Testing Progress Report

October 14, 2009
To: Mark Weitz

From: Justin Walsh
Subject: Material Testing Report – Tensile, Compressive, Impact and Shear
Evaluations of Boat Hull Laminates
Introduction
Combined efforts of Kennon and EdgeWater Boats seek to reduce the weight of boat hulls while
maintaining or improving boat performance. Boat hulls are commonly made from chop-
glass/polyester using an open mold spray layup. Kennon and Edgewater Boats are exploring the
effects of Vacuum Assisted Resin Transfer Molding (VARTM), developed for boats by
EdgeWater as Single Process Infusion, SPI™, and a variety of laminate schedules on hull weight
and performance. It has been requested for the material properties of laminates made by the SPI
infusion process to be measured relative to laminates made from chop glass. Panels provided by
EdgeWater Boats for material testing are designated as given below. Panels 1-7 were provided
in 24 inch by 24 inch cross sections varying from 0.05 to 0.125 inches in thickness. The 3DI
panel was provided as a 6 inch by 12 inch cross section measuring 0.3 inches in thickness.
Images of the panels received are given in Appendix A.
Panel Designation
• Panel 1: Open mold (chop glass) – blended resins

• Panel 2: SPI – blended resins (80% PE and 20% VE)
• Panel 3: SPI – 100% VE
• Panel 4: SPI – epoxy
• Panel 5: Ultra 1 – epoxy
• Panel 6: Ultra 2 – epoxy
• Panel 7: Ultra 2 – 100% VE
• Panel 8: 3DI
Contained within are tensile, compressive and in-plane shear results (*shear tests still to be
completed) for panels 1-7 as well as tensile, compressive and “Izod” impact results (*impact
tests still to be completed) for panel 8. Density was also measured for each of the panels to
allow for calculations of fiber volume fraction, specific strength and specific modulus. In-plane
shear tests were only explored for panels 1-7 because the thickness of panel 8 was not within the
specified thicknesses of the corresponding ASTM standard. Similarly, “Izod” impact tests were
not performed for panels 1-7 due to failure to meet thickness standards.
Test Methods
1
Material testing was conducted in accordance with current ASTM standards. The standards used
for each test are given below. Each test was conducted on five specimens of every panel.
Tensile Properties
• ASTM standard: D 638-08
• Tested 0º and 90º directions for panels 1-7
• Tested 0º direction for panel 8
Compressive Properties
• Tested 0º and 90º directions for panels 1-7
Izod Pendulum Impact Energy

• ASTM standard: D 256-06a
V-Notch Shear (In-Plane Shear)

• Tested 0º direction for panels 1-7
Test Specimens
Test specimens were cut, with exception of the notch in the Izod specimen, using a CNC
controlled OMAX. The notch in the Izod test specimens was machined by the University of
Wyoming machine shop in accordance with ASTM standard D-256. Images of these test
specimens are provided in Appendix A. Test specimens were dimensioned to meet ASTM
standards for each of the given tests. Dimensioned drawings of the specimens are also given in
Appendix A.
Tension Results
Average tensile strength and tensile modulus results for the eight materials are given in Table 1.
The elastic modulus of each tensile specimen was calculated for initial linear region of the stress-
strain relation. For comparative purposes the results in Table 1 and corresponding standard
deviations are plotted in Figures 1-4. Individual results for each specimen are given in Appendix
B. Stress-displacement plots and images of the specimens after loading are given in Appendices
C and D respectively. Selected stress-strain plots are provided in Figures 5 and 6 below to
display differences in material behavior. However, stress-strain plots for each of the tests ran are
not provided because extensometer slipping occurred, altering the stress-strain trend. Although
problems were encountered with the extensometer slipping, sufficient strain data was still
available for complete tensile characterization of the material.
2
Table 1: Average Tensile Strengths and Moduli
Panel 1 Panel 2 Panel 3 Panel 4 Panel 5 Panel 6 Panel 7 Panel 8
Axial 11.2 15.0 14.3 15.2 22.0 29.3 30.8 19.4
modulus E1,
GPa (Msi) (1.62) (2.18) (2.08) (2.20) (3.19) (4.24) (4.47) (2.82)
Transverse 12.7 13.6 12.8 15.3 35.5 39.5 40.0

modulus E2, ---
GPa (Msi) (1.84) (1.97) (1.86) (2.22) (5.15) (5.73) (5.80)
Axial
tensile 139 224 222 255 389 521 492 335
strength XT, (20.2) (32.5) (32.3) (37.0) (56.4) (75.6) (71.3) (48.6)
MPa (ksi)
Transverse
tensile 168 217 200 211 628 671 636
---
strength YT, (24.4) (31.4) (29.0) (30.7) (91.1) (97.2) (92.3)
MPa (ksi)
Figure 1: Axial Tensile Strength (psi)
3
Figure 2: Transverse Tensile Strength (psi)
Figure 3: Axial Tensile Modulus (psi)
4
Figure 4: Transverse Tensile Modulus (psi)
Figure 5: Panel 1 Tensile Stress-Strain Behavior
5
Figure 6: Panel 6 Tensile Stress-Strain Behavior
Tensile properties of the SPI laminates were all similar in magnitude and exhibited superior
tensile behavior as compared to the open mold laminate, which is to be expected. The SPI
laminate consisting of an epoxy resin appeared to show a slight (on the order of 10%) advantage
in axial strength as compared to the other SPI laminates. Also, the blended resin SPI laminate
appeared to exhibit slightly better properties than the 100% VE SPI laminate. Because of the
deviation of the measured data and the small differences between tensile properties of laminate
2-4, no clear advantage between resins observed from the results. However, during loading of
laminates 1-3, laminates made with VE, cracking was observed both visually (Figure 7) and
audibly (acoustic emissions from cracking).
Failure
Micro
Cracking
Figure 7: Cracking Prior to Failure (Panel 3)
6
Cracking at the micro scale, as depicted in Figure 7, occurred for laminates 1-3, but not for the
laminate manufactured using an epoxy resin (panel 4). Cracking was observed to occur at
roughly half the load at failure. Although these specimens exhibited strength on the same order
as the epoxy SPI laminate, cracking of the matrix prior to failure has certain implications on the
endurance of the material.
3DI tensile specimens exhibited significantly higher strengths and moduli than the SPI and open
mold glass-reinforced specimens. The average strength and modulus of 3DI was approximately
20% greater than the SPI laminate infused with an epoxy resin (panel 4), which exhibited the
highest properties of the three SPI laminates. Difference in tensile properties between these
specimens is most likely largely attributed to differences in fiber volume content. Stress-strain
relations of panels 1-4 were non-linear as displayed in Figure 5. This suggests that panels 1-4
are matrix dominant laminates, which correlates to a low fiber volume. Panels 5-8 all exhibited
hookean stress-strain relations similar to results displayed in Figure 6. Therefore, the 3DI
laminate is likely to have a larger fiber volume fraction than the other glass-reinforced laminates.
Actual fiber volume fractions are calculated in the “Analysis of Results” section.
3DI tensile specimens did not experience complete failure. Failure only occurred on one side of
the laminate as displayed in Figure 8. The material cracked up to the CFM layer and
delaminated along the CFM.
Delamination Failure
Along CFM
Figure 8: Delamination of 3DI Tensile Specimen
The 3DI laminate is not symmetric. It consists of differing number of plies on each side of the
CFM layer. Failure occurred on the side of the CFM containing less plies. The CFM layer acts
as a material with effectively no strength separating the two sides of the laminates. Therefore,
strength of this laminate is limited by the ply of CFM.
Ultra 1 and Ultra 2 laminates (panels 5-7) exhibited the highest tensile properties of the materials
tested. Of the two carbon-Kevlar hybrid laminate schedules, the Ultra 2 exhibited the greater
tensile properties. The Ultra 2 laminate infused with an epoxy resin (panel 6) exhibited a higher
tensile strength than the vinyl ester infused Ultra 2 laminate (panel 7). Difference in these
strengths is approximately 5%. Elastic Moduli of the two Ultra 2 laminates were similar in
magnitude. Consistent with results from the SPI laminates, a clear advantage in strength can be
seen in using an epoxy matrix over a vinyl ester matrix for the Ultra 2 panels.
Ultra laminates exhibited lower strength and stiffness in the axial direction than in the transverse
direction. This suggests that more reinforcing material is oriented at 90º than at 0º. Significant
7
scatter was also observed in the results of the Ultra panels. This is attributed to the heterogeneity
of the material, which can be seen in Appendix A. Due to the heterogeneity, each test specimen
had a different composition of reinforcing material. The Ultra laminate schedule is also non-
symmetric with Kevlar placed on only one side of the laminates. Lack of laminate symmetry
calls into question the validity of the calculated elastic modulus for the Ultra laminates.
Compression Results
Average compressive strength results for the eight materials are given in Table 2. For
comparative purposes the results in Table 2 and corresponding standard deviations are plotted in
Figures 9 and 10. Individual results for each specimen are given in Appendix B. Stress-
displacement plots and images of the specimens after loading are given in Appendices C and D
respectively.
Table 2: Average Compressive Strengths

Axial
compressive 230 245 268 228 179 213 134 303
strength XC, (33.7) (35.5) (38.8) (33.0) (25.9) (30.9) (19.5) (43.9)
MPa (ksi)
Tranverse
compressive 250 225 208 218 202 208 168
---
strength YC, (36.3) (32.7) (30.2) (31.7) (29.3) (30.2) (24.3)
MPa (ksi)
8
Figure 9: Axial Compressive Strength (psi)
Figure 10: Transverse Compressive Strength (psi)
9
Compression strength results for glass-reinforced laminates are greater than carbon-reinforced
laminates. Of the glass-reinforced laminates, the 3DI laminate exhibited the largest strength.
The Ultra 2 laminate infused with an epoxy resin achieved higher strength than the Ultra 2
laminate infused with a vinyl ester resin. This again displays the advantage of infusing a
laminate with epoxy over a vinyl ester.
3DI compression specimens differ in geometry from the other compression specimens. Panel 1-
7 compression specimens were cut as dog bone specimens while panel 8 compression specimens
are rectangular. Differences in the geometries can be seen in Appendix A. These geometries
were created to meet ASTM standard D-695.
In the compression tests two types of failure were observed. Failure either occurred through the
center of the specimen or by brooming/crushing that occurred at the either the applied load or the
fixture base. Both of these failures are likely due to fiber buckling. Failure due to brooming is
displayed in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Brooming/Crushing of 3DI Compression Specimen
Brooming occurred for all of the 3DI compression specimens and was also the cause of a large
number of failures in the Ultra compression specimens. Individual specimens that failed from
brooming are noted in Tables 8 and 9 in Appendix B. Specimens that failed through the center
(displayed in Appendix D) exhibited strengths similar in magnitude to specimens that failed due
to brooming.
Analysis of Results
Because the goal of this project is to reduce weight while maintaining or improving performance,
it is useful to provide density normalized properties such as specific strength and specific
modulus. These normalized properties allow for a direct comparison between materials in terms
of strength-to-weight and stiffness-to-weight performances respectively. Composite material
mechanical properties are also greatly contingent upon fiber volume fraction. Thus, fiber
volume fractions are also calculated in that which follows.
In order to calculate density normalized properties and fiber volume fractions the density of the
composite is required. Densities of each of the materials were calculated from measured test
10
specimen masses and volumes. Calculated densities, specific strengths and specific moduli are
provided in Table 3. For comparative purposes, specific modulus was plotted versus specific
strength for both axial (Figure 12) and transverse (Figure 13) tensile results. These figures serve
as a useful tool for material selection
Density of the constituents was also required to calculate fiber volume fractions. Tabulated
constituent densities were used for this purpose. Fiber volume fraction is defined as,
vf=VfVc
where Vf is the volume of the fiber and Vc is the volume of the composite. The following
equation was used to solve for fiber volume fractions:
ρc= ρcvc= ρfvf+ρmvm
where vm is the matrix volume fraction and can be written as
vm=1-vf.
By satisfying the above equations fiber volume fractions given in Table 3 were calculated.
Table 3: Physical and Density Normalized Properties

Density,
1.47 1.47 1.48 1.479 1.37 1.39 1.39 1.73
g/cm3
Fiber 0.46 0.50
volume 0.43
fraction vf, 0.25 .025 0.25 0.23 (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) 0.41
(carbon) (0.18)
(Kevlar) (0.16) (0.15)
Specific
axial
95 152 151 173 265 354 335 228
strength,
kNm/kg
Specific
transverse
114 148 136 144 427 456 433 ---
strength,
kNm/kg
Specific 7.6 10.2 9.7 10.3 15.0 19.9 21.0 13.2
11
axial
modulus,
MNm/kg
Specific
transverse
8.6 9.3 8.7 10.4 24.1 26.9 27.2 ---
modulus,
MNm/kg
Figure 12: Axial Specific Moduli vs. Specific Strength
12
Figure 13: Transverse Specific Moduli vs. Specific Strength
13
Figures 12 and 13 display the clear advantage of carbon-reinforced composites over glass-
reinforced composites. SPI produces a laminate with better strength-to-weight and stiffness-
weight properties than a laminate manufactured using an open mold process. The 3DI laminate
exhibits the highest weight normalized mechanical properties of all the glass-reinforced
materials. This is due to differences in fiber volume fraction. The fiber volume fraction of the
3DI laminate is approximately 40% as compared to 25% for the other glass-reinforced
specimens. 15% is a significant difference in fiber volume fractions and is the reason that the
3DI laminate exhibited a higher tensile strength and modulus. Although increase in fiber volume
fraction increases the density, the increase in strength and stiffness from the increased fiber
content outweighs the negative effect of an increase in laminate density.
Conclusions
Glass-reinforced SPI infused laminates performed better in tension and compression than the
glass-reinforced laminate made from an open mold process. The Ultra 2 exhibited the greatest
tensile strength and modulus. Compressive properties of glass-reinforced laminates were higher
than that of carbon-reinforced laminates. This is to be expected as carbon-reinforced composites
typically perform poorly in compression. In both tensile and compression results epoxy infused
laminates proved to perform slightly better than laminates infused with vinyl ester.
In terms of specific strength and specific modulus, carbon-reinforced laminates are ideal. The
3DI laminate was also shown to be advantageous over the other glass-reinforced laminates. This
was largely due to differences in fiber volume content. By increasing the fiber volume fraction
in the SPI laminates would likely perform similarly to the 3DI laminate. One disadvantage of
the laminate schedule for the 3DI laminate is the inclusion of the CFM layer. This layer is a
limiting factor in the performance of the laminate due to delaminations shown to occur along the
layer in tensile testing. It is of the opinion of the author that the CFM layer will also be a
performance limiting factor in other loading scenarios (i.e. flexure).
14
Appendix A: Material and Test Specimens
Section A.1: Materials as Received
Figure 14: Panel 1 (2'x2')
15
16
17
18
Figure 21: Panel 8 (6"x12")
19
Section A.2: Panels 1-7 Test Specimens Prior to Loading
Figure 22: Panels 1-7 (Left to Right) Tensile Specimens
Figure 23: Panels 1-7 (Left to Right) Compression Specimens
Figure 24: Panels 1-7 (Left to Right) Shear Specimens
20
Section A.2: Panel 8 Test Specimens
Figure 25: Panel8 Tensile (Left) and Compression (Right) Specimens
21
Section A.3: Test Specimen Dimensioned Engineering Drawings
Figure 26: Tensile Specimen Geometries (ASTM D 638)
22
Figure 27: Compression Specimen Geometries for Panels 1-7 (ASTM D 695)
23
Figure 28: Compression Specimen Geometries for Panel 8 (ASTM D 695)
24
Figure 29: Shear Specimen Geometries for Panels 1-7 (ASTM D 5379)
25
Figure 30: Izod Impact Specimen Geometries for Panel 8 (ASTM D 256)
26
Appendix B: Tabulated Results for Each Sample
Section B.1: Axial Tensile Results
Table 4: Axial Tensile Strength Results
Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel panel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Samp XT XT XT XT XT XT XT XT
le (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)
1 17.5 29.4 31.7 42.1 57.8 70.4 64.7 48.1
2 23.4 32.4 33.2 35.0 60.2 72.6 72.9 44.2
3 20.4 34.4 31.2 36.3 58.8 79.6 71.1 47.8
4 17.0 32.1 33.1 35.5 59.6 78.5 73.0 51.0
5 22.8 34.3 32.3 35.9 45.6 76.9 74.8 51.7
Ave 20.2 32.5 32.3 37.0 56.4 75.6 71.3 48.6

StDev 2.9 2.0 0.9 2.9 6.1 4.0 3.9 3.0
Table 5: Axial Tensile Modulus Results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Samp E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1
le (Msi) (Msi) (Msi) (Msi) (Msi) (Msi) (Msi) (Msi)
1 1.36 1.87 1.85 2.13 3.19 3.77 5.67 2.95
2 1.54 2.21 1.91 2.34 3.39 3.98 3.48 2.61
3 1.76 2.13 2.08 2.33 3.12 4.45 4.83 2.89
4 1.46 2.11 2.34 2.01 2.93 4.26 3.42 ---
5 1.99 2.57 2.21 2.20 3.34 4.76 4.94 ---
Mean 1.62 2.18 2.08 2.20 3.19 4.24 4.47 2.82

