Interphase fracture

Once it is recognized that particles adhere to a substrate so strongly that cohesive fracture often results upon application of a detachment force and that the contact region is better describable as an interphase [ 18J rather than a sharp demarcation or interface, the concept of treating a particle as an entity that is totally distinct from the substrate vanishes. Rather, one begins to see the substrate-particle structure somewhat as a composite material. To paraphrase this concept, one could, in many instances, treat surface roughness (a.k.a. asperities) as particles appended to the surface of a substrate. These asperities control the adhesion between two macroscopic bodies. 

Examination of the fracture by SEM shows that although there is no interphase adhesion in uncompatibilized blends, adhesion between the phases increased and dispersed domains decreased... 

Upon loading a void-containing material, a certain stress distribution in the sample will develop that proceeds and determines the following deformation. Typically the voids (or other dispersed phase) will tend to concentrate stresses to interphases between materials of different modulus. Even though no complete picture exists of what will happen upon deformation, such a stress description may give a better understanding of the relation between stress concentrations in the sample due to the voids and the final fracture behavior. 

Tsai, H.C., Arocho, A.M. and Cause, L.W. (1990). Prediction of fiber-matrix interphase properties and their influence on interface stress, displacement and fracture toughness of composite materials. Mater. Sci. Eng. A126, 295-304. 

The mechanical properties of the blend of silane/size and bulk epoxy matrix (at concentrations representing likely compositions found at the fiber-matrix interface region) also suggest that the interaction of size with epoxy produces an interphase which is completely different to the bulk matrix material (Al-Moussawi et al., 1993). The interphase material tends to have a lower glass transition temperature, Tg, higher modulus and tensile strength and lower fracture toughness than the bulk matrix. Fig. 5.4 (Drown et al., 1991) presents a plot of Tg versus the amount of... 

Fig. 9. A transmitted electron micrograph of an ultramicrotomed section of an aluminum-epoxy interphase. The highly ordered structure in the center is a 3.3 micron thick aluminum oxide layer present on the base metal. The featureless area is the epoxy matrix. The light areas within the oxide are fractures caused by the microtoming. The epoxy has however penetrated to the bottom of all of the 50 nm pores in the oxide...

On the epoxy side of the interface, high fracture toughness and low residual stresses 72,73) are a requirement for optimum transverse strength in graphite and glass-epoxy 1A) composites. Since the adsorption of epoxy components has been shown to be probable, the local structure of the epoxy at the interphase will most likely not be the same as in the bulk. This local anisotropy caused by the interphase is a limitation in the predictive capability of micromechanical models which do not include the interphase as a component. 

The results are plotted in Fig. 14. The upper two lines refer to the A fiber and the lower two lines to the HM fiber. For both fibers, the addition and removal of surface chemical groups did not produce reversible interfacial behavior. The untreated fiber surfaces produced results that could not be duplicated when the surface groups were removed. Microtoming of single fiber specimens pinpointed changes in the locus of interfacial fracture that were relatable to the interphase conditions caused by the surface treatment. 

Structural applications of composite materials require not only acceptable static mechanical properites but the ability to withstand the generation and propagation of cracks without premature failre. For example, impact resistance, fracture toughness and fatigue resistance are desireable composite properties. Fiber-matrix structure at the interphase can affect the values attainable for these properties. 

The effect of the interphase on composite fracture can best be shown by hypothetic-ally separating the fracture process into its component parts to determine which are interphase dependent 79 "83). 

Eig. 20. Scanning Electron Micrographs of the fracture surfaces of epoxy composites made with the same A carbon fiber with three different interphase conditions. Fracture is perpendicular to the... 

The conclusion to be made from this work is that the fiber and its properties as well as the epoxy matrix and its properties are the same for all three cases. Only the interphase has been altered. Strength of materials fracture models would not predict a difference in fracture toughness and yet experimentally alteration of a 200 nm interphase zone changes the composite fracture properties dramatically. 

Given the existence of interphases and the multiplicity of components and reactions that interact to form it, a predictive model for a priori prediction of composition, size, structure or behavior is not possible at this time except for the simplest of systems. An in-situ probe that can interogate the interphase and provide spatial chemical and morphological information does not exist. Interfacial static mechanical properties, fracture properties and environmental resistance have been shown to be grealy affected by the interphase. Careful analytical interfacial investigations will be required to quantify the interphase structure. With the proper amount of information, progress may be made to advance the ability to design composite materials in which the interphase can be considered as a material variable so that the proper relationship between composite components will be modified to include the interphase as well as the fiber and matrix (Fig. 26). 

Several studies of polymer/silane coupling agent interphases have involved the use of scanning electron microscopy (SEM) [5-7]. For example, Vaughan and Peek [6] have used SEM to examine fracture surfaces to determine the mode of failure of composite materials and to draw conclusions about interfacial interactions of various coupling agents and epoxide and polymer resin systems. 

Critical flaw size predicted to cause a crack to kink out of the BN interphase, plotted against the ratio of the interfacial fracture resistance to the fracture resistance of Si3N4 (adapted from ref. [30]). 

The reduced hardness and improved machinability are attributed primarily to the crack deflection process. It can be seen in Fig. 13.8 that the composite showed obvious particle pullout and significant crack deflection along interphase boundaries due to the weak interface bonding. The crack deflection mechanism (absorbing fracture energy and blunting crack tip) could lead to an increase in machinability. As described above, the thermal expansion... 

The interphase provided by the adhesion promoter may be hard or soft and could affect the mechanical properties. A soft interphase, for example, can significantly improve fatigue and other properties. A soft interphase will reduce stress concentrations. A rigid interphase improves stress transfer of resin to the filler or adherend and improves interfacial shear strength. Adhesion promoters generally increase adhesion between the resin matrix and substrate, thus raising the fracture energy required to initiate a crack. 

---