Otwarty dostęp

Damage to inverse hybrid laminate structures: an analysis of shear strength test

Mariusz Frankiewicz

Mariusz Frankiewicz

Centre for Advanced Manufacturing Technologies – Fraunhofer Project Center, Department of Laser Technologies, Automation and Production Management, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Wroclaw University of Science and TechnologyWroclaw, Poland
Wyszukaj tego autora
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Frankiewicz, Mariusz
, 
Grzegorz Ziółkowski

Grzegorz Ziółkowski

Centre for Advanced Manufacturing Technologies – Fraunhofer Project Center, Department of Laser Technologies, Automation and Production Management, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Wroclaw University of Science and TechnologyWroclaw, Poland
Wyszukaj tego autora
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Ziółkowski, Grzegorz
, 
Robert Dziedzic

Robert Dziedzic

Centre for Advanced Manufacturing Technologies – Fraunhofer Project Center, Department of Laser Technologies, Automation and Production Management, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Wroclaw University of Science and TechnologyWroclaw, Poland
Wyszukaj tego autora
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Dziedzic, Robert
, 
Tomasz Osiecki

Tomasz Osiecki

Institute of Lightweight Structures and Polymer Technology, Technische Universität ChemnitzChemnitz, Germany
Wyszukaj tego autora
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Osiecki, Tomasz
 oraz 
Peter Scholz

Peter Scholz

Fraunhofer Institute for Machine Tools and Forming Technology IWUChemnitz, Germany
Wyszukaj tego autora
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Scholz, Peter
  
13 lip 2022
Damage to inverse hybrid laminate structures: an analysis of shear strength test's Cover Image
O artykule
Poprzedni artykuł
Następny artykuł
Zacytuj
Pobierz okładkę
Data publikacji: 13 lip 2022
Zakres stron: 130 - 144
Otrzymano: 18 sty 2022
Przyjęty: 30 maj 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/msp-2022-0016
Słowa kluczowe
© 2022 Mariusz Frankiewicz et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Fig. 1

Schematic comparison of fiber metal laminates: standard and inverse hybrid laminate (InverTec) [3]. FRP, fiber-reinforced polymer
Schematic comparison of fiber metal laminates: standard and inverse hybrid laminate (InverTec) [3]. FRP, fiber-reinforced polymer

Fig. 2

Example of fiber arrangement in S1 series laminates: variant 0° (S1.0) (A) and variant 90 (S1.90) (B). GF, glass fiber; PA, polyamide
Example of fiber arrangement in S1 series laminates: variant 0° (S1.0) (A) and variant 90 (S1.90) (B). GF, glass fiber; PA, polyamide

Fig. 3

Diagram of the process of forming an inverted hybrid laminate (InverTec)
Diagram of the process of forming an inverted hybrid laminate (InverTec)

Fig. 4

View of the ILSS test using a three-point-bending load (short beam test) [3]. ILSS, inter-laminar shear strength
View of the ILSS test using a three-point-bending load (short beam test) [3]. ILSS, inter-laminar shear strength

Fig. 5

Cross-sectional views and 3D images obtained with CT of series S1–S4 specimens in Variants 0 and 90. Colored areas on 3D images indicate damages caused by delaminations and cracks in the matrix. Defects marked on the images: springback damage (i), core and FRP delaminations (ii), matrix cracks in FRP layers in planes parallel to the bending axis (iii), and matrix cracks in planes perpendicular to the bending axis (iv). CT, computed tomography; FRP, fiber-reinforced polymer
Cross-sectional views and 3D images obtained with CT of series S1–S4 specimens in Variants 0 and 90. Colored areas on 3D images indicate damages caused by delaminations and cracks in the matrix. Defects marked on the images: springback damage (i), core and FRP delaminations (ii), matrix cracks in FRP layers in planes parallel to the bending axis (iii), and matrix cracks in planes perpendicular to the bending axis (iv). CT, computed tomography; FRP, fiber-reinforced polymer

