Preparation and characterization of copper catalysts supported on mesoporous Al2O3 nanofibers for N2O reduction to N2

A series of mesoporous Al2O3 samples with different porous structures and phases were prepared and used as supports for Cu/Al2O3 catalysts. These catalysts were characterized by N-2 adsorption, NMR, TGA, XRD, and UV - vis spectroscopic techniques and tested for the catalytic reaction of N2O decomposition. The activity increased with the increasing calcination temperatures of supports from 450 to 900 degreesC; however, a further increase in calcination temperature up to 1200 degreesC resulted in a significant reduction in activity. Characterization revealed that the calcination temperatures of supports influenced the porous structures and phases of the supports, which in turn affected the dispersions, phases, and activities of the impregnated copper catalyst. The different roles of surface spinel, bulk CuAl2O4, and bulk CuO is clarified for N2O catalytic decomposition. Two mechanism schemes were thus proposed to account for the varying activities of different catalysts.

Phase separation, porous structure, and cure kinetics in aliphatic epoxy resin containing hyperbranched polyester

Thermosetting blends of an aliphatic epoxy resin and a hydroxyl-functionalized hyperbranched polymer (HBP), aliphatic hyperbranched polyester Boltorn H40, were prepared using 4,4'-diaminodiphenylmethane (DDM) as the curing agent. The phase behavior and morphology of the DDM-cured epoxy/HBP blends with HBP content up to 40 wt% were investigated by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The cured epoxy/HBP blends are immiscible and exhibit two separate glass transitions, as revealed by DMA. The SEM observation showed that there exist two phases in the cured blends, which is an epoxy-rich phase and an HBP-rich phase, which is responsible for the two separate glass transitions. The phase morphology was observed to be dependent on the blend composition. For the blends with HBP content up to 10 wt%, discrete HBP domains are dispersed in the continuous cured epoxy matrix, whereas the cured blend with 40 wt% HBP exhibits a combined morphology of connected globules and bicominuous phase structure. Porous epoxy thermosets with continuous open structures on the order of 100-300 nm were formed after the HBP-rich phase was extracted with solvent from the cured blend with 40 wt% HBP. The DSC study showed that the curing rate is not obviously affected in the epoxy/HBP blends with HBP content up to 40 wt %. The activation energy values obtained are not remarkably changed in the blends; the addition of HBP to epoxy resin thus does not change the mechanism of cure reaction of epoxy resin with DDM. (c) 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Yield functions for porous materials with cubic symmetry using different definitions of yield

Plastic yield criteria for porous ductile materials are explored numerically using the finite-element technique. The cases of spherical voids arranged in simple cubic, body-centred cubic and face-centred cubic arrays are investigated with void volume fractions ranging from 2 % through to the percolation limit (over 90 %). Arbitrary triaxial macroscopic stress states and two definitions of yield are explored. The numerical data demonstrates that the yield criteria depend linearly on the determinant of the macroscopic stress tensor for the case of simple-cubic and body-centred cubic arrays - in contrast to the famous Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman (GTN) formula - while there is no such dependence for face-centred cubic arrays within the accuracy of the finite-element discretisation. The data are well fit by a simple extension of the GTN formula which is valid for all void volume fractions, with yield-function convexity constraining the form of the extension in terms of parameters in the original formula. Simple cubic structures are more resistant to shear, while body-centred and face-centred structures are more resistant to hydrostatic pressure. The two yield surfaces corresponding to the two definitions of yield are not related by a simple scaling.