Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

Journal of Composite Materials

http://jcm.sagepub.com/ Compression after impact strength of thin laminates with various percentage of 0 plies
Alan Tate Nettles and Stosch Sabo Journal of Composite Materials 2014 48: 345 originally published online 8 January 2013 DOI: 10.1177/0021998312472219 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jcm.sagepub.com/content/48/3/345

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Society for Composites

Additional services and information for Journal of Composite Materials can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jcm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jcm.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jcm.sagepub.com/content/48/3/345.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jan 20, 2014 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jan 8, 2013 What is This?

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on January 27, 2014

Article

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITE M AT E R I A L S
Journal of Composite Materials 2014, Vol 48(3) 345354 ! The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0021998312472219 jcm.sagepub.com

Compression after impact strength of thin laminates with various percentage of 0 plies
Alan Tate Nettles1 and Stosch Sabo2

Abstract Conventional wisdom dictates that adding more 0 plies in the load-bearing direction of a laminate will increase its stiffness and strength. While this is true for undamaged laminates, the compression strength of laminates with impact damage may not be as straightforward. In this study, compression after impact strengths of relatively thin laminates with 25%, 33% or 50% of plies aligned in the 0 load-bearing direction were measured for three different damage severity levels. Results show that the increase in compression strength of the laminates with a higher percentage of plies in the 0 direction is lessened as impact damage severity increases indicating that a laminate that is stronger in compression when undamaged may not be stronger in compression when impact damage is accounted for.

Keywords Compression, damage tolerance, impact

Introduction
While the incorporation of a higher percentage of 0 plies can improve compression strength, a similar improvement in damage tolerance may not be obtained. This lack of improvement is perhaps to be expected and was indeed noted during damage tolerance testing of components for the composite interstage structure that was to be used on the ARES I launch vehicle. It was noted in some of the damage tolerance testing for this program that sandwich panels with face sheets having a lay-up with 56% 0 plies had about the same compression after impact (CAI) strength as quasi-isotropic laminates (25% 0 plies).1 In addition, compression data for a dierent portion of the launch vehicle which consisted of laminates manufactured from woven prepreg produced interesting results. The unnotched compression strength of laminates with 25%, 33%, and 40% of the warp direction bers in the loading direction had average strengths of 475, 525, and 582 MPa, respectively, but the average open hole compression (OHC) strength of these three lay-ups were found to be 347, 346, and 353 MPa, respectively (essentially the same). It was thus apparent that if a structure is to be designed with damage tolerance requirements then adding more 0 plies will result in a structure with greater stiness, but not necessarily greater compression strength. It was the aim of this

study to ascertain the CAI strength of thin laminates with various percentage of 0 plies to examine the strength enhancing contribution of the extra 0 plies as compared to undamaged laminates. This particular study focused on relatively thin (eight or nine ply) laminates. A subsequent study has been undertaken to examine thicker laminates (18 plies) with varying percentage of 0 plies. A review of the literature shows that this phenomena has been seen elsewhere,2 but there is little data in the open literature about this. One of the few studies that specically addresses the eect of the percentage of 0 plies on the CAI strength of carbon ber laminates points out that the higher modulus from an increasing percentage of 0 plies causes a larger stress concentration factor.3 This results in a larger drop in strainto-failure for impacted laminates that contain a higher percentage of 0 plies. However, since the stier laminates can also bear higher loads, the overall eect is a modest increase in load-carrying capability for impacted laminates with a higher percentage of 0
NASA-MSFC, Building 4610, Marshall Space Flight Center, USA Department of Composite Material Engineering, Winona State University, USA
2 1

Corresponding author: Alan Tate Nettles, NASA-MSFC, Building 4610, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812, USA. Email: alan.t.nettles@nasa.gov

