Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites

http://jrp.sagepub.com Flexural and Shear Properties of Silica Particle Modified Glass Fiber Reinforced Epoxy Composite
Y. Cao and J. Cameron Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 2006; 25; 347 originally published online Aug 16, 2005; DOI: 10.1177/0731684405056450 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jrp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/347

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jrp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jrp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 32 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://jrp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/347#BIBL

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com by on April 23, 2007 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Flexural and Shear Properties of Silica Particle Modified Glass Fiber Reinforced Epoxy Composite
Y. CAO* AND J. CAMERON Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6
ABSTRACT: The objective of this study is to develop a new method of manufacturing glass fiber reinforced epoxy composites and to quantitatively show that the properties of such a new material are superior to that of a conventional fiber reinforced polymer composite of the same material base composition. To achieve this objective, the glass fiber (GF) reinforced epoxy composite samples are prepared in four different ways: Method A, using clean GF as the reinforcement (i.e., with no modification or additional treatment to the as-received fiber); Method B, modifying the surface of the GF with silica particles before applying in the composite system; Method C, prestressing the clean GF during the curing procedure of the composite; and Method D, prestressing the silica modified GF during the curing procedure of the composite. Preparation by Method D is the newly developed method. The finished composite samples are tested by the three-point bend test and the short-beam shear test under ASTM standard conditions. The results indicate that the composites prepared by the new method, which include the GF surface modification and the GF prestressing preparation conditions, have an excellent combination of properties when compared to the specimens made by the other three methods. KEY WORDS: silica particle, glass fiber, epoxy, modification, composite, flexural strength, flexural modulus, shear modulus.

INTRODUCTION Fiber Prestressing

were developed to improve the properties of continuous fiber reinforced composites [112]. There are two types of fiber prestressing based on when the pretension was applied on the fiber: previously stressed fiber and prestressed fiber. In the first case, the fiber is preloaded and unloaded before being embedded into the matrix material [15]. In the second case, the pretension is loaded and maintained on the fiber until the composite curing is finished [612]. When the previously stressed fiber is chosen, two possible benefits are expected. These are the decreasing of the natural defects of the fiber or of the residual strain generated in the fiber during its prior manufacture. For example, Mills and Dauksys [2] reported that by previously stressing boron fibers before they were applied in the composite, the boron
IBER PRESTRESSING TECHNIQUES

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: cao@post.queensu.ca

Journal of REINFORCED PLASTICS

AND

COMPOSITES, Vol. 25, No. 4/2006

347

0731-6844/06/04 034713 $10.00/0 DOI: 10.1177/0731684405056450 2006 SAGE Publications

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com by on April 23, 2007 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

348

Y. CAO

AND

J. CAMERON

fibers were prebroken at some defect points. This resulted in an increase in the tensile strength of the final composite and a decrease of data variation of the composite properties. Cui [5] also reported an increase in the tensile strength and the data survivability (sic). Fancey [3] proposed that the viscoelastic residual strain was the reason for the property improvement of the nylon fiber reinforced polyester resin composite that was made after the fiber was previously stressed. When Hadi and Ashton [4] used previously stressed fiber in their GF reinforced epoxy composite, they detected a significant increase in the tensile strength of the composite when the pretension level changed from 0 to 200 MPa. In the present study, to prepare the prestressed fibers in thermosetting polymer matrix composites, the tension was applied and held on the fibers until the matrix curing process was essentially over. The possible benefits of the prestressed fiber in such a composite include the straightening of any loose fibers, the residual stress coming from the released tensile stress applied during curing, an increase of the fiber distribution uniformity, and, sometimes, an increase in the fiber volume fraction. This last one is due to better packing of the straight fibers in the mold. In the study of the relationship between the fiber prestressing level and the mechanical properties of the composites, an optimum fiber prestressing level was reported by Zhao and Cameron [9]. They applied and maintained 0150 MPa prestress on the fiber during the curing procedure in GF reinforced polypropylene composite samples. The continuous improvements in both tensile and flexural strengths were observed until a certain prestressing level after which they showed a slow rate of decrease with a further increase in prestressing level. In their case, the optimal prestressing level was 87 MPa for the tensile properties and 65 MPa for the flexural properties. They explained that this phenomenon was due to a balance between the thermal residual stress upon cooling from the liquid state to ambient and the residual stress resulting from the release of the prestressing force. Increase in mechanical properties of fiber reinforced composites by fiber prestressing was also reported by Motahhari and Cameron [8,10], Scherf and Wagner [11], Huang et al. [12] in different fibermatrix systems. Fiber Surface Modification Currently, there are two major types of fiber modification techniques: fiber surface coating or sizing and fiber surface chemical or physical treatment. Fiber surface coating/sizing is the most popular fiber surface modification technique. In this modification, one or several layers of other materials, which are different from the fiber material, are deposited on the fiber surface to improve the performance of the fiber in the composite system and to protect the surface of the glass fibers from mechanical/ environmental damage. Modifying the fiber surface with particles after surface sizing with uncured epoxy is relatively new in the fiber modification area. In this technique, one or two layers of particles, which can be a material that is different from the material of the fiber, are coated on the fiber surface. From this point of view, the fiber modification technique used in this project can be categorized into the coating/sizing type of modification. The major benefits of fiber coating in fiber reinforced composites are enhancing the strength of the fibermatrix interface, protecting the fiber from chemical corrosion, and moderating the fibermatrix thermal mismatch by utilizing the difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion of the layered material.

