Enhanced Interfacial Strength in Carbon Fiber Composites via Mussel‐Inspired Sizing Polymers
Source abstract
Abstract
ABSTRACT Composite materials possess a high strength‐to‐weight ratio. A key determinant of their mechanical performance is the interfacial strength between the fibers and the matrix. Sizing agents are commonly used to improve this interface by promoting better adhesion, though optimizing this interaction remains a significant challenge. This study evaluates the use of poly(catechol‐styrene) (PCS), a mussel‐inspired sizing agent, to enhance fiber–matrix bonding in carbon fiber composites. Woven carbon fiber laminates were dip‐coated with varying concentrations of PCS (0.05 and 0.1 wt%) and subsequently fabricated using vacuum‐assisted resin transfer molding followed by compression molding. Interlaminar shear strength (ILSS) tests showed improvements of 4% and 8% for the 0.05% and 0.1% PCS treatments, respectively. These results indicate that PCS is effective in reinforcing interfacial adhesion, thereby improving the mechanical integrity of carbon fiber‐reinforced composites.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Fiber-reinforced polymer composites · Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Epoxy Resin Curing Processes
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Tickle College of Engineering, University of Tennessee Knoxville Tennessee USA
Carbon Fiber Technology Facility, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Oak Ridge Tennessee USA
Raptor Resins Inc. Tennessee USA
Mussel Polymers Inc. Pennsylvania USA
Manufacturing Demonstration Facility (MDF), Oak Ridge National Laboratory(ORNL) Knoxville Tennessee USA
Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation (IACMI) Knoxville Tennessee USA
Funding
National Science Foundation
References (29)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/J.COMPSTRUCT.2021.11364010.1016/J.COMPSTRUCT.2021.113640 ↗
2. 10.1016/J.JMRT.2019.09.06810.1016/J.JMRT.2019.09.068 ↗
3. 10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2022.11046310.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2022.110463 ↗
4. 10.1177/0021998325131959010.1177/00219983251319590 ↗
5. 10.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2025.10889110.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2025.108891 ↗
6. 10.1016/J.COCO.2025.10249610.1016/J.COCO.2025.102496 ↗
7. 10.1016/J.RSURFI.2023.10014110.1016/J.RSURFI.2023.100141 ↗
8. 10.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2024.10854010.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2024.108540 ↗
9. 10.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2025.10904810.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2025.109048 ↗
10. 10.1021/JA303369P/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/JA‐2012‐03369P_0002.JPEG10.1021/JA303369P/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/JA‐2012‐03369P_0002.JPEG ↗
11. 10.1007/S10971‐016‐4197‐710.1007/S10971‐016‐4197‐7 ↗
12. 10.1021/ACSAMI.8B21197/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/AM‐2018‐21197X_0012.JPEG10.1021/ACSAMI.8B21197/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/AM‐2018‐21197X_0012.JPEG ↗
13. 10.3390/POLYM1203071210.3390/POLYM12030712 ↗
14. 10.1016/J.COLSURFA.2021.12808510.1016/J.COLSURFA.2021.128085 ↗
15. 10.1016/J.COMPSCITECH.2015.01.02110.1016/J.COMPSCITECH.2015.01.021 ↗
16. 10.3139/120.111298/MACHINEREADABLECITATION/RIS10.3139/120.111298/MACHINEREADABLECITATION/RIS ↗
17. 10.1002/MAME.20200025810.1002/MAME.202000258 ↗
18. 10.1002/PC.2741510.1002/PC.27415 ↗
19. 10.1021/ACSAMI.7B1986510.1021/ACSAMI.7B19865 ↗
20. 10.1016/J.JECE.2023.11165510.1016/J.JECE.2023.111655 ↗
21. 10.1016/J.POLYMER.2022.12469310.1016/J.POLYMER.2022.124693 ↗
22. 10.1002/APP.3522610.1002/APP.35226 ↗
23. 10.1016/J.APSUSC.2011.03.04710.1016/J.APSUSC.2011.03.047 ↗
24. 10.1016/J.MATPR.2020.11.10210.1016/J.MATPR.2020.11.102 ↗
25. 10.1016/J.COMPSCITECH.2005.07.00810.1016/J.COMPSCITECH.2005.07.008 ↗
26. 10.1177/0967391118824817/ASSET/0513A3EA‐26DD‐46A2‐8DA8DBEB9367FD84/ASSETS/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_0967391118824817‐FIG6.JPG10.1177/0967391118824817/ASSET/0513A3EA‐26DD‐46A2‐8DA8DBEB9367FD84/ASSETS/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_0967391118824817‐FIG6.JPG ↗
27. 10.1002/9780470314555.ch4610.1002/9780470314555.ch46 ↗
28. 10.1117/12.218492610.1117/12.2184926 ↗
29. 10.1007/978‐94‐017‐9478‐7_4/TABLES/1010.1007/978‐94‐017‐9478‐7_4/TABLES/10 ↗