Fig. 6

Views of the defects observed at the interface between the FRP and the Al6061 layers of series S1.0 specimens: detachment of FRP layers (i), slight delamination on the core surface (ii), and fiber bulking (iii). The areas marked within the squares are shown at different magnifications (B and C). The cross section seen is in the plane perpendicular to the bending line of series S1 specimen 0 (S1.0), as observed by SEM/BSD. FRP, fiber-reinforced polymer; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy
Views of the defects observed at the interface between the FRP and the Al6061 layers of series S1.0 specimens: detachment of FRP layers (i), slight delamination on the core surface (ii), and fiber bulking (iii). The areas marked within the squares are shown at different magnifications (B and C). The cross section seen is in the plane perpendicular to the bending line of series S1 specimen 0 (S1.0), as observed by SEM/BSD. FRP, fiber-reinforced polymer; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy

Fig. 7

Views of defects observed in series S1.90 specimens: matrix cracks (i) and (ii); GF cracks (iii). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B and C). The cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending line of series S1.90 specimen, as seen by SEM/BSD. GF, glass fiber; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy
Views of defects observed in series S1.90 specimens: matrix cracks (i) and (ii); GF cracks (iii). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B and C). The cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending line of series S1.90 specimen, as seen by SEM/BSD. GF, glass fiber; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy

Fig. 8

Views of defects in series S2.0 specimens: delamination (i), matrix cracks (ii) and (iii), and GF cracks (iv). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B, C, E). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, observed by SEM/BSD. GF, glass fiber; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy
Views of defects in series S2.0 specimens: delamination (i), matrix cracks (ii) and (iii), and GF cracks (iv). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B, C, E). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, observed by SEM/BSD. GF, glass fiber; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy

Fig. 9

Views of the damage to the series S2.90 specimens: matrix cracks (i), FRP and laminate core delamination (ii), matrix and GF delamination (iii), and GF cracks (iv). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–F). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, observed by SEM/BSD. FRP, fiber-reinforced polymer; GF, glass fiber; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy
Views of the damage to the series S2.90 specimens: matrix cracks (i), FRP and laminate core delamination (ii), matrix and GF delamination (iii), and GF cracks (iv). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–F). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, observed by SEM/BSD. FRP, fiber-reinforced polymer; GF, glass fiber; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy

Fig. 10

Views of the damage to the series S3.0 specimens: cracks on the laminate surface (i), bulking of GFs (ii), delamination of GFRP layers from the core (iii), and cracking of GFs (iv). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–E). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, viewed using SEM/BSD. GF, glass fiber; GFRP, glass fiber–reinforced polymer; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy
Views of the damage to the series S3.0 specimens: cracks on the laminate surface (i), bulking of GFs (ii), delamination of GFRP layers from the core (iii), and cracking of GFs (iv). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–E). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, viewed using SEM/BSD. GF, glass fiber; GFRP, glass fiber–reinforced polymer; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy

Fig. 11

Views of damage to the series S3.90 specimens: PA matrix cracks (i); delamination of GFRP layers from the core (ii); delamination of GFs and PA matrix (iii) and (iv); and PA matrix cracks in the CFRP layers (v). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–E). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, as observed by SEM/BSD. CFRP, carbon fiber-reinforced polymer; GF, glass fiber; GFRP, glass fiber-reinforced polymer; PA, polyamide; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy
Views of damage to the series S3.90 specimens: PA matrix cracks (i); delamination of GFRP layers from the core (ii); delamination of GFs and PA matrix (iii) and (iv); and PA matrix cracks in the CFRP layers (v). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–E). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, as observed by SEM/BSD. CFRP, carbon fiber-reinforced polymer; GF, glass fiber; GFRP, glass fiber-reinforced polymer; PA, polyamide; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy

Fig. 12

Views of damage to series S4.0 specimens: cracks in GFRP layers (i), delamination of GFRP layers from the core (ii), PA matrix cracks and fiber delamination in CFRP layers (iii), PA matrix cracks and CF bulking (iv), and GF cracks (v). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–D). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, viewed using SEM/BSD. CF, carbon fiber; CFRP, carbon fiber-reinforced polymer; GFRP, glass fiber–reinforced polymer; PA, polyamide; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy
Views of damage to series S4.0 specimens: cracks in GFRP layers (i), delamination of GFRP layers from the core (ii), PA matrix cracks and fiber delamination in CFRP layers (iii), PA matrix cracks and CF bulking (iv), and GF cracks (v). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–D). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, viewed using SEM/BSD. CF, carbon fiber; CFRP, carbon fiber-reinforced polymer; GFRP, glass fiber–reinforced polymer; PA, polyamide; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy

Fig. 13

Views of damage to the series S4.90 specimen: surface cracks in CFRP layers (i), cracks in GFRP layers (ii), delamination of GFRP layers and core (iii), PA matrix cracks and fiber delamination in CFRP layers (iv), CF bulking (v), and delamination of PA matrix and fibers in GFRP layers (vi). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–E). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, viewed using SEM/BSD2. CF, carbon fiber; CFRP, carbon fiber–reinforced polymer; GFRP, glass fiber–reinforced polymer; PA, polyamide; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy
Views of damage to the series S4.90 specimen: surface cracks in CFRP layers (i), cracks in GFRP layers (ii), delamination of GFRP layers and core (iii), PA matrix cracks and fiber delamination in CFRP layers (iv), CF bulking (v), and delamination of PA matrix and fibers in GFRP layers (vi). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–E). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, viewed using SEM/BSD2. CF, carbon fiber; CFRP, carbon fiber–reinforced polymer; GFRP, glass fiber–reinforced polymer; PA, polyamide; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy

Parameters for the ILSS SBS test

System Zwick\Roel 5.0
Temperature 23°C
Humidity 46%
Test speed (constant) 2 mm/min
Span length 8 mm
Bending die 5 mm
Support rollers 2 mm

Mean values of shear stresses τmax and τB determined by the ILSS SBS test for laminates listed in Table 3 [3]

τmax [MPa] τB [MPa]
Configuration
Series 0 90 0 90
S1 33.3 48.5 26.6 40.0
S2 49.6 20.7 44.2 16.0
S3 57.3 20.3 46.8 17.4
S4 52.6 41.7 42.7 35.6

Summary/classification of damage in laminate plies in relation to ply fiber orientation and stress distribution

Type of load Tension Compression
FRP layer fiber arrangement 0 90 0 90

Parameters of variothermal consolidation of InverTec inverted laminate sheets

Steps Pressure (bar) Temperature (°C) Time (min)
Heating and plasticizing of polymer matrix 20 260 6.5
Consolidation of the FRP composite 30 260 3.5
Cooling phase and solidification of the polymer melt 30 60 16.5

Configuration of the analyzed series of FMLs

Series Configuration of FRP laminate layers Laminate code (variant 0°) Laminate code (variant 90°)
S1 3x CFR-TP PA6GF60 [0G/90G/0G/Alu]s [90G/0G/90G/Alu]s
S2 3x CFR-TP PA6GF60 [03G/Alu]s {\left[ {0_3^G/{\rm{Alu}}} \right]_s} [903G/Alu]s {\left[ {90_3^G/{\rm{Alu}}} \right]_s}
S3 1x CFR-TP PA6CF60/4x-CFR-TP PA6GF60 [0C/04G/Alu]s {\left[ {{0^C}/0_4^G/{\rm{Alu}}} \right]_s} [90C/904G/Alu]s {\left[ {{{90}^C}/90_4^G/{\rm{Alu}}} \right]_s}
S4 1x CFR-TP PA6CF60/4x-CFR-TP PA6GF60 [0C/90G/0G/90G/0G/Alu]s [90C/0G/90G/0G/90G/Alu]s
Język:
Angielski
Częstotliwość wydawania:
4 razy w roku
Dziedziny czasopisma:
Nauka o materiałach, Nauka o materiałach, inne, Nanomateriały, Funkcjonalne i inteligentne materiały, Charakterystyka i właściwości materiałów
Kanał RSS czasopisma