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com by on April 23, 2007 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Properties of Modified Reinforced Epoxy Composite

349

The fibermatrix interface strengthening of the fiber coating has wide applications [1318]. Zhu et al. [13] found that coating the SiO2-rich coating on the SiCf fiber increased the fibermatrix interfacial strength and the resulting tensile strength of the composite up to 55 and 45%, respectively. Singh et al. [15] found an optimum coating thickness for the composite mechanical property improvement in carbon coated nicalon fiber reinforced SiC matrix composites. In many publications about the effect of the fiber coating on the mechanical properties of composites, an increase in fiber surface roughness was claimed as a major explanation of mechanical property enhancement [1926]. It was concluded that by roughening the fibermatrix interface in this way, the bonding strength between the fiber and the matrix increases. This causes an increase in the shear stress transfer at the interface and goes beyond that which is experienced when only matrix cracking or fiber cracking takes place. Day et al. [27], however, reported that after the sizing material of aramid fiber was removed, the roughness of fiber surface increased and a mechanical interlocking at the fibermatrix boundary took place. This fibermatrix interlocking makes the unsized fiber reinforced composite capable of enduring larger deformation than the sized fiber reinforced composite. A similar theory was discussed on the effect of fiber surface chemical treatment on the properties of the composite [2836]. A major use of this treatment is to roughen the surface of the fiber so that the fibermatrix interlocking effect can happen. Boynard et al. [32] treated the sponge gourd fibers with NaOH solution to remove the smooth outer surface of the sponge fiber and in doing so, improved the flexural properties of the composite. Tarantili and Andreopoulos [28] treated the surface of aramid fibers by immersing them in a solution of methacryloyl chloride in carbon tetrachloride before the fibers were used in aramidepoxy composite. The boundary interlocking on the resulting small defects was discussed and the improvement of flexural and interlaminar shear strengths was noted in the results.

EXPERIMENTAL Materials The matrix material of the composite design was RP4005 Resin/RP1500 Hardener heat-resistant laminating system from CibaGeigy, provided by A. E. Blake Sales Ltd. The mixing ratio of the epoxy resin and the hardener was 100/14 by weight. E-glass fiber roving AA2200 obtained from Fiberglas Canada Inc. (currently, Owens Corning) was used as the reinforcing material. High purity silica particles were chosen to modify the surface of the GF. The grades used were SILCOSIL 45, 75, and 125 silica sands provided by US Silica Company. The crystalline silica contained in the silica sand is 99.299.9%. Experimental Procedures and Tests In all manufacturing methods, the clean GF was wound into a hank before any other processing. Several pulleys were used to make sure that the fiber was wound evenly on to a rigid holder. The clean GF was coated with a thin layer of epoxy before being mixed with the matrix material. This coating procedure is carried out in both clean GF reinforced samples and modified GF reinforced samples to make sure that the composite samples

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com by on April 23, 2007 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

350
Glass fiber Al mold

Y. CAO

AND

J. CAMERON

Open

Tension

Tension

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the Al curing mold of the composite sample and the pretension methods of the GF .

