Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
= .2.1
2 2
y
y
y y y
P P
E
A bh
= = =
.2.2
The specimen in Figure 2.13(b) is somewhat different because it is loaded in four
point bending. The specimen is the top sheet, which experiences compression. The bottom
face sheet is in tension and is metal. Since the sandwich beam is subjected to flexure, various
parameters (metal face sheet strength, core cell size, etc.) can be changed to achieve the
desired compression failure of the specimen. Poissons ratio for this specimen is determined
from direct strain gage readings to be /
xy y x
= . The elastic modulus Ex, is somewhat
harder to establish since it requires an assumption of uniform deformation in each face sheet
while bending stresses in the core are neglected.
(a) (b)
29
2.3.2. Literature review
1) Nonlinear mechanical behaviors of unidirectional composites under
compressive loading using a sandwich beam specimen with the emphasis on the elastic
material nonlinearity in the fiber direction was studied in [6]. Measured compressive
behaviors were compared with those from coupon-type compression tests of unidirectional
and quasi-isotropic laminates. The compressive strength of unidirectional laminates
evaluated, using the present sandwich method, was much higher than that of coupon
specimens, whereas the failure strain of the former was almost identical to that of coupon
type quasi-isotropic laminates.
Test specimen
A sandwich beam flexure specimen consisting of unidirectional CFRP and honeycomb core
was utilized to measure compressive response and strength of
0
0 laminates. In order to
prevent unwanted failure modes (e.g., core failure, skin/core debonding) Sandwich
construction was applied only to the gauge section of the specimen used here. In addition,
sandwich specimen with a relatively thin core wad used in his[6] study to make the ratio of
span length to specimen thickness large so that applied load in four-point bending is small
enough not to induce failure near load pins (even when flexible cushion is placed between
load pins and specimens).
Fig2.14: a) longitudinal compression sandwich beam test specimen b) Assumed stress distribution in the
thickness-wise direction.[6]
In figure parameters are h
f
(mm)- 1.1 h
c
(mm) =5.0 h
o
(mm)=2.2 l
c
(mm)=20 l
p
(mm) =
25 l
m
(mm)=105.
This study used a T800H/3633 carbon/epoxy. An aluminum honeycomb (1/8-5052-002,
Showa Aircraft Industry Co. Ltd.) is used as the core of the sandwich beam in the gauge
section. Sandwich beams were manufactured in the manner that the longitudinal direction of
(a) (b)
30
the honeycomb core coincides with the [0]
8
direction of CFRP. In order to prevent failure in
the tension side, [0]
8
laminates and [0]
16
laminates were used in the compression side and
tension side, respectively. The rest of the core consists of [0]
32
laminates. The fiber volume
fractions are almost identical between the three unidirectional laminates (V
f
=57%). CFRP
laminates and aluminum core were bonded using structural epoxy film adhesives (AF163-2K,
3M) in order to prepare sandwich specimens with 280mm length, 20mm wide, and 8mm
thickness.
Experimental Procedure - The manufactured specimen and test apparatus is shown in
Figure 2.15(a). Flexible rubber sheets were placed between the load pins and specimens in
order to avoid unwanted failures near contact regions. Strain gauges were attached onto both
surfaces in the central gauge section. The four-point flexure tests of the sandwich specimens
were performed using a mechanically driven machine (4482, Instron) until failure. The
crosshead speed was set to be 2 mm.
Fig.2.15: a) Four-point flexural test apparatus of sandwich specimen b)Experimental stressstrain curves of
compression test.[6]
Test result - The measured compressive stressstrain relations of the three specimens are
shown in Figure2.15 (b). Clear nonlinear response can be observed in high strain ranges.
Compressive failure occurred in the gauge section. No damage was observed in the
honeycomb core until skin compressive failure. The tensile strain in the opposite skin was
less than 1% at specimen failure, which was low enough compared to the tensile failure strain
to be considered as no tensile damage in the opposite skin. By this results he concluded that
this is the fairly adequate compressive testing of unidirectional laminates could be performed.
The average compressive strength and failure strain were 1860MPa and 1.67%, respectively.
The coefficient of variation estimated from three specimens is relatively small (5.4%).
31
The results obtained from this experiment were compared with coupon type test
methods. Which has same volume fraction with unidirectional [0]
20
laminates. The stress
strain relation of coupon specimen coincides well with that of sandwich specimen, which
shows the validity of the present test method.
However, compressive strength of the sandwich specimen was found much higher
than that of the coupon specimen, at 1860MPa for the sandwich and 1420MPa for the
coupon.
The effect of specimen size on the axial compressive strength of IM7/8552 carbon
fibre/epoxy unidirectional laminates (UD) was experimentally studied evaluated in [5].
Laminate gauge length, width and thickness were increased by a scaling factor of 2 and 4
from the baseline specimen size of 10 mm * 10 mm * 2 mm. In all cases, strength decreased
as specimen size increased, with a maximum reduction of 45%; no significant changes were
observed for the axial modulus. Optical micrographs show that the failure mechanism is fibre
micro buckling accompanied by matrix cracking and splitting. The location of failure in most
specimens, and especially the thicker ones, was where the tabs terminate and the gauge
section begins suggesting that the high local stresses developed due to geometric
discontinuity contribute to premature failure and, hence, reduced compressive strength. Two
generic quasi-isotropic multi-directional (MD) lay-ups were also tested in compression,
one with blocked plies [45
n
/90
n
/-45
n
/0
n
]
s
and the other with distributed plies [45/90/ /45/0]
ns
with n =2, 4 and 8. Strength results showed no evidence of a size effect when the specimens
are scaled up using distributed plies and compared to the 2 mm thick specimens. All blocked
specimens had similar compressive strengths to the sub laminate ones apart of the 8 mm
specimens that showed a 30% reduction due to extensive matrix cracking introduced during
the specimens cutting process. The calculated unidirectional failure stress (of the 0
0
ply
within the multidirectional laminate) of about 1710 MPa was slightly higher than the average
measured value of 1570 MPa of the 2 mm thick baseline unidirectional specimen, suggesting
that the reduced unidirectional strength observed for the thicker specimens was a testing
artefact. It appears that the unidirectional compressive strength in thicker specimens (>2 mm)
is found to be limited by the stress concentration developed at the end-tabs and
manufacturing induced defects such as fibre misalignment, ply waviness and voids.
32
Experimental procedure
Specimen:
Material: The specimens were fabricated from carbon/epoxy pre impregnated tapes 0.125
mm thick. The tapes were made of continuous intermediate modulus IM7 carbon fibers pre-
impregnated with Hexcel 8552 epoxy resin (34 vol% resin content).
Specimen type: 1.Unidirectional plates [0
4
]
ns
with n =2, 3, 4, and 8.(thickness)
2. Quasi-isotropic
1. Blocked plies [45n/90n/-45n/0n]
s
2. Distributed plies [45/90/-45/0]
ns
with n =2, 4 and 8
Specimen geometry-
Design of a compressive test specimen certain constraints considered: (i) end-tabs were
required both to effectively transfer load from the test machine grips to the specimen and to
provide an adequate restraint against specimen buckling; (ii) the overall specimen stability
needs to be sufficient to ensure that compressive failure occurs significantly before potential
buckling, implying correct combination of specimen length and flexural stiffness.
The maximum allowable specimen gauge section length was determined on the
basis of an Euler column buckling analysis assuming a pinned end strut with a rectangular
cross-section and corrected to account for the influence of shear deflection due to transverse
shear forces developed in anisotropic materials.
Critical gauge lengths for plain specimens
Thickness (mm) 2 4 6 8 10
L
max
(mm) 13.9 27.6 45.9 55.9 69.9
Minimum gauge length for waisted specimens
t
0
(mm) 1.34 2.67 4 5.34 6.67
Lmin (mm) 8.2 16.6 24.9 33.1 41.5
In order to avoid failure occurring at the junction of end-tab and the gauge section
or within the tabs, then a specimen with waisted gauge section could be considered. Waisting
the specimen through its thickness, which is in fact an optimized form of tabbing, has to be
carried out carefully in order to maintain a symmetric specimen, otherwise one would be
likely to introduce bending and cause premature failure.
Test fixture and mechanical tests
33
Generating a uniform one-dimensional stress state was the main objective of a compression
test fixture. Stress concentrations due to load introduction present the most serious problems
for unidirectional lay-ups and may cause premature failure of the specimen. Currently, there
are no universally accepted test standards for testing specimens thicker than 2 mm. In[5]
compression tests on the unidirectional specimens were performed using the Imperial College
ICSTM test jig at a constant compression rate of 1 mm/min on a servo-hydraulic machine
with a load capacity of 1000 kN, which is shown in Figure 2.16.