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on January 27, 2014

346 plies. Guynn and OBrien4 conducted CAI tests on a limited number of 32-ply laminates with either 12.5%, 25% or 37.5% 0 plies and found that all failed at approximately the same stress for a given impact severity level. In contrast, for CAI strength of 24-ply laminates with either 8%, 25% or 42% 0 plies, data by Reis and de Freitas5 indicate that laminates with a higher percentage of 0 plies had higher CAI strengths. Hitchen and Kemp6 examined dierent stacking sequence permutations for 16-ply laminates made of 50% 0 plies and 50% 45 plies impacted at 7 J. Their results indicated that there could be up to a 14% dierence in CAI values depending on the stacking sequence. Most of this dierence was attributed to the damage morphology in which back face splitting caused elliptically shaped delamination areas elongated along the major axis. In general, as the 0 plies were moved closer to the mid-plane of the laminate (away from the surfaces) the CAI strength tended to increase. Although impact damage and holes are dierent, they both act as stress concentrations and it may be of interest to examine the behavior of laminates with holes. In a study that examined the OHC strength of laminates,7 it was found that for hole/specimen width ratios of 1/6 laminates with 67% and 50% 0 plies had compression strengths of 364 and 365 MPa, respectively. In addition, laminates with 25% and 17% 0 plies had OHC strength values of 282 and 277 MPa, respectively. Thus, simply adding more 0 plies does not necessarily increase the OHC strength of laminates made from unidirectional prepreg. Results presented also support those found in Hitchen and Kemp6 that having a laminate stacking sequence with 0 plies as surface plies tends to give lower compression strength values (both notched and unnotched). It was decided to conduct an experimental program that measured the CAI strength of laminates in the form of carbon/epoxy face sheet, aluminum honeycomb core sandwich structure with face sheets consisting of 25% 0 plies (two out of eight plies), 33% 0 plies (three out of nine plies), and 50% 0 plies (four out of eight plies) with the non-zero degree plies consisting of dispersed 45 , 90 , and 45 plies. The results from this test were to be compared to undamaged sandwich structure and to each other to help determine the increase in compression strength by adding more 0 plies when damage tolerance is incorporated.

Journal of Composite Materials 48(3) weight of 145 g/m2. Table 1 presents unidirectional data for this ber/resin system and Table 2 presents the specic lay-up used for each of the three types of laminates. In regards to Hitchen and Kemp6 and Soutis et al.,7 the laminates in this study had non-zero degree outer plies and it is hoped that this can somewhat reduce the dierences in CAI strength due to stacking sequence to better isolate the eects of a higher percentage of 0 plies. Laminates were manufactured by press curing 35.5 35.5 cm sections of prepreg, cut at the desired angle, in a platen press according to the manufacturers recommended cure cycle. Good ply consolidation and relatively void-free laminates resulted as shown by the cross sections in Figure 1. The 35.5 cm panels had one side prepared for bonding to honeycomb core since the four-point bend method was to be utilized to assess CAI strength.8 This was achieved by sanding the surface to be bonded with 120 grit abrasive paper followed by an alcohol wipe. This was repeated until water would remain on the entire surface without beading after being removed from immersion. The bottom (tensile) face sheet of the sandwich panels had a lay-up of [0 ,0 ,90 ,0 ]S with a nominal thickness of 1.19 mm

Table 1. Data from unidirectional tests of T-40-800/5276-1. Property E1 (GPa) E2 (GPa) G12 (GPa) n12 Xt (MPa) Xc (MPa) Yt (MPa) Yc (MPa) S (MPa)
a

Test method used ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM D-3090 D-3090 D-3518 D-3090 D-3090 D-5467 D-3090 D-5467 D-3518a

Average value 152 8.7 5.7 0.32 2788 1511 93 276 54

0.2% offset.

Table 2. Lay-up of laminates used in this study. Percent 0 plies 25 33 50 Lay-up [45 ,90 ,0 ,45 ]S [45 ,90 ,0 ,45 ,0 , 45 ,0 ,90 ,45 ] [90 ,0 ,45 ,0 ]S Number of plies 8 9 8 Nominal laminate thickness (mm) 1.18 1.33 1.18

Materials and testing Laminates


Laminates with 25%, 33%, and 50% 0 plies were evaluated in this study. The material used for these tests was T40-800/5276-1 carbon/epoxy with a prepreg areal

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on January 27, 2014

Nettles and Sabo and a measured modulus of 115 GPa. Two core densities were used for these specimens; 49.6 kg/m3 for the region between the upper span and 192 kg/m3 for the arms of the specimen. The dierent density core was bonded with a foaming lm splice adhesive. This was done to preserve impact characteristics of a face sheet over low-density core for possible comparison to existing test data from a dierent study. The top and bottom face sheets were bonded to the honeycomb with FM-300 lm adhesive. Once these bonds had cured, the panel was cut into 7.6 cm wide test specimens. A schematic of a specimen is shown in Figure 2. It should be noted that the impact and post-impact behavior of the laminate is now constrained to that of a face sheet of a honeycomb sandwich structure over 49.6 kg/m3 density core. The results presented henceforth need to be viewed with this restriction in mind and that other density cores, or dierent boundary conditions during impact of a laminate in general will most

347 likely aect the results to some extent. However, it is hoped that the general trend of a laminates increasing (or decreasing) compression strength with the percentage of 0 plies coupled with impact damage are illustrated to some extent. As always, the experimental strength values obtained in one particular small study cannot be practically exploited in a real structure.

Impact testing
Each sandwich specimen was impacted at its geometric center on the top (compression) face sheet with an impactor of 6.4 mm diameter. The specimen was placed on a solid steel plate during impact to give the highest rigidity, and thus most damage possible for a given tup size and impact energy.9,10 Three dierent levels of damage severity were chosen for this study. For the highest level of impact energy used, the largest damage size as detected by infrared

0 direction 0 direction 0 direction

0.5 mm 25 % [+45,90,0,45]S

0.5 mm 33 % [+45,90,0,45,0 bar]S

0.5 mm 50 % [90,0,+45,0]S

Figure 1. Cross sections of 25%, 33%, and 50% 0 ply laminates (sectioned in the 0 direction).

Top (Compressive) Face Sheet

5.1 cm

49.6 kg/m3 192 kg/m3

Bottom (Tensile) Face Sheet

Splice Adhesive

30.5 cm

Figure 2. Schematic of the type of test specimen used in this study. The face sheets were cured before bonding to honeycomb in a separate process to manufacture the test specimens.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on January 27, 2014

348 thermography was found to be about 1.5 cm for all three types of laminates used. Since the specimens were 7.6 cm wide, this damage area slightly violates the damage (or hole) diameter to width ratio of 1/6 as is suggested11 however, since only direct comparisons between lay-ups were to be made in this study, these eects should not greatly alter the results had a wider specimen been used. An instrumented drop weight impact apparatus was used to inict damage to the specimens. Table 3 lists the impact parameters used for the specimens. The actual impact energy was measured by the velocity of the impactor at the point of contact with the specimen, since some of the velocity of the falling weight was lost due to friction between the drop weight and guide posts and the measurements of the drop height were approximate. The three impact energy levels used will be denoted as low, medium, and high for ease of reference through this article. It should be noted that the laminate with face sheet of 33% 0 plies is 13% thicker than the laminates with 25% and 50% 0 plies. This could possibly lead to slightly higher CAI strength values due to more material being under the impactor to absorb energy due to damage. Photographs of the indentation caused by each of the three impact levels used are shown in Figure 3. The indentations were independent of the percentage of 0 plies in the laminates and only diered visually due to a change in the impact energy.

Journal of Composite Materials 48(3)

CAI testing
As mentioned previously, the sandwich four-point bend method8 was utilized to generate compressive forces in the damaged laminate. This methodology was chosen over end loading since an abundance of prepreg, lm adhesive, and honeycomb core was available while strain gages were not. The end loading method requires four strain gages per specimen;12 thus, the four-point bend method was chosen. In addition, the laminates in this study are relatively thin and global buckling of the laminate becomes problematic if an end loading test method is attempted. Thus, even for an end loaded test such as in Nettles and Jackson,1 honeycomb core would probably be used anyway to give the thin laminates stability in an attempt to come closer to a true compression strength not inuenced by macrobuckling. The stress in the face sheet between the upper span was calculated from8 2 3  D YN tf 2 P    i5 f Lm 4h 2w tf D YN 2 tb Eb Ef Y2 N

Table 3. Impact parameters used in this study. Drop height (cm) Drop mass Average impact (Approximate) (kg) energy (J) Nomenclature 4 10 24 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.5 1.3 2.9 Low Medium High

where  f is the compression stress, w the specimen width, P the applied load, Lm the length of moment arm [(bottom spantop span)/2], tf the thickness of top face sheet, tb the thickness of bottom face sheet, D hc tf/2 tb/2, hc the core thickness, Eb the modulus of bottom face sheet along specimens length, Ef the modulus of top face sheet along specimens length, and YN Dtf/(tf tbEb/Ef). According to Nettles et al.,8 for the particular parameters used in this study, the strain through the thickness of the compressively loaded face sheet can vary by as much as 18%. Since impact damage is typically not symmetrical about the mid-plane of a laminate, this strain variation through the thickness may give slightly dierent results than if an end loading method was

10 mm Low Medium

10 mm High

10 mm

Figure 3. Photographs of the visual damage caused by each of the three levels of impact severity.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on January 27, 2014

Nettles and Sabo utilized. However, since all tests were conducted in the same manner, a comparison of compression strength values can be made with the understanding that there is some level of uncertainty associated with the test method used. A photograph of a specimen undergoing four-point bend testing is shown in Figure 4. The crosshead rate used was 2.5 mm/min which caused the typical test to last approximately 12 min.

349 Considering the quasi-isotropic laminate (25% 0 plies) to be a baseline for the other laminates for comparison, adding 50% more 0 plies results in an average compression strength that is 7% higher (compression modulus higher by 17%). By adding 100% more 0 plies, the average compression strength increases over the quasi-isotropic laminate by 24% (compression modulus by 41%). Considering the scatter in the compression strength data is on the order of 10% for the 25% 0 ply specimens, the 7% increase in compression strength seen for the 33% 0 ply specimens is not signicant. Thus, percent increase in undamaged compression strength due to a higher percentage of 0 plies is not as favorable as the increase in compression modulus for relatively thin laminates.

Results Undamaged compression strength


Specimens that were not impacted had increasing compression strength and stiness with increasing percentage of 0 plies as expected. The compression strength results from un-impacted specimens are presented in Table 4.

Damage morphology of impacted laminates


The state of damage within the impacted laminates was ascertained by cross-sectional microscopy on representative samples. These results are presented to give the reader a better understanding of the severity of damage caused by each of the three energy levels used in this study. Photographs of the damage formed by each of the three impact energies used in this study are shown in Figure 5 for the quasi-isotropic laminates. The laminates that had 33% and 50% 0 plies showed essentially the same damage morphology at each impact energy level as the quasi-isotropic laminates

Figure 4. Test specimen undergoing four-point bending test.

Table 4. Results of compression tests for undamaged laminates. Percent 0 plies 25 33 50 Number of specimens 4 2 6 Average compression strength (MPa) 684 731 846 Standard deviation (SD) (MPa) 69 26 51 SD as % of average strength 10 4 6 Average modulus (GPa) 59.3 69.6 83.4

0.5 J

1.2 J

2.9 J

Figure 5. Cross sections of a laminate with 25% 0 plies impacted at each of the three energy levels used in this study.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on January 27, 2014

350 and their cross sections are shown in Figures 6 and 7. Thus, the extra thickness of the 33% 0 ply laminate appears not to help protect the laminate from damage compared to the 25% and 50% 0 ply laminates. Of particular note from these cross-sectional photographs is that 0 ber breakage is seen only at the highimpact energy level.

