Mixed Mode I/II interlaminar fracture toughness of carbon Fiber/RTM‐6 laminates manufactured by VARTM
Source abstract
Abstract
This work investigates and compares the interlaminar fracture behavior of composites manufactured by vacuum‐assisted resin transfer molding subjected to three different temperatures (–54, 25, and 80°C) and mode ratios (25, 50, and 75%). The results indicate ductility enhancement with increasing temperature, which were confirmed by fractographic analyses. In tested specimens with 25% mode ratio, the GI and GII values were not greatly affected by the temperature. As the temperature and the mode ratio increases, the specimens exhibited higher GI and GII values compared with those measured at −54°C. In the tested specimens with 75% mode ratio, an unstable crack propagation was observed at −54°C due to brittle behavior of matrix, which is promoted by the decrease of the adhesion represented by cusps and broken fibers in SEM images. The cusps formation is less pronounced for specimens tested at 80°C and the fracture surface is flatter compared with those tested at −54 and 25°C. POLYM. COMPOS., 40:E1029–E1040, 2019. © 2018 Society of Plastics Engineers
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Epoxy Resin Curing Processes · Structural Analysis of Composite Materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Aeronautics Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, Praça Marechal Eduardo Gomes, 50, Vila das Acácias, 12228‐900, São José dos Campos São Paulo Brazil
Faculdade de Tecnologia de São José dos Campos ‐ Prof. Jessen Vidal, Cesare Mansueto Giulio Lattes Avenue, 1350, Eugênio de Melo,12247‐014, São José dos Campos São Paulo Brazil
Funding
CNPq
References (30)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.07.01710.1016/j.compstruct.2009.07.017 ↗
2. 10.1016/0010-4361(89)90211-510.1016/0010-4361(89)90211-5 ↗
3. 10.1016/0010-4361(94)90007-810.1016/0010-4361(94)90007-8 ↗
4. 10.1016/0010-4361(95)90411-R10.1016/0010-4361(95)90411-R ↗
5. 10.1016/B978-185617495-4/50007-X10.1016/B978-185617495-4/50007-X ↗
6. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.07.01210.1016/j.compstruct.2009.07.012 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2006.12.01010.1016/j.compscitech.2006.12.010 ↗
8. 10.1016/S0013-7944(98)00068-X10.1016/S0013-7944(98)00068-X ↗
9. 10.1016/j.cryogenics.2004.07.00210.1016/j.cryogenics.2004.07.002 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.03.01410.1016/j.compositesb.2012.03.014 ↗
11. 10.4322/polimeros.2013.00810.4322/polimeros.2013.008 ↗
12. American Standartization Testing Materials. ASTM D 3171‐11 West Conshohocken (2013).
13. American Standartization Testing Materials. ASTM D 6671/D 6671M – 06 West Conshohocken (2006).
14. 10.1016/S1359-8368(98)00014-610.1016/S1359-8368(98)00014-6 ↗
15. 10.1179/14658019910154056510.1179/146580199101540565 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2006.03.00110.1016/j.compositesa.2006.03.001 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2010.02.00810.1016/j.compositesa.2010.02.008 ↗
18. 10.1016/0266-3538(92)90099-O10.1016/0266-3538(92)90099-O ↗
19. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.05.01610.1016/j.compositesa.2015.05.016 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2011.01.00610.1016/j.compscitech.2011.01.006 ↗
21. 10.1016/S0143-7496(00)00038-510.1016/S0143-7496(00)00038-5 ↗
22. 10.1115/1.217227410.1115/1.2172274 ↗
23. 10.1016/0011-2275(91)90086-C10.1016/0011-2275(91)90086-C ↗
24. E.S.GreenhalghandM.J.Hiley.Fractography of Polymer Composites: current status and future issues InECCM13 Stockholm Sweden (2008).
25. G.M.Cândido M.V.Donadon S.F.M.AlmeidaandM C.Rezende.In 20th CBECIMAT Joinville Brazil (2012).
26. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2012.05.01810.1016/j.ijsolstr.2012.05.018 ↗
27. 10.1016/0266-3538(95)00099-210.1016/0266-3538(95)00099-2 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2009.05.00310.1016/j.polymertesting.2009.05.003 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.08.05110.1016/j.compositesb.2014.08.051 ↗
30. 10.1177/002199831667949910.1177/0021998316679499 ↗