4.7 Article

Geometric phase analysis for characterization of 3D morphology of carbon fiber reinforced composites

期刊

COMPOSITES SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 242, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2023.110215

关键词

Carbon fiber composites; Geometric phase analysis; 3D morphology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, an orthogonal grating with a frequency of 10,000 lines/mm was prepared on the surface of the T700 carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy resin matrix composite using the SEM electron beam grating technique. The surface morphology was analyzed using the geometric phase analysis method, which revealed an average step height of 128.6 nm between the fiber and matrix. Additionally, the method also provided a morphology distribution map within the range of 155 × 100 μm², offering an effective way to quantitatively characterize the three-dimensional surface morphology of composite materials.
In carbon fiber-reinforced resin matrix composites, differences in the mechanical properties of carbon fibers and matrix resins can lead to differences in height, causing step faults at the interphase during grinding and polishing. Accurately and efficiently characterizing the step height at the interphase is crucial for analyzing the mechanical properties and residual stress distribution of the composite materials. In this paper, an orthogonal grating, with a frequency of 10,000 lines/mm, was prepared on the surface of the composite material using the SEM electron beam grating technique. The surface morphology of the T700 carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy resin matrix composite was analyzed using the geometric phase analysis method. The average step height between the fiber and matrix was found to be 128.6 nm. Moreover, the geometric phase analysis method can provide a morphology distribution map within the range of 155 x 100 & mu;m2. This research will provide an effective way to quantitative characterization of three-dimensional surface morphology of composite materials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据