The Effect of Hydrostatic Pressure On The Mechanical Properties of Glass Fibre/epoxy Unidirectional Composites
The Effect of Hydrostatic Pressure On The Mechanical Properties of Glass Fibre/epoxy Unidirectional Composites
The Effect of Hydrostatic Pressure On The Mechanical Properties of Glass Fibre/epoxy Unidirectional Composites
www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesa
Abstract
An investigation has been carried out to show the effect of hydrostatic pressure up to 850 MPa on the mechanical properties of pure epoxy
and unidirectional (UD) E glass/epoxy lamina. Longitudinal tension, transverse compression and 108 off-axis tension tests were carried out
on the composites and compression tests were carried out on the resin. Strain gauges were used to measure the strains during tests at pressures
up to 500 MPa. From the longitudinal tensile tests on UD lamina, the longitudinal tensile Young’s modulus was found to increase slightly
with increasing pressure, while the longitudinal tensile strength was found to fall, with a change in failure mode from axial splitting to a
transverse break at elevated pressures. From the transverse compression tests on UD lamina, the transverse compressive Young’s modulus
and transverse compressive strength were both found to increase markedly with pressure. A knee in behaviour was seen in the transverse
compressive strength at a pressure of about 300 MPa: below this pressure the failure appeared flaw dominated, while above this pressure the
failure appeared yield dominated. The in-plane UD lamina shear strength, determined from the 108 off-axis tension tests, showed a similar
behaviour to the transverse compression tests, with a transition in the failure behaviour at a pressure of around 300 MPa.
Compression tests on pure epoxy samples showed that the compressive Young’s modulus increased significantly with increasing pressure
whilst the compressive strength showed a modest increase with increasing pressure.
By using a micromechanical model and the measured pressure dependence of the epoxy resin, it was found that the pressure dependent
increase in the transverse modulus for a UD lamina could be predicted accurately.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1359-835X/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2004.06.004
280 P.J. Hine et al. / Composites: Part A 36 (2005) 279–289
Fig. 1. Schematic diagrams of the testing geometries: (a) longitudinal and off-axis tension; (b) transverse compression; (c) pure epoxy resin in compression.
from any debris which might come from a failed composite in an oven at 75 8C for 4 h after an overnight cold cure. It
sample. was found that this system could survive around eight high
The test procedure involved filling the vessel, pressurising pressure tests, up to a pressure of 500 MPa and therefore no
to the desired pressure and then waiting 10 min for the effects strains were measured above this pressure. When failure of
of any adiabatic compression heating to be dissipated before the epoxy coated plug did occur, it was due to one of the
carrying out the test. As samples are pressurised significant copper wires failing, as the plug tried to extrude through
dimensional changes occur which can lead to significant the outer hole, and no leakage was encountered through the
sample loads if the movement of the samples is restricted. For epoxy coated plug.
the tensile tests, the sample holder allows this movement to A simple data acquisition system was used to record the
occur without applying any load to the sample. For the force, testing pressure and sample strain using a Picoscope
compression tests, a small load is initially applied to the 12 bit data logger. All the tests were carried out at a nominal
sample to stop it falling over when the vessel is filled. As crosshead speed of 2 mm/min.
the pressure in the vessel is increased and the sample shrinks,
the crosshead is moved manually to keep this small preload 3. Results
constant.
Various strain gauges were used to monitor the strain in A typical experimental data set, in this case for a
the majority of the tests. For the longitudinal tensile tests, transverse compression test carried out at a pressure of
the strain gauge used was C930519K, Measurements Group,
UK and the adhesive used was M-Bond. For the transverse
compression tests, and the atmospheric pure epoxy test,
post-yield strain gauge used was YFLA-2 (Tokyo Sokki
Kennyujo Co Ltd, UK), capable of measuring large strains,
and the adhesive used was cyanoacrylate. For the pure
epoxy tests, only the atmospheric pressure test was strain
gauged. No strain gauges were used in the tests carried out
on the 108 off-axis specimens.
In order to get the strain gauge wires out of the vessel, a
method that was developed by Pugh [15] using an epoxy
resin conical metal plug, was employed in the present work.
The diameter of the plug was 5 mm at the thick end, and 1.1
mm at the thin end: the plug was 8 mm long. The layer of
epoxy coating was in the order of 0.5 mm. The epoxy used Fig. 2. State of stresses under three types of loading: (a) longitudinal
was a standard slow curing Araldite, which was post-cured tension, (b) transverse compression and (c) tension of 10 off-axis lamina.
282 P.J. Hine et al. / Composites: Part A 36 (2005) 279–289
Fig. 3. Photograph and a schematic diagram of the high pressure testing facility.
500 MPa on a composite lamina (Fig. 1b), is shown in had to be determined from the machine crosshead displace-
Fig. 4. It is seen that after pressurisation and stabilisation ment and the compliance of the machine at atmospheric
(before a time of w20 s), there is an applied compressive pressure (0.1 MPa). Fig. 5 shows a comparison of the real
strain on the sample due to dimensional changes caused by sample compliance, measured using a strain gauge on the
the imposed hydrostatic pressure: as described above sample, and the measured sample compliance determined
the samples are all free to contract during pressurisation. from the crosshead movement. It is seen that the compliance
Once the crosshead begins to move (at around 25 s), an as measured by the machine is both much larger than
increase in force is seen due to the seal friction. Once the the real compliance and also non-linear, reinforcing the
sample has broken the crosshead is allowed to continue to necessity of using strain gauges where possible. As the
move, so a second measure of the seal friction can be measured sample compliance from crosshead movement is
taken. An average of the seal friction before and after the non-linear, we have made the arbitrary choice to compare
test is then determined and subtracted from the overall
measured force.
The failure stresses (s) presented in the following tables
and graphs were computed from the applied Force (F) and the
cross-sectional area (A) of the specimens, i.e. sZF/A. In
addition to the applied stress, the specimens were subjected
to a hydrostatic pressure component (KP) along the loading
direction. Hence, the net stress acting in the loading direction
will be (sKP) for the case of an applied external tensile stress
(a and b in Fig. 2) and K(sCP) for an applied external
compressive stress (transverse compression, c in Fig. 2 and
pure epoxy compressive tests). The stresses in a direction
perpendicular to the loading direction are those generated by
the pressure and they are compressive (ZKP).
In the compression tests on epoxy carried out above Fig. 4. A typical set of experimental data for force, pressure and strain vs
atmospheric pressure, no strain gauges were used to time (1 VZ10 kN for the force signal, Z1.38% for the strain signal and Z
measure the strains in the specimens and hence the strains 1 GPa for the pressure signal).
P.J. Hine et al. / Composites: Part A 36 (2005) 279–289 283
Fig. 5. A comparison of the real and measured sample compliance for a pure
epoxy sample in compression.
Table 3 Table 5
Longitudinal tensile results on UD lamina at various pressure values Experimental data obtained from tensile tests on 108 off-axis UD lamina
coupons at various pressure values
Pressure Tensile mod- Tensile strength Failure strain
(MPa) ulus E11 (GPa) (GPa) (%) Pressure (MPa) Shear stress at
failure, t12 (MPa)
0.1 43.5G1.7 1.26G0.07 3.05G0.09
100 40.6G1.8 1.05G0.05 2.68G0.06 0.1 40.1G3.2
150 40.6G0.6 1.13G0.02 2.84G0.04 150 68.1G1.8
200 43.9G1.5 1.21G0.03 2.79G0.02 300 78G8
250 42.5G1.0 1.24G0.04 2.95G0.04 500 80G5
500 44.5G0.6 1.14G0.01 2.59G0.02
860 0.90G0.07
For the axial strength, the general trend is that the strength
decreases as the pressure increases. This fall in the
Tables 3–5 and shown in Figs. 7–14. The state of stresses in longitudinal strength has been observed by other workers in
the three types of tests is shown schematically in Fig. 2. the field [1,2,9] and by these authors as part of a previous
study on UD carbon fibre/epoxy composites [8]. One possible
3.2.1. Axial tension mechanism for this fall in strength is an increased localisation
Axial tensile tests (1 direction) were carried out at a of damage as the pressure increases, making individual flaws
variety of pressures between atmospheric (0.1 MPa) and more important, although it cannot be discounted that the fibre
860 MPa and a summary of the results from all the tests is strength itself could fall with increasing pressure as we found
shown in Table 3. Although the force/time and strain/time in the previous experiments on carbon fibre/epoxy compo-
curves were often non-linear, the calculated stress–strain sites and individual carbon fibre bundles [8].
curves were all predominantly linear up to failure. Typical examples of failed samples are shown in Fig. 8:
Fig. 7 shows the variation of the axial modulus (E11) and this shows axial splitting at atmospheric pressure and a clean
the axial strength (s1T) with applied hydrostatic pressure. break at all elevated pressures. The top sample shows a
The modulus possibly shows a small increase with pressure, typical failure at atmospheric pressure, while the lower
although there is some scatter, which we partly attribute to sample shows the clean break seen with all the tests at
the variations in the fibre volume fraction described earlier. elevated pressures.
To elucidate this effect, a range of pressure tests could in
3.2.2. Transverse compression tests
principle be carried out using a single specimen in order to
Transverse compression tests were carried out over
reduce sample variability.
a similar range of pressures to the axial tensile tests.
Table 4a Typical stress–strain curves for these tests are shown in
Transverse compression results on UD lamina at various pressure values
Table 4b
Transverse compressive Young’s modulus results from a single UD lamina
sample taken at 0.5% strain
[15] Pugh HLD. The mechanical behaviour of materials under pressure. [27] McCartney LN. Predicting ply crack formation and failure in
London: Elsevier; 1970. laminates. Compos Sci Technol 2002;62:1619–32.
[16] Ainbinder SB. Effect of hydrostatic pressure on mechanical properties [28] Puck A, Schürmann A. Failure analysis of FRP laminates by means of
of plastics. Mekh Polim 1965;1:65–75. physically based phenomenological models. Part B. Compos Sci
[17] Spitzig W. Richmond. Polym Eng Sci 1979;19:16. Technol 2002;62:11633–72.
[18] Rabinowitz S, Ward IM, Parry JSC. J Mater Sci 1970;5:29–39. [29] Sun CT, Tao J, Kaddour AS. Prediction of failure envelopes and
[19] Coulomb CA. Mem Math Phys 1773;7:343. stress-strain behavior of composite laminates: comparison with
[20] Chamis CC, Sinclair JH. Ten-deg off-axis test for shear properties in experimental results. Compos Sci Technol 2002;62:1672–82.
fiber composites. Exp Mech 1977;17:339–46. [30] Kuraishi A, Tsai SW, Liu K. A progressive quadratic failure criterion,
[21] Wronski AS, Pick M. Pyramidal yield criteria for epoxides. J Mater Part B. Compos Sci Technol 2002;62:1682–96.
Sci 1977;12:28–34. [31] Zinoviev PA, Lebedeva OV, Tairova LP. Coupled analysis of
[22] Wilczynski AP. A basic theory of reinforcement for unidirectional experimental and theoretical results on the deformation and failure
of laminated composites under a plane state of stress. Compos Sci
fibrous composites. Compos Sci Technol 1990;38:327–30.
Technol 2002;62:11711–24.
[23] Gotsis PK, Chamis CC, Minnetyan L. Application of progressive
[32] Bogetti TA, Hoppel CPR, Harik VM, Newill JF, Burns BP. Predicting
fracture analysis for predicting failure envelopes and stress–strain
the nonlinear response and progressive failure of composite laminates.
behaviors of composite laminates: a comparison with experimental
Compos Sci Technol 2004;64:329–42.
results. Compos Sci Technol 2002;62:1545–60.
[33] Cuntze RG, Freund A. The predictive capability of failure mode
[24] Eckold GC. Failure criteria for use in the design environment. Part B.
concept-based strength criteria for multidirectional laminates. Com-
Compos Sci Technol 2002;62:1561–70. pos Sci Technol 2004;64:343–77.
[25] Edge EC. Theory v. experiment comparison for stress based Grant– [34] Mayes SJ, Hansen AC. Composite laminate failure analysis using
Sanders method. Compos Sci Technol 2002;62:1571–90. multicontinuum theory. Compos Sci Technol 2004;64:379–94.
[26] Hart-Smith LJ. Comparison between theories and test data concerning [35] Huang ZM. A bridging model prediction of the tensile strength of
the strength of various fibre-polymer composites. Compos Sci composite laminates subjected to biaxial loads. Compos Sci Technol
Technol 2002;62:1591–618. 2004;64:395–448.