| Literature DB >> 35567026 |
Mingrui Xu1,2, Benyin Zeng1,2, Ziqian An1, Xin Xiong2, Xiaoquan Cheng1.
Abstract
The fatigue properties of composite materials are degraded seriously in hygrothermal environments, so taking into account their influence is very important when evaluating the fatigue life of composite structures. Tensile fatigue experiments of carbon fiber reinforced resin composite cross-ply laminates were conducted in room temperature/dry (RTD), cool temperature/dry (CTD) and elevated temperature/wet (ETW) conditions. The S-N curves and fatigue failure modes of the cross-ply laminates were obtained in three conditions. On this basis, a finite element model was established to discuss the influence of temperature and moisture content on the fatigue properties, as well as a method for determining environmental factors of fatigue life of cross-ply laminates was established. The results show that the saturation moisture absorption and temperature have a significant influence on the tensile fatigue properties of cross-ply laminates. The high-cycle fatigue property is weakened significantly by the saturation moisture absorption and high temperature, but the low-cycle fatigue properties were strengthened in cool temperature conditions. The delamination failure mode in ETW is the most severe, presenting with an obvious necking phenomenon. The influence of temperature has a greater effect than that of moisture content, but moisture absorption would play its affect obviously when temperature exceeds 40 °C.Entities:
Keywords: S–N curve; fatigue properties; hygrothermal environments; laminates; tensile fatigue
Year: 2022 PMID: 35567026 PMCID: PMC9099677 DOI: 10.3390/polym14091857
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Static and tensile fatigue specimens.
Test types and specimen number.
| Test Category | RTD | CTD | ETW |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moisture absorption | 3 | ||
| Static tensile | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Tension fatigue | 16 | 16 | 16 |
Figure 2Test set for the tensile fatigue. (a) Test loading and measuring in RTD; (b) moisture retention of ETW test specimens.
Material parameters [28].
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 54.3 | 54.3 | 680 | 680 | 3.26 | 116 | 1.42 | 1.23 | 45 |
Empirical constants [28].
| a | b | c | d | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 120 | 20 | 5 | 0.05 | 0.15 | 0.22 | 0.56 |
Figure 3Finite element model.
Elastic engineering constants of materials [28].
| E1/GPa | E2/GPa | E3/GPa | G12/GPa | G13/GPa | G23/GPa | ν12 | ν13 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 54.3 | 54.3 | 3.3 | 3.26 | 2.17 | 2.17 | 0.04 | 0.01 |
| ν23 | XT/MPa | XC/MPa | YT/MPa | YC/MPa | S12/MPa | S13/MPa | S23/MPa |
| 0.01 | 680 | 614.29 | 680 | 614.29 | 115.98 | 73.5 | 73.5 |
Figure 4Flow chart of fatigue simulation.
Average tensile properties in three environments.
| Static Properties | RTD | CTD | ETW |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum load/kN | 16.85 | 19.02 | 10.75 |
| Elastic modulus/GPa | 12.10 | 13.63 | 11.07 |
| Tensile strength/MPa | 231.86 | 261.63 | 145.82 |
Fatigue test results in three environments (stress ratio R = 0.0526).
| Environments | Stress Level | Max Stress | Fatigue Life |
|---|---|---|---|
| RTD | 60 | 139.1 | 645,427, 77,795, 280,167, 925,905 |
| 68 | 157.7 | 59,040, 15,576, 35,494, 33,051 | |
| 70 | 162.3 | 21,348, 15,576, 47,731, 39,773 | |
| 73 | 169.3 | 4213, 10,871, 11,142, 399,891 | |
| CTD | 38 | 99.4 | 874,358, 1,207,366, 1,015,576, 840,721 |
| 55 | 143.9 | 79,826, 88,424, 95,197, 82,243 | |
| 60 | 157 | 18,463, 29,169, 27,646, 20,312 | |
| 63 | 164.8 | 7866, 17,618, 9382, 20,316 | |
| ETW | 45 | 65.6 | 1,124,138, 122,504, 917,306, 895,576 |
| 50 | 72.9 | 213,125, 125,555, 123,153, 48,097 | |
| 56 | 81.7 | 70,968, 107,692, 35,724, 3890 | |
| 60 | 87.5 | 1608, 2988, 6730, 6038 |
Figure 5S-N curve of angel-ply laminates in three environments.
Figure 6Fatigue failure morphology in three environments. (a) RTD; (b) CTD; (c) ETW.
Figure 7Fatigue failure morphology along the direction of thickness in three environments. (a) RTD; (b) CTD; (c) ETW.
Comparison between the predicted values and the experimental values.
| Stress Level | Life Cycle Number/Cycle | Logarithmic Life Number | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test | Simulation | Error | Simulation | Test | Error | |
| RTD-60% | 482,324 | 546,000 | 13.2% | 5.53 | 5.74 | 3.8% |
| RTD-68% | 35,790 | 36,500 | 2.0% | 4.51 | 4.56 | 1.1% |
| RTD-70% | 31,107 | 17,500 | −43.7% | 4.45 | 4.24 | −4.72% |
| RTD-73% | 16,500 | 6800 | −58.8% | 4.08 | 3.83 | −6.1% |
| CTD-38% | 984,505 | 1,014,000 | 3.0% | 5.99 | 6.01 | 0.3% |
| CTD-55% | 86,423 | 50,000 | −42.1% | 4.94 | 4.70 | −4.9% |
| CTD-60% | 23,898 | 27,000 | 13.0% | 4.37 | 4.43 | 1.4% |
| CTD-63% | 13,796 | 12,000 | −13.0% | 4.11 | 4.08 | −0.7% |
| ETW-45% | 764,881 | 780,000 | 2.0% | 5.76 | 5.89 | 2.3% |
| ETW-50% | 127,483 | 123,750 | −3.0% | 5.05 | 5.09 | 0.8% |
| ETW-56% | 54,569 | 16,000 | −70.7% | 4.51 | 4.20 | −6.9% |
| ETW-60% | 4341 | 3400 | −21.7% | 3.57 | 3.53 | −1.1% |
Figure 8The final fatigue failure morphology calculated by the finite element method. (a) RTD; (b) CTD; (c) ETW.
Figure 9Fatigue failure process calculated by the finite element method. (a) RTD; (b) CTD; (c) ETW.
Figure 10Fatigue life under different hygrothermal conditions. (a) Fatigue life; (b) Normalization of logarithmic life.