Journal of Composite Materials 48(3) tested are shown in Figure 8. The failures were always through the impact site. For any given type of laminate, the appearance of the failed specimen was very consistent and independent of the impact energy. The compression strength data from Tables 4 and 5 are plotted in Figure 9. This gure shows that even at the low impact level used in this study, the additional strength of the laminates with more 0 plies diminishes. The laminate with 50% 0 plies does retain 11% more average compressive strength than the 25% 0 ply lay-up, but the strength advantage of this lay-up compared to when the specimens are undamaged (24%) is about halved. The 33% 0 ply and 25% 0 ply lay-ups show essentially the same strength at the low-impact energy level

CAI tests
The results of CAI testing are presented in Table 5. The individual results of the CAI tests are given in the Appendix. Examples of compressively failed specimens that had impact damage for each of the three types of laminates

0.5 J

1.2 J

2.9 J

Figure 6. Cross sections of a laminate with 33% 0 plies impacted at each of the three energy levels used in this study.

0.5 J

1.2 J

2.9 J

Figure 7. Cross sections of a laminate with 50% 0 plies impacted at each of the three energy levels used in this study.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on January 27, 2014

Nettles and Sabo considering the scatter in the compression strength data. Since the undamaged compression strength of the 33% and 50% 0 ply laminates were very close and the 33% 0 ply laminate was 13% thicker, it was thought that the 33% 0 ply laminate would have a higher CAI strength, but this apparently is not the case. From the cross-sectional micrographs in Figures 5 to 7, the low impact energy appears to inict no damage to the laminates other than the lowest ply having a vertical crack directly below the point of impact. However, the 5276-1 epoxy resin used in the laminate is fairly ductile due to the additive thermoplastics to help make it more damage resistant and a permanent indentation is formed due to the impact. In addition, the aluminum honeycomb would crush slightly due to the impact event and help to hold the indentation in place. This causes the load bearing 0 plies to have a small eccentricity () at the impact site which apparently is detrimental to the compression strength of the laminate. This is illustrated in the

351 enlargement of the 25% 0 ply laminate shown in Figure 10. Testing of a more brittle resin and using non-metallic core (which tends to break when crushed and not hold a dent) would help conrm this hypothesis. At the medium impact level, the average compression strengths of the three types of laminates appear to increase slightly with increasing percentage of 0 plies. The 33% 0 ply laminate has 6% more strength and the 50% 0 ply laminate has 13% more strength than the quasi-isotropic laminate. From the photomicrographs in Figures 5 to 7, the medium impact energy level typically causes a delamination at the bottom of the lowest 0 ply (best seen in the 33% and 50% 0 ply laminates). Thus, at the impact site, two sub-laminates are formed and the upper portion of the laminate above the delamination can still carry some load even with the aforementioned eccentricity of the 0 plies due to the dent caused by the impactor. If it is assumed that if the lowest 0 ply cannot carry compressive loads at the damage zone due to the instability caused by the delamination, then the 25% 0 ply laminate has one load carrying 0 ply in the upper sub-laminate, the 33% 0 ply laminate has two load bearing 0 plies in the upper sub-laminate and the 50% 0 ply laminate has three load bearing 0 plies in the upper sub-laminate. This may explain the modest increase in compression strength for increasing percentage of 0 plies at this particular energy level although a more thorough test program is needed to verify this. When impacted at the high level of impact energy, the three types of specimens have essentially the same compression strength. The photomicrographs in Figures 5 to 7 show that this high impact damage level breaks all of the 0 plies (impactor penetration). At this level of impact, the damage is beginning to behave as a hole in which no sub-laminates are formed to partially carry the load which is consistent with some of the results found in Soutis et al.7

Table 5. Results from CAI tests on thin laminate specimens. SD as % Impact of average Percent energy Number of Average CAI SD specimens strength (MPa) (MPa) CAI strength 0 plies (J) 25 25 25 33 33 33 50 50 50 0.5 1.2 2.9 0.5 1.2 2.9 0.5 1.2 2.9 7 10 8 4 7 7 8 9 8 504 400 326 482 424 337 561 451 323 35 12 9 17 13 12 35 26 12 7 3 3 4 3 4 6 6 4

CAI: compression after impact.

Loading Direction

Loading Direction

Loading Direction

25% 0plies

33% 0plies

50% 0plies

Figure 8. Examples of failed specimens of each of the three types tested.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on January 27, 2014

352

Journal of Composite Materials 48(3)

Figure 9. Graphical results of data presented in Tables 4 and 5.

