4.7 Article

Numerical analysis of resin-rich areas and their effects on failure initiation of composites

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2018.11.016

关键词

Resin-rich areas; Micromechanics; Representative volume element (RVE); Finite element; Defects; Failure initiation

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd.
  3. Bombardier Aerospace
  4. Concordia University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Resin-rich areas in composite laminates can occur as inter-laminar resin 'layers' between plies or as intra-laminar resin 'pockets' within a single layer. In this work, numerical methods are used to study the effects of resin pockets on the transverse stiffness and failure initiation of carbon-epoxy composites. Random, or non-uniform, representative volume elements (RVE) with and without embedded resin pockets were studied. Three different types of samples with predefined volume fractions (V-f) were analyzed, and data relating to the influence of resin pockets on homogenized stiffness and the strain at which failure initiates was collected and reported. Based on a control sample for each volume fraction, two methods were used to create RVE samples with resin pockets. In one, the distances between fibers were maintained and fibers removed to create the resin pocket, with a corresponding decrease in (V-f). In the second method, the V-f was maintained and fibers were moved to create the resin pocket, with a corresponding reduction in the distance between fibers. It is shown that intra-laminar resin pockets can reduce both the stiffness and the failure strain of composite materials. Stiffness was reduced in samples where the resin pocket resulted in a reduced volume fraction. For samples with the same volume fraction, particularly for high V-f composites (e.g. 60%), the failure initiation strain in the matrix was, on average, 20% lower for samples with resin pockets compared to samples without resin pockets.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据