Composites: Part A 31 (2000) 571581 www.elsevier.

com/locate/compositesa

3D reinforced stitched carbon/epoxy laminates made by tailored bre placement

P. Mattheij, K. Gliesche*, D. Feltin
Institute of Polymer Research Dresden, Hohe Str. 6, D-01069 Dresden, Germany Received 29 January 1999; received in revised form 11 October 1999; accepted 28 October 1999

Abstract Tailored bre placement (TFP) preforms made of carbon bre were 3D reinforced with aramid, polybenzoxazol (PBO), polyethylene and polyester bres and vacuum injected with epoxy resin. The effects of stitch distribution and stitching process parameters on Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness were analysed using a statistical approach. Stitch distribution had a minor effect but 3D thread tension had to be carefully chosen to gain optimum mechanical properties. PBO bre provided the most improvement in fracture toughness. 3D reinforcing with aramid bre reduced tensile and exural properties by 3-8%. Low velocity impact damage in TFP was larger than in fabric but smaller than in tape laminates. Compression-after-impact strength was partly increased by 3D reinforcing in some circumstances but no improvement was found under other conditions. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Through-the-thickness reinforcement; E. Preform; D. Ultrasonics

1. Introduction Tailored bre placement (TFP) is a novel textile manufacturing technique for continuous bre preforms. It is based upon the embroidery technique, which is used for decorating fabrics. This innovative concept allows the manufacture of preforms tailored for a specic composite component. The local bre orientation as well as the local bre content can be varied, for instance, according to the results of a nite element analysis of the component. The perimeter of the preform can be made near-net shape. Fig. 1a shows the principle of TFP. Using stitching, a roving providing inplane reinforcement is xed on a base material as the base material is moved in the x,y-direction. The roving is xed with zigzag stitches on either side of the roving. The machine moves the base material automatically according to a software pattern developed specically for TFP preforms. The highly automated manufacturing process, using multiple heads, makes it attractive for series production of preforms for advanced composite parts. Advantages of TFP-preforms: Great variety of textile structures Stress eld aligned bre placement
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 49-351-465-8320; fax: 49-351-4658284. E-mail address: gli@argos.ipfdd.de (K. Gliesche).

3D-reinforced preforms (full or partial) deep-drawable preforms processing of natural, glass, aramid, carbon and ceramic bres maximum exploitation of reinforcing bres through uniformly stressed bres in the composite near-net-shape production (no cutting, low waste) low production costs through use of rovings high degree of automation Fig. 1b and c show typical application of TFP-preforms. More details about the TFP-process, achievable mechanical properties and applications are given elsewhere [13]. In most cases the needle thread used is a thin polyester yarn which is suited for maintaining preform integrity until the consolidation process has ended. However, when using a needle thread of reinforcing bres, e.g. aramid, the preform is reinforced in the out-of-plane direction. Thus, a preform for a specic component can be 3D reinforced with locally varying stitch densities. 3D reinforcing is a way to dramatically improve the laminate properties in the out-of-plane direction. The improved interlaminar fracture toughness is favourable in many applications where peel stresses are to be expected. For instance peel stresses occur at the plydrops, free edges, or in buckled sub-laminates of an impact damage area in a panel loaded in compression. But 3D reinforcing is usually balanced by a

1359-835X/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S1359-835 X( 99)00 096-2

572

P. Mattheij et al. / Composites: Part A 31 (2000) 571581

1 3 2 4 5

(a)
Y

1 - Needle 2 - Needle thread 3 - Carbon roving

4 - Hold down device 5 - Base material X,Y - possible move directions

Principle of tailored fibre placement

(b)

Tension-Compression-Strut, Preform and Componenet

(c)

Maschine part for a loom, Preform and Componenet

Fig. 1. Principle of tailored bre placement and typical applications.