Figure 10. Cross section of laminate impacted at low energy level to demonstrate ply eccentricity ().

Conclusions
It was the intend of this limited study to demonstrate that if more compression strength is desired from a laminate, then adding a higher percentage of 0 plies will increase the undamaged (unnotched) compression strength, but this increase does not necessarily translate to an equivalent percentage of damaged compression

strength. The amount of variability in the undamaged compression strength values made denitive conclusions between 25% and 33% 0 ply laminates dicult. At the low and medium impact severity levels used in this study, the addition of 0 plies gave a slightly higher average CAI strength, but not to the extent that would be expected from a uniform percentage knockdown based on the results of quasi-isotropic laminates. At

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on January 27, 2014

Nettles and Sabo the high-impact severity level, the addition of 0 plies did not increase the CAI strength to any signicant degree. At this impact level, impactor penetration occurred. Other observations from this study include: 1. Since Hitchen and Kemp6 showed that laminate layup alone can vary the CAI strength up to 14%, the similar values obtained for CAI strength in this study could possibly be inuenced by changing the stacking sequence. 2. The results from this study need to be examined in the context that they were obtained from honeycomb sandwich structure and extrapolation to laminates in general should be used with caution. 3. Adding more 0 plies increases the compression modulus to a greater extent than compression strength for undamaged laminates. 4. The extra thickness of the 33% 0 ply laminate had no discernible eect on damage morphology or CAI strength. 5. Very little damage (a dent) can cause a large reduction in compression strength of metallic honeycomb sandwich structure with thin face sheets. 6. Since modulus is preserved and more pronounced due to the addition of more 0 plies, structures designed for stiness can be obtained with no reduction in strength.

353
5. Reis L and de Freitas M. Damage growth analysis of low velocity impacted composite panels. Compos Struct 1997; 38: 509515. 6. Hitchen SA and Kemp RMJ. The effect of stacking sequence in impact damage in a carbon fiber/epoxy composite. Composites 1995; 26: 207214. 7. Soutis C, Curtis PT and Fleck NA. Compressive failure of notched carbon fiber composites. Proc Math Phys Sci 1993; 1909: 241256. 8. Nettles AT, Jackson JR and Gates TS. Compression after impact testing of sandwich structures using a four point bend test. In: Proceedings, SAMPE fall technical conference and exhibition, Memphis, TN, 811 September 2008. 9. Tomblin JS, Ng YC and Raju KS. Material qualification and equivalency for polymer matrix composite material systems. Final Contract Report DOT/FAA/AR-00/47, April 2001, Washington, DC: Office of Aviation Research. 10. Nettles AT and Jackson JR. Developing a material strength design value based on compression after impact (CAI) damage for the ARES I composite interstage. NASA/TP-2009-215634, Marshall Space Flight Center, AL 35812, USA, January 2009. 11. ASTM D6484/D6484M. Standard test method for openhole compressive strength of polymer matrix composite laminates. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 15.03, West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and materials, 2007. 12. ASTM D7137/D7137M. Standard test method for impact strength of polymer matrix composite laminates. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 15.03, West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and materials, 2012.

Funding
This study was funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under the auspices of the Upper Stage Program Oce at Marshall Space Flight Center (136905.08.05.12).

Appendix

Conflict of interest
None declared.

Table 6. Data obtained from CAI tests of 25% 0 ply laminates. Specimen ID 6-8-10A-25-#1 6-8-10A-25-#2 6-8-10A-25-#3 6-8-10A-25-#4 6-8-10B-25-#1 6-8-10B-25-#2 6-8-10B-25-#3 6-8-10B-25-#4 6-8-10C-25-#1 6-8-10C-25-#2 6-8-10C-25-#3 6-8-10C-25-#4 6-8-10D-25-#1 Impact energy (J) 0 1.2 1.2 2.9 0 1.2 2.9 1.3 1.2 0 2.7 2.7 2.8 Breaking stress (MPa) 591 397 399 332 677 385 306 384 388 715 318 330 328
(continued)

