TENSILE

TESTING OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS SR2

Submitted by Arjun Radhakrishnan

SUMMARY The tension test is conducted on three uni-directional carbon fiber composite specimens. The load and its corresponding displacement are noted and the strain gauges are utilized to obtain longitudinal and transverse strain in the specimen. The strain in the specimen is measured using three independent instruments; Strain gauge, extensometer and the testing machine displacement. The stress-strain to failure is plotted. The longitudinal tensile strength, longitudinal tensile modulus and Poissons ratio are calculated. The current test is compared with a previous one of similar conditions. The reliability of the test is discussed. INTRODUCTION Testing of a composite material is entirely different when compared to a metal. The main two reasons are1: 1. The anisotropic behavior of the composite material. 2. Viscoelastic effects of the matrix material. The testing standards currently being used are a derivative of the metal testing methods. Different standardization organizations have proposed their own methods; ASTM D3039, BS2782, CRAG2 (300,301 & 302) and ISO 527. The industries have developed their own set of tests for material characterization and quality assurance. The reliability of the test on composite materials is highly dependent on the manufacturing process and the environment. The volume fraction of the fibre influences the test properties hence porosity can be in the specimen can give a lower value of strength. The gripping at the ends should not damage the fibres hence it is end tabbed. The end tabs are usually GRP but differs with various standards. The end tabs provide a friction grip so as to load the specimen and also prevents the stress concentration from affecting the outer fibres.

Figure 1: Nomenclature of specimen

Strain gauges work on the principle of Wheatstone bridge. The strain gauges are bonded to the specimen using an adhesive, as shown in fig 2. When the specimen is loaded the strain gauges experiences the elongation too. The strain gauge is calibrated and the change in resistance is converted to the strain on the specimen as shown below3: Length Resistance of the circuit

Gauge factor, GF =(R/RG)/ The GF is known so strain can be calculated. The data acquisition device does this calculation. It should be clearly understood that the strain gauge measures the surface strain only.

Figure 2: strain gauge

OBJECTIVES Apply tension on the given composite specimens and: Plot the stress-strain to failure for the given composite specimens. Calculate the longitudinal secant modulus, tensile strength and Poissons ratio. State the reliability of the test Discuss the observations on the response of the specimen under tension. PROCEDURE Specimen preparation: The specimens are uni-directional CFRP (T300/914 from Hexcel). The CRAG2 300 standards are used for tensile test of the specimens as shown in fig 3.

Figure 3: CRAG 300 standard specimen

GRP end tabs are bonded using adhesives onto the ends of the specimen to prevent failure due to stress concentration at the grips. Specimen length, width, thickness and end tab lengths are measured and averaged. Strain gauging: o The surface of the specimen is roughened so that the adhesive bonds the strain gauge well. o The surface of is cleaned using a wipe and solvent. o A FCA 3-11(Table 2 lists the details) biaxial foil strain gauge is fixed on to the center of the specimen using adhesives o The wires are soldered on an electrical pad and the output is taken from the electrical pad.

o When soldering, care must be taken not to tighten the strain gauge output as this might cause apparent stresses. o The gauge resistance is verified.
Table 1: Details of FCA 3-11 Strain gauge4

Type Gauge length (mm) Gauge width (mm) Gauge resistance ()

90o , 2 element cross stacked 3 1.7 120

Testing machine: The specimen is fixed into the tensile testing machine. The three specimens are tested in two different testing machines and loading rates as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Loading rates

Specimen number 1 2 3

Testing machine used Instron Zwick Zwick

Loading rate (mm/min) 1 1 5

The strain gauges are connected to the system to collect the transverse and longitudinal strains on the specimen. A contact extensometer of gage length 50 mm is clipped on to the specimen to measure the displacement. The extensometer is removed at approximately at 0.5 % strain to avoid damage to it.

Figure 4: Specimen loaded on to the testing machine

Observation: The specimen is taken to failure and the visual and audio responses during the test are studied. The data is processed and the strain on the specimen is independently obtained from machine displacement, extensometer and strain gauge. The stress-strain to failure is to be plotted The tensile properties are calculated The results are to be interpreted and its validity is to be discussed. Comparison with the similar previous test on specimens 1a, 2a and 3a is to be done. Where specimens 1a, 2a and 3a where tested in the same manner as specimen 1,2 and 3 respectively. RESULTS Dimensions:
Table 3: Specimen dimensions

Specimen 1 2 3

Length (mm) 99.5 99.5 100

Width (mm) 15.03 14.97 15.05

Thickness (mm) 2.13 2.22 2.22

End tab length (mm) 51 51 51

Stress Strain plots: The stress-strain is plotted to the last valid data available.

Figure 5: Specimen 1 - Stress Vs. Strain

Figure 6: Specimen 2 - Stress Vs. Strain

Figure 7: Specimen 3 - Stress Vs. Strain

Figure 8: Specimen 1 and 1a comparison (Strain gauge)

Figure 9: Specimen 2 and 2a comparison (Strain gauge)

Figure 10: Specimen 3 and 3a comparison (Strain gauge)

Figure 11: Extensometer data for specimen 1 and 1a

Figure 12: Extensometer data for specimen 2 and 2a

Figure 13: Extensometer data for specimen 3 and 3a

Tensile properties and observation:

Figure 14: Calculation of secant modulus

Figure 15: Calculation of Poisson's ratio

TS tensile strength E1T Secant Modulus at 0.25% strain, as shown in fig 14. 1T Poissons ratio at 0.25% of longitudinal strain, as shown in fig 15.
Table 4: Properties and observation

Specimen E1T (GPa) 1T Longitudinal TS (GPa) Failure mode M* 52

1 E+ S# 120 128 0.336 2.21

M 108

2 E 120 0.36 2.15

S 128

3 M E 1.76 136 0.293 2.12

S 120

Near one of the end tab and explosively causing failure of the material. A crackling noted before failure.