By this fixtures specimen was loaded purely on the ends. However, a small amount
(in the region of 10%) is applied by shear loading via the end-tabs, thus lowering the average
stresses at the end of the test piece. The fixture consists of two grip blocks, Fig. 2.16 that
accommodates the specimen and prevent debonding of the tabs from the specimen end, shear
failure of the end or compression failure under the tab. The clamping blocks rest on hardened
and ground steel plates, a measure that was necessary to avoid indentations of the loading
surfaces. The high precision die set shown in Fig. 2.16(a) was designed to eliminate specimen
misalignments. The lower grip was not attached to the lower plate of the die set in order to
minimize additional constraints during testing, like bending of the specimen due to
misalignment between the upper and lower grips. The bolt torque applied in the clamping
blocks for the 2 mm thick specimen was in the region of 810 N m and increased slightly for
the thicker specimens. An advantage of the fixture was that by adjusting the size of the
clamping blocks a variety of specimen sizes can be accommodated; it was also used to test
multidirectional laminates.
Fig.2.16: (a) ICSTM compression test fixture and (b) clamping blocks for a 40 mm 40 mm 8 mm
specimen.[5]
34
Foil strain gauges were used on both faces to tested degree of Euler bending and measure
axial strain and, hence, axial modulus. The location and nature of damage in the UD
laminates was obtained by optical and scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
Compressive test results: The experimental results consist of stressstrain plots,
fracture stresses and strains for the unidirectional and multidirectional laminates, scanning
electron micrographs of some of the fracture surfaces, and photographs showing the overall
failure mode of selected specimens.
Unidirectional laminates: Initial compression tests on unidirectional specimens with
relatively thin end-tabs showed that failure occurred within the tabbed region, Fig. 2.17(a),
resulting in relatively lower compressive strengths (2030% lower than expected). It appears
that damage initiated on the end of the specimen (top corner) at the load introduction point
and propagated down the length and across the width of the specimen. Due to the clamping
constraining effect failure was progressive in nature, resulting in a more ductile load
displacement curve, Fig. 2.17(b), rather than the relatively brittle catastrophic failure that is
usually observed when the specimen breaks within the gauge section or near the end-tab.
Fig 2.17:(a)Post-failure mode of unidirectional specimens b) loaddisplacement curve of a 4 mm thick
specimen that failed within the tabbed region[5]
Representative stressstrain curves of 2 mm (plot A), 4 mm (plot B) and 8 mm (plot C) thick
unidirectional specimens obtained at the centre of each specimen from back-to-back strain
gauges are shown in Fig.2.18.
35
Fig.2.18:Typical stressstrain curves of the unidirectional specimens obtained from back-to-back strain gauges
(A: 10 mm *10 mm * 2 mm, B: 20 mm *20 mm * 4 mm and C: 40 mm *40 mm* 8 mm.).[5]
Multidirectional laminates -stressstrain curves of the 2 mm, 4 mm and 8 mm thick
multidirectional specimens laminated with distributed plies [45/ 90/45/0]ns (sub laminate-
level scaling)and blocked plies [45n/90n/45n/0n]s (ply-level scaling)stacking sequences are
shown in Fig. 2.19:a and b, respectively. Plots B for the 4 mm thick specimen and C for the 8
mm thick specimen are offset by 0.5% and 1.0% strain, respectively.
Fig.2.19: a) Sub laminate-level([45/90/-45/0]ns) laminate b) Ply-level scaled ([45n/90n/-45n/0n]s) laminate[5]
2.3.3. Buckling
The influence of cutout shape upon the buckling stability of multilayered
rectangular epoxy plates reinforced by glass fiber, with different orientation angles was
studied in [17].U-shaped cutouts were made on the long sides symmetrically. The
investigated plates were simply supported on the loaded edges (i.e. short sides) and free on
the unloaded edges. The plates without cutouts were examined theoretically to confirm
experimental and Finite Element (FE) results. The FE and experimental results were found
36
out for different U-shaped cutouts sizes. U-notch shape effects are examined depending on
notch depth and notch root radius. It was found that the effect of notch depth was stronger
than that of the notch root radius on buckling loads of plates. But, in some cases, although
plates containing U-notch, no reduction was obtained in buckling loads.
