Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
347
Weig
Specimen
Notch
Inertiabar
~I/-- ~pactor
Straingauge--I [
Specimen [ __
Notch
Specimen
or
/I
Straingauges
oe'P"tar
b
Fig. 1 (a) Charpy impact test; (b) Izod impact test; (c) tensile
Hopkinson-bar test; (d) gas gun
2. Izod test
The Izod impact test is shown schematically in Fig.
l(b). The test set-up and procedure are similar to those
outlined above. In the Izod test specimen is clamped in
the vertical plane as a cantilever beam and impacted by
a swinging pendulum at the unsupported end. The test
suffers similar problems to those reported above and
again is best suited as a tool for ranking the impact
resistance of composite materials.
2.
4. Hydraulic test machines
In recent years a number of workers have used hydraulic test machines for assessing the deformation and
failure characteristics of materials at high rates of
strain 23'24. Here, test geometries such as tensile dogbone specimens or double cantilever beam (DCB)type
specimens can be tested over a wide range of strain
rates The strain history of the specimen can be
measured using bonded strain gauges or an optical
transducer. If a strain gauge or any other displacement
measuring device is bonded to the specimen, the strain
rate sensitivity of the adhesive should be considered.
The advantage of this technique is that the test specimens permit the evaluation of basic material properties
such as tensile strength, modulus and interlaminar
fracture toughness without the contact effects associated with falling weight impact. Extreme care has to be
taken in order to ensure that the mass of the load cell
and gripping system are as low as possible since inertial
effects resulting from these components may conceal
the true material response24. Caution should also be
exercised when applying fracture mechanics principles
28
349
Conclusions
At present, no acceptable standard testing procedures
are available for impact testing of composite materials.
Consequently, a wide variety of testing procedures,
specimen geometries and data reduction techniques are
presently being employed. Pendulum techniques such
as the Charpy and Izod tests often require specimen
geometries that are not representative of component
dimensions and so are essentially suitable only for
ranking the impact response of composites. Dropweight rigs and gas guns offer more representative
approaches for assessing the impact response of these
materials. Greater use of instrumented impactors has
led to a deeper understanding of the processes of
energy absorption and dissipation in these materials.
Fibre
Table 1. Typical values of the energy absorbing capability of various continuous fibre composites for
different failure modes
Failure mode
Material
Splitting
Type II CF/epoxy
AS4/PEEK
0.1-1
3.8
Delamination
T300/epoxy
IM6/PEEK
0.1
2.2
Transverse
fibre fractu re
Treated CF/epoxy
Untreated CF/epoxy
AS4/PEEK
20
60
128
72
72
60
Fibre pull-out
CFIpolyester
CF/bismaleimide
26
800
104
105
Debonding
CF/epoxy
106
Reference
11
60
102
62
35
I
30 ~25 ~E
2O
Q.
.E
15-10
I t{,
0.0
0.2
I,
0.4
0.6
ii
,,,
0.8
1,
1.0
1.2
(1)
Wp = ~d~Fg2 4
351
given incident energy. The reductions in plain compressive properties of the composite appear to be offset by
the reduction in damage area.
2,
Conclusions
1200
~- 1000
.....
o..
(pE0~52;
Tension
~ 600
~, 400
n.-
Compression/I'I"
200
352
10
E
o
E
--
'-
0 O0
/ o
-~ Thermoset
o Experimental
O J
Toughened
thermoset
+ Thermoplastic
~
'~
E
O
a.
,'-
350 I
300
.."
250
00
E 450 7
400 ~-
AS4/907
AS4/1808-fi(m E
~ 350
==
C6000/1827-film A
_= 300
2I
AS4/1808-filrn A
AS4/1808
AS4/1808-fitm C
C60O0/1827
150
50
'~
150
100
"o
,
0.0
]M6/1808-film A
[M6/1808
250
~ l I
$
~:
, I , , , I I ~ , I. ,. , , I , , , I , L ,
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
Neat resin flexural strain to failure (%)
Fig. 4 Variation of residual compressive strength of impactdamaged composites with neat resin flexural failure strain
(Ref 57)
A$4/3502-fi{m A
AS4/3502
50
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
353
4000
AS4/1808:film E
E 3500
IM6/1808-film A
AS4/3502.film A
~ 3ooo
_~ 2500
AS4/1808-film C
IM6/3100-film E
IM6(3100-21-film E
2000
eAS4/1808-fiim A
C6000/18274ilm E
AS4/907
A54/1808
....... AS4/1808
l M o / I ~ u ~ C6000/1827
AS4/3502
1500
1000
I M 6 / 3 1 0 0 e I M 6 / 3 1 0 0 - 2 1
0
0
t
100
I
200
i
300
I
400
I
500
offer superior impact properties include thermoplasticbased composites and interleaved laminates. In recent
years considerable interest has been generated by
carbon fibre-reinforced PEEK (APC2), a semicrystalline thermoplastic compositea'~'59-62. Interlaminar fracture testing and impact loading have shown that
this material offers excellent static and dynamic toughness and is capable of absorbing a considerable amount
of energy whilst incurring only small amounts of
damage4,63,64. Scanning electron micrographs of the
fracture surfaces indicate extensive drawing and plastic
flow65. Another advantage of this material is that its
thermoplastic matrix allows rapid repair using fusion
techniques such as the hot press technique66. Here,
impact damage can be reduced or removed by simply
heating the component to a temperature above the
melting point of the matrix, reforming and cooling. The
high velocity impact response of carbon fibre/PEEK has
received very little attention. Initial testing has suggested that its high velocity impact response is perhaps
relatively poor. Dan-Jumbo et al. 59 showed that beyond
a certain velocity threshold, APC2 experienced a
sudden drop in flexural strength. Similar observations
have been observed by Morton and Godwin63 following
ballistic impact tests on this material. This will be
discussed in more detail in the section on rate effects.
These observations suggest, therefore, that care should
be exercised when attempting to relate static properties
such as interlaminar toughness and strength to characterize tlynamic properties such as impact resistance.
Polymer interleafing involves the use of high toughness
films or layers at ply interfaces in relatively brittle
materials. The inclusion of such layers increases the
laminate's interlaminar fracture toughness56 as well as
reducing the level of damage incurred for a given
incident energy67. The load-bearing properties of
damaged intedeafed composites are significantly
superior to those of conventional epoxy composites67.
Interlayer technology is still in its infancy; however,
early results are very favourable and the technique
offers enormous potential.
1. Effect of matrix properties on post-impact
residual strength
<.
O - -- -- Tough epoxy
Brittle epoxy
1200'
1000
80o
~
600
4o0
"0 .....
n-
200
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
,IL J ,I,
f ~
10.0
12.0
14.0
1000
~
- -
e-
Toughened epoxy
o Brittle epoxy
900,
800,
700
600
s~
400
72
8
200
100
0
2a
4I
6f
8~
Impact energy (J)
110
112
14
2.
Conclusions
1000
~
800
0 Untreated fibres
"
-=E
--600
'\l
I/J
Penetration
..- - O -
Interphase
The strength of the bond between the matrix resin and
the fibre reinforcement is a controlling factor in determining the mechanical performance of most polymer
composites. In general, the surface of the fibres is
treated by an oxidative process in order to improve the
level of adhesion between matrix and fibre. Initially,
this interracial zone was considered as being a twodimensional surface with effectively zero thickness.
However, more recent studies have shown that this
region is in fact three-dimensional, having its own
distinct properties 69.
Surface-treated fibres
(3.
10
12
14
2.
Conclusions
'[
T/T100
1.0
On/OnlO0
0.5
I
100
I
200
I
700
1.0
Treatment level
0%
o . . . . . 5%
" - - - - 100%
0~
~
A
tO
n
Tension
t3
v
.c 0.6
~,+\
\~,\
-~ 0.4
'~,,. ~.
"0
X~O~
o
...
1.6
~'II~
~+
~
"~_
=t .- - . _--.
.. .. .. .
1,2
1.0
Compression
0.0
O3
o.8
10
356
Lower [ Upper
surf~rface
'1,4
.....
0.2
............
".. . . . . . .
0.6
0.4
0,2
0.0
,,l..,n
, , , l . . , l , , , J , , , l . , , l , , , f . , , l , , ,
4
5
6
7
Target thickness (mm)
10
4I
35
A
cq
30
o
=
[ 05/90s/05
[ 0s/605/05
[ 05/455]0s
[ 05/30s/05
[ 05/15~/0~
[3
25
]
]
]
]
]
oo
++0~]
20
15
r~
+(
10
lid
C3
0
10
15
20
25
30
Impact energy (J)
35
40
45
50
1400
45 outside
1200 I
/ ~ 0 outside
I000 r
==
800 "
L
i
6OO
E
oo
/k
4O0
Jk
Geometry
r~
200 i
0
5
10
15
(3 Non-woven
Mixed-woven
.~
8o0
Qe-
g, coo
e--
A
W
.o_ 400
e~
E
o
~
200
3
4
Impact energy (J}
2. Conclusions
The impact resistance of a multidirectional laminate is
strongly dependent upon the specific orientation of the
plies. Unidirectional laminates should be avoided since
358
Length = 50 mm
n D
Length = 75 mm
Length = 100 mm
Length = 50 mm
Length = 75 mm
Length = 100 mm
U U
Length = 150 mm
Length = 150 mm
Conclusions
D Unstable
Stable
4000
CF/epoxy
E"
I
3000
ca
D=
mo
o
o o
oo
ta
o
o o
[]
oo
oo
1000
10-6
10-s
10-4
+,,
10-3
10-2
10-1
10 o
(s -~ )
Fig. 18 Variation o f Gic w i t h s t r a i n rate f o r c a r b o n fibre/PEEK
and a carbon fibre/epoxy composite (Refs 24 a n d 102)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial
support of the National Science Foundation Science
and Technology Center for High Performance
Polymers, Adhesives and their Composites at Virginia
Tech. This paper was originally submitted for 'Bonding
and Repair of Composites II', Zurich, Switzerland,
March 1991 (this conference was cancelled).
