journal article·2013-09

Improved fracture toughness and fatigue life of carbon fiber reinforced epoxy composite due to incorporation of rubber nanoparticles

Nguyen Tien Phong, Mohamed H. Gabr, Le Hoai Anh, Vu Minh Duc, Andrea Betti, Kazuya Okubo, Bui Chuong, Toru Fujii

Journal of Materials Science· Volume 48· Issue 17
Publisher page

Abstract

In this study, core–shell rubber (CSR) nanoparticles with approximate particle size of 35 nm were used as a modifier for the epoxy polymer. The effects of various CSR contents in the epoxy matrix on mode I interlaminar fracture toughness, tensile strength, and fatigue life of the carbon fabric reinforced epoxy (CF/EP) composites were investigated. The experimental results showed that the mode I interlaminar fracture toughness at crack initiation and propagation significantly improved by 71.21 and 58.47 %, respectively, when 8.0 wt% CSR was dispersed in the epoxy matrix. The fatigue life of the modified CF/EP composites at all of CSR contents dramatically increased 75–100 times longer than that of the unmodified CF/EP composites at high cycle fatigue while tensile strength slightly increased by about 10 %. Field emission scanning electron microcopy (FESEM) observations of the fracture surfaces were conducted to explain failure mechanisms of CSR addition to the CF/EP composites. The evidences of the rubber nanoparticle debonding, plastic void growth, and microshear banding were credited for delaying the onset of matrix crack, and reducing the crack growth rate, as a result, attributed to increase in the mechanical properties of the CF/EP composites.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

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

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

References (37)

Show source-provided references
1. Khan SU, Kim J-K (2012) Carbon 50:526510.1016/j.carbon.2012.07.011 ↗
2. Gkikas G, Barkoula N-M, Paipetis AS (2012) Compos B 43:269710.1016/j.compositesb.2012.01.070 ↗
3. Davis DC, Wikerson JW, Zhu J, Hadjiev VG (2011) Compos Sci Technol 71:108910.1016/j.compscitech.2011.03.014 ↗
4. Ashrafi B, Guan J, Mirjalili V et al (2011) Compos Sci Technol 71:156910.1016/j.compscitech.2011.06.015 ↗
5. Chen Q, Zhao Y, Zhou Z et al (2013) Compos B 44:110.1016/j.compositesb.2012.09.005 ↗
6. Zang G, Karger-Kocsis J, Zou J (2010) Carbon 48:428910.1016/j.carbon.2010.07.040 ↗
7. Phong NT, Garb MH, Okubo K, Chuong B, Fujii T (2013) Journal of Materials and Design 47:62410.1016/j.matdes.2012.12.057 ↗
8. Phong NT, Garb MH, Okubo K, Chuong B, Fujii T (2013) Journal of Composite Structures 99:38010.1016/j.compstruct.2012.12.018 ↗
9. Takagaki N, Okubo K, Fujii T (2008) Adv Mater Res 47–50:13310.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.47-50.133 ↗
10. Li G, Li P, Yu Y et al (2008) Mater Lett 62:51110.1016/j.matlet.2007.05.080 ↗
11. Hsieh TH, Kinloch AJ et al (2010) J Mater Sci 45:1193. doi: 10.1007/s10853-009-4064-910.1007/s10853-009-4064-9 ↗
12. Manjunatha CM, Taylor AC, Kinloch AJ, Sprenger S (2012) Compos Sci Technol 70:19310.1016/j.compscitech.2009.10.012 ↗
13. Boger L, Sumfleth J et al (2010) Compos A 41:141910.1016/j.compositesa.2010.06.002 ↗
14. Johnsen BB, Kinloch AJ (2007) Polymer 48:53010.1016/j.polymer.2006.11.038 ↗
15. ASTM 3039 (2008) Standard test method for tensile properties. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken
16. ASTM 5528–01 (2007) Standard test method for mode I interlaminar fracture toughness. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken
17. ASTM 3479–96 (2007) Standard test method for tension–tension fatigue test. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken
18. Siddiquii NA, Woo RSC et al (2007) Compos A 38:44910.1016/j.compositesa.2006.03.001 ↗
19. Zang G, Karger-Kocsis J, Zou J (2010) Carbon 48:428910.1016/j.carbon.2010.07.040 ↗
20. Bortz DR, Merino C, Martin-Gullon I (2011) Compos Sci Technol 71:3110.1016/j.compscitech.2010.09.015 ↗
21. Ashrafi B, Guen J et al (2011) Compos Sci Technol 71:156910.1016/j.compscitech.2011.06.015 ↗
22. Grabr MH, Elrahamn MA, Okubo K, Fujii T (2010) J Mater Sci 45:3841. doi: 10.1007/s10853-010-4439-y10.1007/s10853-010-4439-y ↗
23. Imanaka M, Motohashi S et al (2009) Int J Adhes Adhes 29:4510.1016/j.ijadhadh.2007.11.004 ↗
24. Giannakopoulos G, Masania K, Taylor AC (2011) J Mater Sci 46:327. doi: 10.1007/s10853-010-4816-610.1007/s10853-010-4816-6 ↗
25. Sue H-J (1991) Polymer Eng Sci 31(4):27010.1002/pen.760310410 ↗
26. Liu H-Y, Wang G-T, Mai Y-W, Zeng Y (2011) Compos B 42:217010.1016/j.compositesb.2011.05.014 ↗
27. Ma J, Mo M-S, Du X-S (2008) Polymer 49:351010.1016/j.polymer.2008.05.043 ↗
28. Zhang H, Zhang Z, Friedrich K, Eger C (2006) Acta Materilia 54:183310.1016/j.actamat.2005.12.009 ↗
29. Tang L-C, Zhang H (2012) Compos Sci Technol 7:55810.1016/j.compscitech.2011.12.015 ↗
30. Huang Y, Kinloch AJ (1992) J Mater Sci 27:2763. doi: 10.1007/BF0054070310.1007/BF00540703 ↗
31. Uddin MF, Sun CT (2008) Compos Sci Technol 68:163710.1016/j.compscitech.2008.02.026 ↗
32. Liu H-Y, Wang G, Mai Y-W (2012) Compos Sci Technol 72:153010.1016/j.compscitech.2012.05.025 ↗
33. Bortz DR, Merino CM, Martin-Gullon I (2011) Compos Sci Technol 71:3110.1016/j.compscitech.2010.09.015 ↗
34. Grimmer CS, Dharan CKH (2008) J Mater Sci 43:4487. doi: 10.1007/s10853-008-2651-910.1007/s10853-008-2651-9 ↗
35. Nishikawa Y, Okubo K, Fujii T (2006) Int J Fatigue 28(10):124810.1016/j.ijfatigue.2006.02.010 ↗
36. Boger L, Sumfleth J, Hedemann H, Schulte K (2010) Compos A 41:141910.1016/j.compositesa.2010.06.002 ↗
37. Jen Y-M, Wang Y-C (2012) Compos B 43:168710.1016/j.compositesb.2012.01.036 ↗