Next Article in Journal
The Influence and Action Mechanization of Mineral Mixed Material on High Fluidity Potassium Magnesium Phosphate Cement (MKPC)
Previous Article in Journal
The Use of Conductive Polymers Embedded Macro Porous Pei and Ionic Liquid Form of Pei Cryogels for Potential Conductometric Sensor Application to CO2
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Electrical Conductivity and Electromagnetic Shielding Effectiveness of Bio-Composites

by
Konstantinos Tserpes
1,*,
Vasileios Tzatzadakis
1 and
Jens Bachmann
2
1
Laboratory of Technology & Strength of Materials (LTSM), Department of Mechanical Engineering & Aeronautics, University of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece
2
German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Composite Structures and Adaptive Systems, Lilienthalplatz 7, 38108 Braunschweig, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Compos. Sci. 2020, 4(1), 28; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs4010028
Submission received: 15 January 2020 / Revised: 25 February 2020 / Accepted: 16 March 2020 / Published: 18 March 2020

Abstract

:
In this paper, the electrical conductivity and electromagnetic shielding effectiveness of two bio-composites are studied by experimental testing and numerical models. Two monolithic composites with partly bio-based content were manufactured. The first bio-composite is made of a carbon fiber fabric prepreg and a partly bio-based (rosin) epoxy resin (CF/Rosin). The second bio-composite is a combination of prepregs of carbon fiber fabric/epoxy resin and flax fiber fabric/epoxy resin (CF-Flax/Epoxy). A single line infusion process was used prior to the curing step in the autoclave. Both variants are exemplary for the possibility of introducing bio-based materials in high performance CFRP. In-plane and out-of-plane electrical conductivity tests were conducted according to Airbus standards AITM2 0064 and AITM2 0065, respectively. Electromagnetic shielding effectiveness tests were conducted based on the standard ASTM D 4935-10. Materials were prepared at the German Aerospace Center (DLR), while characterization tests were conducted at the University of Patras. In addition to the tests, numerical models of representative volume elements were developed, using the DIGIMAT software, to predict the electrical conductivity of the two bio-composites. The preliminary numerical results show a good agreement with the experimental results.

1. Introduction

Carbon-fiber reinforced plastics (CFRPs) are increasingly replacing metallic materials in lightweight structures, such as aircrafts, since significant weight savings can be achieved. Bio-composite materials derived from natural, renewable sources such as bio-fibers and bio-resin have received significant interest in recent years, mainly due to the increased awareness of environmentally sustainable technologies, the weight reduction they offer, the added functionality and the occupational health benefits. Bio-based composites and polymers could be an alternative to manufacturing lightweight structures. The fossil-based products could be replaced by bio-based ones, not only because of the abovementioned arguments, but also because of the economic uncertainty of the petrochemical industry by means of price and petroleum availability [1,2,3,4,5]. Moreover, the environmentally friendly polymers and composite production satisfy the demand for plastic products and, at the same time, protects the environment [6]. However, they have not yet found their way in aircraft structures, mainly due to their low mechanical properties, the lack of experience and confidence regarding their durability and the unknown electromagnetic properties [7,8].
Electromagnetic (EM) penetration of aircrafts mainly comes from lightning effects. On the other hand, lightning discharges do not necessarily have to hit the aircraft structure directly to create EM fields. Intracloud discharges, for example, might produce intense high-frequency radiation [9]. Additionally, to the lightning effects, an electromagnetically disturbed environment for the aircraft is developed from the infrastructure of all communication, entertainment and surveillance. EM radiation penetrates the aircraft from outboard ground-based transmitters for navigation, communication, radar surveillance from other aircrafts or satellite propagation, as well as from onboard generated interferences appearing by the carried onboard communication and entertainment equipment. Whereas a metallic aircraft fuselage principally counters these EM fields like a faraday cage—through its high electrical conductivity is able to deflect and absorb the radiation and provides an EM shield—a composite fuselage is not able to counter EM fields without enhancement [10,11].
Studies have shown that there are several health effects caused by of electromagnetic fields. Sensitive individuals with electromagnetic field exposure from various sources experience ill health symptoms [12]. This phenomenon is called EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity), and according to WHO, 1%–3% of the population are affected by it [13,14]. Moreover, when passengers are exposed to the EM waves, the network of veins in high-risk organs, such as eyes, might be affected. This is due to heat build-up in the eyes by the EM waves, which could not be easily dissipated. Studies have shown that the EMF (electromagnetic fields) exposures have significant influence, even below the safety limits of energy that are capable of producing temperature changes in living tissues [15,16,17,18,19,20]. In order to avoid these hazards to passengers and to protect the sensitive equipment from undesired EM radiation [21], EM-interference shielding is essential. Moreover, there are indications that electromagnetic radiation could have a bio-physical effect on various animal and human organs. The organ exposure to electromagnetic radiation has shown that there are histological, hematological and histochemical changes which differ from normal [22,23,24]. In order to block the undesired EM radiation, one has to understand the electrical properties and EM behavior of structural materials. In this work, the electrical conductivity and electromagnetic shielding effectiveness (EMSE) of two bio-composites, which are destined for use in secondary aircraft structures, have been studied by tests and numerical models.

