Effect of different curing temperatures on the damping properties of graphene oxide‐carbon fiber/epoxy resin composites
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, five groups of graphene oxide‐carbon fiber/epoxy resin (GO‐CF/EP) composites with different curing temperatures were prepared by the vacuum infiltration hot‐press system (VIHPS). These five groups of composites presented satisfactory macroscopic morphologies. However, the microstructure of the GO‐CF/EP composite cured at 110°C was satisfactory because there was no obvious infiltration defect. The damping properties of these composites were tested by force hummer method. When the curing temperature was 110°C, the composite had a maximum damping ratio of 0.21%, while the composite cured at 130°C had a minimum damping ratio of 0.13%, which decreased by 35.89%. In addition, when the curing temperature was higher, the damping properties of the composite were also worse than that of the composite cured at lower temperature. Because the curing temperature was different, the infiltration effect of resin in the fiber was various, and the energy dissipation ways in the composite material was different, which was reflected in the damping properties.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Polymer composites and self-healing · Epoxy Resin Curing Processes · Tribology and Wear Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Power and Energy Northwestern Polytechnical University Xi'an China
School of Construction Machinery Chang'an University Xi'an Shannxi China
School of Mechano‐Electronic Engineering Xidian University Xi'an China
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China · Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
References (30)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1177/00219983990330150510.1177/002199839903301505 ↗
2. 10.1177/152808371770562410.1177/1528083717705624 ↗
3. 10.1177/152808371350299910.1177/1528083713502999 ↗
4. 10.1177/073168441561197410.1177/0731684415611974 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2010.08.10210.1016/j.apsusc.2010.08.102 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2011.03.00110.1016/j.pmatsci.2011.03.001 ↗
7. 10.1007/s10853-022-06932-310.1007/s10853-022-06932-3 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.07.01510.1016/j.compstruct.2013.07.015 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.matdes.2011.07.03310.1016/j.matdes.2011.07.033 ↗
10. 10.1177/152808371769584010.1177/1528083717695840 ↗
11. 10.1177/073168441452108710.1177/0731684414521087 ↗
12. 10.1177/073168441143306110.1177/0731684411433061 ↗
13. Wang A. · Polym. Test. · 2021 · 104 · 1
14. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.10848010.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108480 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2020.07.18010.1016/j.ceramint.2020.07.180 ↗
16. 10.1016/S0011-2275(98)00022-810.1016/S0011-2275(98)00022-8 ↗
17. 10.1080/15376494.2020.172287310.1080/15376494.2020.1722873 ↗
18. Cai F. · Polymer · 2022 · 14 · 12
19. 10.1016/0010-4361(84)90274-X10.1016/0010-4361(84)90274-X ↗
20. 10.1007/s11012-013-9750-710.1007/s11012-013-9750-7 ↗
21. 10.1007/s12221-021-0761-z10.1007/s12221-021-0761-z ↗
22. 10.1007/s11340-020-00592-710.1007/s11340-020-00592-7 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2022.10930910.1016/j.compscitech.2022.109309 ↗
24. 10.1021/acsnano.5b0493910.1021/acsnano.5b04939 ↗
25. 10.3724/SP.J.1105.2009.0035210.3724/SP.J.1105.2009.00352 ↗
26. 10.1016/S0263-8223(99)00041-010.1016/S0263-8223(99)00041-0 ↗
27. Dai Z. · Mater. Rep. · 2021 · 35 · 564
28. 10.1177/152808371879591410.1177/1528083718795914 ↗
29. 10.1088/2053-1591/ac80eb10.1088/2053-1591/ac80eb ↗
30. 10.1021/acsapm.2c0021710.1021/acsapm.2c00217 ↗