reduction in in-plane properties. Many authors have investigated the advantages and drawbacks of stitched 3D reinforcements in woven and multi-axial warp knitted fabrics. Reviews are given by Dranseld et al. [4], Brandt et al. [5] and Mouritz et al. [6]. Most studies report that 3D stitching reduced the in-plane properties to some degree. This is believed to be caused mainly by bre misalignment due to the space occupied by the through-the-thickness thread and to a lesser extent by the damage done during stitching [6]. A large increase in Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness is observed in many cases and to a lesser extent in the Mode II fracture toughness depend to 3D reinforcing [7]. Compression-after-impact strength is reported to benet from stitching [5] but also no improvement has been found [8]. These ndings indicate that 3D reinforcements should be

used with care, only at those parts in a structure which need the increased out-of-plane properties and associated inplane degradation is acceptable. No information exists for TFP laminates. The aim of this paper is to show the effect of through-thethickness reinforcing of TFP preforms on in-plane and outof-plane mechanical properties. Cross-ply and quasi-isotropic carbon/epoxy laminates are investigated. The study is divided into two parts. In the rst series of tests the inuences of stitch density, stitch distribution and thread tension on Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness were determined. A statistical non-linear model was generated to determine the optimum stitching parameters. These stitching parameters were used in the second test series. In-plane and out-of-plane mechanical properties for 3D reinforced

P. Mattheij et al. / Composites: Part A 31 (2000) 571581 Table 1 Threads for preform manufacturing and 3D reinforcing Thread material (supplier) PES Seral 200/2 (Amann) PES Seral (Amann) Aramid Kevlar 75 (Amann) PE Dyneema SK 65 (DSM) PBO Zylon AS 500 (Toyobo) Tex 10 5 40 5.5 55 Preform manufacturing 3D

573

TFP laminates were determined and compared with laminates without 3D reinforcement. The effect of the standard polyester needle yarn used for tailored bre placement was also investigated. The following tests were carried out: tension, exural, double-cantilever beam (DCB) and compression-after-impact (CAI). Fabric laminates were CAI tested for comparison. Besides aramid, which was used in all the tests, three other 3D reinforcing bre materials (polybenzoxazol (PBO), polyethylene and polyester bres) were used in the DCB tests.

materials used for making the preforms and for 3D reinforcing. Fig. 2 shows the principle lay-up of a 3D reinforced TFP-preform. The rst test series was carried out with preforms 3D reinforced with aramid bre. The upper and lower thread tensions were measured statically before 3D reinforcing the carbon bre preforms. The stitch density ranged from 1.8 to 15.4 stitches per cm 2 with the stitches being aligned in rows. Three stitching parameters, stitch row spacing, stitch length, and thread tension, were varied on ve levels giving a total of fteen preform variants. The variations were needed to nd the optimum properties in all three directions of the composite. In the second part of the project the stitching parameters of stitch length and stitch row spacing were held constant at 3.5 mm. The upper/lower thread tension ratio was 3.2 (210 cN/65 cN) for the aramid, 3.8 (250 cN/65 cN) for the PBO and 4.3 (150 cN/35 cN) for PE. For comparison preforms of carbon bre plain weave fabric style 98 150 with 250 g/m 2 areal weight (Interglas AG) were also tested. 2.2. Consolidation process

2. Experimental details 2.1. Preform manufacturing and bre material TFP preforms were manufactured using a bre placement machine with four working units. The preforms were made from Tenax HTA 5331 12k carbon bre. The upper and lower yarn was a polyester (PES) with a linear weight of 10 tex. Alternatively some preforms for CAI tests were made with a 5 tex PES yarn. The needle diameter was 0.9 mm. The preforms were manufactured using a zigzag stitch with a machine velocity of 400 stitches per minute. The base material was a thin glass bre fabric with 100 g/m 2 areal weight. The 3D reinforcement was brought in by through-the-thickness stitching of two preforms together on a second embroidery machine. A modied lock stitch was used with the lower thread being PES and the upper thread being the reinforcement bre. Only in case of 3D reinforcing with polyester bre were both the upper and lower yarn PE. Table 1 shows details about the thread

The preforms were consolidated using the vacuum bag resin injection process. During the consolidation process every preform was covered with a steel plate to create a smooth surface on both specimen sides. Mould temperature during injection was 35C. The epoxy resin system Ruetapox VE 3966 (Bakelite AG) is a low viscosity RTM-resin. After the resin had wetted out the complete preform, the mould temperature was raised to 80C for 1 h for curing. Typical carbon bre content in the composite was approximately 55% by volume. The amount of polyester yarn used to x the roving in the placement process was typically 1.5 2% by volume. The bre volume content of the 3-D reinforcement thread material ranged from 2 to 1.8%. 2.3. Specimens and mechanical tests Four different mechanical tests were performed in accordance with the standards listed in Table 2. The specimen dimensions and laminate lay-ups are also given there. Specimens were cut with a water-cooled diamond saw. CAI specimens were milled to their nal dimensions. All the

Fig. 2. Principle of lay-up of a 3D reinforced TFP laminate.

574

P. Mattheij et al. / Composites: Part A 31 (2000) 571581

Table 2 Test methods and carbon/epoxy laminate lay-ups Test Flexure Tension DCB CAI
a

Standard DIN EN 2562 DIN EN 61 ESIS Mode I protocol EIN EN 6038

Specimen dimensions (mm 3) 140 10 3:0 200 20 3:0 160 20 5:0 150 100 3:0 150 100 3:6

Laminate lay-up a TFP [(0/90)2/B]s TFP [(0/90)2/B]s TFP [B/(0/90)3/B]s TFP [(0/90)3/B]s TFP [0/45/90/45/B]s 14 Fabric layers quasi-isotropic

B Base material is glass bre fabric.

specimens (four specimens at each level) were cut with the 3D reinforcement rows in specimen length direction. The tensile, 3-point bending and DCB tests were conducted on cross-ply laminates.. All DCB specimens had a starter lm of 25 mm thickness up to 50 mm from the loading line. This region was not 3-D reinforced. Aluminium end blocks sized 10 10 20 mm3 were bonded on the DCB specimens for load introduction. The corrected beam theory was used to derive the GIc values. As the available compression test machine was limited to 100 kN maximum load the cross-ply laminate could not be taken for the CAI tests. Therefore, the lay-up for the CAI tests was quasi-isotropic. An angle of 45 between adjacent lamina was chosen to minimise stiffness mismatch. CAI specimens were low velocity impacted with energy of 15, 30 J, or, for reference, not impacted at all. The hemisphere diameter of the drop-weight was 25 mm and the side of impact was at the 3D aramid bre side.

3. DCB tests to derive a statistical model In a series of preliminary tests the effects of seven preform production parameters on composite mechanical properties were examined. The outcome of a signicance analysis on the test results was that three production parameters viz. 3D
Table 3 Test plan and test results for determining the statistical model for GIC Preform variant Stitch length (mm)

stitch length, 3D stitch row spacing and the 3D upper/lower thread tension ratio, had a signicant effect on mode I fracture toughness. Therefore, a statistical model with a square equation describing the effects of these three parameters on Mode I fracture toughness was generated. A test plan was set up according to Table 3. Stitch length, stitch row spacing and upper/lower thread tension ratio had to be varied on ve levels which required a total offteen preform variants. Details of the statistical analysis are described in Ref. [9]. The 3D reinforcement material was aramid bre with the upper thread being aramid and the lower thread being PES. Table 3 shows the outcome of the DCB tests. The test results were used to derive the following model in [9]     D5 W 5 0:58 GIc 1:70 0:62 2:45 2:45 !     T 5:58 D5 2 0:73 0:03 0:83 2:38 2:45 !   W 5 2 0:73 0:38 2:45 !   T 5:58 2 0:73 1 0:57 2:38 with GIc Mode I energy release rate (kJ/m 2), D the stitch row

Stitch row spacing (mm)

Upper/lower thread tension ratio (cN/cN) 7.96 7.96 7.96 7.96 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 5.58 5.58 5.58 5.58 8.46 2.69 5.58

GIc (kJ/m 2)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

7.45 2.55 7.45 2.55 7.45 2.55 7.45 2.55 8 2 5 5 5 5 5

7.45 7.45 2.55 2.55 7.45 7.45 2.55 2.55 5 5 8 2 5 5 5

0.46 0.53 0.51 1.18 1.42 2.75 2.04 4.22 0.88 2.93 0.96 3.88 0.48 1.54 1.68

P. Mattheij et al. / Composites: Part A 31 (2000) 571581

575

Fig. 3. Effect of stitch distribution and thread tension ratio on GIc according to the model.

