4.7 Article

Experimental characterisation and constitutive modelling of RTM-6 resin under impact loading

Journal

POLYMER
Volume 49, Issue 11, Pages 2728-2737

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2008.04.018

Keywords

RTM-6 resin; Hopkinson bar pulse shaping; constitutive modelling

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The response to mechanical loading of the thermosetting resin system RTM-6 has been investigated experimentally as a function of strain Fate and a constitutive model has been applied to describe the observed and quantified material behaviour. In order to determine strain rate effects and to draw conclusions about the hydrostatic stress dependency of the material, specimens were tested in compression and tension at strain rates from 10(-3) to 10(4) s(-1). A Standard screw-driven tensile machine was used for quasi-static testing, with an 'in house' hydraulic rig and Hopkinson bars for medium and high strain rates, respectively. At all rates appropriate photography and optical metrology have been used for direct strain measurement, observation of failure and validation of experimental procedures. In order to enable the experimental characterisation of this brittle material at very high rates in tension, a novel pulse shaping technique has been applied. With the help of this device, strain rates of up to 3800 s-1 have been achieved while maintaining homogeneous deformation state until specimen fracture in the gauge section of the tensile specimens. The yield stress and initial modulus increased with increasing strain rate both compression and tension, while the strain to failure decreased with Strain rate in tension. An constitutive model, the Goldberg model has been extended in order to take into account the strain rate dependence of the elastic modulus. The model has been validated against 3-point bending tests of prismatic RTM-6 beams. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available