| Literature DB >> 30960507 |
Gábor Szebényi1, Viktor Hliva2.
Abstract
Fiber-reinforced polymer composite structures are frequently used in industries where personal safety is critical; therefore, it is important to periodically estimate or monitor the condition of high value, load bearing structures. The digital image correlation (DIC) is well known as an effective method to obtain full field surface strains; in this paper, it was used to detect artificial damage inside the structures. Carbon or glass fabric reinforced epoxy specimens were produced and tested. All specimens contained an artificial through-delamination which was created by the insertion of different foils of a mould release agent during production. Tensile and compression tests were done while the camera system collected the images of the deformed surface to be analyzed posteriorly. In most cases the approximate locations of delaminations could be effectively detected from strain maps by the localization of zones showing different strain values than intact zones.Entities:
Keywords: delamination; digital image correlation; non-destructive test
Year: 2019 PMID: 30960507 PMCID: PMC6473743 DOI: 10.3390/polym11030523
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Sample classifications, compositions and results summary.
| Specimen Type | I. | II. | III. | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 200 g/m2 carbon fabric | 220 g/m2 glass fabric | ||||||||
|
| [0/90f, ±45f, | [0/90f, | ||||||||
|
| PTFE foil | just wax without foil | PET foil+ wax | |||||||
|
| 30 mm wide, through-delamination | |||||||||
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|
| up | up | down (rotated by 180°) | down | down | up | up | up | up | up (behind) |
|
| no | no | no | no | no | no | no | yes | yes | yes |
|
| yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | no | no | yes | yes | yes |
Figure 1(a) Geometry of specimens; (b) the experimental setup.
Figure 2(a) Location of line probes in the first specimen (b) strain-frame diagram from line probes.
Figure 3(a) Location of strain gauges in the first specimen (b) strain-frame diagram from virtual strain gauges.
Figure 4Interpretation of cut out surface strain fields.
Figure 5Comparison of longitudinal strains of specimens 1–5. during the tensile test at the 0.4% average strain condition.
Figure 6Comparison of longitudinal strains of specimens 6–10. during the tensile test.
Figure 7Comparison of transverse strains of specimens 1–5. during the compression test at −1.5% average strain.