Composite Strength Testing

LAB REPORT 1:
COMPOSITE STRENGTH TESTING
Date of Submission: 09 October 2006
by
________________________________
Harsh Menon
menon387@erau.edu
Submitted to Dr. David Lanning, Jr.

Department of Aerospace Engineering
College of Engineering
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements
Of
ES 321
Engineering Materials Science Lab
Fall 2006
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Prescott, Arizona
Composite Testing 1 5/11/2008
ABSTRACT
A carbon fiber composite consisting of unidirectional carbon tape and epoxy and a
sandwich composite consisting of a polyether polyurethane core, E-glass fibers and
epoxy was fabricated. The carbon fiber composite was subjected to a tensile test while the
sandwich composite was subjected to a three-point bend test. Part of the fabricated
carbon fiber composite was fractured and placed under a scanning electron microscope.
Data from the tests was used to determine material properties such as Young’s modulus,
core shear stress and facing bending stress. The experimental values were then compared
with theoretical values. The microscopy was used to obtain pictures of the composite
which in turn were used to obtain volume fractions of the fibers and the matrix.
Differences between the theoretical and experimental values were attributed to either
improper fabrication techniques or improper data analysis. Future recommendations
involve spending more time on composite fabrication as well as experimentation with
more than two specimen and with different configurations for the composites.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................1
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................6
LIST OF SYMBOLS.......................................................................................7
LIST OF EQUATIONS...................................................................................8
1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................9
2.0 THEORY.................................................................................................10
2.1 COMPOSITE FABRICATION...........................................................................11
2.2 STRESS-STRAIN CURVE FOR FIBER-COMPOSITES...........................................12
2.3 THREE-POINT BEND TEST..........................................................................14
2.4 MICROSCOPY...........................................................................................15
3.0 APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES......................................................17
3.1 APPARATUS......................................................................................17
3.2 PROCEDURES...................................................................................20
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................35
6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................36
7.0 ATTRIBUTIONS...................................................................................37
8.0 APPENDIX A: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS........................................38
9.0 APPENDIX B: RAW DATA..................................................................39

LIST OF FIGURES
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................1
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................6
LIST OF SYMBOLS.......................................................................................7
LIST OF EQUATIONS...................................................................................8
1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................9
2.0 THEORY.................................................................................................10
2.1 COMPOSITE FABRICATION...........................................................................11
Figure 2.1.1: Flowchart for Composite Fabrication...................................................11

(Gay et al., 2003)........................................................................................................11
2.2 STRESS-STRAIN CURVE FOR FIBER-COMPOSITES...........................................12
Figure 2.2.1: (a) Stress-Strain curves for Composite, (b) Stress-Strain curve for a
Metal..........................................................................................................................12
(Askeland, 2006, http://www.key-to-steel.com).......................................................12
2.3 THREE-POINT BEND TEST..........................................................................14
Figure 2.3.1: Three-point bend test. .....................................................14

2.4 MICROSCOPY...........................................................................................15
Figure 2.4.1: Fractured Carbon Composite from a Scanning Electron

Microscope.................................................................................................................16
3.0 APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES......................................................17
3.1 APPARATUS......................................................................................17
Figure 3.1: Tensile Tester...........................................................................................17

(Lanning, 2003)..........................................................................................................17
Figure 3.2: Extensometer...........................................................................................18
(Lanning, 2003)..........................................................................................................18
Figure 3.3: Three-point Bend Setup..........................................................................18
(Lanning, 2003).........................................................................................................18
Figure 3.4: Grinder Polisher Machine.......................................................................19
(Lanning, 2003)..........................................................................................................19
Figure 3.5: Scanning Electron Microscope............................................................20
(Lanning, 2003).........................................................................................................20
3.2 PROCEDURES...................................................................................20
Figure 3.1: Carbon inside Epoxy...............................................................................23

Figure 4.1: Stress-Strain curve for Unidirectional Carbon........................................24
Figure 4.2: Load versus Displacement from Three-Point Bend Test........................26
Figure 4.3: (a) Closer view of the crack (b) View of the entire specimen.................27
Figure 4.4: Carbon Composite under Scanning Electron Microscope......................33
Figure 4.5: Black and White Image..................................................................34
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................35
6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................36
7.0 ATTRIBUTIONS...................................................................................37
8.0 APPENDIX A: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS........................................38
9.0 APPENDIX B: RAW DATA..................................................................39

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF SYMBOLS
A Area in2
E Modulus of Elasticity/Young’s lb/in2

