4.7 Article

Evaluation of the matrix crack number in carbon fiber reinforced plastics using linear and nonlinear acousto-ultrasonic detections

期刊

COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
卷 255, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112962

关键词

Matrix crack; Composites; Lamb wave; Acousto-ultrasonics; Nonlinearity; Nondestructive testing

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51605224]
  2. Grant of State Key Laboratory of Mechanics and Control of Mechanical Structures [0516G02, 0519K01]
  3. JSPS Kakenhi [JP18H01332]
  4. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the number of matrix cracks in carbon fiber reinforced plastics using linear and nonlinear acousto-ultrasonic detections. The results showed that matrix cracks increased with applied load, as confirmed by acoustic emission detection. Additionally, the study discussed the effects of cycle number and center frequency on ultrasonic sensitivities.
The evaluation of matrix cracks in carbon fiber reinforced plastics that influence the performance of the composite structure is important. This study evaluated the number of matrix cracks generated from a three-point bending test using linear and nonlinear acousto-ultrasonic detections and subsequently conducted a comparative investigation. Matrix cracks with typical width of approximately 2 m were generated with an increase in the applied load, as confirmed by the acoustic emission detection. Three repetitions of the experiment demonstrated that the ultrasonic amplitude linearly decreased, and the second- and third-order relative nonlinearity increased in proportion to the number of matrix cracks. Subsequently, the effects of cycle number and center frequency on the ultrasonic sensitivities were discussed. The results indicated that linear detection is preferable because of its reliability and simplicity although both linear and nonlinear ultrasonic detections can be used to evaluate the matrix cracks.

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