Premium
Some studies on glass fiber‐reinforced polypropylene. Part II: Mechanical properties and their dependence on fiber length, interfacial adhesion, and fiber dispersion
Author(s) -
Gupta V. B.,
Mittal R. K.,
Sharma P. K.,
Mennig G.,
Wolters J.
Publication year - 1989
Publication title -
polymer composites
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.577
H-Index - 82
eISSN - 1548-0569
pISSN - 0272-8397
DOI - 10.1002/pc.750100104
Subject(s) - materials science , composite material , polypropylene , fiber , glass fiber , toughness , composite number , molding (decorative) , scanning electron microscope , agglomerate , stiffness , dispersion (optics) , optics , physics
Abstract Two commercial grades of glass fiber‐reinforced polypropylene granules, one containing short fibers of average length around 0.5 mm with a coupling agent and the other containing relatively much longer fibers mostly around 9 mm, but no coupling agent, were injection‐molded into dumbbells and tested in tension between −43 and 90°C. There is considerable fiber attrition during injection molding; the fiber lengths are reduced to average values of 0.4 to 0.8 mm for thses two samples. Also during injection molding of the test sample, partial molecular alignment of the matrix (polypropylene) occurs which supplements the reinforcement of the matrix due to the aligned glass fibers (30 percent by weight) present in the composite sample. The stiffness and strength of these samples do not reflect the effects of fiber lengths since most of the fibers are of very small length in the molded specimen and also since the sample with longer fibers has a non‐uniform distribution of fibers. While the interfacial shear strength does not appear to play a significant role in determining stiffness, it turns out to be extremely important in controlling strength, particularly at the higher test temperatures. The room temperature impact strength is high for the sample containing relatively longer fibers of average length around 0.8 mm in which fiber dispersion is non‐uniform and fiber agglomerates are present. Acoustic emission data shows that debonding and fiber pull‐out are the main contributors to sample toughness; this observation is supported by scanning electron micrographs of the fracture surfaces.