were prepared with the same manufacturing conditions except for the manufacturing factors that were to be studied. The curing procedures of the composites were carried out in three long rectangular aluminum molds with different sizes to adjust for the different volume fractions of the GF reinforcement added to the epoxy resin matrix. The top and the two ends of the mold were open so that the epoxy resin could be added and the GF could be prestressed during the curing procedure (Figure 1). The two ends of the mold were blocked by a pad of paper to avoid leaking of the liquid epoxy resin. All the samples were cured at room temperature for 24 h. Four manufacturing methods were used to study the effect of different manufacturing factors and conditions on the flexural and shear properties of the composites. In clean GF (as-received and un-modified GF) reinforced epoxy composite (Method A), which was used as the basic manufacturing condition, the epoxy-coated GF was aligned in the mold and the epoxy was introduced in a non-turbulent manner to contact the fibers prior to carrying out the curing step. In silica particle modified GF reinforced epoxy composite (Method B), the epoxy-coated GF was coated with one or two particle-thick layers of silica particles before introducing the matrix material. In prestressed GF reinforced epoxy composite sample (Method C), after the epoxy-coated GF was mixed with the epoxy resin, a chosen level of tension was applied along the fiber using a Houndsfield Tensometer. Four pretension levels, 5, 10, 15, and 20 MPa, were used in the sample preparations. The pretension was released after the curing procedure was complete. Method D, a newly developed fiber reinforced composite manufacturing method, employs both the fiber surface modification with silica particles and the fiber prestressing step during the curing process. The procedures of this method include GF winding, GF coating with thin layer of epoxy, GF coating with uniform two particle-thick layers of silica particles, composite molding, fiber prestressing, and curing. The composite samples were tested by three-point bend test and short-beam shear test under the ASTM standard D790 and D2344, respectively. The as-manufactured composite samples were machined to fit the test standards before the test. A computer-operated tensile machine manufactured by United Testing Systems Canada Ltd (serial no. S220KlbsLC) was used to perform the tests. Two pairs of specially designed jigs were made to fit the machine and load the samples in a precise and reproducible way. The test results were recorded and the flexural strength, flexural modulus, and shear modulus of the composite samples were calculated using the standard formulae of such properties (Figure 2).

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com by on April 23, 2007 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Properties of Modified Reinforced Epoxy Composite

351
Attached to the computerized datarecording tensile machine

(a)

Specimen

Loading

(b)

Attached to the computerized datarecording tensile machine

Loading

Specimen

Figure 2. Schematic diagrams of the jigs and the test positioning of: (a) three-point bending and (b) short-beam shear tests.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The Basic Experimental Condition To study the different values of the properties of specimens made under the different manufacturing conditions, composite samples that were prepared with unmodified GF and no GF prestressing were chosen to be the basic experimental condition. That is, the properties of the composite samples prepared with other manufacturing conditions were compared to the what hereafter is called the basic values so that the change of the property is clearly shown and the differences can be quantitatively compared. Silica Modified GF Reinforced Composite The composite samples prepared with silica particle modified GF reinforced epoxy were prepared and compared with the basic values to find out the effect of such surface

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com by on April 23, 2007 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

352

Y. CAO

AND

J. CAMERON

modification on the properties of the composites (Method B). The results of the flexural strength, flexural modulus, and shear modulus, are compared in Figures 35. For specimens made by Methods AC, when the properties of the composite samples were compared, all the manufacturing factors of the compared samples were the same except the one factor under study. There are two groups of data comparisons in Figures 3 and 4. These show the results for 20 and 30% fiber volume fraction. It is clearly indicated that the flexural strength and the flexural modulus of the silica particle modified GF reinforced composite samples are higher than the unmodified GF reinforced samples when they were prepared under the same sets of conditions. The improvements of GF surface modification with silica particles is from 32 to 58 MPa on the flexural strength and from 4.5 to 6.5 GPa on flexural modulus. The shear modulus of the silica modified GF and unmodified GF reinforced epoxy composite samples are compared in Figure 5. The results show that the shear modulus of the modified GF reinforced sample is about 5 and 9 MPa higher than the unmodified GF

500 Flexural strength (MPa) 400 300 200 100 0

Method A

Method B

20% Fiber volume fraction

30%

Figure 3. Flexural strength comparison of the composite samples prepared with Methods A and B.