Modulus
I Moment of Inertia in4
L Distance in
P Force lb
V Volume Fraction
b Sandwich Beam Width in
c Sandwich Core Height in
d Sandwich Beam Height in
t Sandwich Ply Height in
σ Normal Stress lb/in2
τ Shear Stress lb/in2
c,|| Composite (Parallel to fibers)
c Composite
f Fibers
m Matrix
max Maximum
LIST OF EQUATIONS
Ec ,|| = EmVm + E f V f Equation 2.1
Am A
Em = , Ef = f Equation 2.2
Ac Ac
σ c = σ f V f + σ mVm Equation 2.3
PL3
δ max = Equation 2.4
48 EI
P
τ= Equation 2.5
( d + c )b
PL
σ= Equation 2.6
2t (d + c)b
Vm + V f = 1 Equation 2.7
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In the simplest form, a composite is a combination of two or more phases. One of the
phases is a generally a fiber phase and the other a matrix phase. Although composites
appear to be a recent development, they have been around for centuries. In fact,
Mongolian arcs were made of corn, wood and cow tendon composites (Gay, Hoa & Tsai,
2003). However, the recent development of composites pertains to the development of
high performance composites which have the ability of being engineered for specific use.
Modern day composites have a certain advantages over metallic materials. Some of the
advantages are higher strength and fatigue and corrosion resistance. In the field of
aerospace, composites are playing an even major role with the latest commercial
airplanes from Boeing using a lot of composites. The study of composites is still an
actively researched field and lot can be learned from the fabrication of and from
experimentation on composites.
The purpose of this lab was to investigate the behavior of two types of composites – a
carbon fiber epoxy composite and a sandwich beam consisting of E-glass fibers, a
polyurethane core and epoxy. The carbon composite was tensile tested while the
sandwich beam was subjected to a three-point bend test.
This report documents the fabrication process and testing process of the different
composites and lists important material properties such as Young’s modulus, shear stress
and bending stress that were calculated from experiment. The experimental values are
then compared to theoretical values. The results from viewing the fractured carbon
composite under a scanning electron microscope are also documented in this report.
Further recommendations are also discussed.
2.0 THEORY
A composite is “any multiphase material that exhibits a significant proportion of the

properties of both constituent phases such that a better combination of properties is
realized” (Callister, 2004). Some examples of composites are wood and bone (Gay et al.,
2003). However, in the context of engineering materials science, composites take on a
more specific definition. Composites refer to multiphase materials that are artificially
created and whose constituent phases are chemically different and separated by a distinct
interface (Callister, 2004).
Composites are used in a wide range of applications from electronics to space transports
(Gay et al., 2003). The principal advantages of using composite materials are:
1. High strength and stiffness (Iatridis, 2006)

2. Design Flexibility (i.e., fibers can be oriented to take maximum stress)
3. Fatigue and Corrosion Resistance (Gay et al., 2003)
Askeland and Phulé (2006) classify composites into three major categories:
1. Particulate Composites: Particulate composites contain “large amounts of coarse

particles that produce unusual combinations of properties rather than improve
strength” (Askeland & Phulé, 2006).
2. Fiber Composites: Fiber composites consist of two phases – the fibers which
constitute a reinforcing phase and the matrix phase. Fiber composites improve a lot of
important parameters such as strength, Young’s modulus etc. (Askeland & Phulé,
2006). The fibers can be unidirectional, bidirectional or tridirectional (Gay et al.,
2003).
3. Laminar-based Composites: Laminar composites are used primarily to “improve

corrosion resistance while retaining low cost, high strength or light weight”
(Askeland & Phulé, 2006).
The two composites used for this lab fall under the fiber composites and laminar based
composites categories. The first composite – unidirectional carbon composite, is a fiber-
reinforced composite. The second composite is a sandwich beam consisting of layers of
E-glass and a polyether polyurethane core. Sandwich beams consist of layers of fibers
attached to a lighter core. The main advantages of sandwich beams are their very light
weight, high flexural rigidity and good thermal insulation characteristics (Gay et al.,
2003).
2.1 Composite Fabrication
Figure 2.1.1: Flowchart for Composite Fabrication on the next page describes the steps
involved in the formation of a composite.
Figure 2.1.1: Flowchart for Composite Fabrication.
(Gay et al., 2003)
In the figure above, mixing is followed by compaction which is can be thought of as the
compression of the matrix and the fibers together. This is followed by polymerization,
which is a process that converts a monomer into a polymer. A monomer is defined as the
smallest repeating unit of a polymer (Australian Deparment of the Environment and
Heritage, 2005). However, polymerization is required only in the case of polymer matrix
compounds such as epoxies. After polymerization, the composite is taken from the mold.
Finishing touches are then done to the composite.
This entire process is defined as the molding process. There are several ways to
accomplish molding, some of which are listed below:
1. Contact Molding
Contact molding involves placing the mixture of the phases on a mold and using
rollers to compact the phases together (Gay et al., 2003).
2. Vacuum Molding
Vaccum molding involves placing the composites inside an enclosed region sealed
with plastic and subjecting the area to a vacuum to compact the phases of the
composite (Gay et al., 2003).
A manual method of composite fabrication involves hand lay up. This was done in the
experiment and is described in 3.0 Procedures and Apparatus. The method used to
fabricate the composites was a mixture of hand lay up and vacuum molding.
2.2 Stress-Strain Curve for Fiber-Composites
The stress strain curves of fibrous polymeric composites have been experimentally shown
to depend on the fibers and matrix of the composite, the interaction between the two, the
direction of the load relative to the principal axes of the composite and environmental
conditions (Tarnopol’skii, 1985). They also depend on the orientation of the fibers. The
figure below shows an example of a stress-strain curve for a fiber composite, where the
force was applied in the longitudinal direction (in the direction of the fibers):
(a) (b)
Figure 2.2.1: (a) Stress-Strain curves for Composite, (b) Stress-Strain curve for a Metal.
(Askeland, 2006, http://www.key-to-steel.com)
The stress-strain curve for a composite looks different from the stress-strain curve for an
ordinary metal. The major difference being that the composites do not deform plastically
or that composites deform only elastically. Composites generally also have a higher
ultimate strength than metals.
Figure 2.2.1 (a) divides the stress-strain curve for a fiber composite into three different
regions. The first region corresponds to a linear region where the stresses are low. The
second region corresponds to an area of higher stresses leading finally to the third region
of fracture. If we assume that the fibers in the matrix are continuous and unidirectional,
then the longitudinal modulus of elasticity of the composite (along the direction of the
fibers) can be predicted using the rule of mixtures (Askeland & Phulé, 2006), shown in
Equation 2.1 below:
Ec ,|| = EmVm + E f V f Equation 2.1
where Ec,|| is the longitudinal modulus of elasticity, Em is the modulus of elasticity of the
matrix, Vm is the volume fraction of the matrix, Vf is the volume fraction of the fibers and
Ef is the modulus of elasticity of the fibers.
The volume fraction of a certain part of the composite is defined as the volume of that
part divided by the total volume of the composite. Therefore, the volume fraction of the
matrix is the volume of the matrix divided by the total volume of composite. However, if
we assume that the composite, matrix and fiber phase lengths are all equal (Callister,
2004), then Equation 2.2 shown below holds.
Am A
Em = , Ef = f Equation 2.2
Ac Ac
where Em is the modulus of elasticity of the matrix, Am is the area of the matrix, Ac is the
area of the composite, Ef is the modulus of elasticity of the fibers and Af is the area of the
fibers.
This modulus of elasticity can also be determined experimentally from the first region of
Figure 2.2.1 (a) and is equivalent to the modulus defined in Equation 2.1. Another
important parameter that can be obtained from the stress-strain curve of composites is the
ultimate tensile strength. The ultimate tensile strength is the highest point on the stress-
strain curve and corresponds to the point of failure. Analytically, Askeland and Phulé
(2006) describe the use of the rule of mixtures to approximate the tensile strength by
using Equation 2.3 below:
σ c = σ f V f + σ mVm Equation 2.3
where σc is the tensile strength of the composite, σf is the tensile strength of the fibers, Vf
is the volume fraction of the fibers, σm is the tensile strength of the matrix and Vm is the
volume fraction of the matrix.
2.3 Three-point Bend Test
The three-point bend test is generally performed on brittle materials and composites.
These materials often break when placed in the grips of the tensile tester and therefore,
the three-point bend test is used to determine their strength. The setup for the three-point
bend test can be seen in Figure 2.3.1: Three-point bend test below:
Figure 2.3.1: Three-point bend test.
The figure above shows a specimen placed between two pins a distance L apart, subjected
to a concentrated force P at the center of L. Using Appendix G of Gere’s Mechanics of
Materials (2004), we can show that the maximum deflection at the center of the beam is
given by Equation 2.4:
PL3
δ max = Equation 2.4
48 EI
where P is the force acting at the center of the beam, L is the distance between the
supports, E is the modulus of elasticity of the beam and I is the moment of inertia of the
beam.
In the case of the three-point bend test, the maximum deflection is determined
experimentally. Therefore, Equation 2.4 can be re-arranged to solve for the modulus of
elasticity or the flexural modulus. However, Equation 2.4 was derived assuming a linear
stress-strain relationship and therefore, Equation 2.4 holds only in the linear part of the
composite material’s stress-strain curve.
Some other additional parameters from the ASTM C 393-00 that characterize the
sandwich beam are the core shear stress and facing bending stress. The simplifying
assumptions used in the calculations of these parameters are
1. The normal bending stresses are assumed to occur in the facings only and are
assumed to be uniform in the facings (Gay et al., 2003)
2. The shear stresses are assumed to occur only in the core and are uniform in the
core (Gay et al., 2003)
The core shear stress is given by Equation 2.5 on the next page.
P
τ= Equation 2.5
( d + c )b
where τ is the core shear stress, P is the applied force, d is the sandwich thickness, c is the
core thickness and b is the sandwich width.
The facing bending stress is given by Equation 2.6 on the next page:
PL
σ= Equation 2.6
2t (d + c)b
where σ is the facing bending stress, P is the applied force, L is the distance between the
supports in the three-point bend test, t is the thickness of each ply, d is the sandwich
thickness, c is the core thickness and b is the sandwich width.
2.4 Microscopy
Looking at a fractured composite sample under a scanning electron microscope can give
a lot of insight into the nature of composites. Figure 2.4.1: Fractured Carbon Composite
from a Scanning Electron Microscope below shows a picture of the fractured
unidirectional carbon composite as seen under a scanning electron microscope.
Figure 2.4.1: Fractured Carbon Composite from a Scanning Electron Microscope.
In the figure above, the lighter circular regions represent the fibers and the darker regions
represent the matrix. A further analysis of this picture could yield the volume fractions of
this matrix, using Equation 2.2 and the assumptions that come along with it. By
determining the number of the circular regions and the average diameter of the lighter
regions, one could estimate the total area of the fibers. The total area of the fibers divided
by the total area of the image would then yield the volume fraction for the fibers. The
volume fraction for the matrix could be determined using Equation 2.7:
Vm + V f = 1 Equation 2.7
3.0 APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES
3.1 APPARATUS
The following equipment was used in the experiment:
• Two (2) layers of unidirectional carbon tape from Aircraft Spruce & Specialty
Co.© with a width of 3 in obtained from a 12 ft roll,
• Four (4) layers of medium weight standard E-glass industrial cloth from Aircraft
Spruce & Specialty Co.© with a width of 50 in and a thickness of 0.009 in,
• EZ-LAM 60 Epoxy from Aerospace Composite Products©,
• One (1) polyether polyurethane LAST-A-FOAM® from Aircraft Spruce &

