journal article·2026-06-20Open access

Microstructure–Mechanical Response Relationship in Discontinuous Fiber‐Reinforced SMC Composites: Damage Mechanisms

Mohammadali Shirinbayan

Polymer Composites· Volume 47· Issue 12

Abstract

ABSTRACT The mechanical performance of sheet molding compounds (SMCs) is dependent on microstructural characteristics determined by material composition and processing conditions. The study investigates standard SMCs, advanced SMCs (A‐SMCs), and low‐density SMCs (LD‐SMCs) under quasi‐static and fatigue loading to elucidate the influence of microstructure on damage evolution. Damage evolution is characterized from the microscale to the macroscale using a range of analytical techniques, including microscopy, anisotropy measurements, and interrupted mechanical testing. Key damage mechanisms—including fiber‐matrix interface debonding, matrix cracking, fiber fracture, and pseudo‐delamination—are systematically identified, with particular emphasis on the effects of hollow glass microspheres and fiber orientation. The results reveal distinct fatigue and quasi‐static (QS) responses among the SMC variants: Compared to the standard SMC, the A‐SMC exhibits ~258% higher tensile strength and delayed fiber‐matrix debonding, while the LD‐SMC shows moderate quasi‐static strength (~49% higher than the standard SMC). Correlating microstructural damage features with macroscopic mechanical responses provides critical insights for multi‐scale modeling and optimized design of SMC components under realistic service conditions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Composite Material Mechanics · Fiber-reinforced polymer composites · Mechanical Behavior of Composites

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

Affiliations

Arts et Metiers Institute of Technology, CNAM, CNRS, PIMM Paris France

References (20)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2023.11085510.1016/j.compositesb.2023.110855 ↗
2. 10.3390/jcs712048410.3390/jcs7120484 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2004.09.02710.1016/j.compscitech.2004.09.027 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.euromechsol.2024.10548010.1016/j.euromechsol.2024.105480 ↗
5. 10.1177/0967391124127559410.1177/09673911241275594 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.10928710.1016/j.compositesb.2021.109287 ↗
7. 10.1007/s10443-019-09782-610.1007/s10443-019-09782-6 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2009.10.00210.1016/j.ijsolstr.2009.10.002 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.05.05310.1016/j.compositesb.2018.05.053 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.04.03510.1016/j.compstruct.2009.04.035 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.10.06110.1016/j.compositesb.2016.10.061 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.10664710.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.106647 ↗
13. Laurent O. · 2012
14. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.08.00410.1016/j.compositesb.2017.08.004 ↗
15. 10.1080/00222348.2023.226019110.1080/00222348.2023.2260191 ↗
16. 10.1177/00219983830170030610.1177/002199838301700306 ↗
17. 10.1002/1439-2054(20011101)286:11<669::AID-MAME669>3.0.CO;2-R10.1002/1439-2054(20011101)286:11<669::AID-MAME669>3.0.CO;2-R ↗
18. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2024.10854310.1016/j.compositesa.2024.108543 ↗
19. 10.1007/s00170-024-12988-z10.1007/s00170-024-12988-z ↗
20. 10.1051/mattech/20018903000310.1051/mattech/200189030003 ↗