The ply came off one by one with initial ply being close to the strain gauge. A crackling sound characteristic of delamination was noted before the explosion

Delamination of an inner ply. The ply came out and fell over in between the cracks in the material.

*Machine data +Extensometer data #Strain gauge data

Failed specimens:

Figure 16: Specimen 3 failed piece

Figure 17: Anomaly occurring for specimen 3 test

DISCUSSION The current test and the CRAG 300 are compared in table 5. The three specimens where tested in as per CRAG standards but certain points where not strictly adhered to and they are listed in the table 5. The machine seems to indicate very low stresses and high strain unlike the extensometer and the strain gauge for all the specimens, as shown by fig 5,6,7. The machine is likely to have higher errors due to its poor response. The extensometer and strain gauge reading seems to correlate well to each other, as shown by fig 5,6,7. The extensometer data seems to be incrementing in steps as shown in fig 11,12 and can be attributed to slipping. This effect seems to less at high loading rates as indicated by fig 13. The strain gauges exhibit a linear behavior for all the specimens.
Table 5: Comparison of CRAG and current test

STANDARD Thickness

CRAG METHOD CURRENT TEST 3001 1.0 mm with Mean of the three tolerance of 0.04 specimens at 2.19 mm

COMMENTS This accounted by CRAG standards as nearest mouldable thickness. A thicker specimen may cause the adhesion at the end tabs to fail before the material itself. The failure has not exactly occurred in the specified time limit. This effect may have resulted in an increased effect of creep on the results.

Testing speed

To cause failure in 30-90 s

The rates where 1mm/min and 2 mm/min

Table 6: Properties of specimen 1a, 2a and 3a

Specimen E1T (GPa) 1T Longitudinal TS (GPa) M* 56

1a E+ 120 0.36 2.03

S 124

M 16

2a E 120 0.376 2.15

S 128

M 16

3a E 120 0.336 2.11

S 116

The specimen 1 and 1a seems to have had different region of initiation of failure. As shown in fig 8, the strains reduce for specimen 1 unlike 1a, indicating delamination ripping of the strain gauge from the specimen. The visual observation noted that the initiation was possibly near to the end tab and the resulting shock wave caused the specimen to explosively fail5. The specimen 2 and 2a seem to exhibit the exact similar trend and is almost superimposed, as shown in fig 9. Similar to the previous specimens, strain gauge failed even before the failure load is touched. The strains reduce while indicating an increase in stress before completely failing. The crackling sound before the failure possibly indicates delamination. The stress continued to increase as the remaining fibres where taking the load until complete failure. The specimen 3 and 3a have a different trend, as there was an anomaly in the mode of failure, as shown in fig 10. The delaminated ply in specimen 3 testing came off and fell into the crack causing a kind of reinforcement effect in the transverse direction, as seen in fig 17. This occurred after the failure of strain gauge hence it could be noticed that stress is increasing while the strain remains constant until failure. Specimen 3a exhibits a smooth trend with an increase in stress with strain leading to failure after reaching a maximum.
Table 7: Standard deviation of data for 6 specimens

Instrument Testing machine Extensometer Strain gauge

Standard deviation of tensile modulus 39.045 6.532 5.059

Table 8: Comparison with literature

Method Tensile strength (GPa) Tensile modulus (GPa) Tensile strain

Test CRAG 2.17 * 123.33^ 1.6 %^

Literature5 ASTM D-3039 1.860+ 135+ 1.3%

*Mean value +Normalized to 60% fiber volume ^mean of readings from strain gauge and extensometer

As shown in table 7, standard deviation indicates that the strain gauge data is more consistent. But, the extensometer read consistently 120 GPa for five of the six specimens.

10

Table 9: Short summary of possible errors

Source Strain gauge

Extensometer End tabs Test machine

Error Improper soldering Improper bonding to specimen Temperature sensitivity Trans-sensitivity Slipping Improper bonding High clamping force Low clamping force

Effect Apparent stresses Lower values of strains Increased strains 0.2% error Improper clamping but it is inherent to the device Shearing at the end tabs rather than tensile failure at gage length Shearing at the end tabs rather than tensile failure at gage length The specimen slips resulting in improper data

CONCLUSION The specimens 1,2 and 3 can be said to have had a valid failure through visual inspection. The stress-strain plot of specimen 1a, 2a and 3a indicates a valid failure, although not visually inspected. The mean tensile strength is recorded to be 2.17 GPa and tensile modulus is 123.33 GPa. The mean Poissons ratio is 0.357. The results show slight variation from literature indicating that the testing is dependent on the environment. Both the extensometer and strain gauges are reliable measuring devices. The data acquired indicates major failures to be delamination or failure near the end tabs. REFERENCE
1. Hodgkinson, J. M., Mechanical testing of advanced fibre composites, 2000 pg. 43-73, edition 2000 2. P T Curtis (ed), CRAG Test Methods for the Measurement of the Engineering Properties of Fibre Reinforced Plastics, Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, UK, Technical Report 88012, 1988. 3. Hannah, R.L. and Reed, S.E., Strain gauge users handbook, 1992 pg. 35 to 36 4. Technical data sheet No. CFA 001 Torayca T300 data sheet 5. Meggyesi, Joseph P., Tensile testing SR2 laboratory inference

11