| Literature DB >> 31035398 |
Chunrui Lu1, Si Qiu2, Xue Lu3, Jian Wang4, Lin Xiao5, Ting Zheng6, Xiaodong Wang7, Dongxing Zhang8.
Abstract
As a promising alternative to traditional prepreg, carbon fiber/Entities:
Keywords: hybrid; interface; mechanical properties; polymer (textile) fibers
Year: 2019 PMID: 31035398 PMCID: PMC6571659 DOI: 10.3390/polym11050753
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Diagram of the plasma treatment equipment: (a) plasma treatment equipment; (b) mechanism of surface plasma treatment.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of monofilament tensile specimen.
Figure 3Illustrations for the microdroplet test: (a) the process of microdroplet test, (b) the scheme of the sample.
Figure 4SEM images of carbon fibers (CFs) at different plasma treatment times: (a) untreated CF, (b) CF–AA15 (Ar 15 s, air 15 s), (c) CF–air, (d) CF–Ar, (e) CF–AA1 (Ar 1 min, air 1 min), and (f) CF–AA5 (Ar 5 min, air 5 min).
Figure 5SEM images of poly(ether ether ketone) (PEEK) fibers at different plasma treatment times: (a) untreated PEEK fiber, (b) PEEK–AA15, (c) PEEK–air, (d) PEEK–Ar, (e) PEEK–AA1, and (f) PEEK–AA5.
Figure 6Raman spectra and their cumulative fit peaks for CFs before and after different plasma treatments: (a) untreated CF, (b) CF–air, (c) CF–Ar, (d) CF–AA15, (e) CF–AA1, and (f) CF–AA5.
Raman analysis: R and surface crystalline size (L) of untreated and treated carbon fibers.
| Sample | Peak Position | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D-Band | G-Band | |||
|
| 1364.19 | 1572.40 | 2.64 ± 0.04 | 16.67 |
|
| 1383.35 | 1592.91 | 2.65 ± 0.06 | 16.60 |
|
| 1385.62 | 1592.01 | 2.66 ± 0.05 | 16.54 |
|
| 1368.41 | 1577.59 | 2.66 ± 0.04 | 16.54 |
|
| 1382.37 | 1590.71 | 2.70 ± 0.05 | 16.30 |
|
| 1377.20 | 1588.05 | 2.70 ± 0.04 | 16.30 |
Figure 7Weibull distribution curves of tensile strength for CF monofilaments under different plasma treatments: (a) untreated CF, (b) CF–AA15, (c) CF–AA1, and (d) CF–AA5.
Tensile strength of CFs after different plasma treatments.
| Sample | A | B | σ0 (GPa) | Γ(σ0) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Untreated CF | −12.59 | 10.24 | 2.33 | 0.9514 | 3.25 |
| CF–AA15 | −8.68 | 6.84 | 2.00 | 0.9330 | 3.31 |
| CF–AA1 | −6.25 | 4.85 | 1.62 | 0.9156 | 3.32 |
| CF–AA5 | −7.34 | 5.83 | 1.80 | 0.9267 | 3.26 |
Figure 8Selected FTIR spectra of PEEK fibers and PEEK–AA5: (a) untreated PEEK and (b) PEEK–AA5.
Assignments of the FTIR peaks of PEEK materials.
| Wavenumber (cm−1) | Assignment |
|---|---|
| 3051 | C=C–H stretch vibration |
| 2912, 2866 | –CH2 stretch vibration |
| 1652 | C=O stretch in ketone |
| 1580 | Skeletal in-plane vibration of aromatic ring |
| 1474, 1407 | Aromatic rotations |
| 1300–1050 | Diphenyl ether group, C–O–C rotation and stretch |
| 923 | Aromatic out-of-plane bending |
| 825, 757 | C–H out-of-plane bending substitution patterns |
Figure 9Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) curves for PEEK fibers and plasma-treated PEEK fibers: (a) DSC curve and (b) TGA curve.
Surface chemical composition of CFs and PEEK fibers.
| Samples | Relative Concentration of Elements (%) | O:C | N:C | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | O | N | |||
| Untreated CF | 85.15 | 14.85 | - | 0.17 | - |
| CF–air | 61.51 | 34.65 | 3.84 | 0.56 | 0.06 |
| CF–Ar | 75.44 | 21.85 | 2.71 | 0.29 | 0.04 |
| CF–AA1 | 59.86 | 35.77 | 4.38 | 0.60 | 0.07 |
| CF–AA5 | 53.24 | 41.82 | 4.94 | 0.79 | 0.09 |
| PEEK | 86.13 | 13.87 | - | 0.16 | - |
| PEEK–AA1 | 67.48 | 31.21 | 1.31 | 0.46 | 0.02 |
Deconvolution of C1s and the concentration of relevant functional groups from XPS.
| Samples | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | Polar/Nonpolar | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C=C | C–C | C–O | –C=O | O–C=O | |||
| Untreated CF | 26.85 | 45.25 | 21.02 | 3.43 | 3.45 | 0.39 | 0.07 |
| CF–air | 25.24 | 31.64 | 27.92 | 11.30 | 3.89 | 0.76 | 0.48 |
| CF–Ar | 23.00 | 33.60 | 22.77 | 12.96 | 7.66 | 0.77 | 0.25 |
| CF–AA1 | 22.70 | 33.20 | 21.30 | 7.16 | 15.65 | 0.79 | 0.53 |
| CF–AA5 | 23.20 | 42.90 | 16.44 | 10.33 | 7.13 | 0.51 | 0.45 |
| PEEK | 36.32 | 13.81 | 40.73 | 1.99 | 7.15 | 0.99 | 0.16 |
| PEEK–AA1 | 29.35 | 9.41 | 41.65 | 9.32 | 10.28 | 1.58 | 0.76 |
Figure 10Possible mechanism of surface group oxidation by plasma treatment: (a) generation of C–O bonds, (b) generation of C=O bonds, (c) generation of O–C=O bonds.
Figure 11SEM images of samples after microdroplet test. (a) The beginning of CF/PEEK, (b) the ending of CF/PEEK, (c) the beginning of CF/PEEK–Air, (d) the ending of CF/PEEK–Air, (e) the beginning of CF/PEEK–Ar, (f) the ending of CF/PEEK–Ar, (g) the beginning of CF/PEEK–AA15, (h) the ending of CF/PEEK–AA15, (i) the beginning of CF/PEEK–AA1, (j) the ending of CF/PEEK–AA1, (k) the beginning of CF/PEEK–AA5, (l) the ending of CF/PEEK–AA5.
IFSS of untreated and plasma treated CF/PEEK system.
| Sample | IFSS (MPa) | Increment (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Untreated | 42.36 ± 4.23 | - |
| Air | 48.37 ± 2.87 | 14.19 |
| Ar | 47.62 ± 3.25 | 12.42 |
| AA15 | 50.87 ± 1.79 | 20.09 |
| AA1 | 59.73 ± 3.88 | 41.01 |
| AA5 | 47.85 ± 4.51 | 12.96 |