25 Flexural modulus (GPa) 20 15 10 5 0

Method A

Method B

20% 30% Fiber volume fraction

Figure 4. Flexural modulus comparison of the composite samples prepared with Methods A and B.

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com by on April 23, 2007 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Properties of Modified Reinforced Epoxy Composite

353

70 Shear modulus (MPa) Method A 60 50 40 30 0.16 Method B

0.18

0.20

0.22

0.24

0.26

0.28

0.30

0.32

Fiber volume fraction

Figure 5. Shear modulus comparison of the composite samples prepared with Methods A and B.

reinforced sample as the fiber volume fraction of the compared samples rises from 17 to 30%, respectively, at each of the volume fractions studied. The explanation of why fiber surface modification with silica particles improves the mechanical properties of the GF reinforced composite is that modifying the surface of GF with silica particles results in the mechanical interlocking at the fibermatrix boundary. After fiber surface modification, the silica particles are directly stuck on the surface of the GF. This gives the GF a very rough surface configuration. When these modified GFs are applied in the epoxy matrix, the rough surface of the GF makes the mechanical interlocking between the GF and the epoxy matrix much more pronounced. As studied by other researchers [27,28,31,32,37,38], this mechanical interlocking at the fibermatrix interface helps to enhance the fibermatrix bond and improves the flexural and shear properties of the composites. Greater work must be done to deform or shear the samples when the fibermatrix bond is improved in this manner. Prestressed GF (Unmodified) Reinforced Composite The effect of GF prestressing during the curing process of the composite on the flexural and shear properties of the composite was studied next. The results were compared with the composite samples prepared under the basic manufacturing conditions (Figures 68). As shown in Figures 6 and 7, the flexural strength and the flexural modulus of the prestressed GF reinforced samples (Method C) are higher than those of unprestressed samples (Method A). However, the improvements of the flexural properties from fiber prestressing are measurably different at different prestressing levels. When the fiber pretension level is changed from 0 through 5 MPa and from 10 to 15 MPa, the improvement of the flexural properties is progressive. When the fiber prestressing level is changed from 15 to 20 MPa, however, the flexural properties show a slight decrease. The resulting value is still a 10% improvement over the unprestressed sample. An improvement of shear modulus was also detected when the GF was prestressed during the manufacture of the composite. Similar to what happened to the flexural properties, the improvement of the shear modulus increased when the GF pretension level was changed from 0 through 5 to 10 MPa and then decreased slightly when the GF pretension level was increased from 10 to 20 MPa. To avoid overlap of the curves,

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com by on April 23, 2007 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

354
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Y. CAO

AND

J. CAMERON

Flexural strength (MPa)

0 MPa A

5 MPa C

10MPa 15 MPa C C Prestressing level

20 MPa C

Figure 6. Flexural strength comparison of the composite samples prepared with Methods A and C (clean GF , Vf 20%).

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0MPa A 5MPa C 10MPa 15MPa C C Prestressing level 20MPa C

Figure 7. Flexural modulus comparison of the composite samples prepared with Methods A and C.

the shear modulus curves of the composite samples prepared with different pretension levels are shown in separate figures (Figure 8(a) and (b)). The effect of fiber prestressing on the mechanical properties of the composite can be explained by the loose-fiber straightening mechanism. In continuous fiber reinforced composites, some relatively loose fibers always exist after the composite is cured, even though reasonable care is taken to keep the fibers as straight as possible. In the manufacturing Method C, the GF was tensioned during the curing procedure. This tension helps to straighten the loose fibers in the composite. With the gradual increase of the prestressing level, more and more loose fibers are straightened in tension. As is known, in continuous fiber reinforced composites, straight fibers carry the load transferred from the matrix and contribute much more effectively than loose or nonstraight fibers. Thus, prestressing the fiber improves the flexural and shear properties of the composite. However, since the fracture strain of GF is very low, with the increase of the fiber prestressing level and when the pretension level reaches a certain point, the earliertensioned fibers may fracture. The subsequent contribution of the as-fractured GF to the

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com by on April 23, 2007 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Flexural modulus (GPa)

Properties of Modified Reinforced Epoxy Composite

355

(a) Shear modulus (MPa)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0.05 0.15 A (0MPa) C (5MPa pretension) C (10MPa pretension) 0.25 0.35

