Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:31:01.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of a Single-Fiber Fragmentation Test to Study Environmental Durability of Interfaces/Interphases Between Epoxy and a Glass Fiber

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

Carol L. Schuute ,
Walter McDonough ,
Masatoshi Shioya  and
Donald L. Hunston
Carol L. Schuute
Affiliation:
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Polymers Division, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899
Walter McDonough
Affiliation:
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Polymers Division, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899
Masatoshi Shioya
Affiliation:
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Polymers Division, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899
Donald L. Hunston
Affiliation:
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Polymers Division, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899
Get access

Abstract

This work examines the usefulness of the single-fiber fragmentation test in studying the durability of fiber/matrix interfaces/interphases. This test measures the critical length/diameter ratio (L/D) of the fiber fragments formed in the test and relates this length to the interface's strength, or ability to transfer load. In the work reported here, we immersed samples of epoxy containing a single-glass fiber - that was previously sized with an epoxy-compatible coating - in either 65 or 75 °C water and tested after different times of exposure. In general, this ratio increased as a function of time of exposure to water. During exposure at 75 °C, the fibers' L/D in the samples did not increase significantly until after the sample reached its “apparent” equilibrium content of water ∼ (3.0 wt%). Because there was no significant measurable change in the tensile modulus between wet and dry samples, we cannot attribute these differences in L/D to changes in the resin's properties due to plasticizing by water. A small percentage of samples exposed at 65 °C did not show a significant increase in L/D, and in these cases the moisture produced a marked roughening of the fiber surface along the fiber/matrix interface. One possible explanation is that the attack by moisture degrades the interface, thus reducing its strength with a corresponding increase in the L/D. To varying degrees, however, the attack by moisture also degrades the E-glass fiber. This attack by moisture roughened the surfaces of the fibers and increased the distribution and/or size of the critical flaws, thus reducing both the strength of the fiber and the L/D. Based on our preliminary results, it appears that the singlefiber test has the potential to be useful for studying the durability of the resin/matrix interface providing that the influence of the environmental agent on all of the components of the model composite: resin, fiber, and interface/phase, is considered.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 304: Symposium H – Polymer/Inorganic Interfaces , 1993 , 43
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1993

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

1. National Materials Advisory Board, Commission of Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, Life Prediction Methodologies for Composite Materials, NMAB-460, (National Academy Press, 1991).Google Scholar
2. Rich, M. J., and Drzal, L. T., J. of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 7, 145–155 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Narkis, M., Chen, E. J. H., and Pipes, R. B., Polymer Composites, 9, 245–51 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. McDonough, W. G., Herrera-Franco, P. J., Wu, W. L., Drzal, L. T., and Hunston, D. L., 23rd Intl. SAMPE Tech. Conf., 247–258, Oct 21–24 (1991).Google Scholar
5. Drzal, L. T., SAMPE Journal Sept/Oct, 7–13 (1983).Google Scholar
6. Certain commercial materials and equipment are identified in this paper in order to specify adequately the experimental procedure. In no case does such information imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply necessarily that the items are the best available for the purpose.Google Scholar
7. The fiber that we used was an epoxy-compatible E-glass provided by Greenwood, Mark E. of the Owens Corning Corporation, Granville, Ohio.Google Scholar
8. Drzal, L. T., Rich, M. J., and Koenig, M. F., J. Adhesion, 18, 49–72 (1985).Google Scholar
9. Drzal, L. T. and Herrera-Franco, P. J., Engineering Materials Handbook. Adhesives and Sealants, 3, 391–405 (ASM International, 1990).Google Scholar
10. Daniel, Professor H. Wagner measured the tensile properties of the fiber-free samples using an Instron equipped with a 10,000 N load cell at a rate of 0.3 mm/min at 22.5 °C.Google Scholar
11. Each datum point represents the average L/D for each microtensile bar. The uncertainty in the measurement for an L/D of 12 is 0.65, for 35, 1.89.Google Scholar
12. Barker, A. J., Bott, T. R., Trans. Instn Chem. Engrs, 47, T212–T221 (1969).Google Scholar
13. Ishai, O., Polym. Eng. and Sci., 15, 491–499 (1975).Google Scholar
14. Wimolkiatisak, A. S., and Bell, J. P., Polymer Composites, 10, 162–172 (1989).Google Scholar
15. We report the tensile modulus + 1 standard deviation.Google Scholar