Small composite bundles, AS4 carbon fibre epoxy, with a restricted number of reinforcing fibres, ca. 20, showed a progressive failure when tested in tension. In-situ acoustic emission observations under tensile load reveal that numerous fibres fail before ultimate failure of the small composite bundle, suggesting that isolated and individual fibre failures occur without compromising the integrity of the neighboring fibres or the small composite bundle’s overall mechanical performance. The average strength of the carbon fibres in small composite bundles was 9.6% higher than in standard lab-scale composite specimens using the same fibre type

Anthony, DB

Bismarck, A

Grail, G

Pimenta, P

Robinson, P

Shaffer, M

English

Spiral - Imperial College Digital Repository

ECCM17 - 17th European Conference on Composite Materials  Munich, Germany, 26-30th June 2016  1  D.B. Anthony, G. Grail, A. Bismarck, M.S.P. Shaffer, P. Robinson and S. Pimenta   EXPLORING THE TENSILE RESPONSE IN SMALL CARBON FIBRE COMPOSITE BUNDLES  David B. Anthony1, Gaël Grail2, Alexander Bismarck3, Milo S.P. Shaffer4, Paul Robinson5 and Soraia Pimenta6  1Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK d.anthony08@imperial.ac.uk, www.imperial.ac.uk/people/d.anthony08  2Aeronautics, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK g.grail@imperial.ac.uk  3Materials Chemistry, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria alexander.bismarck@univie.ac.at, https://mc.univie.ac.at  4Chemistry, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK m.shaffer@imperial.ac.uk, www.imperial.ac.uk/people/m.shaffer  5Aeronautics, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK p.robinson@imperial.ac.uk, www.imperial.ac.uk/people/p.robinson  6Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK soraia.pimenta@imperial.ac.uk, www.imperial.ac.uk/people/soraia.pimenta   Keywords: Carbon fibre, small composite bundle, broken fibre clusters, progressive failure   Abstract  Small composite bundles, AS4 carbon fibre epoxy, with a restricted number of reinforcing fibres, ca. 20, showed a progressive failure when tested in tension. In-situ acoustic emission observations under tensile load reveal that numerous fibres fail before ultimate failure of the small composite bundle, suggesting that isolated and individual fibre failures occur without compromising the integrity of the neighboring fibres or the small composite bundle’s overall mechanical performance. The average strength of the carbon fibres in small composite bundles was 9.6% higher than in standard lab-scale composite specimens using the same fibre type.   1. Introduction  Reducing the number of reinforcing fibres, i.e. composite size, can delay the formation of large broken fibre clusters which can cause the onset of catastrophic failure [1]; analytical modelling [2] proposes that, for a specific fibre embodiment, composites with fewer fibres than a critical threshold will present a positive size effect, so that the average strength of a small bundle will be higher than the average strength of individual fibres (for the same gauge length). To exploit this failure mechanism, experimental validation of the model is required with a stringently controlled number of fibres in a composite bundle; with AS4 carbon fibres a peak in strength is predicted between 16 to 32 fibres [2].  Excerpt from ISBN 978-3-00-053387-7 ECCM17 - 17th European Conference on Composite Materials  Munich, Germany, 26-30th June 2016  2  D.B. Anthony, G. Grail, A. Bismarck, M.S.P. Shaffer, P. Robinson and S. Pimenta  2. Experimental  2.1.  Materials  • AS4 carbon fibre sized, PAN, AS4C-GP-12K, HS-CP-3000 grade, 1% sizing, 6.9 µm diameter with nominal; tensile modulus 231 GPa, tensile strength 4385 MPa and 1.8% strain to failure, Hexcel (GB). N.B. HexPly 8552 composites with AS4 carbon fibres, 0° unidirectional properties; tensile modulus 141 GPa, tensile strength 2206 MPa and 1.6% strain to failure [3]. • PRIME 20ULV ultra-low viscosity epoxy, with PRIME 20LV resin with a slow (ULV) hardener, Gurit Ltd.(GB), tensile modulus 2.98 GPa, tensile strength 71.2 MPa, 6.28% strain to failure [4].   2.2.  Small composite bundle sample preparation  To ensure that each sample had the desired number of reinforcing fibres, specimens were made individually and by hand. Care was taken to ensure that each small composite bundle had the same number of fibres throughout the specimen. Separating fibres was carried out on paper (glossy, white, 180 g cm-2), teasing fibres from the tow, destroying surrounding fibres to leave the desired fibre in place, which ensured minimal handling. Fibres were consolidated onto a glass support, Figure 1, (borosilicate plate, Cambridge Glassblowing Ltd, UK) using double sided tape (180568, Office Depot, UK), with the fibres mounted by pressing the inverted support into the fibre situated on the paper. N.B. failure to use high grade glossy paper at this stage results in the double sided tape losing tackiness promptly, and restricts the number of fibres which can be mounted on any given double sided section. The process was continued until 20 carbon fibres were attached, then sections of tape (6991, Scarpa, UK) were placed to hold fibres together.   Glass supportDouble sided tapeTapeSingle carbon fibreAdditional tape  Figure 1. Schematic of carbon fibres and the arrangement of tape used on glass support to manufacture specimens (only one side shown).   Once the carbon fibres were secured in the sections of tape, they were cut from their support. When free, taped bundles were then suspended using a binder clip (979366, Office Depot, UK) and a small weight attached to the freestanding section of tape (SamplKlip, stainless steel, 20-4000-100, 0.575 g, Buehler, UK). Low viscosity epoxy solution was then pipetted onto the suspended bundles until fully saturated. Bundled coated fibre samples were then cured following the manufacturer’s recommended procedure, curing at room temperature for 24 h and 50 °C for 16 h [4]. Composite bundle samples were then mounted in card frames similar to those routinely used in single fibre tensile tests (British Standard BS EN ISO 11566, 1996 using Araldite Rapid Adhesive, Bostik Findley Ltd., UK in the tabbing regions), Figure 2 (A). Card templates were modified with an extended tabbed region at one end (fibre extended throughout) for acoustic emission sensor placement, as shown in Figure 2 (B). The small composite bundles produced had a circular cross-section, shown in Figure 3 (A) and (B), with periodic beads of epoxy which formed during impregnation (Figure 3 (C)).     Excerpt from ISBN 978-3-00-053387-7 ECCM17 - 17th European Conference on Composite Materials  Munich, Germany, 26-30th June 2016  3  D.B. Anthony, G. Grail, A. Bismarck, M.S.P. Shaffer, P. Robinson and S. Pimenta  A B  Figure 2. (A) Photograph of small composite bundle held between binder clip and weight with card frame for tensile test shown below. (B) Small composite bundle mounted in the card frame with schematic indicting the placement of acoustic emission sensor.   A B C  Figure 3. (A) and (B) Scanning electron micrograph of small composite bundles, and (C) an optical micrograph of the side view of a bundle with an epoxy bead formed during impregnation.   2.3.  Composite bundle characterization and test equipment  The morphology of composite bundles was investigated by optical microscope (Leica DM2500) with a DFC295 camera (Leica Application Suite v4.0.0, Leica ∞/1.1 HI PLAN 40x/0.50), and through field emission gun scanning electron microscope (FEG-SEM) using Leo-Gemini 1525, SmartSEM software interface V05.05.03.00, 2010, Carl Zeiss NTS Ltd., UK with consumables bought through Agar Scientific, UK. Primary tensile tests were carried out on TST350 tensile stress tester (Linkam Scientific Instruments Ltd., UK) with a 200 N load cell and a cross-head speed of 15 μm s-1 in combination with acoustic emission detection. Secondary tensile tests were carried out on Instron 5969, 1 kN load cell used with BlueHill3 software V3.41.2350 and a cross-head speed of 15 μm s-1 in combination with optical video gauge, high speed camera and acoustic emission detection. Optical video gauge iMETRUM MG223B PoE E0022522 from iMETRUM Ltd (GB) using a iMETRUM material lens 233093 with a magnification 0.193, focal length 309 mm, triggered to record in sync with Instron 5969 using an iMETRUM multifunction box, NI USB 6211 and processed using the associated iMETRUM Video Gauge Software V5.3.2. Video gauge points of reference were droplets of epoxy formed on the composite bundles during curing and were lit using an LED array (Microbeam 512, Flolight, USA). High speed camera was used to validate failure within the gauge length; the Phantom v12.1 with PCC Version 1.3.697.0, Vision Research (Ameteck, USA) using focal length 100 mm, f/2, Zeiss Makro-Planar T* ZE lens. Acoustic emission (AE) events were recorded on PICO miniature, range 20 kHz to 500 kHz, AE sensor in conjunction with 1283 USB AE node interface and AEwin for USB software (vE5.30, Mistras Group Inc., Physical Acoustics Corporation, USA). Acoustic detection settings were set at 50 ms, 25 µs, 150 µs, 300 µs for time drive rate, peak definition time, hit definition time and hit lockout time, respectively. The AE sensor was held in a bespoke jaw fittings in both instances, which allowed the sensor face to be in contact with the tabbed sample region used with couplant gel (Sonagel W, Sonatest, UK). The ambient background threshold noise was 45   Excerpt from ISBN 978-3-00-053387-7 ECCM17 - 17th European Conference on Composite Materials  Munich, Germany, 26-30th June 2016  4  D.B. Anthony, G. Grail, A. Bismarck, M.S.P. Shaffer, P. Robinson and S. Pimenta  and 65 dB for Linkam TST350 and Instron 5969 test rigs respectively, below which signals were not considered significant.   3. Results  Composite bundle stresses are calculated with respect to the carbon fibre cross-sectional area, determined by counting the reinforcing elements in each specimen (nominal Vf); then to aid comparison, stresses were also reduced to Vf = 60%, in-line with conventional composites, and presented in Table 1. Stress-strain curves stresses, shown in Figure 4, are calculated using actual bundle cross-sections measured in the SEM. The average individual carbon fibre tensile strength for small composite bundles, is 9.6% higher than conventional composites, but lower than strengths reported for single fibre tensile tests (9.7% decrease). Primary tests were carried out on the Linkam TST350 with acoustic emission detection of carbon fibre fracture events monitored in-situ. Unfortunately, ambient background acoustic emission noise on the Instron 5969 rig was relatively high, ca. 65 dB, which meant the detection of acoustic events was restricted. Optical video gauge confirmed strain-to-failures for samples on the order of 1.6% to 2% for the secondary tests with high speed video confirming that failure point was within the gauge region. In the majority of instances a strain hardening behavior was observed, as predicted for carbon fibre [5]. In some instances the failure of small composite bundles is prolonged, for example in Figure 4 (#1, #4, #5, #7, #9 and #10), with progressive failure before ultimate failure.   Table 1. Small composite bundles tensile properties  Sample Xt (MPa) Et (GPa) Linkam   Average individual carbon fibre contribution (in small composite bundles) 4001 ± 240 NA Average small composite bundles (Vf = 60 %) 2400 ± 144 NA Instron   Average individual carbon fibre contribution (in small composite bundles) 3922 ± 206 241 ± 39 Average small composite bundles (Vf = 60 %) 2353 ± 123 144 ± 24 Calculated from Hexcel data sheet [3]    Individual carbon fibre contribution in 0° HexPly 8552 composite (Vf = 61%)* 3614 231  *effective volume fraction if a concurrent tensile modulus is considered in a composite and single fibre   Excerpt from ISBN 978-3-00-053387-7 ECCM17 - 17th European Conference on Composite Materials  Munich, Germany, 26-30th June 2016  5  D.B. Anthony, G. Grail, A. Bismarck, M.S.P. Shaffer, P. Robinson and S. Pimenta  0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0020040060080010001200140016001800200022002400260028003000#10Stress (MPa)Strain (%)60708090100110120 Acoustic Emission Amplitude (dB)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60020040060080010001200140016001800200022002400260028003000 Time (s)Stress (MPa)405060708090100110120#5 Acoustic Emission Amplitude (dB)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60020040060080010001200140016001800200022002400260028003000 Time (s)Stress (MPa)405060708090100110120#4 Acoustic Emission Amplitude (dB)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60020040060080010001200140016001800200022002400260028003000#3 Time (s)Stress (MPa)405060708090100110120 Acoustic Emission Amplitude (dB)405060708090100110120 Acoustic Emission Amplitude (dB)#20 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60020040060080010001200140016001800200022002400260028003000 Time (s)Stress (MPa)405060708090100110120 Acoustic Emission Amplitude (dB)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60020040060080010001200140016001800200022002400260028003000#1 Time (s)Stress (MPa)0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.20200400600800100012001400160018002000220024002600280030003200 StrainStress (MPa) Stress Projected Initial Modulus Acoustic Emission Amplitude Event Threshold1.99% Strain to failure136 GPa ModulusSample J60708090100110 Acoustic Emission Amplitude (dB)0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.20200400600800100012001400160018002000220024002600280030003200 StrainStress (MPa) Stress Projected Initial Modulus Acoustic Emission Amplitude Event Threshold1.99% Strain to failure136 GPa ModulusSample J60708090100110 Acoustic Emission Amplitude (dB)0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0020040060080010001200140016001800200022002400260028003000#6 StrainStress (MPa)60708090100110120 Acoustic Emission Amplitude (dB)0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0020040060080010001200140016001800200022002400260028003000 StrainStress (MPa)60708090100110120#7 Acoustic Emission Amplitude (dB)0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0020040060080010001200140016001800200022002400260028003000#8Stress (MPa)Strain60708090100110120 Acoustic Emission Amplitude (dB)0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0020040060080010001200140016001800200022002400260028003000#9Stress (MPa)Strain60708090100110120 Acoustic Emission Amplitude (dB)Linkam TST350 Instron 59690.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.20200400600800100012001400160018002000220024002600280030003200 StrainStress (MPa) Stress Projected Initial Modulus Acoustic Emission Amplitude Event Threshold1.99% Strain to failure136 GPa ModulusSample J60708090100110 Acoustic Emission Amplitude (dB)0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.20200400600800100012001400160018002000220024002600280030003200 StrainStress (MPa) Stress Projected Initial Modulus Acoustic Emission Amplitude Event Threshold1.99% Strain to failure136 GPa ModulusSample J60708090100110 Acoustic Emission Amplitude (dB)20 carbon fibres20 carbon fibres20 carbon fibres17 carbon fibres20 carbon fibres21 carbon fibres17 carbon fibres19 carbon fibres19 carbon fibres20 carbon fibres  Figure 4. Small composite bundles, primary tests stress-time plots #1 to #5 (Linkam TST350), and secondary stress-strain plots #6 to #10 (Instron 5969) with optical video gauge determined strain.   Excerpt from ISBN 978-3-00-053387-7 ECCM17 - 17th European Conference on Composite Materials  Munich, Germany, 26-30th June 2016  6  D.B. Anthony, G. Grail, A. Bismarck, M.S.P. Shaffer, P. Robinson and S. Pimenta  4. Conclusions  Small composite bundles containing ca. 20 carbon fibres were manufactured and tested in tension. The test results showed a progressive failure of the bundles, with acoustic emission indicating multiple carbon fibre fracture events prior to ultimate composite failure. The strength of small composite bundles was slightly higher (average 9.6%) than that typically observed in standard composite specimens (with approximately a million fibres in the cross-section of the specimen). The potential to combine multiple small composite bundles, as sub-bundles in a hierarchical arrangement, with a different matrix between sub-bundles, may yield a high performance yet (pseudo)ductile response under tension.   Acknowledgments  The authors kindly acknowledge that funding for this research was provided by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Programme Grant EP/I02946X/1 on High Performance Ductile Composite Technology (HiPerDuCT), in collaboration with University of Bristol. Supporting data can be requested from Dr Anthony, access to supporting data will be granted subject to retrospective consent being requested and granted from the original project participants.   References  [1] A.E. Scott, M. Mavrogordato, P. Wright, I. Sinclair, S.M. Spearing. In situ fibre fracture measurement in carbon–epoxy laminates using high resolution computed tomography, Composites Science and Technology. 2011;71(12):1471-77. [2] S Pimenta, ST. Pinho. Hierarchical scaling law for the strength of composite fibre bundles. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids. 2013;61(6):1337-56. [3] HexTow™ AS4C Carbon Fiber. Data Sheet, Hexcel Composites, 2010. [4] PRIME™ 20ULV Ultra Low Viscosity Epoxy Infusion System, Provisional Datasheet, Gurit SP High Modulus, Gurit Ltd, 2010. [5] N. Toyama, J. Takatsubo. An investigation of non-linear elastic behavior of CFRP laminates and strain measurement using Lamb waves. 2004:64(16):2509-16.   Excerpt from ISBN 978-3-00-053387-7 

Exploring the tensile response in small carbon fibre composite bundles

http://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/34484/2/TUE-2_STO_3.14-04%20new.pdf

Exploring the tensile response in small carbon fibre composite bundles

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Spiral - Imperial College Digital Repository