A numerical study on the thermal expansion coefficients of fiber

A numerical study on the thermal expansion coefficients of fiber A numerical study on the thermal expansion coefficients of fiber

fbe.deu.edu.tr
from fbe.deu.edu.tr More from this publisher
06.11.2014 Views

CHAPTER SIX RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Carbon fiber reinforced composite material systems had axial fiber to matrix stiffness ratios (E f1 /E m ) ranging from 6 to 140, and axial fiber to matrix coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) ratios (α f1 /α m ) ranging from −0.01 to −0.30. Besides, glass fiber reinforced composite material had E f /E m of 20.6, and α f /α m of 10.5. Therefore, this investigation has covered a wide range of fiber/matrix combinations. CTE predictions from some of the analytical models presented in Chapter 3 were compared with each other, with available experimental data and with finite element results for all of the material systems. Predicted and measured values for the longitudinal and transverse directions for all of the materials studied are given in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 respectively. The comparisons of these model predictions with experimental data show that for some material the agreement is very good, but for others there is some discrepancy between the experimental results and model predictions. The reason may be that the fiber-matrix interface bond which was assumed to be perfect was not really so in the experimental materials. The interface may either contain interfacial cracks or it might have elastic properties different from those of matrix and fiber. Figures 6.1 – 6.14 show a comparison of longitudinal and transverse CTEs as a function of fiber volume fraction, predicted from the different methods for seven different material systems: E-Glass/Epoxy, T300/934 (T300/5208), P75/934 (P75/930), P75/CE339, C6000/PMR15, HMS/Borosilcate, and P100/2024Al. Experimental data are also shown on these figures. The Shapery, Chamberlain (both hexagonal and square), Schneider, and Chamis methods all used Equation (3.14) for predicting longitudinal CTEs. As shown in the Table 6.1 and Figures 6.1, 6.3, 6.5, 6.7, 6.9, 6.11, and 6.13, the differences between the Rosen-Hashin and finite element results were negligible and there were only 61

62 small differences between these and the other results. All of the models and finite element analyses were in good agreement with the experimental data for longitudinal CTEs. The largest deviation between any of the predicted and experimental values for longitudinal CTE was 0.22 10 -6 /°C only, in most cases the deviation was on the order of about 0.1 10 -6 /°C, and the average deviation is 0.127 10 -6 /°C. Although the magnitudes of longitudinal CTE differed for different material systems , the general response was the same (decreasing CTE with increasing volume fraction). This implies that the relative magnitudes of the fiber/matrix stiffness and CTE ratios did not significantly affect the general trend in longitudinal CTE as a function of volume fraction. For the transverse CTE the Shapery results were obtained by using the modified version of the Equation (3.15) for transversely isotropic fibers, replacing fiber properties with transverse fiber properties. There were large differences between the predicted values for all of the methods, except for the Rosen-Hashin method and finite element analyses. Results from these two methods were in excellent agreement with each other. The differences between Chamis and finite element results were attributed to Poisson restraining effects which were not included in Equation (3.26). The omission of this type of three dimensional effects was also thought to be responsible for the large difference between the Chamberlain, Schneider, and finite element results. These differences have been previously documented in the literature (Bowles, & Tompkins, 1989). Results also show that the Rosen-Hashin and finite element results for transverse CTE were generally in much better agreement with the experimental data, than the other methods for all materials investigated. The Shapery results were in good agreement with experimental results and were in better agreement with the experimental data for the P75/930 and P75/CE339 material systems. However, it should be noted that the matrix mechanical properties for these two systems were assumed to be the same as the other epoxy matrices, which is probably not an accurate assumption, and therefore the better agreement with the experimental data is believed to be coincidental. It should also be remembered that the modification of the

CHAPTER SIX<br />

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION<br />

Carb<strong>on</strong> <strong>fiber</strong> reinforced composite material systems had axial <strong>fiber</strong> to matrix<br />

stiffness ratios (E f1 /E m ) ranging from 6 to 140, and axial <strong>fiber</strong> to matrix coefficient <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong>rmal expansi<strong>on</strong> (CTE) ratios (α f1 /α m ) ranging from −0.01 to −0.30. Besides, glass<br />

<strong>fiber</strong> reinforced composite material had E f /E m <strong>of</strong> 20.6, and α f /α m <strong>of</strong> 10.5. Therefore,<br />

this investigati<strong>on</strong> has covered a wide range <strong>of</strong> <strong>fiber</strong>/matrix combinati<strong>on</strong>s.<br />

CTE predicti<strong>on</strong>s from some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> analytical models presented in Chapter 3 were<br />

compared with each o<strong>the</strong>r, with available experimental data and with finite element<br />

results for all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> material systems. Predicted and measured values for <strong>the</strong><br />

l<strong>on</strong>gitudinal and transverse directi<strong>on</strong>s for all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> materials studied are given in<br />

Tables 6.1 and 6.2 respectively. The comparis<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se model predicti<strong>on</strong>s with<br />

experimental data show that for some material <strong>the</strong> agreement is very good, but for<br />

o<strong>the</strong>rs <strong>the</strong>re is some discrepancy between <strong>the</strong> experimental results and model<br />

predicti<strong>on</strong>s. The reas<strong>on</strong> may be that <strong>the</strong> <strong>fiber</strong>-matrix interface b<strong>on</strong>d which was<br />

assumed to be perfect was not really so in <strong>the</strong> experimental materials. The interface<br />

may ei<strong>the</strong>r c<strong>on</strong>tain interfacial cracks or it might have elastic properties different from<br />

those <strong>of</strong> matrix and <strong>fiber</strong>.<br />

Figures 6.1 – 6.14 show a comparis<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> l<strong>on</strong>gitudinal and transverse CTEs as a<br />

functi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>fiber</strong> volume fracti<strong>on</strong>, predicted from <strong>the</strong> different methods for seven<br />

different material systems: E-Glass/Epoxy, T300/934 (T300/5208), P75/934<br />

(P75/930), P75/CE339, C6000/PMR15, HMS/Borosilcate, and P100/2024Al.<br />

Experimental data are also shown <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>se figures.<br />

The Shapery, Chamberlain (both hexag<strong>on</strong>al and square), Schneider, and Chamis<br />

methods all used Equati<strong>on</strong> (3.14) for predicting l<strong>on</strong>gitudinal CTEs. As shown in <strong>the</strong><br />

Table 6.1 and Figures 6.1, 6.3, 6.5, 6.7, 6.9, 6.11, and 6.13, <strong>the</strong> differences between<br />

<strong>the</strong> Rosen-Hashin and finite element results were negligible and <strong>the</strong>re were <strong>on</strong>ly<br />

61

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!