669. |
Paton et al: “Scale-up of Liquid Exfoliation of Graphene”, Thomas Swan Advanced Materials, Retrieved from the Internet: URL: https://www.tcd.ie/Physics/research/groups/1d-nanostructures/files/posters/ChemOnTubes%20Poster%20KP.pdf>. Publication [unknown, not earlier than 2014]. |
Paton et al: “Scalable Production of Large Quantities of Defect-Free Few-Layer Graphene by Shear Exfoliation in Liquids”, Nature Materials, Jun. 2014, vol. 13, pp. 624-630. |
Randcastle Extrusion Systems, Inc., Nov. 1, 2006, XP055279030, retrieved from the Internet: URL: http://www.feedscrewdesigns.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000521.html [retrieved on Jun. 9, 2016], pp. 1-3. |
Thomas Swan; “Elicarb Graphene Epoxy Dispersion”, Advanced Materials, Publication [unknown]. |
Peeterbroeck, et al: “How Carbon Nanotube Crushing Can Improve Flame Retardant Behaviour in Polymer Nanocomposites?”, Macromolecular Rapid Communications, vol. 28, No. 3, Feb. 2, 2007 (Feb. 2, 2007), pp. 260-264, XP055669652, DE, ISSN: 1022-1336, DOI: 10.1002/marc.200600614. |
Rangari et al: “Alignment of Carbon Nanotubes and Reinforcing Effects in Nylon-6 Polymer Composite Fibers”, Nanotechnology Instititute of Physics Publishing, GB, vol. 19, No. 24, Jun. 18, 2008 (Jun. 18, 2008), pp. 1-9, XP002679937, ISSN: 0957-4484, DOI: DOI:10.1088/0957-4484/19/24/245703 [retrieved on May 12, 2008]. |
Wakabayashi, et al.: “Polymer-Graphite Nanocomposites: Effective Dispersion and Major Property Enhancement via Solid-State Shear Pulverization”, Macromolecules, American Chemical Society, Feb. 29, 2008, vol. 41, No. 6, pp. 1905-1908, XP-002743181. |
Xie, et al “Boron Nitride Nanosheets As New Barrier Additive For Plastic Packaging”, New/Nano Materials. Retrieved from the Internet <URL: https://www.tcd.ie./Physics/research/groups/1d-nanostructures/files/posters/NewNano%20-%2034_poster_Shaobo%20Xie.pdf>, Publication [unknown, no earlier than 2013]. |
Liu et al: “A Controllable Self-Assembly Method for Large-Scale Synthesis of Graphene Sponges and Free-Standing Graphene Films”, Advanced Functional Materials, 2010, 20, 1930-1936, DOI: 10.1002/adfm.201000287 (XP-001554543). |
“BASF Polystyrol 158 K Polystyrene (Global)”, MatWeb Material Property Data, Retrieved from Internet Jul. 15, 2022; Retrieved from Internet: <https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguide-b011e2c0a7974492a5e0ed73c08a3454>. |
Sathyanarayana et al: “Compounding of MWCNTs with PS in a Twin-Screw Extruder with Varying Process Parameters: Morphology, Interfacial Behavior, Thermal Stability, Rheology, and Volume Resistivity”, Macromolecular Materials and Engineering, 2013, 298, 89-105. |
Takase et al: :Dispersion of Carbon-Nanotubes in a Polymer Matrix by a Win-Screw Extruder, 2002, vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 126-131, Online ISSN 1883-7417, Print ISSN 0915-4027, <https://doi.org/10.4325/seikeikakou.14.126>, Retrieved on Internet: <<https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/seikeikakou1989/14/2/14_2_126/_article/-char/ja>>. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20200354572 A1 | Nov 2020 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62844544 | May 2019 | US |