Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T23:36:02.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Investigation of the Influence of Interface Chemical Structure on Fiber/Matrix Adhesion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

Dharmaraj Raghavan
Dharmaraj Raghavan*
Affiliation:
draghavan@howard.edu, Howard, Chemistry, 525 College Street, NW, Washington DC, DC, 20059, United States
Get access

Abstract

The primary objective of the study is to investigate the impact of chemical structure at the interface on the interface strength of fiber/matrix composite. A solvent based method was used to deposit trichlorosilane on E-glass fiber surfaces followed by in situ modification of the deposited layer to prepare pure and mixed amine undecyl self assembled monolayer (SAM). The extent of fiber/matrix adhesion was determined by performing single fiber fragmentation test (SFFT). The SFFT data indicate that ≈ 85 % of fiber breaks obtained for epoxy composite occurs at a much lower mass fraction of amine coverage for SAM while a similar number of fiber breaks occur at a much higher mass fraction of amine coverage for aqueous solution deposited coupling agent system.

Keywords

compositeadhesionbonding
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 977: Symposium FF – Processing-Structure-Mechanical Property Relations in Composite Materials , 2006 , 977-FF11-09
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2007

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) Fersenbet, E., Holmes, G. A., and Raghavan, D., Journal of Adhesion, 79, 1 (2002).Google Scholar
2) Arora, P. S.; Matisons., J. G.; Provatas, A.; Smart, R., Langmuir, 11, 2009 (1995).Google Scholar
3) Ishida, H., Koenig, J. L., Polymer Engineering and Science, 18, 128 (1978).Google Scholar
4) Heise, A., Menzel, H., Yim, H., Foster, M. D., Wieringa, R. H., Schouten, A. J., Erb, V., Stamm, M., Langmuir 13, 723 (1997).10.1021/la960467gGoogle Scholar
5) Feresenbet, E., Raghavan, D., and Holmes, G., Journal of Applied Polymer Science, accepted (2006).Google Scholar
6) Holmes, G., Fersenbet, E., and Raghavan, D., Composite Interfaces, 10, 510 (2003).Google Scholar