Characterization of M40J Desized and Finished Fibers

A viewgraph presentation on desized and finished M40J carbon fibers shown. The topics include: 1) Program Goals and Prior Year Results Summary; 2) Continuous Desizing and Finishing System Development; 3) Characterizzation of Desized and Finished M40J Carbon Fibers and 4) Conclusions and Future Work

Properties of M40J Carbon/PMR-II-50 Composites Fabricated with Desized and Surface Treated Fibers. Characterization of M40J Desized and Finished Fibers

To increase performance and durability of high temperature composites for potential rocket engine components, it is necessary to optimize wetting and interfacial bonding between high modulus carbon fibers and high temperature polyimide resins. It has been previously demonstrated that the electro-oxidative shear treatments used by fiber manufacturers are not effective on higher modulus fibers that have fewer edge and defect sites in the surface crystallites. In addition, sizings commercially supplied on most carbon fibers are not compatible with polyimides. This study was an extension of prior work characterizing the surface chemistry and energy of high modulus carbon fibers (M40J and M60J, Torray) with typical fluorinated polyimide resins, such as PMR-II-50. A continuous desizing system which utilizes environmentally friendly chemical- mechanical processes was developed for tow level fiber and the processes were optimized based on weight loss behavior, surface elemental composition (XPS) and morphology (FE-SEM) analyses, and residual tow strength of the fiber, and the similar approaches have been applied on carbon fabrics. Both desized and further treated with a reactive finish were investigated for the composite reinforcement. The effects of desizing and/or subsequent surface retreatment on carbon fiber on composite properties and performance including fiber-matrix interfacial mechanical properties, thermal properties and blistering onset behavior will be discussed in this presentation

Current concepts in cleft care: A multicenter analysis

The current surgical techniques used in cleft repair are well established, but different centers use different approaches. To determine the best treatment for patients, a multi-center comparative study is required. In this study, we surveyed all craniofacial departments registered with the German Society of Maxillofacial Surgery to determine which cleft repair techniques are currently in use. Our findings revealed much variation in cleft repair between different centers. Although most centers did use a two-stage approach, the operative techniques and timing of lip and palate closure were different in every center. This shows that a retrospective comparative analysis of patient outcome between the participating centers is not possible and illustrates the need for prospective comparative studies to establish the optimal technique for reconstructive cleft surgery. (c) 2018 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved