Manipulating interfacial bond for controlling load transfer in 3D printed fiber reinforced polymer composites
Source abstract
Abstract
The fiber/matrix interface is a critical item that affects Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) composites mechanical performance due to its control of the load transfer mechanism. Partially bonded interfaces have been shown to affect the failure mode of FRP composites. This article examines the significance of manipulating the fiber/matrix interfacial bond in 3D printed FRP composites on the mechanical performance of multilayer 3D printed FRP composites. Three designs are investigated with different fiber stacking sequences, fiber orientation, and interfacial bond configurations. The designs have a low coefficient of variation in load fractions between layers to enable a gradual load transfer and progressive failure. Utilizing 3D printer chamber temperature changes, a composite with a controlled bond configuration is achieved using thermal blocks. It was observed that the controlled bond configurations resulted in promoting progressive failure and increased the strain at failure of 3D printed FRP composites. The observations of direct tension tests were supported with interlayer shear strength and interfacial adhesion tests which explained the weakened load transfer in the thermal block configurations. Using the interface manipulation strategy with thermal blocks in 3D printed specimens, a 25% lower interlayer shear strength and a 65% lower interfacial adhesion was achieved compared with un-modified interfaces. These changes attribute to the altered load transfer mechanism in 3D printed glass fiber reinforced composites and high strain to failure of up to 5% using high strength high stiffness fiber orientations. This work does not incorporate any new materials into the thermoplastic-fiber 3D printed structure which has been the strategy of past work to modify mechanical performance. Alternatively, a unique approach by using chamber and print bed temperature characteristics to modify the interfacial bond has been adopted that has shown to promote progressive failures and improve ductility in FRP composites. This study furthers the development of ductile designs in FRP composites with 3D printing technology in aerospace, wind, infrastructure, and automobile applications.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Innovations in Concrete and Construction Materials · Manufacturing Process and Optimization
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Department of Civil Engineering, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt
Gerlad May Department of Civil, Environmental and Construction Engineering, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Funding
Air Force Research Laboratory · University of New Mexico
References (35)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.09.02010.1016/j.compositesb.2013.09.020 ↗
2. Gautam M Potluri P Ogin S et al. Necking behaviour of flattened tubular braided composites. In: 20th international conference on composite materials Copenhagen Danemark 19–24 July 2015.
3. 10.1016/j.matdes.2014.10.00310.1016/j.matdes.2014.10.003 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2016.07.00310.1016/j.compositesa.2016.07.003 ↗
5. 10.1098/rspa.2010.005210.1098/rspa.2010.0052 ↗
6. Hyer MW, White SR. Stress analysis of fiber-reinforced composite materials. Lancaster, PA: DEStech Publications, Inc, 2009.
7. 10.1201/978142005829110.1201/9781420058291 ↗
8. 10.1002/978047061079410.1002/9780470610794 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.06.09110.1016/j.compstruct.2018.06.091 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.commatsci.2008.09.00410.1016/j.commatsci.2008.09.004 ↗
11. 10.1016/S0020-7683(99)00140-710.1016/S0020-7683(99)00140-7 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.mechmat.2006.02.00910.1016/j.mechmat.2006.02.009 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.mechmat.2006.02.01010.1016/j.mechmat.2006.02.010 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2010.11.00610.1016/j.ijmecsci.2010.11.006 ↗
15. 10.1017/S030500410005477310.1017/S0305004100054773 ↗
16. 10.1002/adem.20200082210.1002/adem.202000822 ↗
17. 10.1007/s00170-023-12014-810.1007/s00170-023-12014-8 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2023.10665510.1016/j.mtcomm.2023.106655 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2023.11091210.1016/j.compositesb.2023.110912 ↗
20. 10.1126/sciadv.170026210.1126/sciadv.1700262 ↗
21. 10.1080/09243046.2021.193049710.1080/09243046.2021.1930497 ↗
22. Reda Taha M. Soliman E.M. “Ductile FRP plates and reinforcing bars using mono-type fibers ” U.S. Patent Number 10 377 186 B2 issued July 2 2019.
23. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.07.01810.1016/j.compstruct.2016.07.018 ↗
24. 10.1016/0010-4361(74)90107-410.1016/0010-4361(74)90107-4 ↗
25. 10.1520/D3039_D3039M-1410.1520/D3039_D3039M-14 ↗
26. ASTM D. 2344-00: standard test method for apparent interlaminar shear strength of parallel fiber composites by short-beam method. West Conshohocken, PA: Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1984, p. 15.
27. Testing ASf and Materials. ASTM D1876: standard test method for peel resistance of adhesives (T-peel test). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2015.
28. Stark MS. Improving and understanding inter-filament bonding in 3d-printed polymers. Honors thesis, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 2016.
29. 10.3390/fib809005310.3390/fib8090053 ↗
30. Berthelot J-M. Matériaux composites: comportement mécanique et analyse des structures. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag New York Inc, 1999, 172.
31. 10.1002/pat.398510.1002/pat.3985 ↗
32. Callister WD, Rethwisch DG. Materials science and engineering: SI version. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2011.
33. Engkvist G. Investigation of microstructure and mechanical properties of 3D printed nylon. Master thesis, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden, 2017.
34. 10.1007/s00170-021-06997-510.1007/s00170-021-06997-5 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.10914310.1016/j.compositesb.2021.109143 ↗