Fig 2.20: a) Plate geometry with parametric dimensions b) Top and bottom supports[17]
Specimen-
Material- LY5082 epoxy resin matrix (Ciba Geigy) and E-Glass fiber.
glass fiber volume fractions- 30%.
Process used lay- up
Specimen size- 200mm long*100mm wide *2.25 mm thickness
unperforated (r=0, a=0), and three type notched panels with r=1 a=0, r=1 a=1, and r=1 a=2
cm .The panels consists three plies which have 0, 30, 45, 60 and 90
0
fiber orientation angles.
Test fixture and testing speed- INSTRON 4301 universal uniaxial tensioncompression
testing machine was used. Fixtures were designed to apply compression load with simply
supported edges. The unloaded edges of the panel were free. The panels were loaded slowly
at 1 mm/min rate and critical buckling load were obtained. To determine the initial buckling
load two methods were used, firstly the point of inflection in the plot of load against in-plane
displacement and secondly the point of reversal in the membrane strain.
Results-
37
Fig. 2.21: a) Comparison of FE, experimental, and theoretical critical buckling loads of unperforated composite
plates. b) Comparison of critical buckling ratio for various U-shaped cutouts, based on fiber orientation angle
of ply.[17]
2.4.In Plane Shear
2.4.1. Shear Tests The material properties in the plane of lamination (1 -2) are
commonly termed in plane, while those in the 1-3 and 2-3 planes are known as inter laminar
properties. There are some commonly accepted methods for in-plane shear testing and out
plane testing which are presented here.
1) Shear Rail Test-
There are two acceptable configurations for the shear rail test: two-rail and three-rail. A
schematic of the load fixture for each is shown in Figures 2.22(a) and (b), respectively. For
both tests the shear stress in the strain gaged region of each specimen is defined in terms of
the applied load P and the specimen thickness (h), as well as the distance between each
vertical rail (b). The shear stress for each configuration is approximated by
xy
p
bh
= (Two rail ) ..2.3
2
xy
p
bh
= (Three rail).2.4
38
Fig.2.22: a) Two-rail shear apparatus and specimen.( ASTM D-30) b) Three-rail shear apparatus and specimen
c)Specimen geometry for two- and three-rail shear tests[24][25]
Free surfaces at the top and bottom of each specimen experience large normal stresses
concentrated at the corners. A length-to-width ratio of 10:l has been shown to approximate a
state of pure shear stress, provided the edges are perfectly clamped. The requirement of
perfect clamping can be met if the bolts in the rails each apply the same clamping pressure to
the edges. Since a state of pure shear is only approximated with the two- and three-rail
configurations, a single element strain gage oriented at 45
0
to the load axis may not
adequately define the true state of strain.
2) 10
0
Off-Axis Test: An off-axis test is generally performed in order to establish stress-
strain responses in directions other than the principal material directions. The off-axis test is
a tension test and no special fixtures or specimen preparation is required. Consider the
unidirectional test coupon loaded as shown in Figure 2.23(a). The rectangular rosette in this
figure is not required for establishing G12. Its presence is solely for the purpose of indicating
that an off-axis test can be used for defining more than one parameter. The strains indicated
by each gage in the rosette are related to Cartesian (x-y) strains by the strain transformation.
The relations between gage strain and the Cartesian strains are
A
=
x
,
y
=
C
, and
2
xy B A C
= , where
A
,
B
, and
C
are the strains indicated by gages A, B, and C,
respectively. The normal stress
x
, and strain
x
, (from strain gage measurements) are related
by /
x x x
E = .
39
Fig 2.23: a) Off-axis test specimen b)Effects of end constraints on off-axis tensile specimens[10]
Assuming that
1
E ,
2
E , and
12
are known, and that
x
E is defined from testing the
specimen of Figure 2.23(a), the only remaining unknown is G
12
, which can be determined
from the foregoing equation.
The uniaxial state of stress results in a biaxial state of strain in the specimen. From
theoretical and experimental results the best angle for establishing G
12
is 10
0
.The 10
0
angle
was chosen since it minimizes the effect of longitudinal and transverse tensile stress
components
1
and
2
on the shear response. A comparison of the 10
0
off-axis procedure with
other approaches has shown it to produce reasonable results for in-plane shear properties. The
simplicity of the 10
0
off-axis test for establishing G12 should not be taken for granted, since
problems can result from the specimen being orthotropic.
A uniaxial tensile stress in an orthotropic specimen can result in a shear-coupling
deformation as shown in Figure 2.23 (b)Constraints imposed on the specimen by rigid
clamping forces at the ends (Figure 2.23) impose other testing difficulties. Clamping at the
end of the specimen prohibits localized rotation and produces a nonuniform strain field. A
uniform strain field can be developed at the center of the specimen provided L/w is
sufficiently large.
3) Iosipescu Shear Test: The Iosipescu shear test is similar to an antisymmetric four-
point bend (AFPB) test method for composites. The major difference is that for the Iosipescu
test, the shear force through the test section is equal to the applied load. The Iosipescu test
fixture and specimen are shown in Figure 2.24 (a). This test procedure can be applied to
composites for determining material properties in the 1-2, 2-3, and 1-3 directions. The
appropriate fiber orientations for determining in-plane and interlaminar properties are shown
in Figure 2.24(b). This test method is versatile and allows for determination of a wider
40
variety of material properties than other procedures. Analysis of the procedure has led to the
evolution of several specimen and fixture geometries.
Fig:2.24: a) Schematic of Iosipescu test fixture and specimen b) Specimen configurations for determination of
shear properties from the Iosipescu test procedure.[26]
4) [ 4 5 ]
2s
Coupon Test: This procedure involves a uniaxial tension test of a [ 45]
2s
laminate, with strain gages. Although a biaxial rosette is sufficient, a three-element rosette
provides additional information that can be used to verify the state of stress in the specimen.
Specimen preparation and testing are identical to a conventional tension test. Results from the
[ 45]
2s
test are in good agreement with those from other procedures, and it is considered to
be a reliable test configuration
2.4.2. Literature review for in-plane shear test
In-plane Shear Strength of Unidirectional Composite Materials Using the Off-axis Three-
point Flexure and Off-axis Tensile Tests was determined and compared in [9]. In the case of
the off-axis three-point flexure test, the condition of small displacements and the condition of
lift-off between the specimen and the fixture supports were taken into account. Some
considerations regarding stress and displacement fields were presented. The in-plane shear
characterization were performed on a carbon fiber reinforced unidirectional laminate with
several fiber orientation angles: 10
0
, 20
0
, 30
0
, and 45
0
.Test conditions for both off-axis
experimental methods, in order to ensure their applicability, are presented. By investigation
results the author found out Off-axis flexure test more suitable than off-axis tensile test for
the determination of in-plane shear strength.
Material and Apparatus
41
Material - Toughened epoxy matrix-based carbon fiber reinforced. All specimens had the
same Cross section- width b =12.5mm and thickness h=1 mm. with off-axis fiber orientation
angles: 10
0
, 20
0
, 30
0
, and 45
0
, with different length-to-width ratios. A universal testing
machine Instron- 4206 with two load cell of 100 and 1 kN, and standard test fixtures, were
used.
Geometric parameters in off-axis tests:
Off-axis tensile test Off-axis flexure test
h L (mm) L (mm) c L
0
(mm) L (mm) c c
LO
10
0
275 175 14 90 80 6.5 6.34
20
0
275 175 14 70 60 4.6 3.19
30
0
250 150 12 60 50 3.8 2.25
45
0
200 100 8 50 40 3.1 2.20
Off-axis Tensile Test
A cross-head speed of 1 mm/min was considered for tensile tests. Both the nominal gage
length L and the nominal overall-length L of the tensile specimens are consigned in Table
(Figure 2.25) as well as the nominal length-to-width ratio c. All authors suggest a high
length-to-width ratio, in order to reduce the end-constraint effect: c
max
9. c
max
=10 , c
max
16, c
max
=18 and c
max
=28. The gripping system consisted of sandpaper placed between the grip
and the specimen along the gripping length H presented in Figure 2.25(a). For all off-axis
tensile tests H=50 mm.
Fig.2.25: a) Specimen configuration of the off-axis tensile test. b) Specimen configuration of the off-axis flexure
test.[9]
Off-axis Flexure Test
The flexure tests were performed at a nominal strain rate of 1%/min. The nominal span L, the
nominal overall-length L, and span-to-width ratio c of the flexure specimens showed in fig.
42
In order to increase the shear stresses at the failure critical point the span-to width ratio must
be as high as possible, bearing in mind the small displacement condition, ensuring that the
maximum deflection during the test do not exceed the 10% of the span.
Result
Off-axis Tensile Test
there are three critical points in the off-axis tensile test: point F near the gripping zone, point
M located along the longitudinal middle line of the specimen, and point F located along the
longitudinal edge of the specimen where it is assumed that failure starts.
Fig.2.26:Points of maximum normal and shear stresses in off-axis tensile specimen[9]
The longitudinal normal stress, transverse normal stress, and the in-plane shear stress
as function of the fiber orientation angle, at points F, M, and F, are presented in Figure 2.26.
Results show that all stress components are higher at F than at F and at M. In spite of the fact
that all in-plane stress components are a little greater at point F than at point F, the failure
starts at point F due to the greater probability of containing machining defects through the
longitudinal edge of the specimen.
Fig:2.27: Experimental values of off-axis tensile stresses as a function of the fiber orientation angle at failure
load: (a) longitudinal normal stresses, (b) transverse normal stresses, (c) in-plane shear stresses.[9]
43
Figure 2.27(c)According to [9] results it was revealed that in-plane shear stress
decreases as the fiber orientation angle increases, due to increasing influence of
T
as seen in
Figure 2.27(b), and that determination of (in plane shear strength)X
LT
by means of the off-
axis tensile test provides a conservative value. It is recommended to consider low fiber
orientation angles (e.g., =10
0
). Comparing in-plane shear stress at critical points with the
nominal interfacial shear stress it can be affirmed that, on the one hand,
0
is quite similar to
(
LT
)
M
specially for high off-axis angles. On the other hand, (
LT
)
F
and (
LT
)
F
are higher
than
0
in all cases. Regarding the in-plane shear strength experimentally obtained by the off-
axis tensile test, it can be inferred from the results that the present approach, considering
X
LT=
(
LT
)
F
, gives values up to 24% higher than values obtained with the conventional
approach, based on
0
.
Off-axis Flexure Test
In-plane shear strength by the off-axis flexure test was determined at critical point K and K.
Figure 2.28 shows the longitudinal normal stress, the transverse normal stress, and the in-
plane shear stress as a function of the fiber orientation angle at both K and K points.
Fig.2.28: Geometric loci of maximum normal and shear stresses in the off-axis flexure specimen[9]
Figure 2.29(a) shows that longitudinal normal stress decreases as the fiber orientation angle
increases, and Figure 2.29(b) indicates that transverse normal stress has the opposite trend; it
increases as increases. These results lead to conclude that for fiber orientation angles
between 10
0
and 45
0
, for the span-to-width ratios considered, failure is mainly due to shear
stresses. In-plane shear stresses at points K and K for all analyzed orientations are depicted
in Figure 2.29(c), and compared to the reference value 114 MPa.
44
Fig.2.29: Experimental values of off-axis flexure stresses as a function of the fiber orientation angle at failure
load: (a) longitudinal normal stresses, (b) transverse normal stresses, (c) in-plane shear stresses.[9]
45
Chapter 3: Work done and Future work
3.1. Work Done:
3.1.1.Design of setup
In starting we had three stages of translational motions. Using these translational stages
according our requirement we developed design to take out experimental work. The features
of design is as follows
We are using high-precision motorized translation stages. It is very useful in
Application where motion fields which needs high linearity. For example: femetosecond laser
experiment, laser processing, three-dimensional scanning measured system and mechanical
test of material.
Characteristics of setup-
Using three degree of freedom translation motion stages in which two are 400 mm travel
range and 3
rd
has 500 mm range. It has 1 micron closed loop resolution with maximum
speed of 500 mm/sec. backlash with less than 5 micron. It can work on on load up to 500
N. It has High-precision ball screw, ultra-precision linear slide ,which ensure the accuracy
and linearity of Motion
Using servomotor which can achieve high speed motion which can be used to make
experiments in high strain rates.
Has two means of motion :inching and increment
Point to point: Rapid positioning to the target location. Which will help to
Accelerate the experimental process.
Increment: Applicable to those need for reciprocating positioning in a number
of target locations. Operation of a button you can reach the target location.
Decided the speed of return original, initial speed constant speed and accelerate speed and
software position limit ,suitable for different control; For example: the system need
limit response time, set up larger original or accelerate speed ;system need stable
motion, light force, set up small original or accelerate speed ;system need constant
speed can choose constant motion model Set up any position as the working origin
We can give three degree of freedom motion simultaneously which will help in studying
the effect of multidirectional forces in our experiment.
46
Store the parameter ,non-loss electric, simple operating process Lead mechanism of
translation .radium of rotation and motion parameter is set up , can memory, avoid the
reset parameter when open and close PC, avoiding the error from artificial.
According to the needs we can choose pulses, mm, microns for motion unit.
pluses: The basic unit of controller.
Mm/microns: Show the Linear displacement.
Any position can be set to be the user working origin position. The convenience of setting to
zero position is to simplify the experiment and reduce time.
Real-time read the control system logical position, real position, drive speed and the
acceleration during the movement, which will help us to find out the instantaneous speed
and position of fixtures.
Parameters can be stored and with memory function in case of power-down.
Fig 3.1: Set-up for testing
47
3.2. Future work: It is divided in four parts
1) Specimen
2) Fixture
3) Testing parameters
4) Experiment
1) Specimen
1) Material: Raw Materials for type of CFRP prepregs has to be choose according to
availability of material and our process.
2) Process: Prepreg lay-up process will be chosen as it is Simple to manufacture
complex parts easily using this process. It has the advantage of low tooling
cost. Very strong and stiff parts can be fabricated using this process.
3) Cutting process: The test coupons will be cutout from stacked composite sheets
using required precision machining process.
2) Fixtures: Fixtures will be chosen according to our experiments. We have three option
for compressive test:1) Celanese (ASTM D-3410-75) test fixture, Illinois Institute of
Technology Research Institute (IITRI) , Northrop compression test fixture and NBS
compression test specimen so on the basis of our requirement and for better result best
fixture will be chosen. For type 2. Experiment we have option of a) SWRI compression test
fixture b) Lockheed compression test fixture . For In-plane we will have to decide the fixture.
3) Testing parameters:
We will do experiment on the specimen by varying following parameters of the CFRP
specimen.
1) Specimen with cutout at different-2 place, with varying shape of cutout and depth of
cutout.
48
Figure3.2: Specimen with different -2 cutouts
2) Specimen with varying thickness and placing the laminas in different -2 angles
witdifferent-2 number of lamina stakes.
Radius
L
b
Depth of cut
Thickness of
Laminate(t)
t
49
Figure.3.3.:Specimen with varying angle of fibers
Figure:3.4. Specimen combining with different-2 angle of prepregs
90
0
60
0
30
0
Prepreg
with angle
90
0
Prepreg
with angle
0
0
Prepreg
with angle
45
0
50
3) Angle between load and fiber direction.
Figure:3.5. Specimen with load axial and transverse direction
4) Experiment- Experiment will be done at various parameters which is decided above to
determine the influence of fiber orientation on the CFRP mechanical properties. Each of the
specimens will be tested in a random order and the stress and strain will be calculated from
the load and displacement results.
The results will be compared with numerical data which will be obtained in abaqus
software to verify experimental results.
Flow chart for implementation of the proposed project in shown in figure: 3.6.
F
F
F
F
51
Fig.3.6: Flow chart for implementation of the proposed project
Figure 3.7 shows the start and completion of various tasks mentioned in Figure.3.6 The
entire project duration is 8 months which is divided into 8 quarters.
Task/Month Oct Nov Dec J an Feb Mar Apr J un
Task1 Done
Task2
Task3
Task4
Task5
Task6
Fig.3.7: Timelines for proposed project
Expected outcome from the project
After successful completion of the project in mechanical testing of CFRP in varying fiber
orientation and varying thickness. Following specific objectives are identified with the above
mentioned study:
Detailed understanding about mode of failures during testing of specimen.
Detailed understanding of mechanical properties of CFRP laminates with varying
parameters(thickness, fiber orientation, strain rate) in specimen
Validation of experimental data with modeling data .
Task1:
Literature survey
Task2:
Selection of material
and manufacturing of
specimen
Task3:
Design,Fabrication and
instrumentation of
experimental setup
Task4:design and
develpoment of
specimen
Task5:
Experiments on
specimen
Task6:
Experimantal data
proceesing and
analysis
Task7:
Publishing results
52
References
1) Kojiro morioka,Yoshiyuki tomita, Effect of lay-up sequences on mechanical properties
and fracture behavior of CFRP laminate composites , , journal of Materials Characterization
45 (2000) 125-136, 29 February 2000.
