Composites Science and Technology 167 (2018) 164–173

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compscitech

Effect of SWCNTs and graphene on the fatigue behavior of antisymmetric T

GFRP laminate
Mostefa Bourchaka,∗, Abdullah Algarnia, Adnan Khana, Usama Khashabab
a
Aeronautical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
b
Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this relatively unique study, the impact of adding nanoparticles (NPs) on the fatigue properties of antisym-
GFRP metric glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) laminate has been investigated. Antisymmetric GFRP laminates
CNTs (+45/02/902/02/-45) were prepared and reinforced once with 0.1 wt% of single-walled carbon nanotubes
Graphene (SWCNTs) and then with 0.1 wt% of Graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs). The NPs reinforced GFRP laminates are
Antisymmetric laminate
termed here GFNRP nanocomposites. Ultrasonication method was used to disperse the NPs using carefully
Fatigue properties
chosen process parameters. Fatigue tests were analyzed based on S-N curves, stiffness degradation and hysteresis
loops. The results showed that the use of 0.1 wt% of SWCNTs led to an increase in the fatigue strength coefficient
(FSC) and the fatigue strength exponent (FSE) of GFNRP nanocomposite specimens by 51% and 24%, respec-
tively, while the use of similar wt.% of GNPs enhanced the FSC and FSE by 33% and 25%, respectively.
Consequently, fatigue life of GFNRP nanocomposites are surprisingly enhanced by about three and twelve times
when GNPs and SWCNTs are used, respectively. The findings would give designers much more confidence in
using antisymmetric composite laminates in specific elastic tailoring structures.

1. Introduction reported an improvement in the fatigue strength of 8% when adding

FRP composites are widely used in many industries in different
applications due to their outstanding mechanical properties and low
density. Specifically, GFRP composites have a wide range of applica-
tions due to their high specific modulus, strength, light weight and low
cost [1–5]. Consequently, GFRP composites are usually subjected to
fatigue loads during their service life. For this reason, fatigue behavior
is very important for safe operation [6–8]. Although most applications
make use of symmetric GFRP composite laminates, there are others
where antisymmetric layup sequences are preferred for designing
structures, such as wind turbines [9], rotor blades [10] and morphing
wings [11]. A laminate is called antisymmetric when the plies above
and below the mid-plane at the same distance have opposite signs and
could be identified using ABD matrix calculation [12]. Hence, the en-
hancement of FRP composites fatigue properties using nanoparticles
(NPs) is one of the solutions recently adopted by several researchers
[8,13–16]. Borrego et al. [8] investigated the tensile fatigue behavior of
symmetric GFRP composites that were reinforced with nanoclay and
multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs). They reported that fatigue
strength is affected by the addition of a small amount of NPs which act
as barriers to fatigue crack propagation. Similarly, Withers et al. [17]
organomodified nanocatalysts to GFRP composites. Davis and his co-
workers [13] studied the impact of adding single-walled carbon nano-
tubes (SWCNTs) on fatigue behavior of carbon fiber reinforced polymer
(CFRP) laminate. The results showed improvement in resistance to
tension-tension fatigue damage due to the use of SWCNTs which led to
a longer fatigue life. In another study, Shen et al. [16] reported that
adding 0.25 wt% of Graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs) to CFRP laminates
led to an increase of fatigue life from 1.21 to 5.39 times over the entire
range of applied cycling loads. Gaurav and Singh [18] reported that
adding a 0.5 wt% of MWCNTs to GFRP composite specimens results in a
fatigue life equivalent to that achieved at a stress level that is 10%
lower than the neat samples. Boger et al. [19] correlated the increase in
high cycle fatigue life of GFRPs with increasing inter fiber fracture
strength due to the addition of fumed silica and MWCNTs to the matrix
system. Chang et al. [20] also reported increased fatigue life due to the
addition of MWCNTs to an epoxy matrix in GFRP composites. Similar
observation was also reported by Genedy and coworkers [21] when
adding either 0.1 wt% or 0.5 wt% of MWCNTs to GFRP composites.
They attributed the enhancement in fatigue life to the improvement in
matrix cohesion due to the addition of NPs. Additionally, Knoll et al.
[22] have also reported that MWCNTs and few-layered graphene (FLG)

