Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T21:25:22.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interfacial Effects of Plasma Treatment on Fiber Pull-Out

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

Umesh Gaur  and
Theodore Davidson
Umesh Gaur
Affiliation:
TRI/Princeton, P.O. Box 625, Princeton, NJ 08542
Theodore Davidson
Affiliation:
Center for Surface & Interface Research, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269
Get access

Abstract

Surface modification of organic reinforcement fibers by exposure to certain plasmas appears to have considerable potential as a means for improving the performance of composites. Such treatments can change fiber surface properties, leaving the core of the fiber virtually unaffected so that the mechanical properties of the fibers remain unaltered. Previous studies [1–5] have shown that plasma treatment of polymeric fibers can modify surface energetics and that the acid/base characteristics of a fiber surface can be altered by exposure to plasmas of acidic or basic gases. Although several publications [6,7] have reported that the mechanical properties of composites reinforced with plasma-treated fibers are enhanced, there has been no direct evidence to show the impact of fiber surface plasma treatment on interfacial shear strength.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 170: Symposium N – Interfaces in Composites , 1989 , 309
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Allred, R. E., Sc. D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., February 1983.Google Scholar
2. Allred, R. E., Merrill, E. W., and Roylance, D. K.,“Molecular Characterization of Composite Interfaces,” edited by Ishida, H. and Kumar, G., (Plenum Press, New York, 1985), pp. 333–375.Google Scholar
3. Yasuda, T., Gazicki, M., and Yasuda, H., J. Appl. Polym. Sci., Appl. Polym. Symp. 38, 201 (1984).Google Scholar
4. Yasuda, T., Yoshida, K., Okuno, T., and Yasuda, H., J. Polym. Sci., Polym. Physics Ed. 26, 2061 (1988).Google Scholar
5. Wesson, S. P. and Allred, R. E., ACS Preprint - Polym. Mat. Sci. Eng. 58, 650 (1988).Google Scholar
6. Kaplan, S. L., Rose, P. W., Nguyen, H. X., and Chang, H. W., Proc. 33rd International SAMPE Symposium, 1988, p. 551.Google Scholar
7. Nguyen, H. X., Weedon, C. C., and Chang, H. W., Proc. 34th International SAMPE Symposium, 1989, p. 1603.Google Scholar
8. Miller, B., Muri, P., and Rebenfeld, L., Comp. Sci. Tech. 28, 17 (1987).Google Scholar
9. Gaur, U. and Miller, B., Comp. Sci. Tech. 24, 35 (1989).Google Scholar
10. Gaur, U., Desio, G. P., and Miller, B., Proc. of SPE ANTEC ‘89, 1513 (1989).Google Scholar
11. McAlea, K. P. and Besio, G. J., Polym. Comp. 9, 285 (1988).Google Scholar
12. Penn, L. S., Tesoro, G. C., and Zhou, H. X., Polym. Comp. 9, 184 (1988).Google Scholar
13. Gaur, U. and Miller, B., Proc. of Third International Conference on Comp. Interfaces, Cleveland, OH, May 1990 (to be published).Google Scholar
14. Gerenser, L. J., J. Adhesion Sci. Tech. 1 (4), 303 (1987).Google Scholar