Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:41:16.779Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An experimental method to determine the intralaminar fracture toughness of high-strength carbon-fibre reinforced composite aerostructures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2018

H. Liu ,
B.G. Falzon ,
G. Catalanotti  and
W. Tan
H. Liu
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
B.G. Falzon*
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
G. Catalanotti
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
W. Tan
Affiliation:
Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
*
b.falzon@qub.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Carbon fibres with high tensile strength are being increasingly utilised in the manufacture of advanced composite aerostructures. A Modified Compact Tension (MCT) specimen is often deployed to measure the longitudinal intralaminar fracture toughness but a high tensile strength often leads to premature damage away from the crack tip. We present an approach whereby the MCT specimen is supported by external fixtures to prevent premature damage. In addition, we have developed a novel measurement technique, based on the fibre failure strain and C-scanning, to determine the crack length in the presence of surface sublaminate delamination which masks the crack tip location. A set of cross-ply specimens, with a ((90/0)s)4 layup, were manufactured from an IMS60/epoxy composite system Two different data reduction schemes, compliance calibration and the area method, are used to determine the fibre-dominated initiation and propagation intralaminar fracture toughness values. Propagation values of fracture toughness were measured at 774.9 ± 5.2% kJ/m2 and 768.5 ± 4.1% kJ/m2, when using the compliance calibration method and the area method, respectively. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) is carried out on the fracture surface to obtain insight into the damage mechanism of high-tensile-strength fibre-reinforced unidirectional composites. The measured tensile fracture toughness value is used in a fully validated computational model to simulate the physical test.

