Fiber, epoxy matrix

Using a method suggested by Saint-Flour and Papirer [100], Schultz and Lavielle obtained A// -values for the interaction of several vapors of differing donor numbers and acceptor numbers with various treated and untreated carbon fibers used in the preparation of carbon fiber-epoxy matrix composites. was expressed as ... 

Fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites UD carbon fiber-epoxy matrix ... 

Fig. 2.5. Modulus data as a function of distance from the fiber surface of a carbon fiber-epoxy matrix composite which are measured from nanoindentation experiments. After Williams et al. (1990).

Fig. 2.7. Spectra of a glass fiber-epoxy matrix composite (a) before and (b) after hydrolysis. After Liao...

Fig. 3,4. Ln-Ln plot of fiber fragment length as a function of fiber stress (a) for Kevlar 29 fiber-epoxy matrix composite and (b) for a carbon fiber-epoxy matrix composite. Yabin et al. (1991).

Fig. 3.15. Interface shear strength. Xb, of (a) untreated and (b) treated LXA500 carbon fiber-epoxy matrix system measured at 10 different laboratories and using different testing methods. (O) fiber pull-out test ( ) microdebond lest ( ) fiber push-out lest (A) fiber fragmentation test. After Pitkelhly el al. (1993).

Sandorf, 1980 Whitney, 1985 Whitney and Browning, 1985). According to the classical beam theory, the shear stress distribution along the thickness of the specimen is a parabolic function that is symmetrical about the neutral axis where it is at its maximum and decreases toward zero at the compressive and tensile faces. In reality, however, the stress field is dominated by the stress concentration near the loading nose, which completely destroys the parabolic shear distribution used to calculate the apparent ILSS, as illustrated in Fig 3.18. The stress concentration is even more pronounced with a smaller radius of the loading nose (Cui and Wisnom, 1992) and for non-linear materials displaying substantial plastic deformation, such as Kevlar fiber-epoxy matrix composites (Davidovitz et al., 1984 Fisher et al., 1986), which require an elasto-plastic analysis (Fisher and Marom, 1984) to interpret the experimental results properly. 

Fig. 3.19. Scanning electron microphotograph of buckling failure near the loading nose of a carbon fiber-epoxy matrix short beam shear specimen. After Whitney and Browning (1985).

Fig. 3.27. Effect of the interface shear strength on mechanical properties of carbon fiber-epoxy matrix composites ( ) tran.sverse tensile strength (A) maximum transverse tensile strain (O) transverse tensile modiilns. After Madhukar and Drzal (1991),...

Interface properties of carbon fiber-epoxy matrix composites and Weibull parameters of carbon fibers"... 

Fig. 4.8. Variations of debond length, t, as a function of applied stress, for different coefficients of friction, p, for a XAIOO carbon fiber-epoxy matrix composite. After Zhou et al. (1995a, b).

Fig. 4.23. Plot of parlial debond stress, as a function of debond length, (. for a carbon fiber-epoxy matrix composite. After Kim ct al, (1992).

Fig. 4.26. Comparisons between experiments and theory of (a) maximum debond stress, trj, and (b) initial frictional pull-out stress for carbon fiber-epoxy matrix composites. After Kim et al. (1992).

Fig. 4,40. Distributions of interface shear stress, r, along the fiber length at a constant applied stress o = 4.0GPa for carbon fiber-epoxy matrix composites in fiber pull-out and fiber push-out. After...

Fig. 5.5. Normalized irKerfacial shear strength of unsized (bare) and sized E-glass fiber-epoxy matrix eomposites measured from the interfaeial testing system (ITS, equivalent to fiber push-out test), short beam shear (SBS) test, 0° flexural test and 90° flexural test. After Drown et al. (1991).

Fig. 5.7. Effect of immersion in hot water on interfacial bond strength of silane treated glass fiber-epoxy matrix composite. After Koenig and Emadipotir (1985).

Fig. 5.17. Comparison between the compressive and tensile (a) strengths and (b) moduli of carbon fiber-epoxy matrix composites with three types of fiber surface condition. AU-4 without surface treatment AS-4 with surface treatment AS-4C with coating of pure epoxy after surface treatment. After Drzal and...

Fig. 5.18. Comparison of shear strengths of carbon fiber-epoxy matrix composites determined from three dificrcnt test methods. Fiber surface conditions as in Fig. 5.17. After Drzal and Madhukar (1993).

The predictions based on Eq. (6.35) are found to be consistent with the results from finite element analysis. Fig. 6.22, for a carbon fiber-epoxy matrix orthotropic laminate. 

Fig. 6.22. Comparisons of the longitudinal splitting length, Z,p, between analysis and finite element method for graphite fiber-epoxy matrix orthotropic laminates. After Tirosh (1973).

Fig. 6.23. R-curve prediction ( — ) and experimental data (O) for a carbon fiber-epoxy matrix quasi-isotropic [C/ 45°/90 ), laminate. After Wells and Beaumont (1987).

Fig. 6.24. Comparison of notched strength of carbon fiber-epoxy matrix quasi-isotropic [0°/ 45°/90°...

Fig. 6.25. Maximum fracture toughness, ATr, as a function of relative crack length, 2a/W, for carbon fiber-epoxy matrix [0°/ 45°/0°]j and (0°/90°]2 laminates. After Ochiai and Peters (1982).

Fig. 7.4. Fracture toughness (O) and flexural strength ( ) of silicone rubber coated carbon fiber-epoxy matrix composites as a function of coating thickness. After Hancox and Wells (1977).

---