An electrostatic powder spray process for manufacturing thermoplastic composites
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Manufacture of thermoplastic composites is expensive because of the difficulty of impregnating the resin into the fibers. Powder processing shows great promise as an impregnation technique for cost‐effective manufacturing. This paper discusses an electrostatic powder spray impregnation technique that uses glass fibers. A geodesic fiber spreader is used to spread the fibers locally in the region of maximum powder deposition. A negative corona electrostatic spray gun is employed to charge and direct the powder for coating both sides of the spread fiber tow. The process has been used to impregnate glass fibers with poly(aryl ether ketone ketone) powder. The effect of the powder mass flow, corona voltage, and fiber tow velocity on powder deposition has been investigated. Particle image velocimetry is utilized to determine particle velocities. Compression molded panels have been produced and tested in three point bending.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Aerosol Filtration and Electrostatic Precipitation · Electrohydrodynamics and Fluid Dynamics · Surface Modification and Superhydrophobicity
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (30)
Show source-provided references
1. K.RamaniandD. E.Woolard Invention Disclosure #93036 Office of Technology Transfer Purdue University (1993).
2. Fisher K. J. · Adv. Compos. · 1993 · 8 · 30
3. 10.1177/08927057900030040410.1177/089270579000300404 ↗
4. Ramani K. · 1992 · 35
5. R.DyksterhouseandJ.Dyksterhouse U.S. Patent 4 894 105 (1990).
6. J. E.O'Connor U.S. Patent 4 680 224 (1987).
7. G. J.Taylor U.S. Patent 4 292 105 (1981).10.1038/292105a0 ↗
8. J. D.MuzzyandB.Varughese U.S. Patent 5 094 883 (1992).
9. J. D.MuzzyandB.Varughese U.S. Patent 5 171 630 (1992).
10. R. M.BaucomandJ. M.Marchello NASA Tech. Memo 102648(1992).
11. Throne J. L. · Proc. 35th Int'l. SAMPE Symp. · 1990 · 35 · 2086
12. Baucom R. M. · Proc. 38th Int'l. SAMPE Symp. · 1993 · 38 · 1902
13. R. M.Baucom J. J.Snoha andJ. M.Marchello U.S. Patent 5 057 338 (1991).
14. S. R.Iyer L. T.Drzal andK.Jayaraman U.S. Patent 5 102 690 (1992).
15. S. R.Iyer L. T.Drzal andK.Jayaraman U.S. Patent 5 123 373 (1992).
16. S. R.IyeranadL. T.Drzal U.S. Patent 5 128 199 (1992).
17. 10.1177/08927057920050010210.1177/089270579200500102 ↗
18. R. A.Ganga U.S. Patent 4 614 678 (1986).
19. R. A.Ganga U.S. Patent 4 713 139 (1987).
20. G. G.de Jager U.S. Patent 4 839 199 (1989).
21. 10.1080/0360255760806311410.1080/03602557608063114 ↗
22. 10.1016/0301-9322(87)90069-310.1016/0301-9322(87)90069-3 ↗
23. Wallis G. B. · 1969
24. White H. J. · 1963
25. Chang I. Y. · Proc. 36t Int'l. SAMPE Symp. · 1991 · 36 · 1587
26. Adrian R. J. · Proc. SPIE—The Int'l. Soc. Opt. Eng. · 1990 · 1404 · 56
27. 10.1016/0894-1777(92)90016-X10.1016/0894-1777(92)90016-X ↗
28. 10.1364/AO.32.00215910.1364/AO.32.002159 ↗
29. C. J.Hoyle Master's thesis Purdue University West Lafayette Ind. (1994).
30. Kander R. G. · SPE ANTEC Tech. Papers · 1992 · 38 · 769