Specialty Co.© with a density of 4.5 lb/ft3 and a thickness of 0.5 in,
• Eight (8) rectangular strips of standard E-glass tape from Aircraft Spruce &
Specialty Co.© with a width of 2 in and a thickness of 0.012 in, and
• One (1) brush,
• One (1) tensile tester machine, as shown in Figure 3.1: Tensile Tester below:
Figure 3.1: Tensile Tester.
(Lanning, 2003)
The tensile tester is used to determine the resistance of a material to a static or slowly
applied force (Askeland & Phulé, 2006).
• One (1) extensometer, which can be seen in Figure 3.2: Extensometer below:
Figure 3.2: Extensometer.
(Lanning, 2003)
An extensometer is defined as an instrument that is used to measure the change in

length of a tensile specimen (Askeland & Phulé, 2006).
• One (1) three-point bend setup for the tensile testing machine, which can be seen
in Figure 3.3: Three-point Bend Setup below:
Figure 3.3: Three-point Bend Setup.
(Lanning, 2003).
• One (1) 320 Grinder Polisher Machine, as can be seen in Figure 3.4: Grinder
Polisher Machine below:
Figure 3.4: Grinder Polisher Machine.
(Lanning, 2003)
• One (1) 400 Grinder Polisher Machine,
• One (1) 600 Grinder Polisher Machine,
• One (1) 1200 Grinder Polisher Machine, and
• One (1) Jeol Scanning Electron Microscope which can be seen in Figure 3.5:
Scanning Electron Microscope on the next page.
Figure 3.5: Scanning Electron Microscope.
(Lanning, 2003).
3.2 PROCEDURES
The following procedures were used for the composite layout part of the experiment,
which was completed on September 19, 2006 at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University:
1.0 The class was divided into three (3) teams with two (2) students per team for the
experiment.
2.0 The team obtained two (2) layers of unidirectional carbon tape (from Aircraft Spruce
& Specialty Co.©) for the tensile test and four (4) layers of standard E-glass
industrial cloth (from Aircraft Spruce & Specialty Co.©) for the three-point bend test.
3.0 The team obtained a polyether polyurethane foam core (from Aircraft Spruce &
Specialty Co.©).
4.0 The team was given eight (8) rectangular strips of standard E-glass tape (from
Aircraft Spruce & Specialty Co.©) to be used to protect the fibers of the tensile test
coupon from the grips of the tensile test machine.
5.0 The team was given a cup half-filled with EZ-LAM 60 Epoxy from Aerospace
Composite Products© from a ratio pump which mixed two parts of epoxy and one
part of the hardener.
6.0 One (1) rectangular strip of the E-glass tape (to protect the fibers) was placed on the
galvanized metal surface and epoxy was applied to the top side of the layer using a
brush.
7.0 Another rectangular strip was placed on top of the first strip and epoxy was applied to
the top side of the layer.
8.0 Steps 6.0 - 7.0 were repeated a horizontal distance approximately equal to the length
of the unidirectional carbon tape layer away from the first two strips.
9.0 One (1) layer of unidirectional carbon tape was then placed on the four rectangular E-
glass tape strips so that the rectangular strips were approximately at the ends of the
unidirectional carbon tape.
10.0Epoxy was applied to the top surface of the unidirectional carbon tape.
11.0Another layer of unidirectional carbon tape was placed on top of the first
unidirectional carbon tape and epoxy was applied to the top surface of this tape.
12.0Steps 6.0 – 9.0 were then repeated but the strips were placed on top of the second
unidirectional carbon tape layer as opposed to the galvanized metal surface.
13.0Breather ply was then placed on top of the entire composite.
14.0One (1) layer of medium weight standard E-glass industrial cloth was then placed on
an unused part of the galvanized metal surface.
15.0Epoxy was applied to the top surface of the E-glass layer.
16.0Steps 14.0 – 15.0 were repeated for another layer of E-glass.
17.0The polyether polyurethane foam was then placed on top of the second E-glass layer.
18.0Steps 14.0 – 16.0 were repeated with the E-glass layers being placed on top of the
foam as opposed to the galvanized metal surface.
19.0Breather ply was then placed on top of the entire composite.
20.0The composites from all the teams were covered with vacuum bagging ply.
21.0The area with the composites inside the vacuum bagging ply was pressurized to 10 in
of mercury for 24 hours.
The unidirectional carbon composite was then subjected to a tensile test, while the E-
glass composite was subjected to a three-point bend test. The following procedures were
used for composite testing which was completed on September 26, 2006 at Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University:
22.0The carbon composite was placed in the tensile tester by ensuring that the grips only
made contact with the part of the composite that had the extra rectangular strips.
23.0An extensometer was placed on the unidirectional carbon composite.

