Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T23:33:38.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interlaminar Fracture in Carbon Fiber/Thermoplastic Composites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

J. A. Hinkley ,
W. D. Bascom  and
R. E. Allred
J. A. Hinkley
Affiliation:
NASA Langley Research center, Mail Stop 226, Hampton, VA 23665-5225
W. D. Bascom
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112
R. E. Allred
Affiliation:
PDA Engineering, 3754 Hawkins, NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109
Get access

Abstract

The surfaces of commercial carbon fibers are generally chemically cleaned or oxidized and then coated with an oligomeric sizing to optimize their adhesion to epoxy matrix resins. Evidence from fractography, from embedded fiber testing and from fracture energies suggests that these standard treatments are relatively ineffective for thermoplastic matrices. This evidence is reviewed and model thermoplastic composites (polyphenylene oxide/high strain carbon fibers) are used to demonstrate how differences in adhesion can lead to a two-fold change in interlaminar fracture toughness.

The potential for improved adhesion via plasma modification of fiber surfaces is discussed. Finally, a surprising case of fiber-catalyzed resin degradation is described.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 170: Symposium N – Interfaces in Composites , 1989 , 351
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Williams, J. G. and Rhodes, M. D., in Composite Materials: Testing and Design (Sixth Conference) ASTM STP 787, Daniel, I. M., ed. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1982, pp. 450–480.Google Scholar
2. Johnston, N. J., O'Brien, T. K., Morris, D. H. and Simonds, R. A., 28th Nat'l SAMPE Symp. and Exhib. 28, 502 (1983).Google Scholar
3. For Example Drzal, L. T., Rich, M. J. and Lloyd, P. F., J. Adhesion 16, 1 (1983); L. T. Drzal, M. J. Rich, M. F. Koenig and P. F. Lloyd, J. Adhesion, 16, 133 (1983).Google Scholar
4. Bascom, W. D., Jensen, R. M. and Cordner, L. W., Int'l Conf. on Composite Matls. (6th: 1987, London) Mathews, F. L., ed. Elsevier, London, 1987 p. 5.424.Google Scholar
5. Hunston, D. and Dehl, R., SME Technical Paper EM 87–355, Autocom ‘87 (1987).Google Scholar
6. Kinloch, A. J. and Kodokian, G. K. A., Final Technical Report, Contract DAJA-45-86-C-0037 European Research Office of theU.S. Army, September 1989.Google Scholar
7. Hinkley, J. A., J. Reinf. Plast. Comp. (in press).Google Scholar
8. Russell, A. J. and Street, K. N., in Delamination and Debonding of Materials, ASTM STP 876, Johnson, W. S., ed. American Soc. for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1985, p. 349.Google Scholar
9. Hinkley, J. A., Johnston, N. J. and O'Brien, T. K., in Advances in Thermoplastic Matrix Composite Materials, ASTM STP 1044, Newaz, G. M. ed., ASTM, Philadelphia, 1989, p. 251.Google Scholar
10. Hinkley, J. A., in Composites, Vigo, T. L., ed., ACS Advances in Chemistry Series (in press).Google Scholar