PES yarn

Resin rich area

1 mm

Fig. 4. Micrograph of an aramid stitch in a TFP cross-ply laminate.

spacing (mm), W the stitch length (mm) and T the upper/lower tread tension ratio (cN/cN). Essentially, the model shows that the distribution of the stitches does not inuence GIc. Changing the stitch row spacing and stitch length such that the stitch density remains constant gives the nearly same curve (see Fig. 3). A stitch density of approximately 8 stitches/cm 2 was seen as a good compromise between reduced in-plane and increased out-of-plane properties. Consequently, the stitch pattern 3:5 3:5 mm2 ; resulting in a density of 8.16 stitches/cm 2, was chosen for further tests. Also, Fig. 3 reveals that the highest GIc is reached with a 3D thread tension ratio between 3 and 4. At this ratio the 3D aramid bre is xed close to the lower preform surface, penetrating the complete preform thickness. At higher ratios the aramid is partly pulled out of the preform again when moving to the next stitch position. The micrograph of Fig. 4 shows the 3D reinforcement in the laminate of preform variant number 7 with a tension ratio of 3.2. It is striking that the aramid bre lies very straight in the laminate. The preform is very much compacted at manufacturing and following 3D stitching. The additional compaction during the consolidation process at one bar pressure reduces the preform thickness only a little more. Therefore, the 3D thread remains straight. The thread tension ratio of 3.2 was taken as the optimum for all further tests with aramid reinforcement. Formula (1) predicts a GIc of 2.96 kJ/m 2 for the parameter combination stitch length and stitch row spacing is 3.5 mm and thread tension ratio is 3.2.

576

P. Mattheij et al. / Composites: Part A 31 (2000) 571581

Table 4 Reduction in tensile and exural properties of a cross-ply TFP laminate due to 3D reinforcing Test Tensile Thread for preform 10 tex PES 10 tex PES 10 tex PES 5 tex PES 5 tex PES 10 tex PES 10 tex PES 10 tex PES 5 tex PES 3D thread (8.16 St./cm 2) 10 tex 40 tex 40 tex 10 tex 40 tex 20 tex Laminate thickness (mm) 3.11 3.09 3.14 2.98 2.87 3.14 3.07 3.12 2.96 Strength (MPa) 726 1.7% 6.9% 846 5.5% 976 1.2% 7.8% 6.7% Modulus (GPa) 60.2 0.0% 3.2% 64.5 3.3% 70.2 1.0% 3.8% 8.3%

PES Aramid Aramid PES Aramid Aramid

3-P-Bending

4. Tests with optimum stitching parameters 4.1. Tension and exure test results When considering 3D reinforcement, improved out-ofplane properties are usually balanced by decreased inplane mechanical properties. To assess the effect of 3D reinforcing on in-plane properties, tension and 3-pointbending tests were carried out. Table 4 shows the results of tension and exure tests on TFP cross-ply carbon/epoxy with and without 3-D reinforcement. The 3D thread was either PES or aramid bre. The optimum stitching parameters derived in the previous section were used giving a stitch density of 8.16 stitches/cm 2. The aramid side of the 3D reinforced specimens was the compression side in the exure tests. Looking rst at the non-reinforced laminates there is a positive effect when the thinner 5 tex PES yarn is preferred to the 10 tex PES yarn for preform manufacture. Maximum tensile stress and exural stress are higher by 16.5 and 12.6%, respectively, for the thinner yarn type.

Part of the increase can be explained by a higher bre volume content because the resin rich areas in between the individual layers created by the thinner yarn are smaller. The micrograph of Fig. 4 shows some PES yarns in between the carbon layers of a TFP laminate 3-D reinforced with aramid. Misalignment of the carbon bres is also reduced with the thinner yarn. The increase in the tensile modulus is smaller than that of the exural modulus but is still more than on account of the higher bre content alone. 3D reinforcing with 10 tex PES has a negligible effect on the tensile and bending properties. However, 3D reinforcing with 40 tex aramid reduces the tensile strength and the bending strength by about 78%. The modulus is reduced by only 34% in case of TFP made with 10 tex PES yarn. But TFP made with 5 tex PES yarn suffers a higher reduction of 8.3%. Logically the positive effect of a thin 5 tex PES yarn is largely frustrated by bringing in a thick 40 tex aramid 3-D yarn. In summary, the results are in accordance with similar values found in the literature for carbon fabric and tape material [6,7,10].