24.0 The entire setup was covered by a wooden screen to prevent the fiber pieces from
being scattered in all directions at failure.
25.0The computer program was started and the tensile tester was run until the computer
program beeped to signal the user to remove the extensometer.
26.0The extensometer was removed and the test continued until the composite failed.
27.0The data from the program was extracted into a Microsoft Excel© spreadsheet.
28.0The tensile tester and the area around it were cleaned and the shrapnel from the
composite were removed.
29.0The tensile tester was then modified for the three-point bend test by the lab
instructor, Dr. David Lanning Jr.
30.0The E-glass composite was placed on the three-point bend test apparatus.
31.0The distance between the bottom pins of the three-point bend apparatus was adjusted
so that it corresponded to 6.5 in
32.0Another computer program was started and the three-point bend test was run until the
composite
Prior to the beginning of the experiment on September 26, 2006, about a quarter inch of
the unidirectional carbon composite was cut off in the machine shop. This quarter inch of
composite material was then bent till the material fractured, yet still remained one piece.
This material was then placed in a cylindrical holder with epoxy and heat treated. The
composite material was then used for the third part of the experiment involving
microscopy. The following procedures were used for the microscopy part of the
experiment, which was completed on October 3, 2006 at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University:
1.0 The hardened epoxy was taken out of the cylindrical holder. The epoxy took on a
cylindrical shape as can be seen in Figure 3.1: Carbon inside Epoxy below:
Figure 3.1: Carbon inside Epoxy.
2.0 The epoxy with the unidirectional carbon inside it was grinded using a 320 grinder
until the edge of the composite was at the bottom surface of the epoxy.
3.0 The epoxy was then placed on the 400 grinder for two (2) minutes for further
polishing.
4.0 The epoxy was then placed on the 600 grinder for two (2) minutes.
5.0 The epoxy was then placed on the 1200 grinder for two (2) minutes.
6.0 The epoxy sample with the carbon composite was then placed under the scanning
electron microscope.
7.0 The fractured surface of the composite was analyzed and snapshots of the surface
were taken at a scale of 10 microns.
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The data obtained from the tensile test experiment on the unidirectional carbon composite
was converted into stress and strain and is shown in Figure 4.1: Stress-Strain curve for
Unidirectional Carbon below:
Stress vs Strain(Tensile Test)
70000
Young's Modulus (E) = 7e6

psi
60000
Ultimate Tensile Strength=

60,000 psi
50000
40000
Stress vs Strain
Stress (psi)
Linear Part
30000
Corrected Linear Part
Linear (Corrected Linear Part)
20000
y = 7E+06x
10000
0
-0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
-10000
Strain (inches/inches)
Figure 4.1: Stress-Strain curve for Unidirectional Carbon.
Figure 4.1: Stress-Strain curve for Unidirectional Carbon shows the data in blue. A linear
curve was fitted to the data which can be seen as the pink line. However, the pink line did
not have a y-intercept of 0 and was therefore corrected. The corrected linear part is the
yellow line.
The figure above has the typical stress-strain shape of composites as discussed in 2.0
Theory. The reason why the graph shoots up at 0.005 in is because the extensometer
(used to determine the strain) was removed at that point of time.
However, there appears to be a discontinuity at a strain of about 0.004 in extending to

0.005 in Some possible reasons for the discontinuity are:
1. Errors in Testing: Errors induced in the data due to the fact that the tensile tester
slipped or lost its grip or due to improper placement of the composite specimen in the
tensile tester.
2. Defects in the Composite: Errors induced in the data due to the presence of
nonlinearities and deformities inherent in the composite.
An analysis of Figure 4.1: Stress-Strain curve for Unidirectional Carbon yielded
important results. The slope of the yellow line was determined to be 7.0 x106 lb/in2. The
highest point on the blue line was taken as the ultimate tensile strength of the carbon
composite and was determined to be 60,000 lb/in2. The results from this test are listed in
Table 4.1: Experimental Data for Unidirectional Carbon below:
Table 4.1: Experimental Data for Unidirectional Carbon
Young’s Modulus 7.0 x106 lb/in2

Ultimate Tensile Strength 60,000 lb/in2
The experimental value of Young’s Modulus listed in Table 4.1: Experimental Data for
Unidirectional Carbon was then compared to a theoretical value of Young’s modulus for a
unidirectional carbon composite. Callister’s (2004) modulus of elasticity of high modulus
carbon fibers with an epoxy matrix with a fiber volume fraction of 0.6 was chosen as the
theoretical value (p. 743). The theoretical value of E was therefore determined to be 32 x
106 lb/in2. The experimental value was determined to be 7x106 lb/in2. These values are
tabulated in Table 4.2: Theoretical and Experimental values for Carbon below:
Table 4.2: Theoretical and Experimental values for Carbon
Experimental Young’s Modulus 7.0 x106 lb/in2

