Enhancement of interfacial strength of overmolded hybrid structures of short fiber reinforced polyamide 6 on continuous fiber reinforced epoxy composites under various surface pretreatments
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Hybrid thermoset‐thermoplastic composites were fabricated by injection overmolding technique in this paper. To improve the interfacial bonding between short fiber reinforced polyamide 6 and continuous fiber reinforced epoxy composites, three different surface pretreatment methods (i.e., surface silanization, plasma treatment and CO2 laser ablation) were employed. The results show that surface silanization leads to a weak increase in polar functional groups of thermoset composites surface, resulting in a weak increase in interfacial bonding strength of overmolded composites. Compared with plasma pretreatment, CO2 laser ablation can achieve a highest shear bonding strength due to the formation of interface between injected melt polymer and carbon fibers. This kind of structure is favorable for the bonding strength due to mechanical interlocking. CO2 laser ablation is a promising technology to improve the bonding strength between short fiber reinforced polyamide 6 and continuous fiber reinforced epoxy composites.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced machining processes and optimization · Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Tribology and Wear Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Central South University Changsha China
State Key Laboratory of High Performance and Complex Manufacturing Central South University Changsha China
Funding
Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province
References (28)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2016.07.00310.1016/j.polymertesting.2016.07.003 ↗
2. Cheah L.W. · 2010
3. 10.1002/pc.2569310.1002/pc.25693 ↗
4. 10.1002/pc.2578410.1002/pc.25784 ↗
5. 10.1002/pc.2569810.1002/pc.25698 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.10687010.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.106870 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.phpro.2011.03.02110.1016/j.phpro.2011.03.021 ↗
8. 10.1177/089270571245603110.1177/0892705712456031 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2013.01.01410.1016/j.ijadhadh.2013.01.014 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2020.10577110.1016/j.compositesa.2020.105771 ↗
11. 10.1179/174328008X32522310.1179/174328008X325223 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2019.05.00110.1016/j.mtcomm.2019.05.001 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.promfg.2019.04.02810.1016/j.promfg.2019.04.028 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2020.10610610.1016/j.compositesa.2020.106106 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.jmapro.2019.12.00610.1016/j.jmapro.2019.12.006 ↗
16. Li D. · Appl. Surf. Sci. · 2020 · 503 · 503
17. 10.1016/j.jcomc.2020.10006010.1016/j.jcomc.2020.100060 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2018.02.04110.1016/j.compositesa.2018.02.041 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.03.09610.1016/j.compstruct.2018.03.096 ↗
20. 10.1002/pc.2511910.1002/pc.25119 ↗
21. 10.1002/adem.20200128810.1002/adem.202001288 ↗
22. 10.1002/pc.2544510.1002/pc.25445 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2017.01.11110.1016/j.surfcoat.2017.01.111 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.cej.2018.04.09210.1016/j.cej.2018.04.092 ↗
25. 10.1179/02670840010151716110.1179/026708400101517161 ↗
26. 10.1007/s42154-018-0027-710.1007/s42154-018-0027-7 ↗
27. 10.1021/acsami.9b0408010.1021/acsami.9b04080 ↗
28. 10.1080/00218464.2013.77072010.1080/00218464.2013.770720 ↗