Fig. 6: Comparison between 3D graphene/Cu and 2D graphene/Cu.
a Load-displacement curves of RGO/Cu and 3D-GLNN/Cu with several paused stages. b, c SEM images of tensile samples after in-situ tensile test of (b) RGO/Cu and (c) 3D-GLNN/Cu. Scale bar, 1âmm (b, c). d Typical SEM image of RGO peeled-off from the matrix in stage (C) during tensile deformation. Scale bar, 5âÎĵm. e, f Typical SEM images of crack bridging by e graphene/Cu interlocked structure and f 3D-GLNN. Scale bar, 2âÎĵm (e, f). g, h Atomic configurations in MD simulations of g 2D-G/Cu and h 3D-G/Cu, 3D-G was built with an all-sp2 structure at an angle of 120 degree between three directions. i, j The simulated pull-out force-displacement curves of i 2D-G/Cu and j 3D-G/Cu, the 2D-G was pulled out steadily until fully separated from the matrix while 3D-G was deformed with a complicated progress which could be divided into 3 stages. k Typical snapshots corresponding to the point A-D during the deformation progress of 3D-G/Cu. 3D-G was blocked by the Cu matrix, the two wings of which were constrained parallel to the XâY plane in D. The atoms in red indicated HCP transition formed on the {111} plane. The dislocation in magenta and blue are attributed to 1/6â<112>â(Shockley) dislocation and 1/6â<110>â(Stair-rod) dislocation, respectively.
