Investigation into tensile behavior of 3D printed nylon-based low and high-volume fraction carbon fiber composite

Abstract

Purpose The tensile behavior of additively manufactured nylon-based carbon fiber-reinforced composites (CFRP) is an important criterion in aerospace and automobile structural design. So, this study aims to evaluate and validate the tensile stiffness of printed CFRP composites (low- and high-volume fraction fiber) using the volume average stiffness (VAS) model in consonance with experimental results. In specific, the tensile characterization of printed laminate composites is studied under the influence of raster orientations and process-induced defects. Design/methodology/approach CFRP composite laminates of low- and high-volume fraction carbon fiber of different raster orientations (0°, ± 45° and 0/90°) were fabricated using the continuous fiber 3D printing technique, and tensile characteristics of laminates were done on a universal testing machine with the crosshead speed of 2 mm/min. The induced fracture surface of laminates due to tensile load was examined using the scanning electron microscopy technique. Findings The VAS model can predict the tensile stiffness of printed CFRP composites with different raster orientations at an average prediction error of 5.94% and 10.58% for low- and high-volume fiber fractions, respectively. The unidirectional CFRP laminate composite with a high-volume fraction (50%) of carbon fiber showed 50.79% more tensile stiffness and 63.12% more tensile strength than the low-volume fraction (26%) unidirectional composite. Fiber pullout, fiber fracture and ply delamination are the major failure appearances observed in fracture surfaces of laminates under tensile load using scanning electron microscopy. Originality/value This investigation demonstrates the novel methodology to study specific tensile characteristics of low- and high-volume fraction 3D printed CFRP composite.

Role of the Wall Layer in 3D-Printed Composites under the Salt Spray Condition

“…When examining these values, the difference in tensile strength is only 0.24% to 1.24%. In the case of specimens that failed near the tab, cracks started near the tab due to stress concentration, and the final fracture occurred as the crack propagated as the tensile load was applied [39,40]. Figure 10 shows the relationship between the tensile strength and saltwater absorption rate, which was different among the specimen types.…”