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mbourchak@kau.edu.sa (M. Bourchak).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2018.07.047
Received 19 June 2018; Received in revised form 25 July 2018; Accepted 31 July 2018
Available online 01 August 2018
0266-3538/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Bourchak et al.
can improve the fatigue life of carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP)
composites.
Unfortunately, no specific case of using NPs to enhance fatigue
properties of antisymmetric composite laminates could be found in the
literature. Consequently, in the current study, neat resin antisymmetric
GFRP composite laminates were reinforced with either 0.1 wt% of
SWCNTs or with 0.1 wt% of GNPs. The 0.1 wt% ratio was chosen based
on what has been widely reported in the literature as being the most
efficient ratio [23]. The neat GFRP composite specimens were termed
here GFRP-N, while the specimens reinforced with SWCNTs were
termed GFNRP-S and the specimens reinforced with GNPs were termed
GFNRP-G. The laminate specimens were made of eight layers of UD
glass plain weave warp-reinforced fabrics arranged in an antisymmetric
and balanced layup sequence (+45/02/902/02/-45) resulting in an
average thickness of 2 mm. Tensile and fatigue tests were then carried
out to deduce the mechanical properties of both GFRP composites and
GFNRP nanocomposites for comparison purposes.
2. Experimental procedures
2.1. Materials
The thermoset epoxy used in this work was supplied by R&G
Faserverbundwerkstoffe GmbH Company. It consists of two parts, resin
L385 and hardener 386, with a mixing ratio of 100:30 by weight as
recommended by the manufacturer. The characteristics of the two parts
epoxy are shown in Table 1.
Whereas, the used SWCNTs and GNPs are supplied by NanoLab, Inc.
Company and produced through CVD method. The SWCNTs diameter is
1.5 nm and their length is 1–5 μm. On the other hand, GNPs are pro-
duced by a combined effort of a modified chemical and CVD [24]. They
are 1–3 layered aggregates of submicron platelets measuring < 5 μm in
diameter, with high aspect ratio, which is an advantage in comparison
with SWCNTs. The average dimensions of GNPs are 10–20 μm in plane
(X&Y) and 3–6 nm in thickness. The used fabric type is Aero, Finish FK
144, produced by P-D Interglas Technologies GmbH Company. Table 2
shows the mechanical properties of the used glass fabric.
2.2. Sample fabrication
The GFRP composites and GFNRP nanocomposites specimens were
fabricated using a vacuum bag assisted wet layup technique. GFNRP
nanocomposites specimens made from three components: glass fiber,
epoxy resin and randomly dispersed NPs. Both GFRP composites and
GFNRP nanocomposites specimens were fabricated with eight layers
(+45/02/902/02/-45) and the average thickness was 2 mm. A sonica-
tion method was used to disperse either 0.1 wt% of SWCNTs to fabricate
GFNRP-S nanocomposite specimens or 0.1 wt% of GNPs to fabricate
GFNRP-G nanocomposite specimens.
2.3. Mechanical testing
Tensile properties of neat GFRP composite and GFNRP nano-
composite specimens were obtained as per ASTM standard D3039 [25]
at room temperature, using a MTS 809 axial/torsion system. The latter
Table 1
Typical mechanical data for a combination of resin L385 and hardener
386.
Mechanical data of neat resin
Density (g/cm3) 1.18–1.20
Modulus of elasticity (KN/mm2) [GPa] 3.3–3.6
Tensile strength (N/mm2) [MPa] 75–85
Compressive strength (N/mm2) [MPa] 120–140
Elongation of break (%) 6–8
165
Composites Science and Technology 167 (2018) 164–173
Table 2
Product specifications of used GF fabrics.
Interglas style 92145
Weave Pattern Plain, weave warp-reinforced (unidirectional)
Yarn Description • Warp: EC-9-68 tex x 5 t0
• Fill: EC 7-222 tex
Thread Count • Warp (per cm): 5.9
Weight
• Fill (per cm): 7.0
220 g/m2
Mechanical data • Tensile strength: 630 MPa (warp)
• Tensile modulus: 33 GPa (warp)
• Compressive strength: 510 MPa
• Flexural strength: 810 MPa
crosshead speed was set at 2 mm/min. Five specimens of each material
with a 200 mm length, a 25 mm width and 2 mm thickness were tested
in order to derive the average values of ultimate tensile strength (UTS)
which is then used to select the applied stress levels in fatigue testing.
The latter were carried out according to the ASTM standard D3479 [26]
using MTS 809 machine to study the fatigue behavior of GFRP com-
posites and GFNRP nanocomposites subjected to tensile cyclic loading.
The tests were performed at 0.1 stress ration (R) to maximize the cyclic
effects. The loading form was a sinusoidal wave with constant ampli-
tude. In addition, the frequency was chosen to be 10 Hz in order to
accelerate the fatigue process. No overheating issues were noticed.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Tensile tests results
Fig. 1 shows the three types of tested samples whereas Fig. 2 pro-
vides overlaid tensile stress vs. strain curves of GFRP-N composite,
GFNRP-S nanocomposite and GFNRP-G nanocomposite specimens. As
can be seen from Fig. 2 and Table 3, the GFRP-N composites average
UTS is 274.91 MPa, while the GFNRP-S and GFNRP-G nanocomposites
show increased values in UTS of 385.93 MPa and 356.56 MPa, respec-
tively.
3.2. Stress-life curves
In the present study, fatigue tests were carried out at three different
stress (S) levels. The selected S values were 80%, 60% and 40% of UTS.
The number of cycles to failure (Nf) against the stress levels were re-
corded. Then, the tests were stopped when the specimen completely
fractured or reached over a million cycles as applied in previous works
[6]. Generally, six specimens were tested for each stress level to cal-
culate the average values of fatigue properties. The results obtained for
the experiments were used to plot the stress-life (S-N) curves. Then, the
Basquin's formula shown below is used to model the fatigue behavior
[27].
σa = σf (Nf )b (1)
where σa is the applied stress level, σf is fatigue strength coefficient
(FSC), Nf is the number of cycles at failure and b is the fatigue strength
exponent (FSE). The S-N curves of GFRP-N composites, GFNRP-S na-
nocomposite and GFNRP-G nanocomposite specimens are shown in
Fig. 3. There are two types of S-N curves known as “flat curve”, which
has a small slope, and “steep curve”, which has a larger slope, as re-
ported by Nijssen R.P.L [28]. Thus, as the flatness of the curve in-
creased, the specimen life and fatigue properties will increase.
After curve fitting the fatigue data, it can be seen from the con-
structed S-N curves that GFNRP-S nanocomposite specimens show
better fatigue performance (longer lives at a given stress level) followed
by GFNRP-G nanocomposite specimens and then GFRP-N composite
specimens. In addition, the specimen life is closely related to the ap-
plied cyclic load. For instance, at higher applied load (80% of UTS) the
M. Bourchak et al. Composites Science and Technology 167 (2018) 164–173

Fig. 1. Images of tested samples from left to right: GFRP-N, GFNRP-S and GFNRP-G.

failure of the GFRP-N composite specimen occurred early (between Table 3

1100 and 3300 cycles), while at the moderate applied load (60% of Tensile Properties Results of GFRP-N and both GFNRP Specimens.
UTS) the total number of cycles to failure reached up to 105 cycles. On Type UTS (MPa) Elastic tensile modulus (GPa)
the other hand, the specimen did not reach total failure at the lower
applied load (40% of UTS). Moreover, based on the S-N curves shown in Avg. Mean Median Str. Dev.
Fig. 3, it is noted that the applied load at 80% of UTS in case of GFRP-N
GFRP-N 274.91 279.07 268.66 15.48 14.49
composite specimens approximately correlates with the applied load at GFNRP-S 385.93 388.64 379.43 25.83 19.86
60% of UTS in case of GFNRP-S and GFNRP-G nanocomposite speci- GFNRP-G 356.56 361.18 351.95 32.62 18.86
mens which is equivalent to 220 MPa ( ± 5%). For this reason, the fa-
tigue life of GFRP-N, GFNRP-S and GFNRP-G specimens at 220 MPa
( ± 5%) were selected for comparison purposes. It is clear that, the β = 0.1031 σa − 11.78 (For GFNRP − S) (2)
fatigue life of GFNRP-G and GFNRP-S nanocomposite specimens were
enhanced by about three and twelve times, respectively, due to the use β = 0.0278 σa − 3.87 (For GFNRP − G) (3)
of 0.1 wt% of GNPs and 0.1 wt% of SWCNTs. The obtained improve-
ment in the fatigue life due to the use of NPs agreed with what have The fatigue properties (FSC and FSE) of GFRP-N composite, GFNRP-
been published in the literature such as Davis et al. [13] and Bortz et al. S and GFNRP-G nanocomposite specimens are shown in Table 4 which
[14] studies, but with different level of improvement. Moreover, were determined by fitting the S-N curves data to equation (1). Based
GFNRP-G and GFNRP-S nanocomposite specimens have similar beha- on these results, it is clear that the use of 0.1 wt% of SWCNTs led to
vior of applied load and fatigue life. Specifically, at the lower applied increased FSC and FSE values of GFRP-S by 51% and 24%, respectively.
load (40% of UTS), some of GFNRP-G nanocomposite specimens did not However, the use of similar wt.% of GNPs led to an enhancement of FSC
reach total failure while others did. In contrast, only one GFNRP-S and FSE values by 33% and 25%, respectively. Manjunatha et al. [27]
nanocomposite specimen broke at the lower applied load whilst the have observed a similar trend of fatigue properties enhancement in a
remaining specimens did not reach total failure. Moreover, it is clear GFNRP nanocomposites due to the use of NPs. The obtained results in
from Fig. 3 that the increase in the fatigue life of GFNRP nanocomposite the current study showed a high potential for increasing fatigue life and
specimens at the higher applied stress level is more than the increase in properties of GFRP antisymmetric composites subjected to cyclic
the lower applied stress level which agrees with previous studies loading. Consequently, it can be stated that the enhancement of the
[8,14,27]. In addition, this fatigue life improvement can be described mechanical properties strategy of GFRP composite specimens such as
by the following functions which is extracted by plotting the im- UTS and stiffness by the incorporation of NPs also led to improvement
provement times due to using NPs against the applied load, where (β) is in fatigue properties which was also concluded by Davis et al. [13] and
number of life improvement times: Shen et al. [16] in their respective studies.

Fig. 2. Tensile stress versus strain curves of GFRP-N and both GFNRP.

166
M. Bourchak et al. Composites Science and Technology 167 (2018) 164–173

Fig. 3. S-N curves of GFRP-N composites and GFNRP Nanocomposites.

Table 4 Fig. 4 shows the stiffness degradation curves of GFRP-N specimens. It

Fatigue properties results of GFRP composites and both GFNRPs. includes the normalized stiffness versus the number of cycles of GFRP-N
Specimen type FSC FSE
composite specimens at the three different applied cyclic loads. The
normalized stiffness was calculated by dividing the actual stiffness
GFRP-N 408.92 −0.08 (Eact) by the initial stiffness (Eo). It is clear that the higher the applied
GFNRP-S 615.71 −0.099 cyclic load, the higher the stiffness degradation ratio (Er) that occurs in
+51% +24%
GFNRP-G 543.64 −0.1
the specimen, which led to shorter fatigue life. In average, at N = 1000
+33% +25% cycles the stiffness of the specimen was degraded by 20% at the applied
stress level of 80% of UTS and by 7% for applied stress level of 60% of
UTS. However, the stiffness degradation at N = 1000 cycles at the ap-
3.3. Stiffness degradation plied stress level of 40% of UTS was negligible up to 1000 cycles then
there was a small degradation without causing total failure i.e. a spe-
The effective gauge length and to a less extent the cross-section area cimen runout.
of the GFRP composite and both GFNRP nanocomposites specimens Figs. 5 and 6 show the stiffness degradation curves of GFNRP-S and
vary continuously during the fatigue test due to mainly matrix damage GFNRP-G nanocomposite specimens. The stiffness degradation behavior
as well as some fibers failure, which cause stiffness degradation [7]. of both GFNRP nanocomposite specimens were also closely related to
Therefore, the latter is considered an important parameter to assess the the applied stress level as observed on GFRP-N composite specimens in
damage that occurred in the specimen under fatigue loads [29,30]. which the higher the applied cyclic load, the higher the stiffness

Fig. 4. Stiffness degradation curves of GFRP-N composites at various applied load levels.

167
M. Bourchak et al.
Fig. 5. Stiffness degradation curves of GFNRP-S nanocomposites at various applied load levels.
degradation that occurs in the specimen leading to a shorter fatigue life.
In average, at N = 100 cycles the stiffness of the GFNRP-S nano-
composite specimens was degraded by 20% at the applied stress level of
80% of UTS and by 15% for applied stress level of 60% of UTS, while at
the applied stress level of 40% of UTS was 10%. Whereas the GFNRP-G
nanocomposite specimens stiffness was degraded by 35%, 20% and
15% at applied stress level of 80%, 60% and 40%, respectively.
Fig. 7 represents the normalized stiffness versus the normalized
number of cycles of neat GFRP composite specimen at applied cyclic
load of 60% of UTS. Generally, the stiffness degradation curve has three
phases: (I) rapid degradation due to initiation and growth of matrix
cracks in off-axis direction, (II) gradual or linear degradation due to
almost stable transverse matrix cracks and interfiber fractures (marked
by dashed line in Figs. 7–9) and (III) rapid degradation or significant
deterioration due to complete fiber fractures [16,28,31]. The transition
point between the first and second phases is called the characteristic
damage state (CDS) [27]. At the CDS point, the number of the matrix
cracks in the off-axis direction of the FRP composites reach the satu-
rated level, which has a great impact on the stiffness degradation of FRP
composites [32]. Therefore, the majority of the stiffness degradation
can be attributed to matrix cracking. It is clear from Fig. 7 that all the
Fig. 6. Stiffness degradation curves of GFNRP-G nanocomposites at various applied load levels.
168
Composites Science and Technology 167 (2018) 164–173
three phases could be clearly observed. Moreover, CDS of GFRP-N
composite specimens occurred at about 12% of the total fatigue life.
Figs. 8 and 9 show the normalized stiffness versus the normalized
number of cycles of GFNRP-S and GFNRP-G nanocomposite specimens
at applied cyclic load of 60% of UTS. The three phases of the stiffness
degradation were also clearly observed. In addition, CDS point of both
GFNRP-S and GFNRP-G nanocomposites occurred at about 24% and
20%, respectively, of the total fatigue life. Therefore, it can be stated
that the use of 0.1 wt% of SWCNTs and 0.1 wt% of GNPs help delay the
cracks saturated state which agreed with previous studies such as those
by Phong et al. [15] and Shen et al. [16] in which they reported that the
use of NPs delayed the crack growth in FNRP nanocomposites.
3.4. Hysteresis loop
The hysteresis loop is used to evaluate the fatigue damage that oc-
curred in the FRP composites [28–30]. It is plotted based on the peak
and valley values of the displacement that occurs in the specimen due to
loading and unloading of the applied cyclic load [6]. In addition, the
energy dissipated due to fatigue loading could be calculated based on
the area under the hysteresis loop curve as shown in Fig. 10 according
M. Bourchak et al. Composites Science and Technology 167 (2018) 164–173

Fig. 7. Normalized fatigue stiffness curves of GFRP-N at S = 60% of UTS.

to Equation (4), which is related to the crack growth in FRP composites S and GFNRP-G nanocomposite specimens, which led to shorter fatigue
specimen [29,30]: life of GFRP-N composite specimens under high stress fatigue loading.
Therefore, it can be deduced that there is a dependence relation be-
δmax
tween the dissipated energy due to fatigue and specimen fatigue life.
Ed = ∫ F . dδ
Fig. 12 shows the hysteresis loops of GFRP-N composite specimens
δmin (4)
at N = 2000 cycles for different applied loads. The hysteresis loops
were also shifted away from each other along the displacement axis for
where Ed is the dissipated energy, F is the applied fatigue load and
the purpose of better visualizing. The dissipated energy at an applied
(δmin ) and (δmax ) are the minimum and maximum displacements, re-
load of 80% of UTS was 0.54 kN mm, and then it was reduced by 50%
spectively.
and 87% when the applied load was reduced to 60% of UTS and 40% of
Fig. 11 shows the hysteresis loops of GFRP-N composite specimens,
UTS, respectively. Therefore, it is evident that the dissipated energy was
GFNRP-S and GFNRP-G nanocomposite specimens at N = 1000 cycles
decreased as the applied load decreased, or in other words, the higher
and applied load of 80% of UTS. The hysteresis loops were shifted away
the applied load, the higher the value of the dissipated energy. These
from each other along the displacement axis for clear representation. It
results could be observed clearly from the narrow elliptical topology of
can be seen that the hysteresis loops behavior has an ellipse shape. The
the hysteresis loops, which tend to become straight lines as the applied
dissipated energy (area of hysteresis loop) result of the GFRP-N com-
load decreases. In addition, it is worth noting that the dissipated energy
posite specimens was 2.26 kN mm, while the dissipated energy of the
results agreed with the results of stiffness degradation, because the high
GFNRP-S and GFNRP-G nanocomposite specimens results were reduced
applied load led to an increase in the number of matrix cracks, and
by 19% and 29% compared to GFRP-N composite specimens dissipated
therefore an increase in the damage occurring in the specimen as well
energy due to the use of 0.1 wt% of SWCNTs and 0.1 wt% of GNPs,
as the dissipated energy.
respectively. These results mean that high damage occurred in GFRP-N
Figs. 13 and 14 show the hysteresis loops of GFNRP-S and GFNRP-G
composite specimens compared to the damage that occurred in GFNRP-

Fig. 8. Normalized fatigue stiffness curves of GFRP-S at S = 60% of UTS.

169
M. Bourchak et al. Composites Science and Technology 167 (2018) 164–173

Fig. 9. Normalized fatigue stiffness curves of GFRP-G at S = 60% of UTS.

nanocomposite specimens also at N = 2000 cycles for different applied

load levels. The hysteresis loops of both GFNRP nanocomposite speci-
mens have the same behavior as GFRP-N composite specimens with the
variation of the applied load. It is evident that the reduction in the
dissipated energy of GFNRP nanocomposite specimens due to a de-
crease in the applied load was higher than the reduction that happened
in the GFRP composite case. In addition, a rapid drop of the dissipated
energy between N = 1000 cycles (Fig. 12) and N = 2000 cycles
(Figs. 13 and 14) was remarkable. Generally, it can be stated that GFRP-
N composite specimens were exposed to high damage in the first fatigue
cycles in comparison with GFNRP-S and GFNRP-G nanocomposite
specimens, which led to longer fatigue life in the case of GFNRP-S and
GFNRP-G nanocomposite specimens compared to GFRP-N composite
specimens.
It can be seen from Figs. 12–14 that there is a strong dependence
relation between the dissipated energy and applied stress levels which
agreed with previous studies [29]. Moreover, Fig. 15 shows comparison
between the dissipated energy of GFRP-N composite specimens and
Fig. 10. Hysteresis loop. both GFNRP nanocomposite specimens at a fixed applied stress level of
60% of UTS. High dissipated energy occurred initially followed by a

Fig. 11. Hysteresis loops comparison at N = 1000 cycles and applied load level of 80% of UTS.

170
M. Bourchak et al.
Fig. 12. Hysteresis loops of GFRP-N composites at N = 2000 cycles for various applied load levels.
rapid decrease at a specific cycle, and no significant changes were ob-
served in the remaining cycles. This behavior could be observed in
GFRP-N composite specimens and both GFNRP nanocomposite speci-
mens, which agreed with what has been reported in the literature
[29,30]. It is worth noting that the drop in dissipated energy that
happened between the initial cycles in GFRP-N composite specimens
was higher than that which happened in GFNRP-S and GFNRP-G na-
nocomposite specimens. Also, GFNRP-S specimens experienced more
dissipated energy than GFNRP-G specimens. Then, there was a satura-
tion in the dissipated energy in all composite and nanocomposite spe-
cimens with almost the same value. Therefore, it can be stated that the
use of 0.1 wt% of SWCNTs and 0.1 wt% of GNPs led to reduced fatigue
damage in the nanocomposite specimens, as shown in Fig. 15.
3.5. Influence of fiber/matrix interface on fatigue performance
Taking symmetric GFRP composites that were enhanced by nano-
particles as examples, it is found that the effect of the latter on fatigue
performance differ from NP type to another as widely reported by re-
searchers. Knoll et al. [22] hypothesized that few layered graphene
(FLG) performed better than MWCNTs when added to CFRP composites
Fig. 13. Hysteresis loops of GFNRP-S nanocomposites at N = 2000 cycles for various applied load levels.
171
Composites Science and Technology 167 (2018) 164–173
due to a higher specific surface area and an additional failure mode of
layer separation that enable more energy absorption than MWCNTs.
However, in this work, instead of using MWCNTs, SWCNTs were used
and compared to graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs) with the former per-
forming better than the latter. SWCNTs have been reported by Davis
et al. [13] to create an “a-SWCNTs reinforced region” of strengthened
and stiffened matrix material in CFRP composites resulting in overall
improvements of fatigue life. It is therefore envisaged that a similar
mechanism is happening in GFRP composites but with a difference due
to the mismatch between glass fibers and CNTs. Moreover, due to the
antisymmetry of laminates in this work, high strains are induced on the
matrix due to the extension-twisting coupling experienced by these
laminates under fatigue loading. Therefore, any increase in ductility
(within a limited range) would allow the matrix to perform better
compared to the un-toughened matrix which can exhibit higher strains.
It is therefore concluded that the fatigue performance is subject to the
behavior of mainly fiber/matrix interface and specifically its toughness
since the design load level is usually much lower than the fiber strength.
The existence of a unique fiber/matrix layer with specific properties
other than the fiber and matrix has been initially suggested by Chamis
[33] many decades ago. It was later theoretically studied by some
M. Bourchak et al.
Fig. 14. Hysteresis loops of GFNRP-G nanocomposites at N = 2000 cycles for various applied load levels.
authors [34,35]. Evans [36] then proved by chemical analysis and
photomicrographs that a layer of finite thickness exists between the
fiber and the matrix and that it is chemically different from both fiber
and matrix. Lhotellier et al. [37] concluded that this layer poses a dif-
ficult problem because its thickness is only on the order of a micron. As
a result, the mechanical properties of this region cannot yet be mea-
sured experimentally. Therefore there needs to be significant research
in determining its properties parameters and its true influence on the
load transfer in FRP composites.
4. Conclusions
A comprehensive experimental investigation has been conducted in
order to characterize the level of improvement in fatigue properties of
antisymmetric GFNRP composites that are enhanced with either
SWCNTs or GNPs. Specimens made from antisymmetric and balanced
(+45/02/902/02/-45) GFNRP nanocomposites laminates consisting of
0.1 wt% of SWCNTs and 0.1 wt% of GNPs, respectively were tested and
their results were compared to neat GFRP composite specimens. The
Fig. 15. Comparison between dissipated energy of GFRP-N composites and both GFNRP nanocomposites at 60% of UTS.
172
Composites Science and Technology 167 (2018) 164–173
fatigue test was conducted for both GFRP composites and GFNRP na-
nocomposites which were subjected to three levels of cyclic loads (80%
of UTS, 60% of UTS and 40% of UTS). By comparing the fatigue life of
GFRP-N, GFNRP-S and GFNRP-G specimens at the same applied cyclic
load (220 MPa ( ± 5%)), the obtained results of the S-N curves show
that the fatigue life of GFNRP-G and GFNRP-S nanocomposite specimen
were enhanced by about three and twelve times, respectively.
Additionally, the use of 0.1 wt% of SWCNTs led to an increase in the
FSC and the FSE of GFRP specimens by 51% and 24%, respectively,
while the use of similar wt.% of GNPs enhanced the FSC and FSE by
