4.5 Article

Study on out-of-plane tensile strength of angle-plied reinforced hybrid CFRP laminates using thin-ply

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15376494.2023.2165742

关键词

Composite laminates; Thin-ply; Angle-plied laminates

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thin-plies are gaining interest for high-performance applications like aerospace, and replacing layers of CFRP with thin-ply in a unidirectional composite laminate can delay delamination. A study on angle-plied composite laminates under out-of-plane tensile loading reveals that they have higher failure load due to the more complex crack path.
Thin-plies are generally defined as composites with ply thicknesses below 100 mu m. These materials are rapidly gaining interest for high-performance applications, for example, the aerospace sector. Many practical techniques have been proposed to prevent delamination and improve the strength of composite laminates. A recent study has shown that the delamination could be postponed by replacing layers of CFRP with thin-ply in a unidirectional composite laminate, a configuration known as hybrid laminates reinforced with thin-plies. Since fiber orientation is known to be one of the most important parameters in composite laminate design, this study investigates the effect of oriented layers of thin-ply or both thin-ply and conventional CFRP in a hybrid laminate under out-of-plane tensile loading. A numerical Representative Volume Element (RVE) model for CFRP and thin-ply was generated, considering the unidirectional [0], cross-ply [45/-45], and [0/90] in order to better understand the effect of angle-plied hybrid composite laminates. Experimental results show that angle-plied composite laminates present higher failure load under out-of-plane tensile loading compared to the unidirectional ones. This can be attributed to the fact that an initiated crack is faced with a significantly more complex crack path in an angle-plied laminate to advance in the through-the-thickness direction.

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

4.5
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