Abstract
In single filament pull-out tests, the graphite/epoxy interfacial bond strength was found to be twice as large as the aramid/epoxy interfacial bond strength. This difference carried over to unidirectional filamentary composites made with the same resin system. Short beam shear test results for graphite/epoxy were nearly twice as high as those for aramid/epoxy. Graphite/epoxy similarly exceeded aramid/epoxy in the Iosipescu shear tests used as a cross check to the short beam shear test.
To determine the reasons for this observed difference between aramid and graphite systems in interfacial adhesion and related tests, three factors were considdered: intermolecular interactions, chemical bonding, and mechanical interference. Evidence is presented to show that mechanical interference caused by thermal mismatch plays an important role in explaining the difference between aramid/epoxy and graphite/epoxy at the interface.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
N. Iosipescu, J. Materials,, 2, 537 (1967).
J. M. Slepetz, T. F. Zagaeski, and R. F. Novello, Technical Report AMMRC TR 78–30, Army Matemials and Mechanics Research Center, Watertown, Massachusetts (July 1978).
G. Mozzo and R. Chabord, 23rd Annual Technical Conference, Reinforced Plastics/Composites Institute, SPI, Section 9-C (1968).
L. S. Penn and S. M. Lee, Fibre Science Technol., 17, 91 (1982).
L. Drzal, M. J. Rich, J. D. Camping, and W. J. Parks, 35th Annual Technical Conference Reinforced Plastics/Composites Institute, SPI, Section 20-C (1980).
L. J. Broutman and F. J. McGarry, Mod. Plast., 40, 161 (1962).
L. S. Penn and E. R. Bowler, Surf. Interface Anal., 161 (1981).
L. S. Penn, F. A. Bystry, and H. J. Marchionni, Polymer Composites, 4_, 26 (1983).
L. Penn and F. Larsen, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2^3, 59 (1979).
R. Allred, personal communication of ESCA results, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1982.
G. Gynn, R. N. King, S. F. Chappell, and M. L. Deviney, “Improved Graphite Fiber Adhesion,” Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, Report No. AFWAL-TR-81–4096, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433, September 1981.
E. Fitzer, K. H, Giegl, and L. M. Manocha, Proceedings of the 5th London International Conference on Industrial Carbon and Graphite (1978), p. 405.
H. T. Hahn, J. Composite Materials, 10, 266 (1976).
C. C. Chiao and T. T. Chiao, in “Handbook of Composites,” George Lubin, Editor, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1982, p. 272.
A. K. Miller and D. F. Adams, “Advanced Composite Materials - Environmental Effects,” ASTM-STP 658, J. R. Vinson, Editor, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1978, p. 121.
G. Marom and B. Gershon, J. Adhesion,]_, 195 (1975).
H. Lee and K. Neville, “Handbook of Epoxy Resin, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, p. 17–16.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1985 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Penn, L., Bystry, F., Karp, W., Lee, S. (1985). Aramid/Epoxy vs. Graphite/Epoxy: Origin of the Difference in Strength at the Interface. In: Ishida, H., Kumar, G. (eds) Molecular Characterization of Composite Interfaces. Polymer Science and Technology, vol 27. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2251-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2251-9_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-2253-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-2251-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive