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