Fig. 5. Mode I fracture toughness of TFP with different 3D thread materials.

P. Mattheij et al. / Composites: Part A 31 (2000) 571581

577

Fig. 6. Typical load-crack opening curves in DCB tests with different 3D thread types.

4.2. Double-cantilever beam test results The delamination resistance under Mode I loading is characterised by the strain energy release rate GIc. 3D reinforcement is known to have a very positive effect on interlaminar fracture toughness since the 3-D thread bridges the crack. Four 3D thread materials (PES, aramid, PBO and PE) were tested for their ability to improve GIc. Details about the thread materials are given in Table 1. The optimum stitching parameters derived in Section 3 were used giving a stitch density of 8.16 stitches/cm 2. Only the thread tension ratio had to be chosen individually for the different thread materials, as discussed in Section 2.1. TFP cross-ply preforms were made by placing carbon bre rovings on a thin glass fabric base material. Some of the DCB specimens were manufactured with these glass fabric layers on the outside of the specimen, to see whether it gives differences in the size from G1c. Others were made with the glass fabric layers at the plane of cleavage. Fig. 5 shows the results of the DCB tests and Fig. 6 the typical load-crack opening displacement curves. The three groups of columns on the left of Fig. 5 shows GIc values for TFP with the glass fabric base material on the outside of the specimen. The plane of cleavage is therefore between the top carbon layers of two preforms. The non-3D reinforced fracture toughness is 0.29 kJ/m 2. A distinct improvement is achieved by 3D reinforcing with the 10 tex PES yarn used also for xing the roving in the bre placement process. A TFP laminate is built up with an increasing number of out-of-plane orientated yarns the closer the layer is to the base material as shown in Fig. 2. This means that there is a gradient in Mode I fracture

toughness across the thickness of a TFP laminate. 3D reinforcing with aramid improved GIc to 2.91 kJ/m 2 which almost equals the value predicted by model (1) of 2.96 kJ/m 2. This also agrees well with the value of 2.82 kJ/m 2 found by Jain and Mai [7] for a composite 3D reinforced with 40 tex aramid and a density of Typical load-displacement curves 8 stitches/cm 2. recorded during DCB testing show that there is a stick-slip crack growth, see Fig. 6. This applies to non-3D reinforced as well as for PES and aramid reinforced laminates. The aramid reinforced laminate in particular shows large load drops when single 3D threads fail. A mix of pulled out and failed aramid bres characterise the crack surface of these specimens. The three groups of columns on the right in Fig. 5 belong to TFP laminates with glass fabric base material at the plane of cleavage. The non-3D reinforced laminate has a remarkably high GIc of 2.76 kJ/m 2. This is caused by multiple crack growth in the resin rich area between the two glass fabric layers. Extra energy is required to propagate the crack in length direction because rival cracks above and below the main crack occur. This leads to a very rough crack front, a larger fracture area, and crack tip blunting. Additionally, the many PES yarns in this layer, the lower sides of two preforms, are bridging the crack. 3D reinforcing with the very thin PE bre improves GIc slightly to 3.02 kJ/m 2. The best Mode I fracture toughness of 8.54 kJ/m 2 is achieved with PBO thread material. All PBO threads are pulled out of the laminate without fracture of the bre. Even if considering the higher linear weight of PBO and the different laminate lay-up, the improved strength and maximum strain of PBO compared to aramid is advantageous. PBO bre can be

578

P. Mattheij et al. / Composites: Part A 31 (2000) 571581

a) TFP (10 tex PES yarn) no 3-D

b) prepreg tape no 3-D

c) plain weave fabric no 3-D

d) TFP ( 10 tex PES yarn) 3-D: aramid

e) TFP (5 tex PES yarn) 3-D: aramid

f) plain weave fabric 3-D: 13 PES

Fig. 7. C-scans of quasi-isotropic carbon/epoxy panels impacted with 30 J.

Fig. 8. CAI strength of quasi-isotropic TFP and plain weave fabric laminates.

