2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2011.11.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interfacial shear behavior of 3D composites reinforced with CNT-grafted carbon fibers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
11
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
2
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Journal of Nanomaterials (IFSS) was reported for the first and the second method, respectively. The same tendency, using different constitutive materials, mixing techniques, and measurement tests, can be found in other reports; for example, Chandrasekaran et al [7] reported an increase of 36% on the IFSS, Godara et al of 36% [12], Sager et al of 71% [13], Lv et al of 175% [14], Yang et al of 190% [15], Li et al of 40% [16], and Wang et al of 71% [17]. Romanov et al [18][19][20] used modeling to explain the effect of CNTs in the fiber/matrix interface, showing that the CNTs suppress the stress concentrations on the microlevel of the composite and therefore the IFSS improvement; nevertheless, experimental evidence is not easy to obtain.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 76%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Journal of Nanomaterials (IFSS) was reported for the first and the second method, respectively. The same tendency, using different constitutive materials, mixing techniques, and measurement tests, can be found in other reports; for example, Chandrasekaran et al [7] reported an increase of 36% on the IFSS, Godara et al of 36% [12], Sager et al of 71% [13], Lv et al of 175% [14], Yang et al of 190% [15], Li et al of 40% [16], and Wang et al of 71% [17]. Romanov et al [18][19][20] used modeling to explain the effect of CNTs in the fiber/matrix interface, showing that the CNTs suppress the stress concentrations on the microlevel of the composite and therefore the IFSS improvement; nevertheless, experimental evidence is not easy to obtain.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 76%
“…Romanov et al [18][19][20] used modeling to explain the effect of CNTs in the fiber/matrix interface, showing that the CNTs suppress the stress concentrations on the microlevel of the composite and therefore the IFSS improvement; nevertheless, experimental evidence is not easy to obtain. The overall increase should surely depend on the CNTs concentration, as shown numerically by Yang et al [15]; however, for nanoengineered reinforced composites obtained by mixing and liquid transfer molding techniques, the CNTs concentration does not generally go beyond 0.5 wt.% due to the filtering effect; see, for example, the work of Gojny et al [8] and Jiménez-Suárez et al [21]. These studies show an improvement in the mechanical properties with a concentration of 0.5% by weight of CNTs; increasing these values no improvements are observed and even some properties decrease.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…This value is also higher than an plasma treated high modulus carbon fibre (~40 MPa) [19]. Yang et al [20] report values in excess of 80 MPa for nanotube treated carbon fibres, using pull-out and fragmentation tests. Zhang et al [4] report values in excess of 100 MPa.…”
Section: Raman Spectroscopy Of Single Fibres and Model Compositesmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…[4] As an alternative, CNTs can be directly grafted onto carbon fibers (CNT-g-CFs), during synthesis, to form a hierarchical reinforcement, combining nanoscale and microscale reinforcements. Computational models of this type of hierarchical composites predict a net benefit when CNTs are present at the fiber surface, [5][6][7][8][9][10] through diffusion of stresses across the critical fibermatrix region, as found in some biological systems. [10] Another motivation for including CNTs in composites is to create a conductive network which can be used for in-situ damage detection.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 83%