Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T01:55:41.258Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Adhesion and Interfaces Involving Polymers, Studied by Electrical Resistance Measurement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2011

Zhen Mei
Affiliation:
Composite Materials Research Laboratory, University at Buffalo State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260-4400, U.S.A.
D.D.L. Chung
Affiliation:
Composite Materials Research Laboratory, University at Buffalo State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260-4400, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

The adhesion and interfaces involving polymers were studied by electrical resistance measurement. Adhesive bonding and bond degradation were monitored by measuring the resistance in real time during temperature or stress variation. The resistance measured was either the contact resistance of the joint interface or the apparent volume resistance of one of the two adjoining components in a direction in the plane of the joint interface. The polymers were in the form continuous carbon fiber thermoplastic-matrix composites, due to the importance of these composites for lightweight structures and due to the conductivity of carbon fibers and the necessity of conductivity for electrical resistance measurement. The technique was used for the case of both of the adjoining components being such composites, and for the case of one component being such a composite and the other component being concrete. The concrete case is relevant to the use of the composite to retrofit concrete structures.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Mei, Z. and Chung, D. D. L., Cem. Concr. Res. 30, 799802 (2000).Google Scholar
2. Toutanji, H. A., Compos. Structures 44, 155161 (1999).Google Scholar
3. Toutanji, H. A. and T. El-Korchi, J. Compos. for Construction 3, 3845 (1999).Google Scholar
4. Karbhari, V. M., Engineer, M., and Eckel, D. A., II, J. Mater. Sci. 32, 147156 (1997).Google Scholar
5. Henkel, D. P. and Wood, J. D., NDT & e Int. 24, 259264 (1991).Google Scholar
6. Pandey, A. K. and Diswas, M., J. of Sound & Vibration 169, 317 (1994).Google Scholar
7. Mei, Z. and Chung, D. D. L., Int. J. Adh. Adh. 20, 173175 (2000).Google Scholar
8. Dixon, S., Edwards, C., and Palmer, S. B., Ultrasonics 32, 425430 (1994).Google Scholar
9. Winston, V. K. in Proc. 43rd Int. SAMPE Symp. and Exhib., (SAMPE 43, Covina, CA, 1998) pp. 14281437.Google Scholar
10. Mei, Z. and Chung, D. D. L., Int. J. Adh. Adh. 20, 135139 (2000).Google Scholar
11. Mei, Z. and Chung, D. D. L., Int. J. Adh. Adh. 20, 273277 (2000).Google Scholar