Fiber volume fraction (b) Shear modulus (MPa) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0.05 0.15 C (10 MPa pretension) C (15 MPa pretension) C (20 MPa pretension)

0.25 Fiber volume fraction

0.35

0.45

Figure 8. Shear modulus comparison of the composite samples prepared with Methods A and C: (a) Method A (0 MPa) and Method C (5 MPa and 10 MPa pretension) and (b) Method C (10, 15, and 20 MPa pretension).

mechanical properties of the composite decreases. Therefore, beyond this point, an increase of the pretension level will not provide further mechanical property improvement to the composite system but, in fact, will result in a slight drop in the measured properties. Silica-modified and Prestressed GF Reinforced Composite The flexural properties of the composite samples prepared by the new manufacturing method, Method D, were next compared with the sample prepared by the basic manufacturing conditions (Method A). In Figures 9 and 10, the flexural strengths and the flexural moduli of the samples were compared under two fiber volume fractions, 20 and 25%. With the same fiber volume fraction, the flexural strength and modulus of the sample prepared by the new method are much higher than the sample prepared by the basic method. The improvements are up to 245 MPa on flexural strength and 9.5 GPa on flexural modulus. These improvements are higher than those received in Method B (about 32.5 MPa and 3.5 GPa) and Method C (about 95 MPa and 3.9 GPa). The shear moduli of the sample prepared with Methods D and A are compared in Figure 11. The shear modulus of the sample from the new manufacturing method (Method D) is about 1520 MPa higher than those from the basic manufacturing conditions (Method A). Compared to the improvement from Method B (510 MPa) and

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com by on April 23, 2007 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

356
Method A Method D

Y. CAO

AND

J. CAMERON

800 Flexural strength (MPa) 600 400 200 0

20% Fiber volume fraction

25%

Figure 9. Flexural strength comparison of the composite samples prepared with Methods A and D.

30 Flexural modulus (GPa) 25 20 15 10 5 0

Method A

Method D

20% Fiber volume fraction

25%

Figure 10. Flexural modulus comparison of the composite samples prepared with Methods A and D.

70 Shear modulus (MPa) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.08 0.13

Method A: clean GF + no prestressing Method D: modified GF + 10 MPa prestressing

0.18 0.23 Fiber volume fraction

0.28

Figure 11. Shear modulus comparison of the composite samples prepared with Methods A and D.

Method C (811 MPa), the new manufacturing method provides higher shear modulus property to the composite system. Based on the above evidence, Method D, the combination of fiber surface silica modification and fiber prestressing benefits the composite system by both fibermatrix

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com by on April 23, 2007 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Properties of Modified Reinforced Epoxy Composite

