Simulation studies show improved mechanical properties in PA6-ABS blends with graphene and MWCNT reinforcements, suggesting enhanced material performance.
This research investigates the prospective of reinforcing Polyamide 6 (PA6) blended with Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) using graphene, Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes (MWCNT), and their hybrid combinations to enhance mechanical properties. Different weight percentages of MWCNT, graphene, and hybrid reinforcements were used to create twelve distinct nanocomposite structures. Material properties like density, Young’s modulus, shear modulus, and Poisson’s ratio were predicted using Digimat 2017 software, and finite element analysis was made easier on ASTM D638 standard tensile specimens using CATIA V5R19 Educational software to evaluate deflection behaviour and maximum von Mises stress. The study shows how various nanofiller kinds and concentrations affect the PA6-ABS blend’s mechanical response. According to the results, hybrid nanocomposites have better mechanical properties than single-filler systems. The potential of PA6-ABS based nanocomposites for high-performance engineering applications is highlighted in this work, which offers insightful information about the nanoscale reinforcing mechanisms. Results indicate a consistent decrease in deflection across all nanocomposite types (Graphene, MWCNT, and hybrids) as filler content increased, signifying enhanced stiffness. Notably, PA-M15 exhibited the lowest deflection, suggesting maximum resistance to deformation. Through simulation-based evaluation, it will help guide future material selection and design optimization. Major Findings: Simulation studies show that adding graphene, MWCNT, and their hybrids to PA6-ABS blends significantly enhances mechanical stiffness and reduces deflection. Hybrid and MWCNT-reinforced composites, particularly PA-M15, exhibit superior mechanical properties. These materials are promising candidates for high-performance engineering applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rayjadhav et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: