journal article·2020-04Open access

On the extent of fracture toughness transfer from 1D/2D nanomodified epoxy matrices to glass fibre composites

Nadiim Domun, Keith R. Paton, Bamber R. K. Blackman, Cihan Kaboglu, Samireh Vahid, Tao Zhang, John P. Dear, Anthony J. Kinloch, Homayoun Hadavinia

Journal of Materials Science· Volume 55· Issue 11

Abstract

Abstract In this study, the effects of adding nanofillers to an epoxy resin (EP) used as a matrix in glass fibre-reinforced plastic (GFRP) composites have been investigated. Both 1D and 2D nanofillers were used, specifically (1) carbon nanotubes (CNTs), (2) few-layer graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs), as well as hybrid combinations of (3) CNTs and boron nitride nanosheets, and (4) GNPs and boron nitride nanotubes (BNNTs). Tensile tests have shown improvements in the transverse stiffness normal to the fibre direction of up to about 25% for the GFRPs using the ‘EP + CNT’ and the ‘EP + BNNT + GNP’ matrices, compared to the composites with the unmodified epoxy (‘EP’). Mode I and mode II fracture toughness tests were conducted using double cantilever beam (DCB) and end-notched flexure (ENF) tests, respectively. In the quasi-static mode I tests, the values of the initiation interlaminar fracture toughness, $$ G_{\text{IC}}^{\text{C}} $$, of the GFRP composites showed that the transfer of matrix toughness to the corresponding GFRP composite is greatest for the GFRP composite with the GNPs in the matrix. Here, a coefficient of toughness transfer (CTT), defined as the ratio of mode I initiation interlaminar toughness for the composite to the bulk polymer matrix toughness, of 0.68 was recorded. The highest absolute values of the mode I interlaminar fracture toughness at crack initiation were achieved for the GFRP composites with the epoxy matrix modified with the hybrid combinations of nanofillers. The highest value of the CTT during steady-state crack propagation was ~ 2 for all the different types of GFRPs. Fractographic analysis of the composite surfaces from the DCB and ENF specimens showed that failure was by a combination of cohesive (through the matrix) and interfacial (along the fibre/matrix interface) modes, depending on the type of nanofillers used.
Source: crossref · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Epoxy Resin Curing Processes · Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Fiber-reinforced polymer composites

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

References (41)