2) Haider AL-Zubaidy et al, Mechanical Behavior of Normal Modulus Carbon Fibre
Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) and Epoxy under Impact Tensile Loads, Procedia Engineering
10 (2011) 24532458,
3) T. Okabea, N. Takedab Size effect on tensile strength of unidirectional CFRP
composites-experiment and simulation, journal of Composites Science and Technology 62
(2002) 20532064
4) K. J . Wong et al , Tensile behaviour of anti-symmetric CFRP composite ,Procedia
Engineering 10 (2011) 18651870
5) J . Lee, C. Soutis , A study on the compressive strength of thick carbon fibreepoxy
laminates , Composites Science and Technology 67 (2007) 20152026
6) Tomohiro Yokozeki et al. Evaluation of Compressive Nonlinear Response of
Unidirectional Carbon Fiber Reinforced Composites using a Modified Sandwich Beam
Specimen in Flexure , J ournal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 2008 27: 5
7) A.C. Manalo et al In-plane shear behaviour of fibre composite sandwich beams using
asymmetrical beam shear test ,journal of Construction and Building Materials 24 (2010)
19521960
8) D.E. Walrath, The Iosipescu Shear Test as Applied to Composite Materials
Experimental Mechanics, page 150, March 1983
9) G. Vargas and F. Mujika , Determination of In-plane Shear Strength of Unidirectional
Composite Materials Using the Off-axis Three-point Flexure and Off-axis Tensile Tests
J ournal of Composite material 2010 44: 2487
53
10) George H. Staab , Mechanical test methods for lamina Page 120, Laminar
composites 1999
11) Yu.M. Tarnopol'skii and V.L. Kulakov, Mechanical tests page 778, HANDBOOK OF
COMPOSITES , SECOND EDITION, Edited by S. T. Peters.
12) K. Schneider et al, Compression Shear Test (CST) A Convenient Apparatus for the
Estimation of Apparent Shear Strength of Composite Materials journal of Applied
Composite Materials 8: 4362, 2001.
13) http://info.lu.farmingdale.edu/depts/met/met205/composites.html
14) http://www.virginia.edu/bohr/mse209/chapter17.htm
15) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_material#Properties
16) http://core.materials.ac.uk/search/detail.php?id=2677
17) Murat Yazici et al, Buckling of Composite Plates With U-shaped Cutouts J ournal of
Composite Materials, Vol. 37, No. 24/2003.
18) Sanjay K. Mazumdar, Composites manufacturing Materials, Product, and Process
Engineering , CRC PRESS.
19) Hofer, K. E., J r., N. Rao, and D. Larsen. Development of Engineering Data on
Mechanical Properties of Advanced Composite Materials, AFML-TR- 72-205, Part I, Sept.
1972.
20) Verette, R. M., and J . D. Labor. Structural Criteria for Advanced Composites, AFFDL-
TR-76-142, Vol. 1. Summary, March 1977.
21) Kasen, M. B., R. E. Schramm, and D. T. Read. Fatigue of Composites at Cryogenic
Temperatures, Fatigue of Filamentary Composites, ASTM STP 636, pp. 141-151, 1977.
22) Grimes, G. C., P. H. Frances, G. E. Commerford, and G. K. Wolfe. An Experimental
Investigation of the Stress Levels at Which Significant Damage Occurs in Graphite Fiber
Plastic Composites, AFML-TR-72-40, May 1972.
54
23) Ryder, J . T., and E. D. Black. Compression Testing of Large Gage Length Composite
Coupons, Composite Materials: Testing and Design (Fourth Conference), ASTM STP 617.
Philadelphia: ASTM, pp. 170-189, 1977.
24) Whitney et al, Experimental Mechanics of Fiber Reinforced Composite Materials.
SESA Monograph No. 4. Westport, CT: Technomic, 1982.
25) Lee, S., and M. Munro. Evaluation of In-Plane Shear Test Method for Advanced
Composite Materials by the Decision Analysis Technique, Composites, 17 (1986): 13-22.
26) Slepetz et al In-Plane Shear Test for Composite Materials, AMMRC TR 78-30, Army
Materials and Mechanics Research Center, Watertown, MA, J uly 1978.
27) Robert jones, Mechanics of composites materials, second edition, press Taylor &
Francis.