Evaluation of shear-compressive strength properties for laminated GFRP composites in electromagnet system
Source abstract
Abstract
Laminated fiber-reinforced composites can be applied to an insulating structure of a nuclear fusion device. It is necessary to investigate the interlaminar fracture characteristics of the laminated composites for the assurance of design and structural integrity. The three methods used to prepare the glass fiber reinforced plastic composites tested in this study were vacuum pressure impregnation, high pressure laminate (HPL), and prepreg laminate. We discuss the design criteria for safe application of composites and the shear-compressive test methods for evaluating mechanical properties of the material. Shear-compressive tests could be performed successfully using series-type test jigs that were inclined 0°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and 75° to the normal axis. Shear strength depends strongly on the applied compressive stress. The design range of allowable shear stress was extended by use of the appropriate composite fabrication method. HPL had the largest design range, and the allowable interlaminar shear stress was 0.254 times the compressive stress.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · High-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior · Structural Analysis of Composite Materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (21)
Show source-provided references
1. L. J. Hart-Smith, Compos. Sci. Technol. 58, 1179 (1998).10.1016/S0266-3538(97)00193-0 ↗
2. H. D. Chandler, I. M. D. Campbell, and M. A. Stone, Int. J. Fatigue. 17, 513 (1995).10.1016/0142-1123(95)00047-W ↗
3. T. T. Trang, D. K. Lee, and J. H. Kim, Met. Mater. Int. 19, 1369 (2013).10.1007/s12540-013-0643-z ↗
4. S. Nishijima, S. Ueno, T. Okada, and K. Niwa, Cryogenics 35, 681 (1995).10.1016/0011-2275(95)90888-M ↗
5. T. Suzuki, S. Usami, and T. Miyatake, IEEE Trans. Appl. Superconduct. 14, 1169 (2004).10.1109/TASC.2004.830476 ↗
6. H. Koerber, J. Xavier, and P. P. Camanho, Mech. Mater. 42, 1004 (2010).10.1016/j.mechmat.2010.09.003 ↗
7. P. J. Hine, R. A. Duckett, A. S. Kaddour, M. J. Hinton, and G. M. Wells, Compos. Part A-Appl. S. 36, 279 (2005).10.1016/S1359-835X(04)00152-6 ↗
8. T. L. Anderson, Fracture Mechanics. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2005).10.1201/9781420058215 ↗
9. N. J. Simon, E. S. Drexler, and R. P. Reed, Advanced in Cryogenic Engineering. 40, 977 (1994).
10. P. Reed, P. E. Fabian, and T. S. Bauer-McDaniel, Cryogenics. 35, 685 (1995).10.1016/0011-2275(95)90889-N ↗
11. J. M. Whitney and C. E. Browning, Exp. Mech. 25, 294 (1985).10.1007/BF02325100 ↗
12. Y. Liu, J. P. Yang, H. M. Xiao, C. B. Qu, Q. P. Feng, S. Y. Fu, and Y. Shindo, Compos. Part B- Eng. 43, 95 (2012).10.1016/j.compositesb.2011.04.037 ↗
13. S. Hernández, F. Sket, J. M. Molina-Aldareguía, C. González, and J. L. Lorca, Compos. Sci. Technol. 71, 1331 (2011).10.1016/j.compscitech.2011.05.002 ↗
14. Z. Fan, M. H. Santare, and S. G. Advani, Composites Part A-Appl. S. 39, 540 (2008).10.1016/j.compositesa.2007.11.013 ↗
15. J. Zhu, A. Imam, R. Crane, K. Lozano, V. N. Khabashesku, and E. V. Barrera, Compos Sci. Technol. 67, 1509 (2007).10.1016/j.compscitech.2006.07.018 ↗
16. M. Kwon, J. S. Bak, and G. S. Lee, Fusion Sci. Technol. 42, 167 (2002).10.13182/FST02-A225 ↗
17. S. B. Lee, S. J. Hong, J. W. Yi, S. K. Lee, Y. H. Choa, and J. B. Kim, Met. Mater. Int. 18, 165 (2012).10.1007/s12540-012-0020-3 ↗
18. ITER, ITER Structural Design Criteria for Magnet Components, ITER DDD (2004).
19. K. J. Lin, C. H. Hsueh, and K. F. Lin, Mater. Chem. Phys. 128, 177 (2011).10.1016/j.matchemphys.2011.02.077 ↗
20. H. J. Park, H. K. Kim, and J. H. Song, Kor. J. Met. Mater. 49, 589 (2011).10.3365/KJMM.2011.49.8.589 ↗
21. D638, Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics, ASTM standards (2010).