2006
DOI: 10.1590/s1516-14392006000200002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mechanical performance of carbon-epoxy laminates. Part I: quasi-static and impact bending properties

Abstract: In Part I of this study, quasi-static and impact bending properties of four aeronautical grade carbon-epoxy laminates have been determined and compared. Materials tested were unidirectional cross-ply (tape) and bidirectional woven textile (fabric) carbon fiber lay-up architectures, impregnated with standard and rubber-toughened resins, respectively, giving rise to 1.5 mm-thick laminates. Quasi-static mechanical properties assessed in transversal mode loading were modulus of elasticity, flexural strength and te… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
7
0
2

Year Published

2006
2006
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
2
7
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Surprisingly, the optimized n value is at its minimum level (six fabric layers); however, even though n and v c are both statistically significant (P > 0.05), their contribution to E b is small (2.35 per cent and 4.02 per cent respectively), and it can again be proposed that variation of process parameters has a more significant effect on the level and quality of the resin matrix, which is more important in determining E b (in this process) than the volume fraction of carbon within the structure. The average value obtained (40.7 ± 0.7 GPa) for the non-optimized process is commensurate with the upper levels expected from a vacuum-assisted resin infusion moulding (VARIM) process (35-40 GPa) [27], but underperforms relative to autoclave processing (42.1-49.3 GPa) [28] and RTM (44 GPa) [28]. The upper value obtained through the non-optimized process (47 ± 1 GPa) (Fig.…”
Section: Modulus Of Elasticity In Bending (E B )supporting
confidence: 69%
“…Surprisingly, the optimized n value is at its minimum level (six fabric layers); however, even though n and v c are both statistically significant (P > 0.05), their contribution to E b is small (2.35 per cent and 4.02 per cent respectively), and it can again be proposed that variation of process parameters has a more significant effect on the level and quality of the resin matrix, which is more important in determining E b (in this process) than the volume fraction of carbon within the structure. The average value obtained (40.7 ± 0.7 GPa) for the non-optimized process is commensurate with the upper levels expected from a vacuum-assisted resin infusion moulding (VARIM) process (35-40 GPa) [27], but underperforms relative to autoclave processing (42.1-49.3 GPa) [28] and RTM (44 GPa) [28]. The upper value obtained through the non-optimized process (47 ± 1 GPa) (Fig.…”
Section: Modulus Of Elasticity In Bending (E B )supporting
confidence: 69%
“…Typically, a locus with the severe stress state may lead to early microdamages (e.g., damage nucleation) in PMCs . The inhomogeneity of the stress–strain field and the randomness of the strength–toughness of composite constituents result in the typical failure process of laminated PMCs, such as a progressive failure of microcrack nucleation, matrix cracking, fiber breakage, fiber and matrix debonding, and delamination . The typical damage modes in a cross‐ply PMC laminate are illustrated in Figure ; these include matrix cracking, fiber–matrix debonding, fiber breakage, and delamination.…”
Section: Interfacial Failure Of Pmcs and Failure Suppression Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The materials and specimens tested were previously described in Part I. In Part II, all the 65.0 x 27.5 x 1.5 mm 3 tablet-shape tespieces were centrally notched in order to induce a preferential tensile fracture path 5 .…”
Section: Materials and Test Specimensmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Figure 2 shows the relative performance of the investigated laminates, where the values of S t , TS, TML t and TDML t50 were normalized, i.e., divided by the corresponding lowest values obtained during the mechanical tests, which are highlighted in Table 1. In Figure 2, when applicable, tensile properties are directly compared to bend results obtained in Part I by Tarpani et al 5 , so that converging and/or diverging data of these two different loading modes can be promptly noticed.…”
Section: Monotonic Tensile Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation