Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Damage to inverse hybrid laminate structures: an analysis of shear strength test Cover

Damage to inverse hybrid laminate structures: an analysis of shear strength test

Materials Science-Poland
Volume 40 (2022): Issue 1 (March 2022)
By: Mariusz Frankiewicz,  Grzegorz Ziółkowski,  Robert Dziedzic,  Tomasz Osiecki and  Peter Scholz  
Open Access
|Jul 2022

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1

Schematic comparison of fiber metal laminates: standard and inverse hybrid laminate (InverTec) [3]. FRP, fiber-reinforced polymer
Schematic comparison of fiber metal laminates: standard and inverse hybrid laminate (InverTec) [3]. FRP, fiber-reinforced polymer

Fig. 2

Example of fiber arrangement in S1 series laminates: variant 0° (S1.0) (A) and variant 90 (S1.90) (B). GF, glass fiber; PA, polyamide
Example of fiber arrangement in S1 series laminates: variant 0° (S1.0) (A) and variant 90 (S1.90) (B). GF, glass fiber; PA, polyamide

Fig. 3

Diagram of the process of forming an inverted hybrid laminate (InverTec)
Diagram of the process of forming an inverted hybrid laminate (InverTec)

Fig. 4

View of the ILSS test using a three-point-bending load (short beam test) [3]. ILSS, inter-laminar shear strength
View of the ILSS test using a three-point-bending load (short beam test) [3]. ILSS, inter-laminar shear strength

Fig. 5

Cross-sectional views and 3D images obtained with CT of series S1–S4 specimens in Variants 0 and 90. Colored areas on 3D images indicate damages caused by delaminations and cracks in the matrix. Defects marked on the images: springback damage (i), core and FRP delaminations (ii), matrix cracks in FRP layers in planes parallel to the bending axis (iii), and matrix cracks in planes perpendicular to the bending axis (iv). CT, computed tomography; FRP, fiber-reinforced polymer
Cross-sectional views and 3D images obtained with CT of series S1–S4 specimens in Variants 0 and 90. Colored areas on 3D images indicate damages caused by delaminations and cracks in the matrix. Defects marked on the images: springback damage (i), core and FRP delaminations (ii), matrix cracks in FRP layers in planes parallel to the bending axis (iii), and matrix cracks in planes perpendicular to the bending axis (iv). CT, computed tomography; FRP, fiber-reinforced polymer

Fig. 6

Views of the defects observed at the interface between the FRP and the Al6061 layers of series S1.0 specimens: detachment of FRP layers (i), slight delamination on the core surface (ii), and fiber bulking (iii). The areas marked within the squares are shown at different magnifications (B and C). The cross section seen is in the plane perpendicular to the bending line of series S1 specimen 0 (S1.0), as observed by SEM/BSD. FRP, fiber-reinforced polymer; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy
Views of the defects observed at the interface between the FRP and the Al6061 layers of series S1.0 specimens: detachment of FRP layers (i), slight delamination on the core surface (ii), and fiber bulking (iii). The areas marked within the squares are shown at different magnifications (B and C). The cross section seen is in the plane perpendicular to the bending line of series S1 specimen 0 (S1.0), as observed by SEM/BSD. FRP, fiber-reinforced polymer; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy

Fig. 7

Views of defects observed in series S1.90 specimens: matrix cracks (i) and (ii); GF cracks (iii). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B and C). The cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending line of series S1.90 specimen, as seen by SEM/BSD. GF, glass fiber; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy
Views of defects observed in series S1.90 specimens: matrix cracks (i) and (ii); GF cracks (iii). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B and C). The cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending line of series S1.90 specimen, as seen by SEM/BSD. GF, glass fiber; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy

Fig. 8

Views of defects in series S2.0 specimens: delamination (i), matrix cracks (ii) and (iii), and GF cracks (iv). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B, C, E). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, observed by SEM/BSD. GF, glass fiber; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy
Views of defects in series S2.0 specimens: delamination (i), matrix cracks (ii) and (iii), and GF cracks (iv). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B, C, E). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, observed by SEM/BSD. GF, glass fiber; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy

Fig. 9

Views of the damage to the series S2.90 specimens: matrix cracks (i), FRP and laminate core delamination (ii), matrix and GF delamination (iii), and GF cracks (iv). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–F). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, observed by SEM/BSD. FRP, fiber-reinforced polymer; GF, glass fiber; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy
Views of the damage to the series S2.90 specimens: matrix cracks (i), FRP and laminate core delamination (ii), matrix and GF delamination (iii), and GF cracks (iv). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–F). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, observed by SEM/BSD. FRP, fiber-reinforced polymer; GF, glass fiber; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy

Fig. 10

Views of the damage to the series S3.0 specimens: cracks on the laminate surface (i), bulking of GFs (ii), delamination of GFRP layers from the core (iii), and cracking of GFs (iv). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–E). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, viewed using SEM/BSD. GF, glass fiber; GFRP, glass fiber–reinforced polymer; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy
Views of the damage to the series S3.0 specimens: cracks on the laminate surface (i), bulking of GFs (ii), delamination of GFRP layers from the core (iii), and cracking of GFs (iv). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–E). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, viewed using SEM/BSD. GF, glass fiber; GFRP, glass fiber–reinforced polymer; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy

Fig. 11

Views of damage to the series S3.90 specimens: PA matrix cracks (i); delamination of GFRP layers from the core (ii); delamination of GFs and PA matrix (iii) and (iv); and PA matrix cracks in the CFRP layers (v). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–E). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, as observed by SEM/BSD. CFRP, carbon fiber-reinforced polymer; GF, glass fiber; GFRP, glass fiber-reinforced polymer; PA, polyamide; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy
Views of damage to the series S3.90 specimens: PA matrix cracks (i); delamination of GFRP layers from the core (ii); delamination of GFs and PA matrix (iii) and (iv); and PA matrix cracks in the CFRP layers (v). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–E). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, as observed by SEM/BSD. CFRP, carbon fiber-reinforced polymer; GF, glass fiber; GFRP, glass fiber-reinforced polymer; PA, polyamide; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy

Fig. 12

Views of damage to series S4.0 specimens: cracks in GFRP layers (i), delamination of GFRP layers from the core (ii), PA matrix cracks and fiber delamination in CFRP layers (iii), PA matrix cracks and CF bulking (iv), and GF cracks (v). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–D). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, viewed using SEM/BSD. CF, carbon fiber; CFRP, carbon fiber-reinforced polymer; GFRP, glass fiber–reinforced polymer; PA, polyamide; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy
Views of damage to series S4.0 specimens: cracks in GFRP layers (i), delamination of GFRP layers from the core (ii), PA matrix cracks and fiber delamination in CFRP layers (iii), PA matrix cracks and CF bulking (iv), and GF cracks (v). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–D). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, viewed using SEM/BSD. CF, carbon fiber; CFRP, carbon fiber-reinforced polymer; GFRP, glass fiber–reinforced polymer; PA, polyamide; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy

Fig. 13

Views of damage to the series S4.90 specimen: surface cracks in CFRP layers (i), cracks in GFRP layers (ii), delamination of GFRP layers and core (iii), PA matrix cracks and fiber delamination in CFRP layers (iv), CF bulking (v), and delamination of PA matrix and fibers in GFRP layers (vi). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–E). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, viewed using SEM/BSD2. CF, carbon fiber; CFRP, carbon fiber–reinforced polymer; GFRP, glass fiber–reinforced polymer; PA, polyamide; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy
Views of damage to the series S4.90 specimen: surface cracks in CFRP layers (i), cracks in GFRP layers (ii), delamination of GFRP layers and core (iii), PA matrix cracks and fiber delamination in CFRP layers (iv), CF bulking (v), and delamination of PA matrix and fibers in GFRP layers (vi). The indicated areas are shown at different magnifications (B–E). Cross section is in the plane perpendicular to the bending axis of the specimens, viewed using SEM/BSD2. CF, carbon fiber; CFRP, carbon fiber–reinforced polymer; GFRP, glass fiber–reinforced polymer; PA, polyamide; SEM/BSD, backscattered electron detector-based scanning electron microscopy

Parameters for the ILSS SBS test

SystemZwick\Roel 5.0
Temperature23°C
Humidity46%
Test speed (constant)2 mm/min
Span length8 mm
Bending die5 mm
Support rollers2 mm

Mean values of shear stresses τmax and τB determined by the ILSS SBS test for laminates listed in Table 3 [3]

τmax [MPa]τB [MPa]
Configuration
Series090090
S133.348.526.640.0
S249.620.744.216.0
S357.320.346.817.4
S452.641.742.735.6

Summary/classification of damage in laminate plies in relation to ply fiber orientation and stress distribution

Type of loadTensionCompression
FRP layer fiber arrangement090090

Parameters of variothermal consolidation of InverTec inverted laminate sheets

StepsPressure (bar)Temperature (°C)Time (min)
Heating and plasticizing of polymer matrix202606.5
Consolidation of the FRP composite302603.5
Cooling phase and solidification of the polymer melt306016.5

Configuration of the analyzed series of FMLs

SeriesConfiguration of FRP laminate layersLaminate code (variant 0°)Laminate code (variant 90°)
S13x CFR-TP PA6GF60[0G/90G/0G/Alu]s[90G/0G/90G/Alu]s
S23x CFR-TP PA6GF60 [03G/Alu]s {\left[ {0_3^G/{\rm{Alu}}} \right]_s} [903G/Alu]s {\left[ {90_3^G/{\rm{Alu}}} \right]_s}
S31x CFR-TP PA6CF60/4x-CFR-TP PA6GF60 [0C/04G/Alu]s {\left[ {{0^C}/0_4^G/{\rm{Alu}}} \right]_s} [90C/904G/Alu]s {\left[ {{{90}^C}/90_4^G/{\rm{Alu}}} \right]_s}
S41x CFR-TP PA6CF60/4x-CFR-TP PA6GF60[0C/90G/0G/90G/0G/Alu]s[90C/0G/90G/0G/90G/Alu]s
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/msp-2022-0016 | Journal eISSN: 2083-134X | Journal ISSN: 2083-1331
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 130 - 144
Submitted on: Jan 18, 2022
Accepted on: May 30, 2022
Published on: Jul 13, 2022
Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
interlaminar strength,
fiber metal laminates,
composite materials,
hybrid laminates
Related subjects:
Materials sciences,
Materials sciences, other,
Nanomaterials,
Functional and smart materials,
Materials characterization and properties

© 2022 Mariusz Frankiewicz, Grzegorz Ziółkowski, Robert Dziedzic, Tomasz Osiecki, Peter Scholz, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 40 (2022): Issue 1 (March 2022)Next article