References
1. Nettles AT and Jackson JR. Compression after impact testing of sandwich composites for usage on expendable launch vehicles. J Compos Mater 2010; 44: 707738. 2. Kan HP, Cordero R and Whitehead RS. Advanced certification methodology for composite structures. Final Contract Report DOT/FAA/AR-96/111, April 1997. 3. Krober I. Effect of impacts on CFRP structures, results of a comprehensive test program for practical use. In: Proceedings AGARD CP-530, Patras, Greece, 2429 May 1992, pp.29.129.6. 4. Guynn EG and OBrien TK. The influence of lay-up and thickness on composite impact damage and compression strength. In: Proceedings of the 26th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/ AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials conference, Orlando, FL, 1517 April 1985, pp.187196.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on January 27, 2014

354
Table 6. Continued Specimen ID 6-8-10D-25-#2 6-8-10D-25-#3 6-8-10D-25-#4 6-8-10E-25-#1 6-8-10E-25-#3 6-8-10E-25-#4 6-8-10F-25-#1 6-8-10F-25-#3 6-8-10F-25-#4 6-15-10E-25-#1 6-15-10E-25-#2 6-15-10E-25-#3 6-15-10E-25-#4 6-15-10F-25-#1 6-15-10F-25-#2 6-15-10F-25-#3 6-15-10F-25-#4 Impact energy (J) 0 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.8 2.7 2.7 1.2 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.6 Breaking stress (MPa) 752 396 422 400 323 342 313 413 408 516 494 500 507 516 437 553 326

Journal of Composite Materials 48(3)


Table 8. Data obtained from CAI tests of 50% 0 ply laminates. Specimen ID 6-2-10B-50-#1 6-2-10B-50-#2 6-2-10B-50-#3 6-2-10B-50-#4 6-2-10A-50-#1 6-2-10A-50-#2 6-2-10A-50-#3 6-2-10A-50-#4 6-3-10A-50-#1 6-3-10A-50-#2 6-3-10A-50-#3 6-3-10A-50-#4 6-3-10B-50-#1 6-3-10B-50-#2 6-3-10B-50-#3 6-3-10B-50-#4 6-10-10B-50-#2 6-10-10B-50-#3 6-10-10B-50-#4 6-10-10A-50-#1 6-10-10A-50-#2 6-10-10A-50-#3 6-10-10A-50-#4 6-16-10A-50-#1 6-16-10A-50-#2 6-16-10A-50-#3 6-16-10A-50-#4 6-16-10B-50-#1 6-16-10B-50-#2 6-16-10B-50-#3 6-16-10B-50-#4 Impact energy (J) 2.9 2.9 0 1.3 1.2 0 1.2 0 0 1.2 0 2.9 0 1.2 2.9 2.9 0.5 1.2 1.2 0.5 0.5 1.3 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.2 0.5 0.4 2.9 2.9 Breaking stress (MPa) 342 315 804 424 463 854 422 795 918 442 893 328 810 444 315 316 568 471 508 492 598 446 443 592 542 538 336 588 566 308 326

CAI: compression after impact.

Table 7. Data obtained from CAI tests of 33% 0 ply laminates. Specimen ID 6-4-10B-33-#1 6-4-10B-33-#2 6-4-10B-33-#3 6-4-10B-33-#4 6-4-10A-33-#1 6-4-10A-33-#2 6-4-10A-33-#3 6-4-10A-33-#4 6-9-10B-33-#1 6-9-10B-33-#2 6-9-10B-33-#3 6-9-10B-33-#4 6-9-10A-33-#1 6-9-10A-33-#2 6-9-10A-33-#3 6-9-10A-33-#4 6-16-10A-33-#1 6-16-10A-33-#2 6-16-10B-33-#1 6-16-10B-33-#2 Impact energy (J) 0 1.2 0 2.9 1.3 1.3 2.8 2.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 Breaking stress (MPa) 749 423 713 330 442 437 322 333 485 456 497 482 419 416 402 427 344 328 358 344

CAI: compression after impact.

CAI: compression after impact.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on January 27, 2014