Simultaneously enhancing the strength, ductility and conductivity of copper matrix composites with graphene nanoribbons

Ming Yang1, Lin Weng1, Hanxing Zhu2, Tongxiang Fan1*, Di Zhang1

1State Key Laboratory of Metal Matrix Composites, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 800 Dongchuan Road, Shanghai 200240, P. R. China

2School of Engineering, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 3AA, UK

*Corresponding author. Tel: +86-21-54747779. E-mail: txfan@sjtu.edu.cn (Tongxiang Fan)

Fig. S1. (a) High-resolution SEM and (b) TEM images of raw MWCNTs.

Fig. S2. Images demonstrating the fabrication process of bulk Cu/GNR composites: (a) GNR dispersions. (b) Cu slurry dispersed in ethanol solutions. (c) The sendiment of Cu/GNR mixtures after co-blending, the upper supernatant is pure ethanol. (d) Dried Cu/GNR mixture powders. (e) As-SPSed Cu/GNR disks with a diameter of 28mm. (f) As-rolled plates of Cu/GNR composites.

Table S1. The amount of chemicals for preparation of Cu/GNR composite powders.

GNR Volume fraction (%)

GNR dispersion

Cu powder dispersion

GNR (g)

Ethanol (mL)

Cu powder (g)

Ethanol (mL)

0.5

0.024

240

20

2000

1.0

0.048

480

20

2000

3.0

0.144

1440

20

2000

Note: The density of GNR is 2.0 g cm-3 and the density of Cu is 8.96 g cm-3.

Fig. S3. (a-b) TEM images and (c) the corresponding SAED pattern of an individual GNR. (c) HRTEM image of the edge of a single-layered GNR.

Fig. S4. FTIR spectra of GNRs and raw MWCNTs. Chemical oxidation imparts a large number of epoxide, hydroxyl and carbonxyl groups to GNR surfaces, as designated.

Fig. S5. (a) SEM image of Cu/GNR composites. Arrows indicate the embedded GNRs. (b-c) the corresponding EDS elemental mapping of copper and carbon, repstively.

Fig. S6. Bending load-displacement curves of neat Cu and Cu/GNRs.

Table S2. Change in yield strength (σs) and failure strain (εb), and electrical conductance (κ) for different copper-matrix composites, with comparison to those of the matrix.

Reinforcement

Fraction

Change in σs

Change in εb

κ [IACS%]

Reference

GNRs

0 vol.%

--

--

90.2%

This Work

0.5 vol.%

32.3%

3.3%

93.9%

1.0 vol.%

55.4%

30.4%

94.6%

3.0 vol.%

126.9%

-13.1%

92.6%

um-SiC

10 vol.%

27.2%

-18%

82.63%

Mater. Lett. 2003, 57, 4583-4591

nano-SiC

4 vol.%

35%

--

--

Mater. Design 2013, 52, 881-887

TiB2

3.5 wt.%

54.8%

-71.9%

64.3%

Mater. Lett. 2002, 52, 448-452

TiC

5 vol.%

100.6%

-79%

78.6%

Mater. Design 2016, 92, 58-63

Al2O3

5 vol.%

88%

-77.5

80%

J. Alloys Compd. 2016, 682, 590-593

Si3N4

whisker

5 vol.%

10.7%

--

--

Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2014, 607, 287-293

10 vol.%

23.9%

--

--

15 vol.%

9.4%

--

--

Ternary carbides

5 vol.%

94.8%

--

86.9%

Scr. Mater. 2009, 60, 976-979

10 vol.%

83.8%

--

76.1%

20 vol.%

60.6%

--

50.7%

SiC fiber

13 wt.%

116.3%

-42.6%

85%

Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2007, 449-451, 778-781

SWCNTs

5 vol.%

30.4%

-25%

83.6%

Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2016, 675, 82-91

DWCNTs

0.5 vol%

10%

12.7%

93-97%

Carbon 2016, 96, 212-215

MWCNTs

5 vol.%

83.3%

-47%

80.5%

Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2009, 513-514, 247-253

10 vol.%

167.5%

-87%

72.6%

15 vol.%

185%

-93.7%

71.8%

Fig. S7. Orientation distribution function sections depicting the component of textures: (a) unreinfored Cu with strong copper type , Brass type and weak S-type textures, and (b) Cu/1%GNRs with Brass type and S-type textures.

2