Interfacial and microfailure properties of carbon fiber/epoxy matrix composites were evaluated using both tensile fragmentation and compressive Broutman tests with an aid of acoustic emission (AE) monitoring. A polymeric maleic anhydride coupling agent and a monomeric amino-silane coupling agent were used via the electrodeposition (ED) and the dipping applications, respectively. Both coupling agents exhibited significant improvements in interfacial shear strength (IFSS) compared to the untreated case under tensile and compressive tests. The typical microfailure modes including fiber break of cone-shape, matrix cracking, and partial interlayer failure were observed during tensile test, whereas the diagonal slippage in fiber ends was observed under compressive test. For both loading types, fiber breaks occurred around just before and after yielding point. In both the untreated and treated cases AE amplitudes were separately distributed for the tensile testing, whereas they were closely distributed for the compressive tests. It is because of the difference in failure energies of carbon fiber between tensile and compressive loading. The maximum AE voltage for the waveform of carbon or basalt fiber breakages under tensile tests exhibited much larger than those under compressive tests, which can provide the difference in the failure energy of the individual failure processes.

Interfacial and microfailure properties of carbon fiber/epoxy matrix composites were evaluated using both tensile fragmentation and compressive Broutman tests with an aid of acoustic emission (AE) monitoring. A polymeric maleic anhydride coupling agent and a monomeric amino-silane coupling agent were used via the electrodeposition (ED) and the dipping applications, respectively. Both coupling agents exhibited significant improvements in interfacial shear strength (IFSS) compared to the untreated case under tensile and compressive tests. The typical microfailure modes including fiber break of cone-shape, matrix cracking, and partial interlayer failure were observed during tensile test, whereas the diagonal slippage in fiber ends was observed under compressive test. For both loading types, fiber breaks occurred around just before and after yielding point. In both the untreated and treated cases AE amplitudes were separately distributed for the tensile testing, whereas they were closely distributed for the compressive tests. It is because of the difference in failure energies of carbon fiber between tensile and compressive loading. The maximum AE voltage for the waveform of carbon or basalt fiber breakages under tensile tests exhibited much larger than those under compressive tests, which can provide the difference in the failure energy of the individual failure processes.