P. Mattheij et al. / Composites: Part A 31 (2000) 571581

579

Fig. 9. Delamination area after low velocity impact on carbon/epoxy.

considered as an interesting alternative to aramid as 3-D thread material. 4.3. Compression-after-impact test results Quasi-isotropic CAI specimens made of TFP, plain weave fabric and prepreg tape were low velocity impacted with an energy of 15, 30 J, or, for reference, not impacted at all. Some of the TFP specimens were 3D reinforced with aramid or PES bre. The optimum stitching parameters derived in Section 3 (four specimens at each energy level) were used giving a stitch density of 8.16 stitches/cm 2. The entry side of the aramid bre into the laminate was also the side of impact. Fabric specimens were non-3D reinforced, reinforced once with PES or up to13 times with PES. The last variant was used to simulate the effect stitching has in the TFP manufacturing process. Prepreg specimens were used only to compare impact damage size and were not CAI tested. Fig. 7 shows ultrasonic C-scans of TFP, fabric and prepreg tape panels with 30 J impact damage. CAI test results of TFP and plain weave fabric are given in Fig. 8. An impact energy of 15 J causes indentation depths of 0.17 mm in TFP laminates regardless of through-the-thickness reinforcement. This is below.3 mmthe limit for a barely visible impact damage (BVID) according to DINEN6038. Impact of 30 J caused indentations of 0.72, 0.82 and 0.92 mm in TFP with no bre, PES, and aramid

3D bre, respectively. Fig. 7 shows ultrasonic C-scans of non-3D reinforced as well as 3D reinforced laminates. The delamination in TFP typically has a rhombic shape. 3D reinforcing with aramid does not have a great effect on the damage size in the TFP specimens (see Fig. 7a and d). An improved effect due to the 3D bre might be reached when the 3D thread is on the back of the panel and not in line with the bres in the exterior layer as in these tests. The carbon rovings then might be better protected against delamination. This has to be proved in further tests. There does seem to be an effect of the PES yarn used for bre placement. The damage in the TFP laminate made with 10 tex PES is a little bit larger than for 5 tex PES (see Fig. 7d and e). Because the yarn is situated between the individual plies, the larger resin pockets in the case of the thicker yarn could play a role in the delamination spreading. Fig. 4 shows a PES yarn and the surrounding resin pocket. 3D reinforcing with PES, imitating the stitching process as in TFP laminates, does not diminish the size of the delamination in the fabric laminate (see Fig. 7c and f). TFP laminates have a clearly smaller delamination area than prepreg tape laminates. The damage size in the fabric laminate is the smallest. Fig. 9 shows the damage area as a function of impact energy per unit thickness and includes values from the literature. The diagram conrms the trend that fabric shows the smallest delamination area. The damage area in TFP is larger and comparable with

580

P. Mattheij et al. / Composites: Part A 31 (2000) 571581

thermoplastic tape material APC-2. It should be mentioned that the layer thickness of the TFP, woven fabric, and tape laminates tested here is, respectively, 0.34, 0.25 and 0.12 mm. A thicker layer results in a larger delamination area for the same composite [11]. The left three groups of columns in Fig. 8 show the CAI strength of TFP made with 10 tex PES yarn. Comparison of the compression strength values without impact shows that 3D reinforcing with PES reduces the strength slightly by 2% and reinforcing with the thicker aramid thread reduces the strength by 5% compared to the reference value of 229 MPa. A lower strength has to be expected because of the damage done by the stitching needle and the displacement of the load carrying carbon bres by the 3D thread. This effect is also seen in the tension and bending test results. The CAI strength of TFP 3D reinforced with aramid and impacted with 15 J is improved by 5% compared with the reference to 202 MPa. At an energy level of 30 J the difference between the reference laminate and the laminate reinforced with PES or aramid is negligible. The 30 J impact damage is relatively large and therefore global buckling of the panels begins at a lower load. The delamination with the exterior bres in the load direction acts as a buckled sublaminate. The aramid 3D reinforcement is not able to retard the growth of the impact damage enough to reach a higher ultimate strength. Here a higher stitch density or a 3D bre with a higher tensile modulus per mm 2 should be advantageous. Therefore, PBO or carbon bre might be more effective in reducing the delamination size and growth. Also, an improved effect of the 3D bre might be reached when the 3D thread is on the back of the panel and not in line with the bres in the exterior layer as in these tests. The best way to improve the CAI strength is to diminish the damage size during impact. It is remarkable that the 3D aramid reinforcement in TFP made with 5 tex PES yarn is effective. The strength reduction by 30 J impact is only 2%. In this case the slightly smaller damage size is effectively prevented from growing by the through-the-thickness aramid bre. Some of the fabric specimens were stitched just as in the TFP manufacturing process to examine whether stitching affects CAI strength. The results of the non-impacted fabric specimens reveal that the more the stitching the lower the compression strength (see the right three groups of columns in Fig. 8). The fabric laminates impacted with 30 J show that 3D reinforcing with PES improves the CAI strength slightly; it is not known why. But 3D reinforcing 13 times as in TFP has a negative effect. The fabric specimens are somewhat thicker, about 3.6 mm compared to 3.0 mm for the TFP specimens. Therefore, global buckling of the fabric specimens occurs at a higher strength than the TFP specimens resulting in a higher ultimate strength.

