The Influence of G I and G II on the compression after impact strength of carbon fiber/epoxy laminates

Abstract

This study measured the compression after impact strength of IM7 carbon fiber laminates made from epoxy resins with various mode I and mode II toughness values to observe the effects of these toughness values on the resistance to damage formation and subsequent residual compression strength-carrying capabilities. A total of seven different epoxy resin systems were used ranging in approximate G_I values of 245–665 J/m² and approximate G_II values of 840–2275 J/m². The results for resistance to impact damage formation showed that there was a direct correlation between G_II and the planar size of damage as measured by thermography. Subsequent residual compression strength testing suggested that G_I had no influence on the measured values and most of the difference in compression strength was directly related to the size of damage. Thus, delamination growth assumed as an opening type of failure mechanism does not appear to be responsible for the loss of compression strength.

Keywords

Compression after impact delamination growth kink band mode I mode II

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Byers BA. Behavior of damaged graphite/epoxy laminates under compression loading. NASA Contractor Report. Report no. 159293, August 1980, Hampton, VA: NASA.

Chai

Babcock

Knauss

. One dimensional modeling of failure in laminated plates by delamination buckling. Int J Solid 1981; 17: 1069–1083.

Chai

Knauss

Babcock

. Observation of damage growth in compressively loaded laminates. Exp Mech 1983; 23: 329–337.

Chai

Babcock

. Two-dimensional modeling of compressive failure in delaminated laminates. J Compos Mater 1985; 19: 67–98.

Suemasu

Kumagai

Gozu

. Compressive behavior of multiply delaminated composite laminates part 1: experiment and analytical development. AIAA J 1998; 36: 1279–1285.

Gottesman

Girshovich

Drukker

et al.

Residual strength of impacted composites: analysis and tests. J Compos Tech Res 1994; 16: 244–255.

Ishikawa

Sugimuto

Matsushima

et al.

Some experimental findings in compression-after-impact (CAI) tests of CF/PEEK (APC-2) and conventional CF/Epoxy flat plates. Compos Sci Tech 1995; 55: 349–363.

de Freitas

Reis

. Failure mechanisms on composites specimens subjected to compression after impact. Compos Struct 1998; 42: 365–373.

Greenhalgh E and Singh S. Investigation of the failure mechanisms for delamination growth from embedded defects. In: Proceedings ICCM 12, Paris, 5–9 July 1999.

10.

Short

Guild

Pavier

. The effect of delamination geometry on the compressive failure of composite laminates. Compos Sci Tech 2001; 61: 2075–2086.

11.

Jones

Baker

Callinan

. Residual strength of impact damaged composites. Compos Struct 1984; 2: 371–372.

12.

Aoki Y, Kondo H and HattaH. Effect of delamination propagation on mechanical behavior in compression after impact. In: Proceedings 16th international conference on composite materials, Kyoto, Japan, 8–13 July 2007.

13.

Subramanian A, Dayal V and Barnard DJ. Damage characterization of carbon/epoxy laminates using compression-after-impact (CAI) and ultrasonic NDE. In: American Institute of Physics conference proceedings 1511, Ames, Iowa, 1 July 2012.

14.

Rhead

Butler

. Compression static strength model for impact damaged laminates. Compos Sci Tech 2009; 69: 2301–2307.

15.

Harman

Litchfield

Thomson

. Preliminary review of physically based methodologies for predicting the strength of visibly damaged composite laminates. Mater Sci Forum 2010; 654–656: 2587–2591.

16.

Shivakumar KN and Whitcomb JD. Buckling of a sublaminate in a quasi-isotropic composite laminate. NASA Technical Memorandum 85755, 1984. Hampton, VA: NASA.

17.

Finn SR and Springer GS. Compressive strength of damaged and repaired composite plates. In: Proceedings of the ninth Dod/NASA/FAA conference on fibrous composites in structural design, Lake Tahoe, NV, 4–7 November, 1991, pp. 1083–1095. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Technical Center.

18.

Butler

Rhead

Liu

et al.

Compressive strength of delaminated aerospace composites. Phil Trans R Soc A 2012; 370: 1759–1779.

19.

Xie

Biggers

. Delamination growth and residual strength of compressively loaded sandwich panels with stiffness tailored face sheets. J Sandw Struct Mater 2009; 11: 133–150.

20.

Zhou

Rivera

. Investigation for the reduction of in-plane compressive strength in preconditioned thin composite panels. J Compos Mater 2005; 39: 391–421.

21.

Rhead

Butler

Baker

. Analysis and compression testing of laminates optimized for damage tolerance. Appl Compos Mater 2011; 18: 85–100.

22.

Woodward MR, Owens SD, Law GE et al. Applications of damage tolerance analysis methodology in aircraft design and production. General Dynamics Technical Paper 1991: (pp. 1071–1081), https://archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_19950022062 (1992, accessed 23 June 2017).

23.

Yan

Oskay

Krishnan

et al.

Compression-after-impact response of woven fiber-reinforced composites. Compos Sci Tech 2010; 70: 2128–2136.

24.

Ireman

Thesken

Greenhalgh

et al.

Damage propagation in composite structural elements-coupon experiments and analyses. Compos Struct 1996; 36: 209–220.

25.

Fink BK, Monib AM and Gillespie JW. Damage tolerance of thick-section composites subjected to ballistic impact. ARL-TR-2477, Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, May 2001.

26.

Suemasu

Sasaki

Ishikawa

et al.

A numerical study on compressive behavior of composite plates with multiple circular delaminations considering delamination propagation. Compos Sci Tech 2014; 111: 147–157.

27.

De Moura

Goncalves

Marques

et al.

Modelling compression failure after low velocity impact on laminated composites using interface elements. J Compos Mater 1997; 31: 1462–1479.

28.

Kinawy M and Butler R. Face damage growth of sandwich composites under compressive loading. In: Proceedings ICCM 17, Edinburgh, UK, 27–31 July 2009.

29.

Reeder JR, Chunchu PB, Song K, et al. Postbuckling and growth of delaminations in composites plates subjected to axial compression. In: 43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, Denver, CO, 22–25 April 2002.

30.

Masters

. Improved impact and delamination resistance through interleafing. Key Eng Mater 1989; 37: 317–348.

31.

Recker

Altstadt

Eberle

et al.

Toughened thermosets for damage tolerant carbon fiber reinforced composites. SAMPE J 1990; 26: 73–78.

32.

Kuwata M. Mechanisms of interlaminar fracture toughness using non-woven veils as interleaf materials. PhD Thesis, Queen Mary, University of London, UK, 2010.

33.

Poe CC, Portanova MA, Masters JE, et al. Comparison of impact results for several polymeric composites over a wide range of low impact velocities. NASA Conference Publication 3104, 1993. Hampton, VA: NASA.

34.

Prichard

Hogg

. The role of impact damage in post-impact compression testing. Composites 1990; 21: 503–511.

35.

Ghasemi Nejhad

Parvizi-Majidi

. Impact behavior and damage tolerance of woven carbon fibre-reinforced thermoplastic composites. Composites 1990; 21: 155–168.

36.

Dempsey RL and Horton RE. Damage tolerance evaluation of several elevated temperature graphite composite materials. In: Proceedings 35th international SAMPE symposium, Anaheim, CA, 2–5 April 1990, pp.1292–1305. Society for the Advancement of Material and Process Engineering.

37.

Cantwell

Curtis

Morton

. An assessment of the impact performance of CFRP reinforced with high-strain carbon fibres. Compos Sci Tech 1986; 25: 133–148.

38.

Dow MB and Smith DL. Properties of two composite materials made of toughened epoxy resin and high-strain graphite Fiber. NASA Technical Paper 2826, July 1988. Hampton, VA: NASA.

39.

Cartie

DDR

Irving

. Effect of resin and fibre properties on impact and compression after impact performance of CFRP. Compos: Part A 2002; 33: 483–493.

40.

Hodge AJ, Nettles AT and Jackson JR. Comparison of open-hole compression strength and compression after impact strength on carbon fiber/epoxy laminates for the ASRES I composite interstage. NASA Technical Paper 216460, 2011. Hampton, VA: NASA.

41.

Soutis

Smith

Matthews

. Predicting the compressive engineering performance of carbon fiber-reinforced plastics. Compos: Part A 2000; 31: 531–536.

42.

Guild

Hogg

Prichard

. A model for the reduction in compression strength of continuous fiber composites after impact damage. Compos 1993; 24: 333–339.

43.

Soutis

Curtis

. Prediction of the post-impact compressive strength of CFRP laminated composites. Compos Sci Tech 1996; 56: 677–684.

44.

Puhul

Zhen

Jun Yang

. A new method for compression after impact strength prediction of composite laminates. J Compos Mater 2002; 36: 589–610.

45.

Bull DJ, Spearing SM and Sinclair I. Quasi-static indentation and compression after impact damage growth monitoring using microfocus X-Ray computed tomography. In: Proceedings 19th international conference on composite materials, Montreal, Canada, 28 July–2 August 2013.

46.

Revallant

Bouvet

Abi Abdallah

et al.

Experimental analysis of CFRP laminates subjected to compression after impact: the role of impact-induced cracks in failure. Compos Struct 2014; 111: 147–157.

47.

Edgren

Asp

Bull

. Compressive failure of impacted NCF composite sandwich panels – Characterization of the failure process. J Compos Mater 2004; 38: 495–514.

48.

Czabaj

Zehnder

Davidson

et al.

Compressive strength of honeycomb-stiffened graphite/epoxy sandwich panels with barely-visible indentation damage. J Compos Mater 2014; 48: 2455–2471.

49.

Edgren

Soutis

Asp

. Damage tolerance analysis of NCF composite sandwich panels. Compos Sci Tech 2008; 68: 2635–2645.

50.

Edgren F. Compressive failure of NCF composites. In: Proceedings American Society for composites, twentieth technical conference, Philadelphia, PA, 7–9 September 2005, paper no. 26.

51.

Lee J, Soutis C and Kong C. Prediction of compression-after-impact (CAI) strength of CFRP laminated composites. In: Proceedings 18th international conference on composite materials, Jeju, Korea, 21–26 August 2011.

52.

Portanova MA. Evaluation of the impact response of textile composites. NASA Contractor Report 198265, 1995. Hampton, VA: NASA.

53.

Bull

Spearing

Sinclair

. Observations of damage development from compression-after-impact experiments using ex situ micro-focus computed tomography. Compos Sci Tech 2014; 97: 106–114.

54.

O'Brien TK, Johnston WM and Toland GJ. Mode II interlaminar fracture toughness and fatigue characterization of a graphite epoxy composite material. NASA Technical Memorandum 2010-216838, 2010. Hampton, VA: NASA.

55.

Standard test method for mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites. ASTM standard D5528-01, American Society for Testing and Materials Annual Book of standards, vol. 15.03, pp.284–295, 2013.

56.

Standard test method for open-hole compressive strength of polymer matrix composite laminates. ASTM standard D6484-09, American Society for Testing and Materials Annual Book of standards, vol. 15.03, pp.392–407, 2013.

57.

Standard test method for compressive residual strength properties of damaged polymer matrix composite laminates. ASTM standard D7137-12, American Society for Testing and Materials Annual Book of standards, vol. 15.03, pp.513–529, 2013.

58.

Nettles AT and Jackson JR. Developing a material strength design value based on compression after impact damage for the ARES I composite interstage, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA TP 2009-215634, 2009. Hampton, VA: NASA.

59.

Yang Y and Li S. CAI damage mechanism characterization. In: Proceedings 20th international conference on composite materials, Copenhagen, Denmark, 19–24 July 2015.