StDev 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.14 0.18 0.39 0.98 0.18
27
Section B.2: Transverse Tensile Results
Table 6: Transverse Tensile Strength Results
Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sam YT YT YT YT YT YT YT
ple (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)
1 23.1 33.0 30.2 30.3 78.4 100.5 93.2
2 23.7 30.6 28.8 30.5 86.0 102.8 95.0
3 24.4 32.5 29.4 32.0 107.2 108.5 93.9
4 25.7 28.4 27.1 26.7 93.2 87.2 92.6
5 25.1 32.8 29.7 34.0 90.9 87.2 86.8
Ave 24.4 31.4 29.0 30.7 91.1 97.2 92.3

StDev 1.0 2.0 1.2 2.7 10.6 9.6 3.2
Table 7: Transverse Tensile Modulus Results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sam E2 E2 E2 E2 E2 E2 E2
ple (Msi) (Msi) (Msi) (Msi) (Msi) (Msi) (Msi)
1 1.74 2.32 1.36 2.03 5.12 6.27 5.74
2 1.81 1.64 2.09 2.03 5.14 6.30 5.80
3 1.92 2.10 1.74 2.24 4.90 5.64 5.59
4 1.74 1.94 1.67 2.44 --- 5.13 5.53
5 1.97 1.87 2.44 2.35 5.47 5.32 6.31
Ave 1.84 1.97 1.86 2.22 5.16 5.73 5.80

StDev 0.10 0.25 0.41 0.19 0.23 0.54 0.31
28
Section B.3: Axial and Transverse Compression Results
Table 8: Axial Compressive Strength Results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Sam XC XC XC XC XC XC XC XC
ple (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)
1 31.8 35.7 37.4 38.0 26.2 29.2 19.9* ---
2 32.8 32.3 35.6 32.3* 28.4 31.5* 18.0* 40.8*
3 33.1 37.0 41.4 32.7* 25.3 33.1 20.5* 44.9*
4 35.5 35.2 43.6 30.4* 26.6* 33.8* 18.6* 43.1*
5 33.6 37.4 36.1 31.8* 23.1 26.9* 20.4* 46.9*
Ave 33.4 35.5 38.8 33.0 25.9 30.9 19.5 43.9

StDev 1.4 2.0 3.5 2.9 2.0 2.9 1.1 2.6
* Crushing/brooming occurred at applied load or support base
Table 9: Transverse Compressive Strength Results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sam YC YC YC YC YC YC YC
ple (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)
1 36.3 31.4 31.9 28.1 29.3 31.9* 22.7*
2 37.1 30.2 28.0 32.9 29.0 30.9* 24.2*
3 32.7 33.9 30.9 33.3 29.7 30.4* 26.3*
4 36.6 36.7 26.7 31.9 29.1 29.2 23.0
5 38.8 31.2* 33.5 32.1 --- 28.3 25.5*
Ave 36.3 32.7 30.2 31.7 29.3 30.2 24.3

StDev 2.2 2.6 2.8 2.1 0.3 1.4 1.6
* Crushing/brooming occurred at applied load or support base
29
Appendix C: Stress-Displacement Figures
Section C.1: Tension Results
Figure 31: Panel 1 0º Tensile Stress - Displacement
30
31
32
Figure 34: Panel 2 90º Tensile Stress – Displacement
33
Figure 37: Panel 4 0º Tensile Stress – Displacement
34
35
36
37
38
Section C.2: Compression Results
Figure 46: Panel 1 0º Compressive Stress – Displacement
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Appendix D: Test Specimens after Loading
Section D.1: Axial Tensile Specimens after Loading
47
Back
Fron
t
48
Figure 61: Panel 1 Axial Tensile Specimens after Loading
49
Back
Fron
t
50
51
Back
Fron
t
52
53
Back
Fron
t
54
55
Back
Fron
t
56
57
Back
Fron
t
58
59
Back
Fron
t
60
Figure 67: Panel 7
61
Axial Tensile Specimens after Loading
62
Section D.2: Transverse Tensile Specimens after Loading
63
Back
Fron
t
64
Figure 69: Panel 1 Transverse Tensile Specimens after Loading
65
Back
Fron
t
66
67
Back
Fron
t
68
69
Back
Fron
t
70
71
Back
Fron
t
72
73
Back
Fron
t
74
75
76
Back
Fron
t
Section D.3: Axial Compression Specimens after Loading
77
Back
Fron
t
78
Figure 76: Panel 1 Axial Compression Specimens after Loading
79
Back
Fron
t
80
81
Back
Fron
t
82
83
Back
Fron
t
84
85
Back
Fron
t
86
87
Back
Fron
t
88
89
Back
Fron
t
90
91
92
Side
Fron
t
Section D.1: Transverse Compression Specimens after Loading
Back
Fron
t
93
Figure 84: Panel 1 Transverse Compression Specimens after Loading
94
Back
Fron
t
95
96
Back
Fron
t
97
98
Back
Fron
t
99
100
Back
Fron
t
101
102
Back
Fron
t
103
104
Back
Fron
t
105
106
107

Testing Progress Report

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Testing Progress Report

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

October 14, 2009

To: Mark Weitz

• Panel 1: Open mold (chop glass) – blended resins

Izod Pendulum Impact Energy

V-Notch Shear (In-Plane Shear)

Transverse 12.7 13.6 12.8 15.3 35.5 39.5 40.0

Figure 1: Axial Tensile Strength (psi)

Figure 3: Axial Tensile Modulus (psi)

Figure 5: Panel 1 Tensile Stress-Strain Behavior

Figure 7: Cracking Prior to Failure (Panel 3)

Figure 8: Delamination of 3DI Tensile Specimen

Table 2: Average Compressive Strengths

Panel 1 Panel 2 Panel 3 Panel 4 Panel 5 Panel 6 Panel 7 Panel 8

Figure 10: Transverse Compressive Strength (psi)

Figure 11: Brooming/Crushing of 3DI Compression Specimen

ρc= ρcvc= ρfvf+ρmvm

where vm is the matrix volume fraction and can be written as

Table 3: Physical and Density Normalized Properties

Figure 12: Axial Specific Moduli vs. Specific Strength

Section A.1: Materials as Received

Figure 14: Panel 1 (2'x2')

Figure 16: Panel 3 (2'x2')

Figure 18: Panel 5 (2'x2')

Figure 20: Panel 7 (2'x2')

Figure 22: Panels 1-7 (Left to Right) Tensile Specimens

Figure 23: Panels 1-7 (Left to Right) Compression Specimens

Figure 24: Panels 1-7 (Left to Right) Shear Specimens

Figure 25: Panel8 Tensile (Left) and Compression (Right) Specimens

Figure 26: Tensile Specimen Geometries (ASTM D 638)

Section B.1: Axial Tensile Results

Table 4: Axial Tensile Strength Results

Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel panel

Ave 20.2 32.5 32.3 37.0 56.4 75.6 71.3 48.6

Table 5: Axial Tensile Modulus Results

Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel panel

Mean 1.62 2.18 2.08 2.20 3.19 4.24 4.47 2.82

Table 6: Transverse Tensile Strength Results

Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel

Ave 24.4 31.4 29.0 30.7 91.1 97.2 92.3

Table 7: Transverse Tensile Modulus Results

Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel

Ave 1.84 1.97 1.86 2.22 5.16 5.73 5.80

Table 8: Axial Compressive Strength Results

Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel panel

Ave 33.4 35.5 38.8 33.0 25.9 30.9 19.5 43.9

Table 9: Transverse Compressive Strength Results

Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel Panel

Ave 36.3 32.7 30.2 31.7 29.3 30.2 24.3

Section C.1: Tension Results

Figure 31: Panel 1 0º Tensile Stress - Displacement

Figure 35: Panel 3 0º Tensile Stress - Displacement

Figure 37: Panel 4 0º Tensile Stress – Displacement

Figure 39: Panel 5 0º Tensile Stress - Displacement

Figure 41: Panel 6 0º Tensile Stress - Displacement

Figure 43: Panel 7 0º Tensile Stress - Displacement

Figure 45: Panel 8 0º Tensile Stress - Displacement

Figure 46: Panel 1 0º Compressive Stress – Displacement

Figure 48: Panel 2 0º Compressive Stress – Displacement

Figure 50: Panel 3 0º Compressive Stress – Displacement

Figure 52: Panel 4 0º Compressive Stress – Displacement

Figure 54: Panel 5 0º Compressive Stress – Displacement

Figure 56: Panel 6 0º Compressive Stress – Displacement

Figure 58: Panel 7 0º Compressive Stress – Displacement