4.7 Article

Verification of Puck's criterion for CFRP laminates under multiaxial loads at ambient and cryogenic temperatures

Journal

COMPOSITES SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 228, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2022.109631

Keywords

CFRP laminates; Damage and failure; Cryogenic temperatures; Multiaxial loading; Puck?s criterion

Funding

  1. European Space Agency ESA [4000118053/16/NL/BJ]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study is to verify Puck's failure criterion for multiaxial mechanical loading situations in ambient and cryogenic thermal regimes. The study concludes that Puck's criterion provides conservative results in most cases. Unresolved additional safety margins may develop when a structural failure requires larger delaminations between adjacent plies.
Objective of the present study is the verification of Puck's failure criterion for multiaxial mechanical loading situations in the ambient and cryogenic thermal regimes. The assessment is based on the material data and the failure envelope determined in a previous study on uniaxially loaded single-ply specimens study. Here, the pre-existing experimental data base is complemented by experiments on specimens made from angle ply laminates featuring holes, tapered sections and combinations thereof. The specimens were tested at ambient temperature and in a liquid Helium environment at 4.2 K. For determination of the local stress states in the individual plies at the stress concentrations induced by the holes and tapered sections, the experiments were simulated numerically by the finite element method. It is found that Puck's criterion in most cases provides conservative results. Un-resolved additional safety margins may develop if a structural failure in an inter-fiber mode requires develop-ment of larger delaminations of adjacent plies to form a through crack.

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