4.7 Article

Pure mode I and II interlaminar fracture characterization of carbon-fibre reinforced polyamide composite

期刊

COMPOSITES PART B-ENGINEERING
卷 169, 期 -, 页码 126-132

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.03.069

关键词

Prepreg; Thermoplastic resin; Fracture toughness; Damage mechanics; Cohesive zone modelling

资金

  1. Laboratorio Associado de Energia, Transportes e Aeronautica (LAETA) [UID/EMS/50022/2013]
  2. Programa Operacional Regional do Norte (NORTE2020), through Fundo Europeu de desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER) [NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000022]
  3. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia(FCT) [SFRH/BD/119336/2016, SFRH/BD/111516/2015]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/119336/2016, SFRH/BD/111516/2015] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, interlaminar fracture characterization of carbon-fibre reinforced polyamide composite was studied experimentally and numerically. The double cantilever beam and end notched-flexure tests were performed to determine interlaminar fracture toughness under pure mode I and pure mode II, respectively. Equivalent crack length based procedures were used to assess the Resistance-curves, which allowed obtaining the fracture energies under self-similar crack growth. It was observed that toughness values are markedly higher than the ones obtained for typical carbon-epoxy composites and other thermoset based composites. A cohesive zone model with trapezoidal softening law was employed to simulate the fracture process in both tests. An inverse procedure was followed to determine cohesive parameters defining laws representative of the fracture process. Overall, good agreement was obtained revealing the suitability of the procedure and the appropriateness of the obtained laws. The obtained fracture energies for this thermoplastic composite are quite superior when compared to the thermoset based ones, making this material a promising candidate to replace thermoset matrices in many structural applications.

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