Show source-provided references
1. Kinloch A, Shaw SJ, Tod DA, Hunston DL (1983) Deformation and fracture behaviour of a rubber-toughened epoxy: 1. Microstructure and fracture studies. Polymer 24(10):1341–135410.1016/0032-3861(83)90070-8 ↗
2. Gojny FH, Wichmann MHG, Fiedler B, Schulte K (2005) Influence of different carbon nanotubes on the mechanical properties of epoxy matrix composites—a comparative study. Compos Sci Technol 65:2300–231310.1016/j.compscitech.2005.04.021 ↗
3. Domun N, Hadavinia H, Zhang T, Sainsbury T, Liaghat GH, Vahid S (2015) Improving fracture toughness and strength of epoxy using nanomaterials—a review of current status. Nanoscale 7(23):10294–1032910.1039/C5NR01354B ↗
4. Johnsen B, Kinloch A, Mohammed R, Taylor A, Sprenger S (2007) Toughening mechanisms of nanoparticle-modified epoxy polymers. Polymer 48(2):530–54110.1016/j.polymer.2006.11.038 ↗
5. Chen J, Kinloch AJ, Sprenger S, Taylor AC (2013) The mechanical properties and toughening mechanisms of an epoxy polymer modified with polysiloxane-based core-shell particles. Polymer 54(16):4276–428910.1016/j.polymer.2013.06.009 ↗
6. Domun N, Kaboglu C, Paton KR, Dear JP, Liu J, Blackman BRK, Liaghat GH, Hadavinia H (2019) Ballistic impact behaviour of glass fibre reinforced polymer composite with 1D/2D nanomodified epoxy matrices. Compos B 167:497–50610.1016/j.compositesb.2019.03.024 ↗
7. Ladani RB, Ravindran AR, Wu S, Pingkarawat K, Kinloch AJ, Mouritz AP, Ritchie RO, Wang CH (2016) Multi-scale toughening of fibre composites using carbon nanofibres and z-pins. Compos Sci Technol 131:98–10910.1016/j.compscitech.2016.06.005 ↗
8. Tang Y, Ye L, Zhang Z, Friedrich K (2013) Interlaminar fracture toughness and CAI strength of fibre-reinforced composites with nanoparticles—a review. Compos Sci Technol 86:26–3710.1016/j.compscitech.2013.06.021 ↗
9. Kim J, Lee J (2016) Influence of interleaved films on the mechanical properties of carbon fiber fabric/polypropylene thermoplastic composites. Materials 9:34410.3390/ma9050344 ↗
10. Kinloch A, Taylor AC (2006) The mechanical properties and fracture behaviour of epoxy-inorganic micro and nano-composites. J Mater Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-005-5472-010.1007/s10853-005-5472-0 ↗
11. Pearson RA, Yee AF (1993) Toughening mechanisms in thermoplastic-modified epoxies: 1. Modification using poly(phenylene oxide). Polymer 34(17):3658–367010.1016/0032-3861(93)90051-B ↗
12. Fiedler B, Gojny FH, Wichmann MHG, Nolte MCM, Schulte K (2006) Fundamental aspects of nano-reinforced composites. Compos Sci Technol 66(16):3115–312510.1016/j.compscitech.2005.01.014 ↗
13. De Cicco D, Asaee Z, Taheri F (2017) Use of nanoparticles for enhancing the interlaminar properties of fiber-reinforced composites and adhesively bonded joints—a review. Nanomaterials 7:36010.3390/nano7110360 ↗
14. Borowski E, Soliman E, Kandil U, Taha M (2015) Interlaminar fracture toughness of CFRP laminates incorporating multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Polymers 7:1020–104510.3390/polym7061020 ↗
15. Compston P, Jar P-YB, Davies P (1998) Matrix effect on the static and dynamic interlaminar fracture toughness of glass-fibre marine composites. Compos B 29B:505–51610.1016/S1359-8368(98)00004-3 ↗
16. Compston P, Jar P-YB, Burchill PJTK (2002) The transfer of matrix toughness to composite mode I interlaminar fracture toughness in glass-fibre/vinyl ester composites. Appl Compos Mater 9:291–31410.1023/A:1019658627639 ↗
17. Bradley WL (1989) Relationship of matrix toughness to interlaminar fracture toughness. In: Friedrich K (ed) Application of fracture mechanics to composite materials. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 159–18710.1016/B978-0-444-87286-9.50009-7 ↗
18. Bradley WL (1989) Understanding the translation of neat resin toughness into delamination toughness in composites. Key Eng Mater 37:161–19810.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.37.161 ↗
19. Jordan WM, Bradley WL, Moulton RJ (1989) Relating resin mechanical properties to composite delamination fracture toughness. J Compos Mater 23:923–94310.1177/002199838902300904 ↗
20. Hunston DL, Moulton RJ, Johnston NJ, Bascom WD (1987) Matrix resin effects in composite delamination mode I fracture aspects. In: Johnston NJ (ed) Toughened Composites, ASTM STP 937. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 74–9410.1520/STP24372S ↗
