4.7 Article

Investigating the translaminar fracture toughness of 3D printed semi-woven and non-woven continuous carbon fibre composites

Journal

COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
Volume 306, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116605

Keywords

Carbon fibre; Additive manufacturing; Fracture toughness; Fractography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The translaminar fracture toughness of two different continuous fibre 3D printed ply architectures was evaluated using a compact tension test. The performances of a baseline 0/90 cross-ply architecture and a semi-woven 0/90 ply architecture resembling Advanced Placed Ply (AP-Ply) fabricated using automated fibre placement were compared. The experimental results showed that the laminate architecture has a slight influence on the trans-laminar fracture toughness of 3D printed carbon fibre composites, and both ply architectures exhibited a rising R curve, with the semi-woven samples showing a less pronounced curve.
The translaminar fracture toughness of two different continuous fibre 3D printed ply architectures was evaluated using compact tension (CT) test specimens. A baseline 0/90 cross-ply architecture was characterised and compared to the performance of a semi-woven 0/90 ply architecture that is similar in concept to Advanced Placed Ply (AP-Ply) fabricated using automated fibre placement. The experimental results show that the trans-laminar fracture toughness of 3D printed carbon fibre composites is slightly influenced by the laminate archi-tecture. Both ply architectures exhibited a rising R curve which was less pronounced in the semi-woven samples. This study demonstrates that tailoring the meso structure of a fibre reinforced composite has a minor influence on the translaminar properties and lays the groundwork for ply scale optimisation to fully exploit the manufacturing flexibility of 3D printed continuous fibre composites.

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