journal article·1998-08Open access

Fabrication and mechanical response of commingled GF/PET composites

Niklas Svensson, Roshan Shishoo, Michael Gilchrist

Polymer Composites· Volume 19· Issue 4

Abstract

Abstract The mechanical properties and the response to mechanical load of continuous glass fiber reinforced polyethylene terephthalate (GF/PET) laminates have been characterized. The laminates were manufactured by compression molding stacks of novel woven and warp knitted fabrics produced from commingled yarns. The laminate quality was examined by means of optical and scanning electron microscopy. Few voids were found and the laminate quality was good. Resin pockets occurred in the woven laminates, originating from the architecture of the woven fabric. The strength of the fiber/matrix interface was poor. Some problems were encountered while manufacturing the laminates. These led to fiber misalignment and consequently resulted in tensile mechanical properties that were slightly lower than expected. Flexural failures all initiated as a result of compression, and it is possible that the compression strength of the matrix material, rather than its tensile strength, might limit the ultimate mechanical performance of the composites. Flexural failures for both materials were very gradual. The warp knitted laminates were stronger and stiffer than the woven laminates. The impact behavior was also investigated; the woven laminates exhibited superior damage tolerance compared with the warp knitted laminates.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Fiber-reinforced polymer composites · Textile materials and evaluations

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (25)

Show source-provided references
1. C. St.John Proc. ICCM‐10 p.757 Whistler Canada (1995).
2. 10.1177/08927057960090020310.1177/089270579600900203 ↗
3. W.MichaeliandM.Goedel Proc. Techtextil Symposium Frankfurt Germany (1993).
4. W.MichaeliandD.Jürss Proc. of Techtextil Symposium Frankfurt Germany (1994).
5. 10.1016/0010-4361(93)90269-E10.1016/0010-4361(93)90269-E ↗
6. 10.1016/0266-3538(95)00015-110.1016/0266-3538(95)00015-1 ↗
7. M. D.Wakeman T. A.Cain C. D.Rudd A. C.Long andR.Brooks Proc. 4th International Conf. Automated Composites p.325 Nottingham United Kingdom (September1995).
8. 10.1016/0956-7143(92)90110-G10.1016/0956-7143(92)90110-G ↗
9. N.Svensson Proc. Textile Institute's 77th World Conference p.425 Tampere Finland (May1996).
10. Shonaike G. O. · Compos. Interfaces · 1994 · 2 · 15710.1163/156855494X00292 ↗
11. T. L.AndersenandA.Lystrup Proc. 4th International Conf. Automated Composites p.195 Nottingham United Kingdom (September1995).
12. I.KrucinskaandS.Krucinski Proc. ICCE/3 p.467 New Orleans (1996).
13. 10.1177/08927057960090010610.1177/089270579600900106 ↗
14. 10.1177/08927057980110010210.1177/089270579801100102 ↗
15. N.Svensson P.Tollemark andW.Hansson Proc. Techtextil Symposium Frankfurt Germany (1997).
16. H.E.S.C. Standard of Hand Evaluation No 1 KOSHI (stiffness) Hand evaluation and standardization committee Japan (1975).
17. 10.1002/pc.1063910.1002/pc.10639 ↗
18. R.ShishooandM.Choroszy Textile Asia Dec.1990 p.64.
19. N.Svensson M.Gilchrist andR.Shishoo accepted for publication inJ. Compos. Mater.(1998).
20. Hull D. · 1981
21. 10.1177/07316844930120020310.1177/073168449301200203 ↗
22. E.Mäder K.Skop‐Cardarella W.Zäh andG.Wagener Proc. Techtextil Symposium Frankfurt Germany (1997).
23. 10.1002/pc.75014040610.1002/pc.750140406 ↗
24. 10.1177/00219983960300070110.1177/002199839603000701 ↗
25. 10.1002/pc.1026710.1002/pc.10267 ↗