thickness stitching with locally varying stitch densities. Different 3D bres like aramid, PBO, polyethylene and polyester can be processed. Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness was increased by 3D reinforcing. The PES yarn for manufacturing the TFP-preforms has a measurable 3D reinforcement effect. Aramid bre increased fracture toughness by a factor of 10. Referring to linear weight, PBO showed the most improvement in Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness, followed by aramid and PE. Therefore, PBO bre can be a serious alternative to aramid as a 3D reinforcing material. In-plane tensile and exural properties were reduced by 3D reinforcing with aramid by 38%. Low velocity impact damage area in TFP was larger than in woven fabric but smaller than in prepreg tape laminates. 3D reinforcing with aramid did not have a measurable effect on the delamination size in TFP under the given circumstances. The stitch density of the PES yarn used for bre placement did not diminish the impact damage. The effect of 3D reinforcing with aramid bre on CAI strength was ambiguous. At 15 J impact energy the CAI-strength improved by 3D reinforcing. At 30 J impact the aramid 3-D reinforcement was effective for TFP made with 5 tex PES yarn but not for TFP with 10 tex PES yarn. Further work has to be done on how to improve the compression-after-impact strength of TFP laminates by through-the-thickness stitching.

Acknowledgements This work was sponsored by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG. We thank you for this support.

References
[1] Gliesche K, Feltin D. Preforms for composite parts made by tailored bre placement. Proceedings ICCM-11, Gold Coast, Australia, vol. V, 1997. p. 1726. [2] Crothers PJ, Drechsler K, Feltin D, Herzberg I, Bannister M. The design and application of tailored bre placement, Composites Part: A. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1997. [3] Mattheij P, Gliesche K, Feltin D. Tailored bre placementmechanical properties and applications. J Reinf Plast Compos 1998;17:774 86. [4] Dranseld D, Baillie C, Mai Y-W. Improving the delamination resistance of CFRP by stitchinga review. Compos Sci Technol 1994;50:30517. [5] Brandt J, Drechsler K, Arendts F-J. Mechanical performance of composites based on various three-dimensional woven-bre preforms. Compos Sci Technol 1996;56:3816. [6] Mouritz AP, Leong KH, Herszberg I. A review of the effect of stitching on the in-plane mechanical properties of bre-reinforced polymer composites. Composites Part A 1997;28A:97991. [7] Jain LK, Mai Y-W. Recent work on stitching of laminated compositestheoretical analysis and experiments. Proceedings ICCM-11, Gold Coast, Australia, vol. I, 1997. p. 2551. [8] Bibo GA, Hogg PJ, Backhouse R, Mills A. Carbon-bre non-crimp fabric laminates for cost-effective damage-tolerant structures. Compos Sci Technol 1998;58:12943. [9] Wei S. Verfahrenstechnische Berechnungsmethoden, part 8,

5. Conclusion Tailored bre placement can be used for through-the-

P. Mattheij et al. / Composites: Part A 31 (2000) 571581 r Experimente in der Verfahrenstechnik, VEB Deutscher Verlag fu Grundstofndustrie, Leipzig, 1983. p. 5161 (in German). [10] Mouritz AP, Gallagher J, Goodwin AA. Flexural strength and interlaminar shear strength of stitched GRP laminates following repeated impacts. Compos Sci Technol 1997;57:50922.

581

[11] Liu D. Delamination resistance in stitched and unstitched composite plates subjected to impact loading. J Reinf Plast Compos 1990;9:59 69.