In-plane shear of nanostitched three-dimensional para-aramid/phenolic composites were experimentally investigated. Adding the nanostitched fiber into nanoprepreg para-aramid fabric preform composites slightly improved their shear strengths. The carbon-stitched composite exhibited comparatively better performance compared to the para-aramid stitched composite probably due to well bonding between carbon fiber and phenolic resin. The stitched nano composites had mainly matrix breakages and micro shear hackles in the matrix; matrix debonding and filament pull-out in the composite interface; fibrillar peeling and stripping on the filaments due to angular deformation. This mechanism probably prohibited extensive interlaminar opening in the nanostitched composites. The result exhibited that the introducing of the nano stitched fiber where multiwall carbon nanotubes were transferred to the out-of-plane of the base structure enhanced its transverse fracture as a form of confined delamination area. Therefore, the damaged tolerance properties of the stitched nano composites were enhanced compared to the base.
KamiyaRCheesemanBAPopperP, et al.Some recent advances in the fabrication and design of three-dimensional textile preforms: a review. Compos Sci Technol2000; 60: 33–47.
2.
ChouTW. Microstructural design of fibre composites, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
3.
CoxBNDadkhahMSMorrisWL, et al.Failure mechanisms of 3D woven composites in tension, compression, and bending. Acta Metall Mater1994; 42: 3967–3984.
4.
BilisikK. Bending behavior of multilayered and multidirectional stitched aramid woven fabric structures. Text Res J2011; 81: 1748–1761.
5.
BilisikK. Dimensional stability of multiaxis 3D woven carbon preform. J Text Inst2010; 101: 380–388.
6.
BilisikKSahbazN. Structure-unit cell base approach on three dimensional representative braided preforms from 4-step braiding: experimental determination of effect of structure-process parameters on predetermined yarn path. Text Res J2012; 82: 220–241.
7.
TongLMouritzAPBannisterMK. 3D fibre reinforced polymer composites, New York: Elsevier, 2002.
8.
Dell'AnnoGCartiéDDPartridgeIK, et al.Exploring mechanical property balance in tufted carbon fabric/epoxy composites. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2007; 38: 2366–2373.
9.
GarciaEJWardleBLJohn HartA. Joining prepreg composite interfaces with aligned carbon nanotubes. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2008; 39: 1065–1070.
10.
KhanSUKimJK. Impact and delamination failure of multiscale carbon nanotube-fiber reinforced polymer composites: a review. Int J Aeronaut Space Sci2011; 12: 115–133.
11.
RealffML. Identifying local deformation phenomena during woven fabric uniaxial tensile loading. Text Res J1994; 64: 135–141.
12.
RealffMLBoyceMCBackerS. A micromechanical model of the tensile behavior of woven fabric. Text Res J1997; 67: 445–459.
13.
MohammedULekakouCDongL, et al.Shear deformation and micromechanics of woven fabrics. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2000; 31: 299–308.
14.
LaunayJHivestGDuongAV, et al.Experimental analysis of the influence of tensions on in plane shear behaviour of woven composite reinforcements. Compos Sci Technol2008; 68: 506–515.
15.
ProdromouAGChenJ. On the relationship between shear angle and wrinkling of textile composite preforms. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf1997; 28A: 491–503.
16.
ZhuBYuTXTaoXM. An experimental study of in-plane large shear deformation of woven fabric composite. Compos Sci Technol2007; 67: 252–261.
17.
SamirDHamidS. Determination of the in-plane shear rigidity modulus of a carbon non-crimp fabric from bias-extension data test. J Compos Mater2014; 48: 2729–2736.
18.
DeghboudjSBoukhedenaWSathaH. Experimental and finite element analysis of in-plane shear properties of a carbon non-crimp fabrics at macroscopic scale. J Compos Mater2018; 52: 235–244.
19.
SunFZhangYChenL, et al.Shear properties of three-dimensional woven composite reinforcements. Polym Compos2017; 38: 244–251.
20.
LiangYWangHGuX. In-plane shear response of unidirectional fiber reinforced and fabric reinforced carbon/epoxy composites. Polym Test2013; 32: 594–601.
21.
ZhouGGreenERMorrisonC. In-plane and interlaminar shear properties of carbon/epoxy laminates. Compos Sci Technol1995; 55: 187–193.
22.
BilisikK. Multiaxis 3D woven preform and properties of multiaxis 3D woven and 3D orthogonal woven carbon/epoxy composites. J Reinf Plast Comp2010; 29: 1173–1186.
23.
MunozRGonzalezCLlorcaJ. Mechanisms of in-plane shear deformation in hybrid three-dimensional woven composites. J Compos Mater2015; 49: 3755–3763.
24.
DickinsonLCFarleyGLHindersMK. Prediction of effective three-dimensional elastic constants of translaminar reinforced composites. J Compos Mater1999; 33: 1002–1029.
25.
KimEYAnSKKimHD. Graft copolymerization of e-caprolactam onto Kevlar-49 fiber surface and properties of grafted Kevlar fiber reinforced composite. J Appl Polym Sci1997; 65: 99–107.
26.
ChenWQianXMHeXQ, et al.Surface modification of Kevlar by grafting carbon nanotubes. J Appl Polym Sci2012; 123: 1983–1990.
27.
WuSRSheuCSShyuS. Kevlar fiber-epoxy adhesion and its effect on composite mechanical and fracture properties by plasma and chemical treatment. J Appl Polym Sci1996; 62: 1347–1360.
28.
LiCZhenQLuoZ, et al.Effect of calcium chloride on the surface properties of Kevlar fiber. J Appl Polym Sci2015; 132: 41358.
29.
WuJChengXH. Interfacial studies on the surface modified aramid fiber reinforced epoxy composites. J Appl Polym Sci2006; 102: 4165–4170.
30.
KimBWNairnJA. Observations of fiber fracture and interfacial debonding phenomena using the fragmentation test in single fiber composites. J Compos Mater2002; 36: 1825–1858.
31.
MadhukarMSDrzalLT. Fiber-matrix adhesion and its effect on composite mechanical properties. I. Inplane and interlaminar shear behavior of graphite/epoxy composites. J Compos Mater1991; 25: 932–957.
32.
DengSYeL. Influence of fiber-matrix adhesion on mechanical properties of graphite/epoxy composites. II. Interlaminar fracture and inplane shear behavior. J Reinf Plast Comp1999; 18: 1041–1057.
33.
GaoJDaiYWangX, et al.Effects of different fluorination routes on aramid fiber surface structures and interlaminar shear strength of its composites. Appl Surf Sci2013; 270: 627–633.
34.
KodamaMKarinoI. Effects of polar groups of polymer matrix on reinforcement-matrix interaction in kevlar fiber-reinforced composites. J Appl Polym Sci1986; 32: 5057–5069.
35.
PattersonBASodanoHA. Enhanced interfacial strength and UV shielding of aramid fiber composites through ZnO nanoparticle sizing. ACS Appl Mater Int2016; 8: 33963−33971.
36.
LinTKKuoBHShyuS, et al.Improvement of the adhesion of Kevlar fiber to bismaleimide resin by surface chemical modification. J Adhes Sci Technol1999; 13: 545–560.
37.
MeguidSASunY. On the tensile and shear strength of nano-reinforced composite interfaces. Mater Des2004; 25: 289–296.
WichmannMHGSumflethJGojnyGH, et al.Glass-fibre-reinforced composites with enhanced mechanical and electrical properties – benefits and limitations of a nanoparticle modified matrix. Eng Fract Mech2006; 73: 2346–2359.
40.
MaPCKimJKTangBZ. Functionalization of carbon nanotubes using a silane coupling agent. Carbon2006; 44: 3232–3238.
41.
FukushimaTKosakaAIshimuraY, et al.Molecular ordering of organic molten salts triggered by single-walled carbon nanotubes. Science2003; 300: 2072–2074.
42.
MaPCKimJKTangBZ, et al.Effects of silane functionalization on the properties of carbon nanotube/epoxy nanocomposites. Compos Sci Technol2007; 67: 2965–2972.
43.
YuBJiangZTangXZ, et al.Enhanced interphase between epoxy matrix and carbon fiber with carbon nanotube-modified silane coating. Compos Sci Technol2014; 99: 131–140.
44.
ZhuJImamACraneR, et al.Processing a glass fiber reinforced vinyl ester composite with nanotube enhancement of interlaminar shear strength. Compos Sci Technol2007; 67: 1509–1517.
45.
PattersonBAMalakootiMHLinJ, et al.Aramid nanofibers for multiscale fiber reinforcement of polymer composites. Compos Sci Technol2018; 161: 92–99.
46.
BilisikKSapanciE. Plain para-aramid/phenolic multiwall carbon nanotubes prepreg/multistiched preform composites: experimental characterization of mode-I toughness. J Compos Mater.. Epub ahead of print 12 November 2018, DOI:10.1177/0021998318812176.
LehmanJHTerronesMMansfieldE, et al.Evaluating the characteristics of multiwall carbon nanotubes. Carbon2011; 49: 2581–2602.
49.
BilisikKKaradumanNSSapanciE. Flexural characterization of 3D prepreg/stitched carbon/epoxy/multiwall carbon nanotube preforms and composites. J Compos Mater2019; 53: 563–577.
50.
BilisikKErdoganGSapanciE. Flexural behavior of 3D para-aramid/phenolic/nano (MWCNT) composites. RSC Adv2018; 8: 7213–7224.
51.
ASTM D792-91: 1991. Standard test method for density and specific gravity (relative density) of plastics by displacement, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
52.
ASTM D3171-99: 1991. Standard test methods for constituent content of composite materials, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
53.
ASTM D2734-91: 1991. Standard test methods for void content of reinforced plastics, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
54.
ASTM D3518M-13: 2013. Standard test method for in-plane shear response of polymer matrix composite materials by tensile test of a ±45° laminate, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
55.
ASTM D3039-14: 2014. Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer matrix composite materials, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
56.
BilisikKErdoganGSapanciE. In-plane response of para-aramid/phenolic nanostitched and nanoprepreg 3D composites under tensile loading. Polym Compos2019; 40: 1275–1286.
57.
SharmaSSinghVNTeotiaS, et al.Excellent mechanical properties of long multiwalled carbon nanotube bridged Kevlar fabric. Carbon2018; 137: 104–117.
