4.7 Article

Increasing the through-thickness thermal conductivity of carbon fiber polymer-matrix composite by curing pressure increase and filler incorporation

期刊

COMPOSITES SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 71, 期 16, 页码 1944-1952

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2011.09.011

关键词

Composite material; Carbon fiber; Polymer; Epoxy; Thermal conductivity; Carbon black; Carbon nanotube; Polymer-matrix composites (PMCs); Structural composites; Thermal properties

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The low through-thickness thermal conductivity limits heat dissipation from continuous carbon fiber polymer-matrix composites. This conductivity is increased by up to 60% by raising the curing pressure from 0.1 to 2.0 MPa and up to 33% by incorporation of a filler (<= 1.5 vol.%) at the interlaminar interface. The 7-mu m-diameter 7-W/m K-thermal-conductivity continuous fiber volume fraction is increased by the curing pressure increase, but is essentially unaffected by filler incorporation. The thermal resistivity is dominated by the lamina resistivity (which is contributed substantially by the intralaminar fiber-fiber interfacial resistivity), with the interlaminar interface thermal resistivity being unexpectedly negligible. The lamina resistivity and intralaminar fiber-fiber interfacial resistivity are decreased by up to 56% by raising the curing pressure and up to 36% by filler incorporation. The curing pressure increase does not affect the effectiveness of 1-mm-long 10-mu m-diameter 900-1000-W/m K-thermal-conductivity K-1100 carbon fiber or single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT) as fillers for enhancing the conductivity, but hinders the effectiveness of carbon black (CB, low-cost), which is less effective than K-1100 or SWCNT at the higher curing pressure, but is almost as effective as K-1100 and SWCNT at the lower curing pressure. The effectiveness for enhancing the flexural modulus/strength/ductility decreases in the order: SWCNT, CB, K-1100. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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