journal article·2018-07-04

Strength evaluation of unidirectional carbon fiber-reinforced plastic laminates based on tension–compression biaxial stress tests

Keita Goto, Masahiro Arai, Masaomi Nishimura, Kazuki Dohi

Advanced Composite Materials· Volume 27· Issue 4
Publisher page

Abstract

Biaxial stress tests of carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP) laminates were performed to investigate failure criteria under biaxial loads. Specimens of unidirectional CFRP laminates were subjected to a tensile load in the longitudinal fiber direction and a compressive load in the transverse fiber direction. An exclusive jig was used to perform biaxial stress tests with a commonly used single-axis testing machine. Measurements were obtained by controlling the displacement ratio between compressive and tensile displacements. The critical tensile and compressive stresses were then calculated using a constitutive equation. The critical longitudinal tensile stress markedly dropped with increasing the compressive load. The failure criteria of the biaxial stress tests were expressed as the ellipse, of which the major and minor axes were the longitudinal tensile/transverse compressive strengths or fracture strains, respectively. Scanning electron microscope observations suggest that fiber/matrix interfacial debonding due to the compressive load could decrease the critical longitudinal tensile stress.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Structural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete · Structural Analysis and Optimization

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

Affiliations

Department of Aerospace Engineering, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan

Department of Mechanical Systems Engineering, Shinsyu University, Nagano, Japan

References (28)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/0010-4361(91)90201-Q10.1016/0010-4361(91)90201-Q ↗
2. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2010.04.01910.1016/j.compscitech.2010.04.019 ↗
3. 10.1080/09243046.2014.88254010.1080/09243046.2014.882540 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.06.00510.1016/j.compositesb.2016.06.005 ↗
5. 10.1080/09243046.2017.132507610.1080/09243046.2017.1325076 ↗
6. 10.1016/S0266-3538(98)00181-X10.1016/S0266-3538(98)00181-X ↗
7. 10.1080/09243046.2016.122668910.1080/09243046.2016.1226689 ↗
8. Hinton MJ · 2004
9. 10.1177/002199831244988510.1177/0021998312449885 ↗
10. 10.1177/002199831349947510.1177/0021998313499475 ↗
11. 10.1007/BF0232629210.1007/BF02326292 ↗
12. 10.1177/00219983670010021010.1177/002199836700100210 ↗
13. 10.1177/00219983710050010610.1177/002199837100500106 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.04.04810.1016/j.compstruct.2006.04.048 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2005.04.02310.1016/j.compositesa.2005.04.023 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2014.01.01610.1016/j.compositesa.2014.01.016 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.matdes.2015.11.11010.1016/j.matdes.2015.11.110 ↗
18. 10.1007/BF0111229810.1007/BF01112298 ↗
19. 10.1016/S0266-3538(01)00016-110.1016/S0266-3538(01)00016-1 ↗
20. 10.1016/S1359-835X(01)00142-710.1016/S1359-835X(01)00142-7 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.04.04910.1016/j.compstruct.2006.04.049 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.06.01110.1016/j.compstruct.2006.06.011 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2005.08.01110.1016/j.compscitech.2005.08.011 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2009.11.00410.1016/j.polymertesting.2009.11.004 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2013.10.01010.1016/j.compscitech.2013.10.010 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2015.10.01510.1016/j.polymertesting.2015.10.015 ↗
27. 10.1016/B978-0-12-374446-3.50010-810.1016/B978-0-12-374446-3.50010-8 ↗
28. 10.1299/kikaia.70.165810.1299/kikaia.70.1658 ↗