4.7 Article

Failure analysis of plain woven glass/epoxy laminates: Comparison of off-axis and biaxial tension loadings

Journal

POLYMER TESTING
Volume 60, Issue -, Pages 307-320

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.04.010

Keywords

Plain woven composite; Off-axis and biaxial tests; Tensile strength; Failure criteria; Fracture modes

Funding

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
  2. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD)
  3. Jiangsu Innovation Program for Graduate Education [KYLX_0222]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An experimental study was focused on investigation of the failure properties of plain woven glass/epoxy composites under off-axis and biaxial tension loading conditions. Four fibre orientations (0 degrees, 15 degrees, 30 degrees and 45 degrees with respect to the load direction) were considered for off-axis tests and two biaxial load ratios for biaxial tests to study failure characteristics and mechanism, Four classical polynomial failure criteria Tsai-Hill, Hoffman, Tsai-Wu and Yeh-Stratton-were analysed comparatively to predict off-axis and biaxial failure strength of the composites. For failure prediction of the plain woven composites under multiaxial tension loads, the Tsai-Wu criterion was modified by introducing an interaction coefficient F12 obtained from 45 degrees off-axis or biaxial tension tests and the Yeh-Stratton criterion was modified with the interaction coefficient B-12 = 0 or obtained from the biaxial tension test. The former criterion was found to have higher accuracy. Finally, according to macroscopic and microscopic studies, the failed specimens showed mostly distinct failure with a specific fracture orientation, mainly exhibiting fibre or fabric tensile fracture mode and a combination of matrix cracking and delamination, both in off-axis and cruciform samples. (C) 2017 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