REFERENCES
1 Mmders, P.W. and Harris, W.C. 'A parametric study of composite performance in compression-after-impact testing'
SAMPE Journal 22 (1986) pp 47-51
2 Almy, M. 'Post damage capabilityofcarbon fibre reinforced
matrices' Proc lnt Conf on Polymersfor Composites (The
Plastics and Rubber Iost, London, UK, 1987) pp 11.1-11.10
3 Stellbrink, K.K.U. 'Improved impact damage tolerance' Proc
European Syrup on DamageDevelopmentand FailureProcesses
in CompositeMateriah edited by I. Verpoest and M. Wevers
(Leuven, Belgium, 1987)
4 Curson, A.D., Leach, D.C. and Moore, D.R. 'Impact failure
mechanisms in carbon fiber/PEEK composites' J Thermoplastic
Composite Mater3 (1990) pp 24-31
5 Redmk, S. and Sna, C.T. 'Optimal use of adhesive layers in
reducing impact damage in composite laminates' in Composite
Structures, Vol 2, DamageAssessmentand MaterialEvaluation
(Elsevier Applied Science Publ, 1987) pp 2.18-2.31
6 Hong, S. and IAu, D. 'On the relationship between impact
energy and delamination area' Exptl Mech 13 (1989) pp 115-120
7 Boll, D.J., Bracero, W.D., Weidaer, J.C. and Man'i, W.J. 'A
microscopy study of impact damage on epoxy-matrix carbon
fibre composites' ProcInt Conf on Post FailureAnalysis Techniquesfor FiberReinforced Composites, OH, USA, 1985paper 8
8 Takeda, N., Sierakewski, R.L., Ross, C.A. and Malvera, L.E.
'Delamination-crack propagation in ballistically impacted
glass/epoxy composite laminates' Expil Mech 4 (1980) pp 19-25
9 Takeda, N., Sierakowski, R.L. and Malvern, L.E. 'Transverse
cracks in glass/epoxy cross-ply laminates impacted by projectiles'
J MaterSci 16 (1981) pp 2D08-2011
10 Shadbelt, P.J., Cerraa, R.S.J. aad Ruiz, C. 'A preliminary
investigation of plate perforation by projectiles in the subordnance range' Report No 1372/81 (Univ of Oxford, UK, 1981)
11 Bradshaw, F.J., Derey, G. and Skley, G.R. 'Impact resistance of
carbon reinforced plastics' RAE TR 72240(MOD, 1972)
12 Avery, J.G. DesignManualfor Impact Damage TolerantAircraft
Structures, AGARDograph No 238 (NATO, 1981)
13 Retem, A. 'Residual flexural strength of FRP composite specimens subjected to transverse impact loa"drag'SAMPEJourna124
No 2 (1988) pp 19-25
14 Rea, C.A. and Sierakowski, R.L. 'Studies on the impact resistance of composite plates' Composites4 (1973) pp 157-161
15 Broatman, L.J. gad Retem, A. 'Impact strength and toughness
of fiber composite materials' in Foreign ObjectImpact Damage
to Composites, ASTM STP 568 (American Society for Testing
and Materials, 1975) pp 114--133
16 Helflmtim~,J.D. 'Charpy impact of unidirectional graphite/
aramid/epoxy hybrid composites' in CompositeMaterial~:
Testingand Design (Fourth Conference),ASTM STP 617
(American Society for Testing and Materials, 1977) pp 375-388
362
AUTHORS
W . J . C a n t w e l l , w h o is with t h e L a b o r a t o i r e d e P o l y m e r e s , E c o l e P o l y t e c h n i c F t d t r a l e d e L a u s a n n e , 1007
L a u s a n n e , S w i t z e r l a n d , is c u r r e n t l y a visiting scientist
at V i r g i n i a P o l y t e c h n i c I n s t i t u t e a n d S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
J. M o r t o n is w i t h t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f E n g i n e e r i n g
Science and Mechanics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
a n d S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , B l a c k s b u r g , V A 24061--0219,
USA.