357

interlocking and loose-fiber straightening. Thus, the new manufacturing method produces the composite with significantly higher flexural and shear properties than Methods B and C. CONCLUSIONS In GF reinforced epoxy composites, modifying the surface of GF with silica particles or prestressing the GF during the curing procedure improves the flexural strength, flexural modulus, and shear modulus. The newly developed manufacturing method of GF reinforced epoxy composites benefits from both the fiber surface silica modification and the fiber prestressing with a positive synergistic effect. The improvements of the flexural strength, flexural modulus, and shear modulus of the composites produced by this new method (Method D) are higher than the sum of the results produced by Methods B and C when they are compared to the samples prepared by the basic manufacturing condition (Method A). The optimum GF prestressing levels for maximum property improvement are around 15 MPa for flexural properties and 10 MPa for shear modulus. Modifying the surface of GF with silica particles before embedding the GF in the matrix generates a quality of physical fibermatrix interlocking that enhances the fibermatrix bonding and is responsible for the improved mechanical behavior of the composite. Prestressing the GF during curing straightens the loose fibers in the composite. The straightened fibers contribute more to the mechanical properties of the composite than the loose fibers. However, with the increase in the pretension level, the early straightened fibers are fractured due to the low fracture strain of the GF at defects. The improvement of mechanical properties from GF prestressing decreases beyond an optimal value. This also points out the importance of having all fibers of the same length during the fiber preparation step and before embedding the fibers in the matrix, the fibers are straightened at the same load and time and they carry the prestressing load equally. They also carry the applied load equally when put into an engineering application. REFERENCES
1. Manders, P. and Chou, T. (Jan. 1983). Enhancement of Strength in Composites Reinforced with Previouslystressed Fibers, Journal of Composite Materials, 17: 2644. 2. Mills, G. J. and Dauksys, R. (1973). Effects of Prestressing Boron/Epoxy Prepreg on Composite Strength Properties, AIAA Journal, 11(11): 14591460. 3. Fancey, K. S. (2000). Investigation into the Feasibility of Viscoelastically Generated Pre-stress in Polymeric Matrix Composites, Materials Science & Engineering, A279: 3641. 4. Hadi, A. and Ashton, J. (1998). On the Influence of Pre-stress on the Mechanical Properties of a Unidirectional GRE Composite, Composite Structures, 40(34): 305311. 5. Chi, Z. and Chou, T. (May 1983). An Experimental Study of the Effect of Prestressed Loose Carbon Strands on Composite Strength, Journal of Composite Materials, 17: 196209. 6. Srinivas, M. V., Dvorak, G. J. and Prochazka, P. (1999). Design and Fabrication of Submerged Cylindrical Laminates II. Effect of Fiber Pre-stress, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 36: 39453976. 7. Motahhari, S. and Cameron, J. (1999). Fiber Prestressed Composites: Improvement of Flexural Properties through Fiber Prestressing, Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 18(3): 279288. 8. Motahhari, S. and Cameron, J. (1998). Impact Strength of Fiber Pre-stressed Composites, Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 17(2): 123130. 9. Zhao, J. and Cameron, J. (1998). Polypropylene Matrix Composites Reinforced with Pre-stressed Glass Fibers, Polymer Composites, 19(3): 218224.

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com by on April 23, 2007 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

