3.8 Proceedings Paper

Machine compliance in compression tests

Publisher

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.5034834

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. KU Leuven Research Council [PERMEA C24/16/021]
  2. Erasmus+ program
  3. Toray Chair for Composite Materials at KU Leuven

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The compression behavior of a material cannot be accurately determined if the machine compliance is not accounted prior to the measurements. This work discusses the machine compliance during a compressibility test with fiberglass fabrics. The thickness variation was measured during loading and unloading cycles with a relaxation stage of 30 minutes between them. The measurements were performed using an indirect technique based on the comparison between the displacement at a free compression cycle and the displacement with a sample. Relating to the free test, it has been noticed the nonexistence of machine relaxation during relaxation stage. Considering relaxation or not, the characteristic curves for a free compression cycle can be overlapped precisely in the majority of the points. For the compression test with sample, it was noticed a non-physical decrease of about 30 mu m during the relaxation stage, what can be explained by the greater fabric relaxation in relation to the machine relaxation. Beyond the technique normally used, another technique was used which allows a constant thickness during relaxation. Within this second method, machine displacement with sample is simply subtracted to the machine displacement without sample being imposed as constant. If imposed as a constant it will remain constant during relaxation stage and it will suddenly decrease after relaxation. If constantly calculated it will decrease gradually during relaxation stage. Independently of the technique used the final result will remain unchanged. The uncertainty introduced by this imprecision is about +/- 15 mu m.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available