2. Materials

The first bio-composite is made of a carbon woven fiber fabric prepreg and a partly bio-based (rosin) epoxy resin (CF/Rosin of 10 layers). The second bio-composite is a combination of prepregs of unidirectional carbon fiber fabric (10 layers in 0° and 90° direction)/epoxy resin and flax plain weave fiber fabric/epoxy resin (CF-Flax/Epoxy). The epoxy resin, which was used to produce the second bio-composite, is the LY556 (HY+ DY). A single line infusion process was used prior to the curing step in the autoclave at 80 °C for 4 hours, with a post-curing at 120 °C for 4 hours. The prepreg layup of the first bio-composite was cured in the autoclave at 130 °C for 3 hours. Both bio-composites were manufactured at DLR (German Aerospace Center, Braunschweig, Germany).

3. Experimental

Electrical conductivity of bio-composites was derived from electrical resistivity. The electrical resistivity along X (longitudinal) and Z (normal) directions was measured according to AITM2-0064 [25] and AITM2-0065 [26] standards, respectively. To this end, a plastic test-jig and a probe ohmmeter were used. Figure 1a shows the specimen (coupon) used for the tests along the X axis inside the test-jig, while Figure 1b shows the specimen (plate) used for the tests along Z axis in between two brass plates.
The resistance (in Ω) of a parallelepipedal sample made from an isotropic material may be expressed as follows:
R = ρ × l s = ρ × l w × t ,
where ρ is the resistivity of the material, expressed in ohm meter (Ω m); s the cross-sectional area of the specimen, expressed in squared meters (m2); and l, w and t are, respectively, the length, the width and the thickness of the specimen, expressed in meters (m).
The resistivity is an intrinsic property of the bulk material and may be represented as the resistance between the opposite faces of a 1-meter edge cube from this material. The conductivity, σ, expressed in Siemens (S) per meter (S m-1), is the inverse of the resistivity:
σ = 1 ρ ,

4. EMSE Tests

EMSE (electromagnetic shielding effectiveness) tests were conducted according to ASTM D4935-10 standard [27]. For each material, a set of a reference and a load specimen of circular shape were produced. The external diameter of the specimens is 133 mm, while the internal diameter of the reference specimen is 33 mm. The specimens used in the EMSE tests are shown in Figure 2. Both bio-composites are electrically thin, according to the measured frequency bandwidth, meaning that they are less than 0.01 times the electrical wavelength of the signal transmitted through the specimen.
EMSE tests were conducted inside an anechoic chamber (Figure 3), in order to ensure a clear environment from other EM interferences (noise-free environment). The EM wave was produced from a signal generator and was transmitted through a double-shielded cable. The specimens were placed into the specimen-holder device. A set of N-type connectors were placed at both ends of the specimen holder, to ensure a constant 50 Ohm impedance. The signal was finally received by a receiver device.
The specimen holder (Figure 4) is made of bronze, and it was manufactured according to the ASTM D 4935-10 standard. A coaxial signal transmission is realized, as the device has a constant 50 Ohm impedance through its perfectly symmetrical structure (the calibration of the device was a mandatory step). The mounting of the specimen with the holder was accomplished with a set of four plastic fasteners. The leakage caused by the plastic fasteners is characterized as negligible.
The signal generator was set to produce an EM wave of 1 s total duration, starting from 30 MHz to 1.5 GHz, with a step increment of 0.5 MHz. The system was calibrated, in order to avoid an energy leakage or a component mismatch (a constant value of 50 Ohm is required). Inside the specimen holder (blank space), a far-field EM wave is formed that traverses through the testing material (load material case), in order to reach the holder’s end. The receiver records the signal’s power in dBm units (frequency bandwidth of 30 MHz to 1.5 GHz). The measurements are made for both reference and load specimens. Shielding effectiveness (SE) can be calculated directly from the dBm values or through conversion to mWatt units [8]:
S E = ( dB m r e f dB m l o a d ) ,

5. Numerical Analysis

In addition to the tests, the electrical conductivity of bio-composites was predicted by numerical analysis, which is based on representative volume elements (RVEs). To this end, the DIGIMAT software [28] was used. For the development of the RVEs, it was crucial to have information on the microstructure and electrical properties of the materials (Table 1) given by DLR (German Aerospace Center). The developed RVEs are shown in Figure 5. The RVEs were meshed by using a built-in mesh generator with second-order tetrahedral elements, instead of voxel elements [10]. The FE meshes of the RVEs are also illustrated in Figure 5. The RVEs were loaded by using periodic boundary conditions, to achieve homogenization.

6. Experimental Results

6.1. Electrical Conductivity

The measured electrical conductivity values of the bio-composites are displayed in Figure 6. The average conductivity of the CF/Rosin bio-composite is 11491 S/m, and the standard deviation is 558 S/m. The average conductivity of the CF/Flax-Epoxy bio-composite is 15104 S/m, and the standard deviation is 4858 S/m. The relatively high standard-deviation electrical conductivity for the CF/Flax-Epoxy material is due to the variation of metallization quality of the flax fiber surface and due to the variation of fiber volume fraction through the dimensions of the specimens. Figure 7 shows a metallized flax fiber surface with many defects, because the nickel deposit of the metallization procedure could be perfectly attached on the carbon fibers’ surface, but it could not be attached on the flax fibers’ surface. The measured electrical conductivities of the bio-composites lie in the area of the lower limit of the electrical conductivity of CFRPs (~12,000 S/m) [29,30].

6.2. EMSE

EMSE tests were conducted under continuous loading, from 30 MHz to 1.5 GHz, with increment steps of 0.5 MHz for both reference and load specimens. Inside of the specimen holder, a far-field wave is formed that propagates through the testing material (when load specimen is tested) and reaches the receiver, which records the signal’s power. The received signals are plotted in Figure 8 and Figure 9, in terms of the signal’s amplitude versus frequency. The SE is derived from Equation (2). The results show that both materials exhibit a higher SE at high-frequency EM waves. More specific, the maximum SE for the CF/Rosin material is 81.05 dB at 1363 MHz, and for the CF/Flax-Epoxy material, it is 86.15 dB at 1417 MHz. The minimum SE values for the two materials are 38.89 dB and 36.68 dB, respectively, both achieved at 30 MHz (low EM frequencies). The values above 60 dB (up to 90 dB) provide sufficient EM protection [31].

7. Numerical Results

The computed electrical conductivity is 12,357 S/m for the CF/Rosin bio-composite and 14,333 S/m for the CF/Flax-Epoxy bio-composite. Both predicted values compare very well with the average experimental values (11,491 S/m and 15,104 S/m, respectively; see Figure 6).

8. Conclusions

In this paper, the electrical conductivity and EMSE of a CF/Rosin bio-composite and a CF/Flax-Epoxy bio-composite, which are intended for use in secondary aircraft structures, were studied by tests and numerical models. The findings show the potential of the bio-composites, since the measured electrical conductivities, and the SE, although being smaller than the respective values of CFRPs, are within the acceptable deviation range. Furthermore, the RVE-based numerical model gave very good predictions on electrical conductivity of the bio-composites.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.T., V.T., J.B.; methodology, K.T., V.T., J.B.; software, V.T.; validation, V.T., J.B.; formal analysis, V.T.; investigation, K.T., T.V., J.B.; resources, K.T., J.B.; data curation, K.T., V.T., J.B.; writing—original draft preparation, K.T., V.T.; writing—review and editing, V.T.; visualization, K.T., V.T.; supervision, K.T., J.B.; project administration, J.B.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The work reported in this paper received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program ECO-COMPASS (Grant no. 690638), and the results were presented [32] at the EMuS-2019 Conference, in Barcelona, Spain.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Prasad, M.; Kumari, K. Toxicity of Crude Oil to the Survival of the Fresh Water FishPuntius sophore (HAM.). Acta Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica 1987, 15, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tzatzadakis, V.; Tserpes, K. Production of a novel bio-based structural adhesive and characterization of mechanical properties. J. Adhes. 2020, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Encyclopedia Britannica. Plastic Pollution|Sources & Effects. 2019. Available online: https://www.britannica.com/science/plastic-pollution (accessed on 26 September 2019).
  4. Quispe, C.; Coronado, C.; Carvalho, J., Jr. Glycerol: Production, consumption, prices, characterization and new trends in combustion. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 27, 475–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tserpes, K.; Tzatzadakis, V.; Katsiropoulos, C. Effect of hygrothermal ageing on the interlaminar shear strength of carbon fiber-reinforced rosin-based epoxy bio-composites. Compos. Struct. 2019, 226, 111211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Worldwatch.org. Global Plastic Production Rises, Recycling Lags|Worldwatch Institute. 2019. Available online: http://www.worldwatch.org/global-plastic-production-rises-recyclinglags-0 (accessed on 26 September 2019).
  7. Bachmann, J.; Yi, X.; Gong, H.; Martinez, X.; Bugeda, G.; Oller, S.; Tserpes, K.; Ramon, E.; Paris, C.; Moreira, P.; et al. Outlook on ecologically improved composites for aviation interior and secondary structures. CEAS Aeronaut. J. 2018, 9, 533–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Yi, X.; Tserpes, K. Special Issue: ECO-COMPASS: Ecological and Multifunctional Composites for Application in Aircraft Interior and Secondary Structures. Aerospace 2019, 6, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Rakov, V.; Rachidi, F. Overview of Recent Progress in Lightning Research and Lightning Protection. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 2009, 51, 428–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. White, D.; Mardiguian, M. Electromagnetic Shielding; Emf-emi control, Inc.: Gainesville, VA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  11. Von Klemperer, C.J.; Maharaj, D. Composite electromagnetic interference shielding materials for aerospace applications. Compos. Struct. 2009, 91, 467–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hutter, H.P.; Moshammer, H.; Wallner, P.; Kundi, M. Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations. Occup. Environ. Med. 2006, 63, 307–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. International Workshop on Electromagnetic Field Hypersensitivity (2004: Prague, Czech Republic), Mild, Kjell Hansson, Repacholi, Michael H, Deventer, Emilie van & World Health Organization. (2006). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: proceedings, International Workshop on Electromagnetic Field Hypersensitivity, Prague, Czech Republic, 25–27, 2004/editors, Kjell Hansson Mild, Mike Repacholi, Emilie van Deventer. World Health Organization. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43435 (accessed on 18 March 2020).
  14. Singh, S.; Kapoor, N. Health Implications of Electromagnetic Fields, Mechanisms of Action, and Research Needs. Adv. Biol. 2014, 2014, 198609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Genuis, S.J.; Lipp, C.T. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: Fact or fiction? Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 414, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Kaprana, A.; Karatzanis, A.; Prokopakis, E.; Panagiotaki, I.; Vardiambasis, I.; Adamidis, G.; Christodoulou, P.; Velegrakis, G. Studying the effects of mobile phone use on the auditory system and the central nervous system: A review of the literature and future directions. Eur. Arch. Oto Rhino Laryngol. 2008, 265, 1011–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hamada, A.J.; Singh, A.; Agarwal, A. Cell phones and their impact on male fertility: Fact or fiction. Open Reprod. Sci. J. 2011, 5, 125–137. [Google Scholar]
  18. Regel, S.J.; Achermann, P. Cognitive performancemeasures in bioelectromagnetic research critical evaluation and recommendations. Environ. Health 2011, 10, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Leszczynski, D.; Joenväärä, S.; Reivinen, J.; Kuokka, R. Nonthermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: Molecular mechanism for cancer- and blood-brain barrier-related effects. Differentiation 2002, 70, 120–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. López-Martín, E.; Relova-Quinteiro, J.L.; Gallego-Gómez, R.; Peleteiro-Fernández, M.; Jorge–Barreiro, F.J.; Ares-Pena, F.J. GSM radiation triggers seizures and increases cerebral c-Fos positivity in rats pretreated with subconvulsive doses of picrotoxin. Neurosci. Lett. 2006, 398, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rifai, A.; Hakami, M. Health Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation. J. Biosci. Med. 2014, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Adebayo, E.; Adeeyo, A.; Ogundiran, M.; Olabisi, O. Bio-physical effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) on blood parameters, spermatozoa, liver, kidney and heart of albino rats. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2019, 31, 813–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Adebayo, E.; Adeeyo, A.; Ayandele, A.; Omomowo, I. Effect of Radiofrequency Radiation from Telecommunication Base Stations on Microbial Diversity and Antibiotic Resistance. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 2015, 18, 669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Goodman, R.; Chizmadzhev, Y.; Shirley-Henderson, A. Electromagnetic fields and cells. J. Cell. Biochem. 1993, 51, 436–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Airbus, S.A.S. AITM 2-0064. Airbus Test Method. In Electrical Resistance for a Composite Laminate with Carbon Fibre: Measurement along X or Y Direction; Engineering Directorate: Blagnac, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  26. Airbus, S.A.S. AITM 2-0065. Airbus Test Method. In Electrical Resistance for a Composite Laminate with Carbon Fibre: Measurement along Z Direction; Engineering Directorate: Blagnac, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  27. ASTM Standard D4935, 2010. In Standard Test Method for Measuring the Electromagnetic Shielding Effectiveness of Planar Materials; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010.
  28. DIGIMAT User’s Manual. In Release 2017.1-April 2017; eXstream Engineering: Brussels, Belgium, 2017.
  29. Piche, A.; Revel, I.; Peres, G. Experimental and Numerical Methods to Characterize Electrical Behaviour of Carbon Fiber Composites Used in Aeronautic Industry. Advances in Composite Materials - Analysis of Natural and Man-Made Materials. 2011; Available online: https://www.intechopen.com/books/advances-in-composite-materials-analysis-of-natural-and-man-made-materials/experimental-and-numerical-methods-to-characterize-electrical-behaviour-of-carbon-fiber-composites-u (accessed on 18 March 2020).
