High-cycle fatigue of hybrid carbon nanotube/glass fiber/polymer composites
Source abstract
Abstract
Glass fiber polymer composites have high strength, low cost, but suffer from poor performance in fatigue. Mechanisms for high-cycle (>104 cycles) fatigue failure in glass fiber composites consist primarily of matrix-dominated damage accumulation and growth that coalesce and propagate into the fibers resulting in ultimate fatigue failure. This investigation shows that the addition of small volume fractions of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (CNTs) in the matrix results in a significant increase in the high-cycle fatigue life. Cyclic hysteresis measured over each cycle in real time during testing is used as a sensitive indicator of fatigue damage. We show that hysteresis growth with cycling is suppressed when CNTs are present with resulting longer cyclic life. Incorporating CNTs into the matrix tends to inhibit the formation of large cracks since a large density of nucleation sites are provided by the CNTs. In addition, the increase in energy absorption from the fracture of nanotubes bridging across nanoscale cracks and nanotube pull-out from the matrix is thought to contribute to the higher fatigue life of glass composites containing CNTs. High-resolution scanning electron microscopy suggests possible mechanisms for energy absorption including nanotube pull-out and fracture. The distributed nanotubes in the matrix appear to inhibit damage propagation resulting in overall improved fatigue strength and durability.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Carbon Nanotubes in Composites · Smart Materials for Construction · Fiber-reinforced polymer composites
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (15)
Show source-provided references
1. Dharan CKH (1975) ASTM Spec Tech Publ 569:171
2. Dharan CKH (1975) J Mater Sci 10:1655. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0055492710.1007/BF00554927 ↗
3. Hahn HT, Kim RY (1976) J Compos Mater 10:156. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/00219983760100020510.1177/002199837601000205 ↗
4. Degrieck J, Van Paepegem W (2001) Appl Mech Rev 54(4):279. doi: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.138139510.1115/1.1381395 ↗
5. Saghizadeh H, Dharan CKH (1986) J Eng Mater Technol: Trans ASME 108(4):29010.1115/1.3225885 ↗
6. Ren Y, Li F, Cheng HM, Liao K (2003) Adv Compos Lett 12(1):19
7. Ganguli S, Aglan H (2006) J Reinforc Plast Compos 25(2):175. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/073168440505642510.1177/0731684405056425 ↗
8. Gojny FH, Wichmann MHG, Fiedler B, Bauhofer W, Schulte K (2005) Composites A 36:1525. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2005.02.00710.1016/j.compositesa.2005.02.007 ↗
9. Kim JA, Seong DG, Kang TJ, Youn JR (2006) Carbon 44:1898. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2006.02.02610.1016/j.carbon.2006.02.026 ↗
10. Wong M, Paramsothy M, Xu XJ, Ren Y, Li S, Liao K (2003) Polymer 44(25):7757. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2003.10.01110.1016/j.polymer.2003.10.011 ↗
11. Wang SS, Chim ES-M (1983) J Compos Mater 17:114. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/00219983830170020310.1177/002199838301700203 ↗
12. Stinchcomb WW, Reifsnider KL (1979) ASTM Spec Tech Publ 675:782
13. Owen MJ, Howe RJ (1972) J Phys D App Phys 5(9):163710.1088/0022-3727/5/9/319 ↗
14. Dharan CKH, Tan TF (2007) J Mater Sci 42(6):2204. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-007-1498-910.1007/s10853-007-1498-9 ↗
15. Fan Z, Hsiao KT, Advani SG (2004) Carbon 42:871. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2004.01.06710.1016/j.carbon.2004.01.067 ↗