| Literature DB >> 30960122 |
Isaac Isarn1, Francesco Gamardella2, Xavier Fernàndez-Francos3, Àngels Serra4, Francesc Ferrando5.
Abstract
Novel composite coatings prepared from 3,4-epoxy cyclohexylmethyl 3,4-epoxycyclohexane carboxylate (ECC) and different ceramic fillers have been prepared to improve the thermal dissipation of electronic devices. As latent cationic initiator, a benzylanilinium salt with triethanolamine has been used, which leads to a polyether matrix. Different proportions of Al₂O₃, AlN and SiC as fillers were added to the reactive formulation. The effect of the fillers selected and their proportions on the evolution of the curing was studied by calorimetry and rheometry. The thermal conductivity, thermal stability, thermal expansion coefficient and thermomechanical and mechanical properties of the composites were evaluated. An improvement of 820% in thermal conductivity in reference to the neat material was reached with a 75 wt % of AlN, whereas glass transition temperatures higher than 200 °C were determined in all the composites.Entities:
Keywords: ceramic fillers; composites; cycloaliphatic epoxy resin; latency; thermal conductivity
Year: 2019 PMID: 30960122 PMCID: PMC6401976 DOI: 10.3390/polym11010138
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Exothermic curves from differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) analysis of all the mixtures prepared with different fillers: (A) Al2O3; (B) AlN; (C) SiC.
DSC data of the different formulations studied.
| Sample | Tonset a (°C) | Tpeak a (°C) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neat | 109 | 117 | 596 | 75.2 |
| 50% Al2O3 | 114 | 120 | 258 | 65.2 |
| 60% Al2O3 | 116 | 122 | 202 | 63.8 |
| 70% Al2O3 | 117 | 123 | 147 | 62.0 |
| 50% AlN | 109 | 116 | 286 | 72.2 |
| 60% AlN | 106 | 113 | 225 | 71.0 |
| 70% AlN | 106 | 112 | 172 | 72.1 |
| 75% AlN | 106 | 111 | 146 | 73.4 |
| 50% SiC | 109 | 118 | 277 | 69.9 |
| 60% SiC | 110 | 118 | 221 | 69.8 |
| 70% SiC | 112 | 120 | 166 | 69.6 |
a Onset and maximum peak temperatures of the curing exotherm. b Heat evolved during the curing by gram of mixture or by epoxy equivalent.
Figure 2Complex viscosities of mixtures varying frequency in the linear viscoelastic region (LVR) of each formulation at 30 °C with different fillers: (A) Al2O3; (B) AlN; (C) SiC.
Figure 3Plots of G’ and G’’ versus frequency in frequency sweep tests at 30 °C for the different formulations studied with different fillers: (A) Al2O3; (B) AlN; (C) SiC.
Figure 4Environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM) micrographs of fillers and fracture surfaces of composites at different magnifications.
Figure 5Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) degradation curves of the different composites obtained by the addition of with different fillers: (A) Al2O3; (B) AlN; (C) SiC.
Thermogravimetric and thermomechanical data from the composites prepared.
| Sample (wt %) | Vol. Fraction (%) | T2% a (°C) | Char Yield b (%) | E c (GPa) | Tg d (°C) | CTE e (10−6·K−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neat epoxy | - | 273 | 1.0 | 2.4 | 227 | 115 |
| 50% Al2O3 | 22.8 | 341 | 52.0 | 6.1 | 223 | 58 |
| 60% Al2O3 | 30.8 | 354 | 61.6 | 7.5 | 223 | 38 |
| 70% Al2O3 | 40.9 | 368 | 71.9 | 11.1 | 244 | 36 |
| 50% AlN | 26.4 | 337 | 51.9 | 7.1 | 235 | 56 |
| 60% AlN | 35.0 | 351 | 62.8 | 7.8 | 238 | 38 |
| 70% AlN | 45.6 | 359 | 71.2 | 12.2 | 246 | 35 |
| 75% AlN | 51.8 | 353 | 77.3 | 14.4 | 252 | 22 |
| 50% SiC | 26.6 | 368 | 54.0 | 7.8 | 230 | 52 |
| 60% SiC | 35.3 | 370 | 62.7 | 10.4 | 230 | 48 |
| 70% SiC | 46.0 | 377 | 72.6 | 11.6 | 240 | 32 |
a Temperature of 2% weight loss determined by TGA in N2 at 10 °C/min. b Char residue at 600 °C (in N2). c Young’s modulus determined by dynamic mechanical thermal analyses (DMTA) at 30 °C. d Temperature of maximum of tanδ at 1 Hz in a DMTA oscillatory experiment using the same clamp. e Thermal expansion coefficient in the glassy state determined between 50–75 °C by thermomechanical analyses (TMA).
Figure 6Curves of tan δ for the composites prepared determined by DMTA. (A) Al2O3; (B) AlN; (C) SiC.
Figure 7Microindentation Knoop hardness dependence on filler/proportion in the composites.
Figure 8Thermal conductivities of the neat epoxy and the different composites prepared.