journal article·2001-10

A fractal Cantor set based description of interlaminar contact evolution during thermoplastic composites processing

F. Yang, R. Pitchumani

Journal of Materials Science· Volume 36· Issue 19
Publisher page

Abstract

Fusion bonding is the principal phenomenon governing the fabrication of layered thermoplastic-matrix composites using techniques such as tow placement and tape laying. An important step in fusion bonding is the intimate contact process, which refers to the development of interfacial contact area between thermoplastic plies, caused by the spreading of the surface asperities. The contacted areas, in turn, form sites for molecular interdiffusion which leads to interfacial bonding. The geometric complexity of the surface asperity profiles presents a fundamental challenge to an effective description of the intimate contact process. Toward addressing the challenge, this paper presents a model for interfacial contact area development utilizing the fractal properties of thermoplastic ply surfaces. Using a Cantor set representation of the surfaces, and a squeeze flow model to describe their spreading during the processing, the interfacial contact area evolution is related to the process parameters and the geometric parameters in the fractal surface description. The model predictions are shown to compare well with experimental data for several thermoplastic materials.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Adhesion, Friction, and Surface Interactions · Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Material Properties and Processing

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (13)

Show source-provided references
1. P. H. Dara and A. C. Loos, Center for Composite Materials and Structures Report, CCMS–85–10, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA,1985.
2. W. I. Lee and G. S. Springer, J.Composite Master. 21 (1987) 1017.10.1177/002199838702101103 ↗
3. B. B. Mandelbrot, Phys.Scr.32 (1985)257.10.1088/0031-8949/32/4/001 ↗
4. A. Majumdar and B. Bhushan, J.Tribology 112 (1990) 205.10.1115/1.2920243 ↗
5. F. M. Borodich and A. B. Mosolov, J.Appl.Math.and Mech. 56 (1992) 681.10.1016/0021-8928(92)90054-C ↗
6. T. L. Warren, A. Majumdar and D. Krajcinovic, J.Appl.Mech.63 (1996) 47.10.1115/1.2787208 ↗
7. A. Majumdar and B. Bhushan, J.Tribology 113 (1991) 1.10.1115/1.2920588 ↗
8. S. C. Mantell and G. S. Springer, J.Composite Mater. 26 (1992) 2348.10.1177/002199839202601602 ↗
9. S. W. Churchill, “Viscous Flows: The Practical Use of Theory” (Butterworths, Boston, 1988) p.206.
10. C. W. Macosko, “Rheology: Principles, Measurements, and Applications” (VCH, New York, 1994) p.510.
11. M. V. Berry and Z. V. Lewis, Proc.Royal Soc.Lond.A 370 (1980) 459.10.1098/rspa.1980.0044 ↗
12. C. A. Butler, R. L. McCullough, R. Pitchumani and J. W. Gillespie, Jr., J.Thermoplastic Composite Mater. 11 (1998) 338.10.1177/089270579801100404 ↗
13. R. Pitchumani, et al., Int.J.Heat Mass Transfer 39 (1996) 1883.10.1016/0017-9310(95)00271-5 ↗