CompTest 2004 Measurement of meso-scale deformations for modelling textile composites P Potluri, D A Perez Ciurezu, R Ramgulam Textile Composites Group University of Manchester Institute of Science & Technology PO Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK
Advantages of Textile Composites Textile Preforms: Easy to handle in the dry form Ability to conform to double curvature surfaces Suitable for RTM, thermoforming Through thickness reinforcement in case of 3D textiles Damage tolerance Textile Composites: Superior fracture toughness Lower in-plane moduli Prediction of thermo-mechanical properties an order of magnitude more complex than unidirectional laminates. Mechanical properties sensitive to processing
Textile Composites Unidirectional laminates: micro- and macro- scales Textile Composites: additional level: meso-scale D A C B Meso-scale representation: weave repeat & RUC
Meso-scale deformations during processing Uniaxial tension: crimp interchange Biaxial tension: tow-compaction, slight reduction in crimp amplitude D compression A C B In-plane shear: change in inter-tow angles, tow cross-section, tow amplitude, fabric thickness Transverse compression: tow compaction, tow flattening, reduction in crimp amplitude
Shear test methods constant normal force shear force conventional shear test Bias extension test Picture frame test Biaxial shear: KES tester ±8 o, onset of wrinkles before shear-lock Picture frame: fabric tension not controlled, thread distortion due to normal boundaries at the clamping area, onset of wrinkles Bias extension: convenient, non-uniform shear zones, dominated by tension near the lock-limit, closely represents draping forces
Importance of in-plane shear on composite properties Significant changes to fibre orientations, fibre-volume-fractions, laminate thickness Non-orthogonal Repeating unit cell (RUC) RUC geometry varies at each position in a component. Why bias-extension test? Closely represents the draping process Non-uniform shear near the clamps (in a bias extension test) is similar to the effect of blank holders in a forming process Wide-strip bias-extension is closer to the reality
Main objectives: To measure constitutive shear properties of textiles to assist mechanics-based drape modelling To measure the tow geometry changes due to shear in order to construct a more realistic RUC B C C A α A b 1 b 2 C C B p a 2
Shear load-deformation Bias extension curve on Zwick tensile tester Tensile Test Machine Force N/cm 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Strain % Force N/cm 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 image analysis computed from global strain 1 Half included angle, α = cos (( 1+ ε ) cosα ) Shear angle: θ = 90 2α 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 ax 0 Shear angle (º)
Test Set-up Inexpensive full-field imaging at high magnification
Full-field shear analysis of 7.5 cm sample 0g 500g 1000g 1500g 36º 42º 48º 54º 60º 66º 72º 78º 84º 90º
Full-field shear analysis of 40 cm sample 0g 500g 1000g 1500g 36º 42º 48º 54º 60º 66º 72º 78º 84º 90º
Comparison of flat-bed scanner set-up and Zwick tensile tester Scan against pic ziwick 3.5 3 Standard force (N/cm) 2.5 2 1.5 1 Zwick tensile test flat-bet scanner 0.5 0 0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 Shear angle (º)
Computation of shear angle based on fixed & variable zone B Computed fabric width B C C Computed width (mm) 8 7 6 5 4 3 y = 0.9718x R 2 = 0.9863 2 L A C C B L c 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 Measured width (mm) Measured height of zone B (mm) 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 measured zone B simple model w /2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Computed fabric width (mm)
Computation of corrected shear angle from corrected global strain Tensile Test Machine 3.5 3 l c = l w 0 2 Force N/cm 2.5 2 1.5 image analysis computed from global strain w sinα l c = l ; where, w = w 2 0 sinα 0 1 constant undeformed zone 0.5 reducing undeformed zone Tow slippage close to lock angle 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Shear angle (º)
Bias extension tests on wide samples: grab tensile test Testing with various fabric widths 6 Force(N/cm) 5 4 3 2 7,5 cm 22,5 cm 30 cm 35 cm 40 cm ziwick 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Shear angle(º)
Tow deformation analysis A b 1 b 2 p a 2
Tow thickness th22-1 Fabric thickness Tow thickness (mm) th22-2 0.60 th22-3 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Shear angle (º) Thickness (mm) 1.200 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.400 0.200 0.000 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 Shear angle (º) Tow amplitude Tow spacing 0.6 6.0 0.5 5.0 A (mm) 0.4 0.3 0.2 p (mm) 4.0 3.0 2.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Shear angle (º) Shear angle (º)
Measurement of tow width: Scanned image gives a better measurement Tow width in each unit cell can be measured Comparision between cross section and scanner techniques 4.5 4 Scanner tow width Cross section toe width 22-1 Cross section tow width 22-2 Cross section tow width 22-3 Tow width(mm) 3.5 3 2.5 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Shear angle (º)
Discussion Wide strip bias extension test represents boundary conditions closer to draping. By accounting for undeformed zone, shear angles can be computed from global strain values Tow slippage occurs in case of a standard width sample. This can be minimised in case of a wide-strip test. An inexpensive full-field shear strain measurement technique has been developed. This can potentially be extended to shear strain mapping on a draped surface. Geometric parameters of a deformed unit cell have been measured using microscopic techniques. While tow width can be measured from the scanned image, tow thickness can be obtained from a section. Further work is being carried-out using a stereo-imaging technique. RUC for each unit cell can be constructed based on the shear angle.