21. Bascom WD, Cottington RL (1976) Effect of temperature on the adhesive fracture behavior of an elastomer-epoxy resin. J Adhes 7:333–34610.1080/00218467608075063 ↗
22. Zeng Y, Liu H-Y, Mai Y-W, Du X-S (2012) Improving interlaminar fracture toughness of carbon fibre/epoxy laminates by incorporation of nano-particles. Compos B 43:90–9410.1016/j.compositesb.2011.04.036 ↗
23. Carolan D, Ivankovic A, Kinloch AJ, Sprenger S, Taylor AC (2017) Toughened carbon fibre-reinforced polymer composites with nanoparticle-modified epoxy matrices. J Mater Sci 52(3):1767–1788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-016-0468-510.1007/s10853-016-0468-5 ↗
24. Hsieh TH, Kinloch AJ, Masania K, Lee JS, Taylor AC, Sprenger S (2010) The toughness of epoxy polymers and fibre composites modified with rubber microparticles and silica nanoparticles. J Mater Sci 45(5):1193–1210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-009-4064-910.1007/s10853-009-4064-9 ↗
25. Kinloch AJ, Masania K, Sprenger S, Taylor AC (2009) The fracture of nanosilica and rubber toughened epoxy fibre composites. In: Proceedings of ICCM-17 17th international conference on composite materials, Edinburgh, UK
26. Becker O, Varley RJ, Simon GP (2003) Use of layered silicates to supplementarily toughen high performance epoxy–carbon fiber composites. J Mater Sci Lett 22:1411–141410.1023/A:1025703212174 ↗
27. Siddiqui NA, Woo RS, Kim J-K, Leung CCK, Munir A (2007) Mode I interlaminar fracture behavior and mechanical properties of CFRPs with nanoclay-filled epoxy matrix. Compos A 38(2):449–46010.1016/j.compositesa.2006.03.001 ↗
28. Ashrafi B, Guan J, Mirjalili V, Zhang Y et al (2011) Enhancement of mechanical performance of epoxy/carbon fiber laminate composites using single-walled carbon nanotubes. Compos Sci Technol 71:1569–157810.1016/j.compscitech.2011.06.015 ↗
29. Quan D, Urdániz JL, Ivanković A (2018) Enhancing mode-I and mode-II fracture toughness of epoxy and carbon fibre reinforced epoxy composites using multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Mater Des 143:81–9210.1016/j.matdes.2018.01.051 ↗
30. Domun N, Paton KR, Hadavinia H, Sainsbury T, Zhang T, Mohamud H (2017) Enhancement of fracture toughness of epoxy nanocomposites by combining nanotubes and nanosheets as fillers. Materials 10(10):117910.3390/ma10101179 ↗
31. Domun N, Hadavinia H, Zhang T, Liaghat GH, Vahid S, Paton K, Spacie C, Sainsbury T (2017) Improving the fracture toughness properties of epoxy using graphene nanoplatelets at low filler content. Nanocomposites 3(3):85–9610.1080/20550324.2017.1365414 ↗
32. ASTM D3039/D3039M-17 (2017) Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer matrix composite materials composite materials
33. ASTM D3518/D3518M-13 (2013) Standard test method for in-plane shear response of polymer matrix composite materials by tensile test of a ± 45° laminate
34. ISO 15024 (2016) Fibre-reinforced plastic composites—determination of mode I interlaminar fracture toughness, GIC, for unidirectionally reinforced materials
35. Williams JG (1989) End correction for orthotropic DCB specimens. Compos Sci Technol 35(4):367–37610.1016/0266-3538(89)90058-4 ↗
36. Hashemi SS, Kinloch AJ, Williams JG (1989) Corrections needed in double cantilever beam tests for assessing the interlaminar failure of fibre-composites. J Mater Sci Lett 8:125–12910.1007/BF00730701 ↗
37. BS 7991:2001 (2001) Determination of the mode I adhesive fracture energy, GIC, of structural adhesives using the double cantilever beam (DCB) and tapered double cantilever beam (TDCB) specimens
38. Williams JG (1987) Large displacement and end block effects in the DCB interlaminar test in modes I & II. J Compos Mater 21:330–34710.1177/002199838702100403 ↗
39. de Moura MFSF, de Morais AB (2008) Equivalent crack based analyses of ENF and ELS tests. Eng Fract Mech 75:2584–259610.1016/j.engfracmech.2007.03.005 ↗
40. Hine PJ, Brew B, Duckett RA, Ward IM (1989) Failure mechanisms in continuous carbon-fibre reinforced PEEK composites. Compos Sci Technol 35:31–5110.1016/0266-3538(89)90069-9 ↗
41. Sacchetti F, Grouve WJB, Warnet LL, Villega IF (2018) Interlaminar fracture toughness of 5HS carbon/PEEK laminates. A comparison between DCB, ELS and mandrel peel tests. Polym Test 66:13–2310.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.12.005 ↗