Theoretical Young’s Modulus 32 x 106 lb/in2
Percent Difference 78%
This difference between the theoretical and experimental values listed in Table 4.2:
Theoretical and Experimental values for Carbon can be attributed to
a) Improper application of epoxy resulting in a weaker composite (primary), or

b) Propagation of nonlinearities in the data set into the equation of the corrected
trend line (secondary), or
c) Both.
The results from the three-point bend test on the composite sandwich beam are plotted in
Figure 4.2: Load versus Displacement from Three-Point Bend Test on the next page.
Load vs Displacement
70
60
50
40
Load (lb)
Load vs Displacement
Linear Part
Linear (Linear Part)
30
y = 400.37x
20
10
0
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Displacement (in)
Figure 4.2: Load versus Displacement from Three-Point Bend Test.
The figure above shows a plot of the load versus the displacement for the sandwich beam
during the three-point bend test. The data points are in blue and the pink line represents a
fit to the linear portion of the plot.
During the testing process, a lot of pertinent observations were made that add depth to the
figure shown above. Initially, in the linear portion of the graph, the composite beam was
seen to deform slowly. This process continued over a period of time and finally leveled
off when the displacement was 0.30 in But, at a displacement of around 0.38 in on the
graph, cracking sounds were heard. At this point, the bottom layer of the composite
started separating from the foam core. This corresponded to the drop in the load from 58
lb to 42 lb. This resulted in a crack on the beam which can be seen in Figure 4.3: (a)
Closer view of the crack (b) View of the entire specimen on the next page.
(a) (b)
Figure 4.3: (a) Closer view of the crack (b) View of the entire specimen.
Figure 4.3 (a): Closer view of the crack shows the crack in greater detail. The fibers on
the E-glass ply (layer) can be seen on a closer inspection. The crack represents a region
where the fibers have been split. Figure 4.3 (b): View of the entire specimen shows the
entire beam. The separation of the plies from the core was very minor and not as drastic
as the other tests performed by the other groups. At the end of the test, the composite was
still one piece. However, it had lost a lot of strength on one side.
Using the maximum value of displacement and load in the linear part of the curve in
Figure 4.2: Load versus Displacement from Three-Point Bend Test in Equation 2.4 and
re-arranging that equation yields a value of 1.9x105 lb/in2 for the modulus of elasticity of
the composite. The moment of inertia for the composite was calculated using only the
dimensions of the two plies and the distance from the center of the plies to neutral axis.
The other ASTM C 393.00 parameters were also calculated using Equation 2.5 and
Equation 2.6. The core shear stress was determined to be 44 lb/in2 and the facing bending
stress was determined to be 2700 lb/ in2. These values are listed in Table 4.3:
Experimental Data for the Sandwich Beam below:
Table 4.3: Experimental Data for the Sandwich Beam

Young’s Modulus 1.9x105 lb/in2

Core Shear Stress 44 lb/in2
Facing Bending Stress 2700 lb/ in2

The data listed in the table above was then compared to theoretical values. Data obtained
from CES EDUPACK (2006) yielded a modulus of elasticity of 3.8 x 106 lb/in2 for
Epoxy/E-Glass Woven Fabric Composite with a Biaxial Lamina. Data about the
polyurethane core was obtained CES EDUPACK (2006). The tensile strength of the
polyurethane core was used as the core shear stress and was found to range from 36 lb/in2
to 44 lb/in2.The tensile strength of the Epoxy/E-Glass Woven Fabric Composite with a
Biaxial Lamina was taken to be the facing bending stress and was determined to range
from 54,000 lb/ in2 to 75,000 lb/ in2 (CES EDUPACK, 2006). Table 4.4: Theoretical
versus Experimental Data for the Sandwich Beam lists these values below:
Table 4.4: Theoretical versus Experimental Data for the Sandwich Beam
Physical Quantity Theoretical Value Experimental Value Percent

Difference
Modulus of 3.8 x 106 lb/in2 1.9x105 lb/in2 95%
Elasticity
Core Shear Stress 36 lb/in2 - 44 lb/in2 44 lb/in2 Within Range
Facing Bending 54,000 lb/in2 – 2700 lb/ in2 95% (using

Stress 75,000 lb/in2 54,000 lb/in2 as
theoretical)
The discrepancies between the theoretical and experimental values of the modulus of
elasticity are most likely due to improper fabrication of the sandwich composite leading
to a weaker composite material. The core shear stress falls within the range of the
theoretical values. However, the facing bending stress is significantly lower than the
theoretical range. Though improper fabrication could be the primary cause, another point
of consideration is the fact that the theoretical values being compared against are the
tensile strengths of the core (for core shear stress) and the composite layers (for facing
bending stress). This could be another source of error.
The next part of the experiment required observing a fracture carbon composite sample
under a scanning electron microscope. Figure 4.4: Carbon Composite under Scanning
Electron Microscope below shows the fractured carbon composite:
Figure 4.4: Carbon Composite under Scanning Electron Microscope.
The figure above shows the fibers and the matrix in the carbon composite. The lighter
white regions represent the fibers, while the darker regions represent the matrix. The
image above shows that the majority of the area is taken up by the fibers. Also, the fibers
seem to be closely spaced on top rather than the bottom. There appears to be a region at
the bottom where the matrix seems to dominate.
Figure 4.4: Carbon Composite under Scanning Electron Microscope was converted into a
black and white image using MATLAB to make be able to clearly distinguish the
boundaries between the light and dark regions. Figure 4.5: Black and White Image on the
next page shows the converted image.
Figure 4.5: Black and White Image.
The white regions in the figure above were then fitted with circles. A total of 70 circles
were counted. The diameter of each of these circles was calculated and an average
diameter of 0.59 in The total area of these circles was then determined to be 19 in Then
the dimensions of the image were measured (excluding the legend) and the area of the
image was determined to be 26.3 in The ratio of these two numbers yielded the volume
fraction of the fibers, which was determined to be 0.73. The volume fraction of the matrix
was then determined to be 0.27. The calculations are listed in Appendix A: Sample
Calculations.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This lab was aimed at determining the composite strengths for different types of
composites. The first step of the lab involved fabricating composites. Unidirectional
carbon was mixed with epoxy to create a carbon fiber, while E-glass fibers were placed
on a polyether polyurethane fiber and held together with epoxy to create a composite
sandwich beam.
Important parameters such as Young’s modulus were calculated for both composites and
were compared to theoretical book values. All of the experimental values were lower than
the theoretical values. The primary reason for this was improper fabrication of the
composites. The lab was successful in the sense that the behavior of composites under a
tensile test and a three-point bend test were documented and ASTM C parameters such as
core shear stress and facing bending stress were calculated. The pictures from the
scanning electron microscope helped determine the volume fractions of the carbon
composite.
The major limitation of the lab was the time spent fabricating the composite. Not too
much time was spent ensuring that the epoxy was spread evenly. The differences between
the theoretical and experimental values could be have been reduced had more time been
spent on composite lay-up and fabrication.
Another potential recommendation for the future could be analyzing the data obtained
from all the teams so as to be able to identify trends among material properties and be
able to determine which materials are stronger than the others. Another option would be
allowing the teams to experiment with more than just two samples and experiment with
different configurations – such as a sandwich beam with Kevlar fibers on top, a
polyurethane core in the center and carbon fibers at the bottom.
6.0 REFERENCES
Askeland, D.R., & Phulé, P.P. (2006). The Science and Engineering of Materials: Fifth
Edition. Toronto: Thomson.
Callister Jr., W.D. (2004). Materials Science and Engineering: An Introduction. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
CES EDUPACK 2 [Computer Software].(2006). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Granta

Design Limited.
Gay, D., Hoa, S.V., & Tsai, S.W. (2003). Composite Materials: Design and Applications.
New York: CRC Press.
Gere, J.M. (2004). Mechanics of Materials. Toronto: Thomson & Brooks/Cole.
Iatridis, J.C. (2006). Introduction to Composites Retrieved October 5, 2006 from the
University of Vermont, ME257 Composite Materials web site:
http://www.cems.uvm.edu/~iatridis/me257/
Lanning Jr. D. (2003). Lab Photos. Photos posted on T-drive under ES321 Folder and
inside Lab Photos Folder archived at T:\ES321\Lab Photos.
Tarnopol’skii, Y.M., & Kincis,T. (1985). Static Test Methods for Composites (G. Lubin,
Trans.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc.
(2005). Degradable Plastics: Glossary of terms. Retrieved October 5, 2006 from the
Department of the Environment and Heritage of the Australian Government web
site: http://www.deh.gov.au/settlements/waste/degradables/glossary.html
(2005). Engineering Stress-Strain Curve. Retrieved October 5, 2006 from web site:
http://www.keytosteel.com/fr/Articles/Art43.htm
7.0 ATTRIBUTIONS
8.0 APPENDIX A: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

9.0 APPENDIX B: RAW DATA
Table 9.1: Raw Data.
TESTNU POINTNU
M M TIME POSIT FORCE EXT
0.06041
1655 1 0 -0 8 -0.00354
1.31821 0.00153 0.42292
1655 2 2 7 8 -0.00222
1.86746 0.78543
1655 3 7 0.00295 8 -0.00086
1.97731 0.00326 0.90627
1655 4 8 3 4 -0.00056
2.52657 0.00466 1.32920 0.00076
1655 5 3 3 2 4
3.24060 0.00646 1.81254 0.00243
1655 6 4 2 8 1
3.95463 0.00822 2.17505 0.00400
1655 7 6 5 8 6
4.55881 0.00973 2.59798 0.00529
1655 8 6 7 6 6
5.16299 0.01121 3.02091 0.00655
1655 9 6 2 4 1
5.65732 0.01247 3.44384 0.00757
1655 10 6 5 1 7
6.37135 0.01423 3.92718 0.00903
1655 11 7 7 8 8
6.81076 0.01532 4.41053 0.00994
1655 12 1 5 3 2
7.57971 4.83346 0.01155
1655 13 8 0.01725 1 6
8.12897 0.01858 5.25638 0.01269
1655 14 3 7 9 6
8.56837 0.01971 5.67931 0.01364
1655 15 7 3 6 6
8.95285 0.02067 6.04182 0.01447
1655 16 5 5 6 4
9.55703 0.02218 6.46475 0.01572
1655 17 6 7 4 5
9.88658 0.02298 6.82726 0.01640
1655 18 9 7 3 4
10.4358 0.02433 7.18977 0.01749
1655 19 4 8 2 1
10.6555 0.02492 7.55228 0.01797
1655 20 5 5 1 2
11.2597 0.02643
1655 21 3 8 7.91479 0.01925
11.5892 0.02726 0.01995
1655 22 8 2 8.2773 9
1655 23 11.9737 0.02822 8.63980 0.02077
6 5 9 2
12.3033 9.00231 0.02150
1655 24 1 0.02905 8 4
12.8525 0.03038 9.36482 0.02264
1655 25 7 8 7 1
13.0722 0.03091 9.72733 0.02309
1655 26 7 2 6 1
13.6215 0.03228 10.1502 0.02429
1655 27 2 8 6 7
13.9510 0.03311 10.5127 0.02502
1655 28 8 2 7 1
14.2806 0.03393 0.02579
1655 29 3 7 10.9357 2
14.9397 0.03558 11.3586
1655 30 3 8 3 0.02728
15.2692 11.7211 0.02803
1655 31 9 0.0364 4 1
15.7636 0.03763 12.2044 0.02915
1655 32 2 7 8 3
16.2579 0.03893 12.8086 0.03032
1655 33 5 8 6 8
16.7522 13.1711 0.03143
1655 34 8 0.04015 7 4
17.1916 0.04123 13.5336 0.03241
1655 35 8 7 8 8
17.6310 0.04228 14.0774 0.03339
1655 36 8 7 4 5
18.0704 0.04342 14.5003 0.03445
1655 37 9 5 7 1
18.5098 14.8628 0.03542
1655 38 9 0.0445 8 4
0.04557 15.3462 0.03640
1655 39 18.9493 5 2 4
19.2788 15.7087 0.03717
1655 40 5 0.0464 3 9

Composite Strength Testing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Composite Strength Testing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAB REPORT 1:

COMPOSITE STRENGTH TESTING

Date of Submission: 09 October 2006

Submitted to Dr. David Lanning, Jr.

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

2.1 COMPOSITE FABRICATION...........................................................................11

2.2 STRESS-STRAIN CURVE FOR FIBER-COMPOSITES...........................................12

2.3 THREE-POINT BEND TEST..........................................................................14

3.0 APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES......................................................17

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................35

6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................36

8.0 APPENDIX A: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS........................................38

9.0 APPENDIX B: RAW DATA..................................................................39

2.1 COMPOSITE FABRICATION...........................................................................11

Figure 2.1.1: Flowchart for Composite Fabrication...................................................11

Figure 2.3.1: Three-point bend test. .....................................................14

Figure 2.4.1: Fractured Carbon Composite from a Scanning Electron

Figure 3.1: Tensile Tester...........................................................................................17

Figure 3.1: Carbon inside Epoxy...............................................................................23

6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................36

8.0 APPENDIX A: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS........................................38

9.0 APPENDIX B: RAW DATA..................................................................39

E Modulus of Elasticity/Young’s lb/in2

I Moment of Inertia in4

b Sandwich Beam Width in

c Sandwich Core Height in

d Sandwich Beam Height in

t Sandwich Ply Height in

σ Normal Stress lb/in2

τ Shear Stress lb/in2

c,|| Composite (Parallel to fibers)

Ec ,|| = EmVm + E f V f Equation 2.1

σ c = σ f V f + σ mVm Equation 2.3

A composite is “any multiphase material that exhibits a significant proportion of the

1. High strength and stiffness (Iatridis, 2006)

1. Particulate Composites: Particulate composites contain “large amounts of coarse

3. Laminar-based Composites: Laminar composites are used primarily to “improve

2.1 Composite Fabrication

Figure 2.1.1: Flowchart for Composite Fabrication.

(Gay et al., 2003)

2.2 Stress-Strain Curve for Fiber-Composites

(Askeland, 2006, http://www.key-to-steel.com)

Ec ,|| = EmVm + E f V f Equation 2.1

σ c = σ f V f + σ mVm Equation 2.3

2.3 Three-point Bend Test

Figure 2.3.1: Three-point bend test.

Figure 2.4.1: Fractured Carbon Composite from a Scanning Electron Microscope.

3.0 APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES

The following equipment was used in the experiment:

• EZ-LAM 60 Epoxy from Aerospace Composite Products©,

• One (1) polyether polyurethane LAST-A-FOAM® from Aircraft Spruce &

• One (1) brush,

Figure 3.1: Tensile Tester.

Figure 3.2: Extensometer.

An extensometer is defined as an instrument that is used to measure the change in

Figure 3.3: Three-point Bend Setup.

Figure 3.4: Grinder Polisher Machine.

• One (1) 400 Grinder Polisher Machine,

• One (1) 600 Grinder Polisher Machine,

• One (1) 1200 Grinder Polisher Machine, and

Figure 3.5: Scanning Electron Microscope.

13.0Breather ply was then placed on top of the entire composite.

15.0Epoxy was applied to the top surface of the E-glass layer.

16.0Steps 14.0 – 15.0 were repeated for another layer of E-glass.