2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.03.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of ply-angle on fracture in antisymmetric interfaces of CFRP laminates

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For this reason, in this work a modified version of the CBT taken from literature is adopted. 10,29,30 The following expressions is used for the evaluation of the energy release rate in DCB and ENF…”
Section: Analytical Solutionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For this reason, in this work a modified version of the CBT taken from literature is adopted. 10,29,30 The following expressions is used for the evaluation of the energy release rate in DCB and ENF…”
Section: Analytical Solutionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[7][8][9] A few researchers have studied fracture toughness in coupons with interface plies at different orientation using Double Cantilever Beam (DCB) specimens. Blondeau et al 10 tested several DCB specimens with anti-symmetric interfaces (h/-h), comparing the results to unidirectional specimens and obtaining a similar onset value of the fracture toughness for all lay-ups, while the R-curves differ with higher values of the fracture toughness found in the specimens with antisymmetric interfaces. Yao et al 11 also observed a similar onset value followed by a higher R-curve effect when comparing 0 � /0 � and 45 � /45 � DCB specimens.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [ 8 ], resistance against delamination under Mixed-Mode loading (G II = 34%, 85%) was investigated for 0°//0°, 0°//22.5°, 0°//45°, and 0°//90° interfaces. More recent results of similar investigations can be found, e.g., in [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ], and in [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ] where also R-curves were of interest.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 58%
“…They differed in that the interlaminar crack started from the junction point and stopped somewhere close, instead of progressing to the end of the specimen as shown in Figure 7, highlighting the different interlaminar fracture properties. 25 For the S45/4 and S60/4 specimens, no holes or interlaminar fractures were observed.
Figure 17.Typical tensile load–displacement curves of different stacking sequences with and without ply splicing.
Figure 18.Fractographies of specimens after tensile tests.
Figure 19.Tensile load–displacement curve with fractographies for S30/4.
…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…They differed in that the interlaminar crack started from the junction point and stopped somewhere close, instead of progressing to the end of the specimen as shown in Figure 7, highlighting the different interlaminar fracture properties. 25 For the S45/4 and S60/4 specimens, no holes or interlaminar fractures were observed.…”
Section: Effects Of Ply Anglementioning
confidence: 88%