1993
DOI: 10.1007/bf01151234
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fibre-matrix adhesion and its relationship to composite mechanical properties

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
186
0

Year Published

1995
1995
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 372 publications
(202 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
5
186
0
Order By: Relevance
“…150 Figure A.34: Details of tapered double cantilever specimen (TDCB). Crosshatched areas indicate portions which were plated with copper for crack propagation velocity measurements.…”
Section: W0mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…150 Figure A.34: Details of tapered double cantilever specimen (TDCB). Crosshatched areas indicate portions which were plated with copper for crack propagation velocity measurements.…”
Section: W0mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a result, normal stresses act across the fiber/matrix interface which contribute to the initial debonding process and make interpretations of adhesive strengths from this test suspect [150].…”
Section: B221mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To explore the full potential of carbon fibres as reinforcements for desired composites, it is necessary to have an adequate fibre-matrix interface to ensure effective load transfer from the matrix to the fibre [1,2]. However, carbon fibres are chemically inert in nature and therefore have poor wettability and adsorption with most matrices.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…234 This was attributed to the microcapsules increasing the thickness of the interlaminar layer, relative to microcapsule free layers, which has been observed elsewhere to similarly affect composites' fracture toughness. 235 The average fracture toughness based healing efficiency of a fibre weave reinforced epoxy polymer containing DCPD filled microcapsules and Grubbs' catalyst was reported as 38%, 234 considerably lower than the 90% healing efficiency reported elsewhere for an otherwise similar neat polymer matrix. 29 While this decrease in healing is likely not as dramatic as a direct comparison of the two values would indicate, due to the virgin property differences between the fibre reinforced polymer and neat polymer matrix, it is clear that incorporation of the fibre weave is detrimental to the healing mechanism.…”
Section: Healing In Presence Of Structural Reinforcementsmentioning
confidence: 90%