Relaxation behavior of thin-ply high strain composites using a dynamic mechanical analyzer based column bending test
Source abstract
Abstract
Deployable space structures made from thin-ply high-strain composite (HSC) laminates can be compactly stowed, but prolonged stowage under high curvature can alter their deployed shape due to relaxation. In this research, a dynamic mechanical analyzer-based column bending test (CBT) method, with a custom-developed fixture was used to characterize the relaxation behavior of thin-ply HSCs. Four laminate configurations were prepared from thin-ply unidirectional IM7/PMT-F7 and Astroquartz/PMT-F7 prepregs: (i) IM7/PMT-F7 [0°], (ii) Astroquartz/PMT-F7 [±45°], (iii) Flexlam [±45°/0°/±45°] and (iv) Flexlam [±45°/90°/±45°]. Surface strains of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0% were sequentially applied to the specimen for 100-min durations, each separated by a 1000-min recovery period. This stepped strain approach was performed at 30°C, 50°C, and 70°C. The relaxation results indicate that the fiber-dominated test configuration, UD IM7/PMT-F7 [0°] lamina, shows no measurable relaxation. However, the matrix-dominated configurations, Astroquartz/PMT-F7 [±45°] lamina and the Flexlam laminates, show measurable relaxation. The Flexlam laminates show less relaxation than the Astroquartz/PMT-F7 [±45°] lamina due to the inclusion of unidirectional IM7 carbon fiber. The result also indicates that the relaxation behavior is time and strain-dependent, not temperature-dependent.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · High-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior · Structural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Colorado State University
Opterus Research and Development, Inc.
Funding
Small Business Technology Transfer
References (46)
Show source-provided references
1. Murphey TW. Large strain composite materials in deployable space structures. In: ICCM international conferences on composite materials Edinburg UK 27–29 July 2009.
2. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11192010.1016/j.compstruct.2020.111920 ↗
3. Murphey TW Francis WH Davis BL et al. High strain composites. In: 2nd AIAA spacecraft structures conference Kissimmee FL 5–9 January 2015. DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-0942.10.2514/6.2015-0942 ↗
4. 10.12783/asc34/3142710.12783/asc34/31427 ↗
5. 10.2514/1.A3281510.2514/1.A32815 ↗
6. 10.2514/1.4865810.2514/1.48658 ↗
7. 10.2514/1.2285410.2514/1.22854 ↗
8. 10.2514/6.2022-065010.2514/6.2022-0650 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.11490110.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114901 ↗
10. 10.2514/1.3689010.2514/1.36890 ↗
11. Salazar JE Fernandez JM. Experimental characterization of the dimensional stability of deployable composite booms during stowage. AIAA 2021-0195. AIAA Scitech 2021 Forum. January 2021. DOI: 10.2514/6.2021-0195.C1.10.2514/6.2021-0195.C1 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.asr.2020.07.03910.1016/j.asr.2020.07.039 ↗
13. Fernandez JM Rose GK Stohlman OR et al. An advanced composites-based solar sail system for interplanetary small satellite missions. AIAA spacecraft structures conference Kissimmee FL 8 january 2018. Epub ahead of print 2018. DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-1437.10.2514/6.2018-1437 ↗
14. 10.2514/6.2022-111710.2514/6.2022-1117 ↗
15. 10.12783/asc36/3591210.12783/asc36/35912 ↗
16. Gao J Chen W Chen J et al. Accuracy analysis on counterweight-balanced column bending test. Exp Mech 2021; 62: 137-150. DOI: 10.1007/s11340-021-00767-w Epub ahead of print.10.1007/s11340-021-00767-w, ↗
17. 10.1016/S1359-835X(04)00167-810.1016/S1359-835X(04)00167-8 ↗
18. Fernandez JM Murphey TW. A simple test method for large deformation bending of thin high strain composite flexures. In: 2018 AIAA spacecraft structures conference. Reston Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 2018. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0942.10.2514/6.2018-0942 ↗
19. 10.2514/1.A3284110.2514/1.A32841 ↗
20. Murphey TW Sanford GE Grigoriev MM. Nonlinear elastic constitutive modeling of large strains in thin carbon fiber composite flexures 2010 https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:202736662
21. 10.1177/0266351193008001-20210.1177/0266351193008001-202 ↗
22. Sharma AH Rose TJ Seamone A et al. Analysis of the column bending test for bending of high strain composites. AIAA 2019-1746. AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum. January 2019. DOI: 10.2514/6.2019-1746 Epub ahead of print.10.2514/6.2019-1746, ↗
23. Sharma AH Perez R Bearns NW et al. Some considerations involving testing guidelines for large curvature bending of high strain composites using the column bending test. In: AIAA Scitech 2021 Forum. Reston Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics pp. 1–13.10.2514/6.2021-0196 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.11537610.1016/j.compstruct.2022.115376 ↗
25. Rose TJ Medina K Francis W et al. Viscoelastic behavior of high strain composites. AIAA 2019-2027. AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum. January 2019 DOI: 10.2514/6.2019-2027.10.2514/6.2019-2027 ↗
26. Kwok K Pellegrino S. Viscoelastic effects in tape-springs. AIAA 2011-2022. 52nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference. April 2011. Denver Colorado. DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-2022.10.2514/6.2011-2022 ↗
27. 10.1103/RevModPhys.33.23910.1103/RevModPhys.33.239 ↗
28. 10.1007/978-3-642-73602-5_610.1007/978-3-642-73602-5_6 ↗
29. 10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.000074210.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0000742 ↗
30. Peterson ME Murphey TW. Large deformation bending of thin composite tape spring laminates. In: 54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures structural dynamics and materials conference Boston. MA 8–11 April 2013. Epub ahead of print 2013. DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-1667.10.2514/6.2013-1667 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2014.08.01810.1016/j.polymertesting.2014.08.018 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.optlaseng.2021.10686910.1016/j.optlaseng.2021.106869 ↗
33. 10.1007/BF0232875110.1007/BF02328751 ↗
34. 10.1016/0020-7683(94)00163-Q10.1016/0020-7683(94)00163-Q ↗
35. Nowick AS, Berry BS. Anelastic relaxation in crystalline solids. Cambridge, UK: Academic Press, 1972.
36. 10.1017/CBO978051162672210.1017/CBO9780511626722 ↗
37. 10.1063/1.170768210.1063/1.1707682 ↗
38. 10.1021/acs.macromol.8b0138910.1021/acs.macromol.8b01389 ↗
39. 10.1016/S1359-835X(01)00116-610.1016/S1359-835X(01)00116-6 ↗
40. 10.1002/pi.498022030410.1002/pi.4980220304 ↗
41. 10.1177/073168440403062910.1177/0731684404030629 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.jcomc.2020.10005110.1016/j.jcomc.2020.100051 ↗
43. 10.3390/fluids202001310.3390/fluids2020013 ↗
44. Tamrakar S Ganesh R Sockalingam S et al. Strain rate-dependent large deformation inelastic behavior of an epoxy resin 2019; 54: 71–87. DOI: 10.1177/0021998319859054.10.1177/0021998319859054 ↗
45. 10.1016/S0266-3538(00)00214-110.1016/S0266-3538(00)00214-1 ↗
46. 10.1002/app.2074610.1002/app.20746 ↗