33% and 25%, respectively. The stiffness degradation behavior of GFRP
composite specimens and GFNRP nanocomposite specimens were clo-
sely related to the applied cyclic loads. Moreover, the use of SWCNTs or
GNPs slows down the stiffness degradation rate of GFNRP nano-
composites compared to the GFRP composite, which led to longer fa-
tigue life. Specifically, the characteristic damage state (CDS) or cracks
saturated state, was delayed by the inclusion of either SWCNTs or
GNPs. The obtained hysteresis loops show that most of the damage
occurred in the first few cycles followed by a rapid decrease towards the
M. Bourchak et al.
rest of the fatigue life with GFNRP nanocomposites experiencing less
dissipated energy compared to GFRP composites.
Acknowledgment
This work was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR),
King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, under grant No. (D1434-135-041).
The authors, therefore, acknowledge with thanks DSR technical and
financial support.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2018.07.047.
References
[1] W. Li, A. Dichiara, J. Zha, Z. Su, J. Bai, On improvement of mechanical and thermo-
mechanical properties of glass fabric/epoxy composites by incorporating
CNT–Al2O3 hybrids, Compos. Sci. Technol. 103 (2014) 36–43, https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.COMPSCITECH.2014.08.016.
[2] R. Matadi Boumbimba, C. Froustey, P. Viot, J.M. Olive, F. Léonardi, P. Gerard,
R. Inoubli, Preparation and mechanical characterisation of laminate composites
made of glass fibre/epoxy resin filled with tri bloc copolymers, Compos. Struct. 116
(2014) 414–422, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPSTRUCT.2014.05.028.
[3] C. Viets, S. Kaysser, K. Schulte, Damage mapping of GFRP via electrical resistance
measurements using nanocomposite epoxy matrix systems, Compos. Part B Eng. 65
(2014) 80–88, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2013.09.049.
[4] D. Fritsch, C. Viets, E. Mannov, K. Schulte, B. Fiedler, B. Fiedler Nanocomposite
Based, L. Cam, Nanocomposite based structural health monitoring approaches for
fibre reinforced polymers-on doorstep to industrial relevance after two decades of
intense research? Structural health monitoring approaches for fibre reinforced
polymers-on doorstep to industrial relevance after two decades of intense research?
7th Eur. Work. Struct. Heal. Monit. La Cité, Nantes, 2014, pp. 1788–1793 https://
hal.inria.fr/hal-01022027 , Accessed date: 22 July 2018.
[5] W. Li, D. He, Z. Dang, J. Bai, In situ damage sensing in the glass fabric reinforced
epoxy composites containing CNT–Al2O3 hybrids, Compos. Sci. Technol. 99 (2014)
8–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPSCITECH.2014.05.005.
[6] A.K. Gupta, S.P. Harsha, Analysis of mechanical properties of carbon nanotube
reinforced polymer composites using continuum mechanics approach, Proced.
Mater. Sci. 6 (2014) 18–25, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MSPRO.2014.07.004.
[7] O.J. Nixon-Pearson, S.R. Hallett, An investigation into the damage development and
residual strengths of open-hole specimens in fatigue, Compos. Part A Appl. Sci.
Manuf. 69 (2015) 266–278, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2014.11.
013.
[8] L.P. Borrego, J.D.M. Costa, J.A.M. Ferreira, H. Silva, Fatigue behaviour of glass fibre
reinforced epoxy composites enhanced with nanoparticles, Compos. Part B Eng. 62
(2014) 65–72, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2014.02.016.
[9] K. Hayat, S.K. Ha, Load mitigation of wind turbine blade by aeroelastic tailoring via
unbalanced laminates composites, Compos. Struct. 128 (2015) 122–133, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPSTRUCT.2015.03.042.
[10] K. Cox, A. Echtermeyer, Geometric scaling effects of bend-twist coupling in rotor
blades, Energy Proced. 35 (2013) 2–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2013.
07.153.
[11] M. Bourchak, Y. Dobah, Design and analysis of a morphing composite airfoil using
unbalanced layup and unconventional ply angles, Trans. Jpn. Soc. 57 (2014) 79–85,
https://doi.org/10.2322/tjsass.57.79.
[12] T.A. Fletcher, R. Butler, T.J. Dodwell, Anti-symmetric laminates for improved
consolidation and reduced warp of tapered C-sections, Adv. Manuf. Polym. Compos.
Sci. 1 (2015) 105–111, https://doi.org/10.1179/2055035914Y.0000000010.
[13] D.C. Davis, J.W. Wilkerson, J. Zhu, V.G. Hadjiev, A strategy for improving me-
chanical properties of a fiber reinforced epoxy composite using functionalized
carbon nanotubes, Compos. Sci. Technol. 71 (2011) 1089–1097, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.COMPSCITECH.2011.03.014.
[14] D.R. Bortz, C. Merino, I. Martin-Gullon, Augmented fatigue performance and con-
stant life diagrams of hierarchical carbon fiber/nanofiber epoxy composites,
Compos. Sci. Technol. 72 (2012) 446–452, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
173
Composites Science and Technology 167 (2018) 164–173
