Tensile tests

The flat coupon test method, ASTM D3039-14 [173], was used to determine the tensile properties of the composite material. A total of six specimens, denoted as T1 to T6, were prepared. The dimensions and the test set-up for all the specimens are given in Figure 5.3. Each coupon was fitted with three strain gauges (gauge length of 3 mm), placed in the centre of the coupon, and an extensometer, as illustrated in Figure 5.3. In two test specimens, transverse strain gauges were placed to determine Poisson’s ratio. The specimens were loaded at a displacement rate of 1 mm/min.

Figure 5.3 Dimensions and position of the strain gauges (on the left) and test set-up for tensile coset-upon tests (on the right)

The stress-strain behaviour of the material for all the specimens is given in Figure 5.4.

The strain in Figure 5.4 represents either the strain reading from the extensometer or the average strain from the strain gauge readings (εave), as in Equation (5.1), in which ε_SL1, εSL2 and εSL3 indicate thestrains displayed by strain gauges SL1, SL2 and SL3, extensometer. The reason for using strain gauges in addition to the extensometer was to check any possible bending of the specimens during loading. Bending of the specimens was controlled and kept within the limits specified in the ASTM standard [173].

The mean curve in Figure 5.4 represents the average strain-stress relationship of the six tested tensile specimens. The results indicate that the material behaves non-linearly up to fracture. The tensile stiffness is substantially reduced at a strain of approximately 0.25%.

CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering 51

0,0025 0

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

0 0,005 0,01 0,015 0,02 0,025

Stress (Mpa)

Strain (ε)

T1 T2

T3 T4

T5 T6

Threshold Mean curve

Figure 5.4 Stress-strain relationship of tensile tests on six specimens

To closely investigate the non-linear stress-strain behaviour of the composite material, one of the tensile specimens, namely T6, was tested under repeated loading and unloading. The specimen was loaded and unloaded four times to different load levels and then loaded to failure. The first four load-unload cycles are shown in Figure 5.5, in which unloading is presented by points A, B, C and D. In the first load cycle, the behaviour of the specimen is linear elastic. In the second load cycle, at a stress of 60 MPa, the slope of the curve changes. After this change of slope, the preceding load path is not traced back upon unloading. Unloading, at point B in Figure 5.5, takes place along a fairly straight line with a slope different from the initial slope and results in some residual strain. Upon reloading in the third load cycle, the slope follows the preceding unloading path and after point B the slope continues changing. The same behaviour is also observed for load 4, as seen in Figure 5.5. During loads 3 and 4 in the test, very small cracking sounds were heard.

Figure 5.5 Tensile loading and unloading stress-strain results for specimen T6.

Unloading started at points A, B, C and D.

This non-linear tensile behaviour of the material can be attributed to the cracking of the resin in the off-axis plies of the laminate (plies that are not parallel to the direction of the applied load) and eventual debonding between the resin and the fibres. It has been reported in the literature that resin cracking, which occurs at an early loading

CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering 52

stage in the off-axis plies of the composite material, is the main source of stiffness change during the loading of composite laminates [174-178]. To illustrate this phenomena, a laminate consisting of three plies of 0- and 90-degree fibre orientations subjected to a tensile load in the longitudinal direction is shown in Figure 5.6. When the stress reaches a certain value, the 90-degree ply (referred to as off-axis ply and cracking ply) develops resin cracks along the fibres in the ply (the crack can also be in the form of fibre/resin debonding), which then grow through the resin up to the longitudinal fibres, as shown in Figure 5.6. These cracks develop at nearly uniform distances between one another until a certain load and then they remain stable on further loading [176, 179, 180]. The resin cracks induce stress relaxation locally in the vicinity of the cracks in the 90-degree ply, which in turn introduce non-uniform longitudinal strain in the adjacent plies (constraining plies) [178], as illustrated in Figure 5.6. The strain concentrations at the cracks cause the overall strain to be higher than the initial uniform strain εi for a given stress and this causes the stiffness loss.

Figure 5.6 Illustration of an off-axis (90-degree) ply undergoing cracking and longitudinal strain distribution on the surface of the constraining ply Talreja [178] related the development of cracks and thereby the deformation response to be dependent on the degree of constraint provided by the constraining plies. He provided a qualitative characterisation of the stress-strain response dependent on the degree of constraint for four cases: i) no constraint, ii) low constraint, iii) high constraint and iv) full constraint. The stress-strain response for these four cases is illustrated in Figure 5.7, where εrc denotes the strain at which resin cracking starts and ε_u the failure strain. The case of ‘no constraint’ in Figure 5.7(i) shows a linear-elastic response until the longitudinal strain reaches the strain at which resin cracking starts.

The constraining plies, which provide no constraint in this case, are unable to carry the additional load imposed by the cracking plies and consequently extend instantaneously to failure. The ‘no-constraint’ case is an extreme case and is not common in FRP laminates. In the case of ‘low constraint’ in Figure 5.7(ii), when cracking initiates, multiple parallel cracks develop leading to an abrupt increase in strain and then further cracking requires an increasing load. This abrupt increase in strain is not observed for the ‘high-constraint’ case, but the initiation is cracking is represented by a knee in the stress-strain curve. In the case of full constrain in Figure 5.7(iv), the transverse cracking is fully suppressed and a linear-elastic response is observed.

CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering 53 Figure 5.7 Schematic stress-strain diagrams for different constraint degrees

according to Talreja [178]

The stress-strain behaviour of the composite material tested in this thesis is related to the response of the ‘high-constraint’ case in Figure 5.7. Garret and Bailey [179] report that the onset of resin micro-failure occurs between 0.2 to 0.5% strain for glass/polyester laminates. In this study, resin micro-cracking starts at 0.25%, as indicated in Figure 5.4, which falls within the range reported by Garret and Bailey.

Owing to the non-linear stress-strain behaviour, two elasticity moduli were calculated for the material, in which elasticity modulus 1 corresponds to the first linear region of strain range 0-0.2% and elasticity modulus 2 corresponds to the second linear region of strain range 0.8%-1.5%, see Figure 5.4. A summary of the results is given in Table 5.2. The average values, standard deviation and the coefficient of variation were determined for each property. The reduction in the elasticity modulus is noted to be around 40%. In the literature, stiffness reduction due to resin micro-cracking up to 50

% have been found for different laminate configurations [175, 177, 179].

Table 5.2 Summary of measured tensile material properties Ultimate tensile

strength [MPa]

Ultimate tensile strain

Elasticity modulus 1 [GPa]

Elasticity modulus 2 [GPa]

Poisson’s ratio

Average 350.04 0.0224 25.834 14.920 0.225

Standard

deviation 8.44 0.0020 2.193 0.606 -

Coefficient

of variation 2.4% 9.1% 8.5% 4.1% -

CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering 54

The final failure of all the specimens occurred in the gauge length, in which progressive delaminations and fibre breakage occurred. The typical failure mode, which is representative for all the specimens, is illustrated in Figure 5.8 for specimen T5.

Figure 5.8 Failure mode of specimen T5 in tension