358

Y. CAO

AND

J. CAMERON

10. Motahhari, S. and Cameron, J. (1997). Measurement of Micro-Residual Stresses in Fiber-Prestressed Composites, Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 16(12): 11291137. 11. Scherf, J. and Wagner, H. Interpretation of Fiber Fragmentation in Carbon/Epoxy Single Fiber Composites: Possible Fiber Pre-Tension Effects, Polymer Engineering and Science, 32(4): 298304. 12. Huang, Y., Frings, P. and Hennes, E. (2002). Mechanical Properties of Zylon/Epoxy Composite, Composites: Part B, 33: 109115. 13. Zhu, Z., Guo, Y. and Shi, N. (1998). Effect of Surface Modification of SiC Fiber on Acoustic Emission Behaviors and Interface Strength of SiCf/Al Composite, In: Progress in Acoustic Emission IX, Kamuela, Hawaii, USA, pp. 914. 14. Vazquez, A., Ambrustolo, M., Moschiar, S., Reboredo, M. and Gerard, J. (1998). Interphase Modification in Unidirectional Glass-Fiber Epoxy Composites, Composites Science and Technology, 58: 549558. 15. Singh, J., Singh, D. and Sutaria, M. (1999). Ceramic Composites: Roles of Fiber and Interface, Composites: Part A, 30: 445450. 16. Marks, D. and Jones, F. (2002). Plasma Polymerised Coatings for Engineered Interfaces for Enhanced Composite Performance, Composite: Part A, 33: 12931302. 17. Canche-Escamilla, G., Rodriguez-Laviada, J., Cauich-Cupul, J. I., Mendizabahl, E., Puig, J. E. and HerreraFranco, P. J. (2002). Flexural, Impact and Compressive Properties of a Rigid-thermoplastic Matrix/cellulose Fiber Reinforced Composites, Composites: Part A, 33: 539549. 18. Pavlidou, S., Mai, S., Zorbas, T. and Papaspyrides, C. D. (2004). Mechanical Properties of Glass Fabric/ Polyester Composites: Effect of Silicone Coatings on the Fabric, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 91: 13001308. 19. Parthasarathy, T. A. and Kerans, R. J. (1997). Predicted Effects of Interfacial Roughness on the Behavior of Selected Ceramic Composite, Journal of American Ceramic Society, 80(8): 20432055. 20. Kerans, R. J. and Parthasarathy, T. A. (1991). Theoretical Analysis of the Fiber Pullout and Pushout Tests, Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 74: 15851596. 21. Mackin, T. J., Yang, J. and Warren, P. D. (1992). Influence of Fiber Roughness on the Sliding Behavior of Sapphire Fibers in TiAl and Glass Matrices, Journal of American Ceramic Society, 75(12): 33583362. 22. Wang, H. P., Nelson, C. L., Lim, C. L. and Gerberch, W. W. (1994). Interfacial Stability and Mechanical Properties of Al2O3 Fiber Reinforced Ti Matrix Composites, Journal of Material Research, 9(2): 498503. 23. Jero, P. D. and Parthasarathy, T. A. (1993). In: Naslain, R. (ed.), Interface Properties Their Measurement with Fiber Pushout Tests, in High Temperature Ceramic Matrix Composites, p. 401, Goodhead Publishers, Cambridge. 24. Sorensen, B. F. (1993). Effect of Fiber Roughness on the Overall Stress-transverse Strain Response of Ceramic Composites, Scripta Metall. et Mater., 28: 435446. 25. Carter, W. C., Butler, E. P. and Fuller Jr, E. R. (1991). MicroMechanical Aspects of Asperity Controlled Friction in Fiber Toughened Ceramic Composites, Scripta Metall. et Mater., 25: 579584. 26. Mackin, T. J., Warren, P. D. and Evans, A. G. (1992). Effects of Fiber Roughness on Interface Sliding in Composites, Acta Metall. Et Mater., 40: 12511257. 27. Day, R., Hewson, K. and Lovell, P. A. (2002). Surface Modification and Its Effect on the Interfacial Properties of Model Aramid-fiber/epoxy Composites, Composites Science and Technology, 62: 153166. 28. Tarantili, P. and Andreopoulos, A. (1997). Mechanical Properties of Epoxies Reinforced with ChlorideTreated Aramid Fibers, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 65(2): 267276. 29. Ramanathan, T., Bismarck, A., Schulz, E. and Subramanian, K. (2001). Investigation of the Influence of Surface-activated Carbon Fibers on Debonding Energy and Frictional Stress in Polymer-matrix Composites by the Micro-indentation Technique, Composites Science and Technology, 61: 25112518. 30. Jang, J. and Yang, H. (2000). The Effect of Surface Treatment on the Performance Improvement of Carbon Fiber/polybenzoxazine Composites, Journal of Materials Science, 35: 22972303. 31. Wan, Y. Z., Wang, Y. L., Zhou, F. G., Cheng, G. X. and Han, K. Y. (2002). Three-Dimensionally Braided Carbon Fiber-Epoxy Composites, A New Type of Materials for Osteosynthesis Devices. II. Influence of Fiber Surface Treatment, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 85(5): 10401046. 32. Boynard, C., Monteiro, S. and dAlmeida, J. R. M. (2003). Aspects of Alkali Treatment of Sponge Gourd (Luffa Cylindrica) Fibers on the Flexural Properties of Polymer Matrix Composites, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 87(12): 19271932. 33. Prasad, S., Pavithran, C. and Rohatgi, P. K. (1983). Alkali Treatment of Coir Fibers for Coir-Polyester Composites, Journal of Material Science, 18: 14431454. 34. Bledzki, A. and Gassan, J. (1999). Composites Reinforced with Cellulose Based Fibers, Progress in Polymer Science, 24(2): 221274.

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com by on April 23, 2007 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Properties of Modified Reinforced Epoxy Composite

359

35. Triparthy, S. S., Landro, L., Fontanelli, D., Marchetti, A. and Levita, G. (2000). Mechanical Properties of Jute Fibers and Interface Strength with an Epoxy Resin, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 75(13): 15851596. 36. Marcovich, N. E., Reboredo, M. M. and Aranguren, M. I. (1998). Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Natural Polymers and Composites (ISNaPol 98), Atibaia, Brazil, p. 91. 37. Kuntz, M. and Grathwohl, G. (2001). Advanced Evaluation of Push-in Data for the Assessment of Fiber Reinforced Ceramic Matrix Composites, Advanced Engineering Materials, 3(6): 371379. 38. Beckert, W. and Lauke, B. (1997). Critical Discussion of the Single-fiber Pull-out Test: Does It Measure Adhesion, Composites Science and Technology, 57: 16891706.

Downloaded from http://jrp.sagepub.com by on April 23, 2007 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.