Keywords

high-strength carbon-fibrefracture toughnessfinite element analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 122 , Issue 1255 , September 2018 , pp. 1352 - 1370
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Falzon, B.G. Impact damage and repair of composite structures, Aeronautical J, 2009, 113, pp 431–445.Google Scholar
2.Catalanotti, G., Xavier, J. and Camanho, P.P. Measurement of the compressive crack resistance curve of composites using the size effect law, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 2014, 56, pp 300–307.Google Scholar
3.Middleton, D. The first fifty years of composite materials in aircraft construction, The Aeronautical J, 1992, 96, pp 96–104.Google Scholar
4.Catalanotti, G., Camanho, P.P., Xavier, J., Dávila, C.G. and Marchques, A.T. Measurement of resistance curves in the longitudinal failure of composites using digital image correlation, Composites Science and Technology, 2010, 70, pp 1986–1993.Google Scholar
5.Ortega, A., Maimí, P., González, E.V. and Ripoll, L. Compact tension specimen for orthotropic materials, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 2014, 63, pp 85–93.Google Scholar
6.Tan, W., Falzon, B.G., Price, M. and Liu, H. The role of material characterisation in the crush modelling of thermoplastic composite structures, Composite Structures, 2016, 153, pp 914–927.Google Scholar
7.Donadon, M.V., Falzon, B.G., Iannucci, L. and Hodgkinson, J.M. Intralaminar toughness characterisation of unbalanced hybrid plain weave laminates, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 2007, 38, pp 1597–1611.Google Scholar
8.Carrillo-Sánchez, F., Canche-Escamilla, G. and Herrera-Franco, P.J. A study of the fracture toughness of acrylic composites using the essential work of fracture method, Polymer Testing, 2010, 29, pp 565–571.Google Scholar
9.Marchchetti, M., La Barbera, A. and Morganti, F. Fracture analysis of complex shaped structures by numerical and experimental methods, Aeronautical J, 1989, 93, pp 141–150.Google Scholar
10.Vaidya, R.S. and Sun, C.T. Fracture criterion for notched thin composite laminates, AIAA J, 1997, 35, pp 311–316.Google Scholar
11.Blanco, N., Trias, D., Pinho, S.T. and Robinson, P. Intralaminar fracture toughness characterisation of woven composite laminates. Part I : Design and analysis of a compact tension (CT) specimen, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2014, 131, pp 349–360.Google Scholar
12.Donadon, M.V, Falzon, B.G., Iannucci, L. and Hodgkinson, J.M. Measurement of fibre fracture toughness using an alternative specimen geometry, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Composite Materials, 8-13 July, 2007, Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
13.Li, X., Hallett, S.R., Wisnom, M.R., Zobeiry, N., Vaziri, R. and Poursartip, A. Experimental study of damage propagation in over-height compact tension tests, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 2009, 40, pp 1891–1899.Google Scholar
14.Laffan, M.J., Pinho, S.T., Robinson, P. and McMillan, A.J. Translaminar fracture toughness testing of composites: A review, Polymer Testing, 2012, 31, pp 481–489.Google Scholar
15.Pinho, S.T., Robinson, P. and Iannucci, L. Fracture toughness of the tensile and compressive fibre failure modes in laminated composites, Composites Science and Technology, 2006, 66, pp 2069–2079.Google Scholar
16.Laffan, M.J., Pinho, S.T., Robinson, P., Iannucci, L. and McMillan, A. J. Measurement of the fracture toughness associated with the longitudinal fibre compressive failure mode of laminated composites, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 2012, 43, pp 1930–1938.Google Scholar
17.Laffan, M.J., Pinho, S.T., Robinson, P. and Iannucci, L. Measurement of the in situ ply fracture toughness associated with mode I fibre tensile failure in FRP. Part II: Size and lay-up effects, Composites Science and Technology, 2009, 70, pp 614–621.Google Scholar
18.Underwood, J.H. and Lloyd, W.R. Methods and Results from Interlaboratory Tests of Carbon / Epoxy Laminates, Benet Laboratories, TECHNICAL REPORT ARCCB-TR-95013, 1995.Google Scholar
19.Bergan, A.C. and Dávila, C.G. Cohesive Laws for Analyzing through-Crack Propagation in Cross Ply Laminates, July 19-24, 2015.Google Scholar
20.Catalanotti, G., Xavier, J. and Camanho, P.P. Measurement of the compressive crack resistance curve of composites using the size effect law, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 2014, 56, pp 300–307.Google Scholar
21.Williams, C., Summerscales, J. and Grove, S. Resin infusion under flexible tooling (RIFT): A review, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 1996, 27, pp 517–524.Google Scholar
22.Salvi, A.G., Waas, A.M. and Caliskan, A. Energy absorption and damage propagation in 2D triaxially braided carbon fiber composites: Effects of in situ matrix properties, J of Materials Science, 2008, 43, pp 5168–5184.Google Scholar
23.Laffan, M.J., Pinho, S.T., Robinson, P. and Iannucci, L. Measurement of the in situ ply fracture toughness associated with mode I fibre tensile failure in FRP. Part II: Size and lay-up effects, Composites Science and Technology, 2010, 70, pp 614–621.Google Scholar
24.Laffan, M.J., Pinho, S.T., Robinson, P. and Iannucci, L. Measurement of the in situ ply fracture toughness associated with mode I fibre tensile failure in FRP. Part I: Data reduction, Composites Science and Technology, 2010, 70, pp 606–613.Google Scholar
25.Pimenta, S. and Pinho, S.T. An analytical model for the translaminar fracture toughness of fibre composites with stochastic quasi-fractal fracture surfaces, J of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 2014, 66, pp 78–102.Google Scholar
26.Tan, W. and Falzon, B.G. Modelling the nonlinear behaviour and fracture process of AS4/PEKK thermoplastic composite under shear loading, Composites Science and Technology, 2016, 126, pp 60–77.Google Scholar
27.Abaqus 6.12 documentation, 2012, Dassault Systèmes, Providence, Rhode Island, US.Google Scholar
28.Davies, G. and Zhang, X. Predicting impact damage of composite stiffened panels, Aeronautical J, 2000, 104, pp 97–103.Google Scholar
29.Abrate, S. Impact on composite structures, 1998, Aeronautical J, 1998, pp 541–563.Google Scholar
30.Liu, H., Falzon, B.G. and Tan, W. Predicting the Compression-After-Impact (CAI) strength of damage-tolerant hybrid unidirectional/woven carbon-fibre reinforced composite laminates, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 2017, 105, pp 189–202.Google Scholar
31.Liu, H., Falzon, B.G. and Tan, W. Experimental and numerical studies on the impact response of damage-tolerant hybrid unidirectional/woven carbon-fibre reinforced composite laminates, Composites Part B: Engineering, 2018, 136, pp 101–118.Google Scholar
32.Falzon, B.G., Liu, H. and Tan, W. Comment on “A tensorial based progressive damage model for fiber reinforced polymers”, Composite Structures, 2017, 176, pp 877–882.Google Scholar
33.Falzon, B.G. and Apriluzzese, P. Numerical analysis of intralaminar failure mechanisms in composite structures. Part I: FE implementation, Composite Structures, 2011, 93, pp 1039–1046.Google Scholar
34.Falzon, B.G. and Apriluzzese, P. Numerical analysis of intralaminar failure mechanisms in composite structures. Part II: Applications, Composite Structures, 2011, 93, pp 1047–1053.Google Scholar
35.ASTM, Standard Test Method for Mixed Mode I-Mode II Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of Unidirectional Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites, D6671/D 6671M-03, 2003, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, US.Google Scholar
36.ASTM, Standard Test Method for Determination of the Mode II Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of Unidirectional Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites, D7905/D7905M-14, 2014, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, US.Google Scholar
37.ASTM, Standard Test Method for Mode I Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of Unidirectional Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites, D5528-01, 2004, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, US.Google Scholar
38.Pinho, S.T., Robinson, P. and Iannucci, L. Fracture toughness of the tensile and compressive fibre failure modes in laminated composites, Composites Science and Technology, 2006, 66, pp 2069–2079.Google Scholar
39.ASTM, Standard Test Method for Shear Properties of Composite Materials by V-Notched Rail Shear Method, D7078/D7078M-05, 2005, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, US.Google Scholar
40.Schuecker, C. and Davidson, B.D. Evaluation of the accuracy of the four-point bend end-notched flexure test for mode II delamination toughness determination, Composites Science and Technology, 2000, 60, pp 2137–2146.Google Scholar
41.Zabala, H., Aretxabaleta, L., Castillo, G. and Aurrekoetxea, J. Dynamic 4 ENF test for a strain rate dependent mode II interlaminar fracture toughness characterization of unidirectional carbon fibre epoxy composites, Polymer Testing, 2016, 55, pp 212–218.Google Scholar
42.Benzeggagh, M.L. and Kenane, M. Measurement of mixed-mode delamination fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites with mixed-mode bending apparatus, Composites Science and Technology, 1996, 56, pp 439–449.Google Scholar
43.Liang, Y., Wang, H. and Xuesen, G. In-plane shear response of unidirectional fiber reinforced and fabric reinforced carbon/epoxy composites, Polymer Testing, 2013, 32, pp 594–601.Google Scholar
44.ASTM, Standard Test Method for Shear Properties of Composite Materials by the V-notched Beam Method, D5379 / D5379M-12, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012.Google Scholar
45.Shi, Y. and Soutis, C. A finite element analysis of impact damage in composite laminates, Aeronautical J, 2012, 116, pp 1331–1347.Google Scholar