COMPSCITECH.2011.12.006.
[15] N.T. Phong, M.H. Gabr, K. Okubo, B. Chuong, T. Fujii, Improvement in the me-
chanical performances of carbon fiber/epoxy composite with addition of nano-
(Polyvinyl alcohol) fibers, Compos. Struct. 99 (2013) 380–387, https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.COMPSTRUCT.2012.12.018.
[16] M.-Y. Shen, T.-Y. Chang, T.-H. Hsieh, Y.-L. Li, C.-L. Chiang, H. Yang, M.-C. Yip,
Mechanical properties and tensile fatigue of graphene nanoplatelets reinforced
polymer nanocomposites, J. Nanomater. 2013 (2013) 1–9, https://doi.org/10.
1155/2013/565401.
[17] G.J. Withers, Y. Yu, V.N. Khabashesku, L. Cercone, V.G. Hadjiev, J.M. Souza,
D.C. Davis, Improved mechanical properties of an epoxy glass–fiber composite re-
inforced with surface organomodified nanoclays, Compos. Part B Eng. 72 (2015)
175–182, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2014.12.008.
[18] A. Gaurav, K.K. Singh, Fatigue life enhancement of quasi-isotropic symmetric GFRP
laminate by doping MWCNTs, Mater. Today Proc. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matpr.2017.07.052.
[19] L. Böger, J. Sumfleth, H. Hedemann, K. Schulte, Improvement of fatigue life by
incorporation of nanoparticles in glass fibre reinforced epoxy, Compos. Part A Appl.
Sci. Manuf. 41 (2010) 1419–1424, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.
2010.06.002.
[20] M.S. Chang, An investigation on the dynamic behavior and thermal properties of
MWCNTs/FRP laminate composites, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 29 (2010) 3593–3599,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0731684410379510.
[21] M. Genedy, S. Daghash, E. Soliman, M. Taha, Improving fatigue performance of
GFRP composite using carbon nanotubes, Fibers (2015), https://doi.org/10.3390/
fib3010013.
[22] J.B. Knoll, B.T. Riecken, N. Kosmann, S. Chandrasekaran, K. Schulte, B. Fiedler, The
effect of carbon nanoparticles on the fatigue performance of carbon fibre reinforced
epoxy, Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 67 (2014) 233–240, https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2014.08.022.
[23] A. Algarni, Enhancing the Mechanical Properties of Aerospace Fiber Reinforced
Polymer Composite Materials Using Nanoparticles, King Abdulaziz University,
2018.
[24] S. Park, R.S. Ruoff, Chemical methods for the production of graphenes, Nat.
Nanotechnol. 4 (2009) 217–224, https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2009.58.
[25] ASTM D3039/D3039M-17, Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer
Matrix Composite Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, (2017), https://doi.org/10.
1520/D3039_D3039M-17.
[26] ASTM D3479/D3479M-12, Standard Test Method for Tension-tension Fatigue of
Polymer Matrix Composite Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, (2012), https://doi.
org/10.1520/D3479_D3479M-12.
[27] C.M. Manjunatha, A.C. Taylor, A.J. Kinloch, S. Sprenger, The tensile fatigue be-
haviour of a silica nanoparticle-modified glass fibre reinforced epoxy composite,
Compos. Sci. Technol. 70 (2010) 193–199, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
COMPSCITECH.2009.10.012.
[28] R.P.L. Nijssen, Fatigue Life Prediction and Strength Degradation of Wind Turbine
Rotor Blade Composites, Delft University, 2006.
[29] A. Belaadi, A. Bezazi, M. Bourchak, F. Scarpa, Tensile static and fatigue behaviour
of sisal fibres, Mater. Des. 46 (2013) 76–83, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.
2012.09.048.
[30] Y. Dobah, M. Bourchak, A. Bezazi, A. Belaadi, F. Scarpa, Multi-axial mechanical
characterization of jute fiber/polyester composite materials, Compos. Part B Eng.
90 (2016) 450–456, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.10.030.
[31] A.P. Vassilopoulos, T. Keller, Fatigue of Fiber-reinforced Composites, first ed.,
Springer, London, 2011https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-181-3.
[32] C. Li, F. Ellyin, A. Wharmby, On matrix crack saturation in composite laminates,
Compos. Part B Eng. 34 (2003) 473–480, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-8368(03)
00020-9.
[33] C.C. Chamis, Mechanics of Load Transfer at the Fiber - Matrix Interface,
Washington, (1972) doi:NASA TN D-6588.
[34] L.J. Broutman, B. Das Agarwal, A theoretical study of the effect of an interfacial
layer on the properties of composites, Polym. Eng. Sci. 14 (1974) 581–588, https://
doi.org/10.1002/pen.760140808.
[35] P.S. Theocaris, G.C. Papanicolaou, The effect of the boundary interphase on the
thermomechanical behaviour of composites reinforced with short fibres, Fibre Sci.
Technol. 12 (1979) 421–433, https://doi.org/10.1016/0015-0568(79)90016-2.
[36] A.G. Evans, Problems of fracture at or near interfaces, Interface Work., ONR
Composite Materials, Leesburg, VA, 1987.
[37] F.C. Lhotellier, H.F. Brinson, Matrix-fiber stress transfer in composite materials:
elasto-plastic model with an interphase layer, Compos. Struct. 10 (1988) 281–301,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-8223(88)90007-4.