Supplementary Materials

The PDF file includes:

  • Supplementary Methods
  • Supplementary Discussion
  • Fig. S1. The schematic of the sample platform with precise positioner and temperature control in the SEM for in situ and variable-temperature characterization.
  • Fig. S2. Schematic of the homemade apparatus for mechanical property measurement from 4 to 1273 K.
  • Fig. S3. Measurements of the Young’s modulus of the 3DGraphene foam at 4 K.
  • Fig. S4. Measurements of the Poisson’s ratio of the 3DGraphene foam at 4 K.
  • Fig. S5. The schematic of the nodes under compression.
  • Fig. S6. The modeling architecture of the plane perpendicular to the compression direction.
  • Fig. S7. Schematic of the proposed elastic deformation of the 3DGraphene foam under compressive stress.
  • Fig. S8. The schematic of the periodic honeycomb-like cell architecture for modeling the 3DGraphene foam and enlargement of one unit cell under the applied compressive stress.
  • Fig. S9. The schematic of a cell node under the applied compressive stress.
  • Fig. S10. The schematic of elastic bending of the graphene cell wall under the applied compressive stress.
  • Fig. S11. The schematic of elastic buckling of the graphene cell wall under the applied compressive stress.
  • Fig. S12. The schematic of deeply elastic bending of the graphene cell wall at large strain of the sample.
  • Fig. S13. The photograph of the 3DGraphene foam samples.
  • Fig. S14. Cross-sectional SEM images of the 3DGraphene foam.
  • Fig. S15. Energy dissipation mechanism.
  • Fig. S16. Young’s modulus–engineering strain plots along the axial and radial directions at different temperatures.
  • Fig. S17. Poisson’s ratio at different engineering strain of the 3DGraphene foam along the axial and radial directions at different temperatures.
  • Fig. S18. In situ SEM observations of the 3DGraphene foam during compress-release cycles at 4 K.
  • Fig. S19. The Young’s modulus versus applied engineering strain at different temperatures.
  • Fig. S20. The Poisson’s ratio versus applied engineering strain at different temperatures.
  • Fig. S21. The cyclic stability at different temperatures.
  • Fig. S22. The stepwise compress-release cycles with increasing maximum strain along both the axial and radial directions at different temperatures.
  • Fig. S23. Comparison of the in situ SEM images of the same sample under 0, 45, and 90% strains in the compress process.
  • Fig. S24. Thermal expansion of the 3DGraphene foam in both axial and radial directions.
  • Fig. S25. A typical AFM image of GO sheets.
  • Fig. S26. The simulated stress-strain curve at 298 K.
  • Fig. S27. The simulated Young’s modulus–engineering strain curves at different temperatures.
  • Fig. S28. The simulated tangent modulus–strain curves at different temperatures.
  • Fig. S29. Results of cyclic mechanical test at 1273 K and that of the following test at other temperatures for the same samples.
  • Fig. S30. The relationship between compressed density and Young’s modulus with strain.
  • Legends for movies S1 to S4
  • References (60–80)

Download PDF

Other Supplementary Material for this manuscript includes the following:

  • Movie S1 (.mp4 format). In situ optical observation for compress-release cycles of the 3DGraphene foam at 4 K and corresponding stress-strain transient curves.
  • Movie S2 (.mp4 format). In situ optical observation for compress-release cycles of the 3DGraphene foam at 1273 K and corresponding stress-strain transient curves.
  • Movie S3 (.mp4 format). In situ SEM observation for compress-release cycles of the 3DGraphene foam at 4 K.
  • Movie S4 (.mp4 format). In situ SEM observation for compress-release cycles of the 3DGraphene foam at 1273 K.

Files in this Data Supplement: