Figures & data
Figure 1. Schematic of preparation of UGC segregated composites.
Figure 2. Raman spectrum of GTR after grinding for three cycles.
Figure 3. SEM micromorphology of UG Compound and UGC composites with 5 phr CCB content: U30G70 (a), U50G50 (b), U70G30 (c), U30G70C5 (a1), U50G50C5 (b1), U70G30C5 (c1). the red circle area is the SEM× 5k magnification images of the corresponding composites.
Figure 4. (a) Influence of the different CCB additions on the electrical properties of U70G30C, U50G50C, and U30G70C composites, (b–d) UGC composite sample and assembled LED circuit diagram.
Figure 5. Influence of CCB content on dielectric loss (tan δε VS CCB content) of U30G70C, U50G50C, and U70G30C composites (a–c), and influence of CCB content on magnetic loss (tan δμ VS CCB content) of U30G70C, U50G50C, and U70G30C composites (d–f).
Figure 6. Influence of CCB content on EMI SE (EMI SET VS CCB content) (a–c), (EMI SEA VS CCB content) (d–f), and (EMI SER VS CCB content) (g–i) of U30G70C, U50G50C, and U70G30C composites in X-band.
Figure 7. Influence of CCB concentration on reflection coefficient (R), absorption coefficient (A), transmission coefficient (T) (a–c), and EMI SE of U30G70C, U50G50C, and U70G30C composites at 12.4 GHz (d–f).
Figure 8. EMI SET values between theoretical predictions and experimental results of U30G70C, U50G50C, and U70G30C composites with different CCB content in X-band (a–c), comparison of EMI SET values for U30G70C, U50G50C, and U70G30C composites (d).
Figure 9. Fitting the experimental and theoretical data based on SB, SD, and SH models, the derived curves show the variation of the EMI SE of the U30G70C, U50G50C, and U70G30C composites under different CCB additions. In which, (a,c,e) the relationship diagram between the EMI SE and CCB content of composites (b,d,f) derivative curves of EMI SE of U30G70C, U50G50C, and U70G30C composites with different CCB loadings.