  30. Gao, S.P.; Lee, H.M.; Gao, R.X.K.; Lim, Q.F.; Thitsartarn, W.; Liu, E.X.; Png, C.E. Effective Modeling of Multidirectional CFRP Panels Based on Characterizing Unidirectional Samples for Studying the Lightning Direct Effect. 2017. Available online: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8105177 (accessed on 17 March 2020).
  31. Munalli, D.; Chronopoulos, D.; Greedy, S. Electromagnetic shielding effectiveness of fiber-reinforced composites: A preliminary study. In Proceedings of the 9th European Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, Manchester, UK, 10–13 July 2018. [Google Scholar]
  32. Tserpes, K.; Tzatzadakis, V.; Bachmann, J. Electrical Conductivity and Electromagnetic Shielding Effectiveness of Bio-Composites. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Multifunctional Structures (EMUS), International Centre for Numerical Methods in Engineering (CIMNE), Barcelona, Spain, 11–12 June 2019; pp. 81–89, ISBN 978-84-949194-4-2. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. (a) The electrical resistivity test along the X axis; (b) the electrical resistivity test along the Z axis.
Figure 1. (a) The electrical resistivity test along the X axis; (b) the electrical resistivity test along the Z axis.
Jcs 04 00028 g001
Figure 2. The specimens used in the EMC (electromagnetic compatibility) tests (left: reference; right: load).
Figure 2. The specimens used in the EMC (electromagnetic compatibility) tests (left: reference; right: load).
Jcs 04 00028 g002
Figure 3. The anechoic chamber used for the EMSE tests.
Figure 3. The anechoic chamber used for the EMSE tests.
Jcs 04 00028 g003
Figure 4. The specimen apparatus used for the EMSE tests.
Figure 4. The specimen apparatus used for the EMSE tests.
Jcs 04 00028 g004
Figure 5. (a) RVE of CF/Rosin bio-composite (twill carbon fabric); (b) FE mesh of the RVE of CF/Rosin bio-composite; (c) RVE of CF/Flax-Resin bio-composite; (d) FE mesh of the RVE of CF/Flax-Resin bio-composite.
Figure 5. (a) RVE of CF/Rosin bio-composite (twill carbon fabric); (b) FE mesh of the RVE of CF/Rosin bio-composite; (c) RVE of CF/Flax-Resin bio-composite; (d) FE mesh of the RVE of CF/Flax-Resin bio-composite.
Jcs 04 00028 g005
Figure 6. Electrical conductivity values of bio-composites: (a) CF-Rosin; (b) CF-Flax/Epoxy.
Figure 6. Electrical conductivity values of bio-composites: (a) CF-Rosin; (b) CF-Flax/Epoxy.
Jcs 04 00028 g006
Figure 7. Metallization of the hybrid (Carbon/flax composite).
Figure 7. Metallization of the hybrid (Carbon/flax composite).
Jcs 04 00028 g007
Figure 8. Signal’s amplitude vs. frequency for the CF/Rosin bio-composite.
Figure 8. Signal’s amplitude vs. frequency for the CF/Rosin bio-composite.
Jcs 04 00028 g008
Figure 9. Signal’s amplitude vs. frequency for the CF/Flax-Epoxy bio-composite.
Figure 9. Signal’s amplitude vs. frequency for the CF/Flax-Epoxy bio-composite.
Jcs 04 00028 g009
Table 1. Physical and electrical properties of materials.
Table 1. Physical and electrical properties of materials.
PropertyCarbonFlax
Density (g/cm3)1.81.54
Electrical conductivity (S/m)70,000100
Dimensions of yarn (mm)0.15 × 0.50.15 × 0.4

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tserpes, K.; Tzatzadakis, V.; Bachmann, J. Electrical Conductivity and Electromagnetic Shielding Effectiveness of Bio-Composites. J. Compos. Sci. 2020, 4, 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs4010028

AMA Style

Tserpes K, Tzatzadakis V, Bachmann J. Electrical Conductivity and Electromagnetic Shielding Effectiveness of Bio-Composites. Journal of Composites Science. 2020; 4(1):28. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs4010028

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tserpes, Konstantinos, Vasileios Tzatzadakis, and Jens Bachmann. 2020. "Electrical Conductivity and Electromagnetic Shielding Effectiveness of Bio-Composites" Journal of Composites Science 4, no. 1: 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs4010028

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop