4.7 Article

Length-scale discrepancy in the properties of epoxy resin specimens

期刊

POLYMER
卷 283, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2023.126148

关键词

Epoxy resin; Nanoindentation; Molecular Dynamics; Curing characteristics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The dependence of the results on the conversion of the thermoset resin remains an issue in studies of the fibre-matrix interphase using microscale single fibre methods. The curing process of picolitre drop-on-fibre systems in the microbond method differs from macroscale resin batches due to evaporation of volatile components, potentially limiting the degree of cure. Atomistic scale modelling and experimental thermal analysis were used to understand the curing process and nanoindentation to compare mechanical performance.
In studies of the fibre-matrix interphase with microscale single fibre methods, the dependence of results on conversion of the thermoset resin - or degree of cure as it is often called - remains an issue. In the microbond method specifically, the curing of picolitre volume drop-on-fibre systems differs significantly from that of macroscale resin batches. The surface-to-volume ratio and vapour pressure can cause volatile components of the resin to evaporate, potentially limiting the degree of cure. Atomistic scale modelling along with experimental thermal analysis were used to understand the curing process and how it translates to resin properties, while nanoindentation was used to experimentally compare the mechanical performance of samples prepared in different length-scales. The evaporation is experimentally verified. Comparable variation in mechanical properties is shown in atomistic scale models of the epoxy network with no evaporation. The origin is in the network morphologies created by varying the curing process. Thus attributing the length-scale discrepancy solely to conversion is likely an oversimplification and understanding the network morphology from different curing conditions is also needed.

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