Author Contributions
Conceptualization, A.W. and V.R.; methodology, A.S., A.W. and V.R.; software, A.S.; validation, A.S.; formal analysis, A.S.; investigation, A.S.; resources, A.W. and V.R.; data curation, A.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S.; writing—review and editing, A.W.; visualization, A.S.; supervision, A.W. and V.R.; project administration, A.W. and V.R.; funding acquisition, A.W. and V.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Figure 1.
Pre-peak nonlinearity in EST.
Figure 1.
Pre-peak nonlinearity in EST.
Figure 2.
A woven and tape plus–minus 45 specimen used for characterization of the nonlinearity in the shear modulus of the matrix.
Figure 2.
A woven and tape plus–minus 45 specimen used for characterization of the nonlinearity in the shear modulus of the matrix.
Figure 3.
Test setup for the plus–minus 45 experiment.
Figure 3.
Test setup for the plus–minus 45 experiment.
Figure 4.
PM45 shear stress versus shear strain relationship. (a) A tape PM45 specimen before and after failure. (b) A woven PM45 specimen before and after failure.
Figure 4.
PM45 shear stress versus shear strain relationship. (a) A tape PM45 specimen before and after failure. (b) A woven PM45 specimen before and after failure.
Figure 5.
PM45 shear stress vs. shear strain relationship. (a) Shear stress vs. shear strain response for the tape samples at quasi-static loading rates. (b) Shear stress vs. shear strain response for the woven samples at quasi-static loading rates.
Figure 5.
PM45 shear stress vs. shear strain relationship. (a) Shear stress vs. shear strain response for the tape samples at quasi-static loading rates. (b) Shear stress vs. shear strain response for the woven samples at quasi-static loading rates.
Figure 6.
Strain vs. extension relationship for the matrix-toughened M21 PM45 specimens. (a) Tape shear response. (b) Woven shear response.
Figure 6.
Strain vs. extension relationship for the matrix-toughened M21 PM45 specimens. (a) Tape shear response. (b) Woven shear response.
Figure 7.
Surface loading strains in the loading direction of a tape PM45 specimen.
Figure 7.
Surface loading strains in the loading direction of a tape PM45 specimen.
Figure 8.
Surface loading strains in the loading direction of a tape PM45 specimen.
Figure 8.
Surface loading strains in the loading direction of a tape PM45 specimen.
Figure 9.
Damage progression of a PM45 tape specimen imaged from the side.
Figure 9.
Damage progression of a PM45 tape specimen imaged from the side.
Figure 10.
Surface loading strains in the loading direction of a woven PM45 specimen.
Figure 10.
Surface loading strains in the loading direction of a woven PM45 specimen.
Figure 11.
Surface loading strains in the loading direction of a woven PM45 specimen.
Figure 11.
Surface loading strains in the loading direction of a woven PM45 specimen.
Figure 12.
Damage progression of a PM45 woven specimen imaged from the side.
Figure 12.
Damage progression of a PM45 woven specimen imaged from the side.
Figure 13.
Calculation of EST degradation for M21 tape specimens. (a) Calculation of EST degradation for M21 tape samples. (b) EST recreation of tape shear strain behavior.
Figure 13.
Calculation of EST degradation for M21 tape specimens. (a) Calculation of EST degradation for M21 tape samples. (b) EST recreation of tape shear strain behavior.
Figure 14.
Calculation of EST degradation for M21 woven specimens. (a) Calculation of EST degradation for M21 woven samples. (b) EST recreation of woven shear strain behavior.
Figure 14.
Calculation of EST degradation for M21 woven specimens. (a) Calculation of EST degradation for M21 woven samples. (b) EST recreation of woven shear strain behavior.
Figure 15.
Microscope image of the side of specimen A, showing the woven pattern.
Figure 15.
Microscope image of the side of specimen A, showing the woven pattern.
Figure 16.
Microscope image of the side of specimen B, showing the hybrid pattern.
Figure 16.
Microscope image of the side of specimen B, showing the hybrid pattern.
Figure 17.
Microscope image of the side of specimen C, showing the hybrid pattern.
Figure 17.
Microscope image of the side of specimen C, showing the hybrid pattern.
Figure 18.
Experimental setup for the DCB experiment.
Figure 18.
Experimental setup for the DCB experiment.
Figure 19.
Load versus displacement response for each DCB experiment.
Figure 19.
Load versus displacement response for each DCB experiment.
Figure 20.
Mode I fracture toughness calculation as a function of crack length.
Figure 20.
Mode I fracture toughness calculation as a function of crack length.
Figure 21.
Experimental setup for the ENF experiment.
Figure 21.
Experimental setup for the ENF experiment.
Figure 22.
ENF specimen compliance validation.
Figure 22.
ENF specimen compliance validation.
Figure 23.
ENF load versus displacement response for layup A. (a) Layup A NPC response, loaded until first load drop and crack advancement. (b) Layup A PC response, loaded for significant crack propagation.
Figure 23.
ENF load versus displacement response for layup A. (a) Layup A NPC response, loaded until first load drop and crack advancement. (b) Layup A PC response, loaded for significant crack propagation.
Figure 24.
ENF load versus displacement response for layups B and C. (a) Layup B and C NPC responses, loaded until first load drop and crack advancement. (b) Layup B and C PC responses, loaded for significant crack propagation.
Figure 24.
ENF load versus displacement response for layups B and C. (a) Layup B and C NPC responses, loaded until first load drop and crack advancement. (b) Layup B and C PC responses, loaded for significant crack propagation.
Figure 25.
UT C-scan of the A and B type test specimens initially, after the NPC test, and after the PC test.
Figure 25.
UT C-scan of the A and B type test specimens initially, after the NPC test, and after the PC test.
Figure 26.
UT C-scan of the C type test specimens initially, after the NPC test, and after the PC test.
Figure 26.
UT C-scan of the C type test specimens initially, after the NPC test, and after the PC test.
Figure 27.
Description of the FE model used in the DCB and ENF recreations.
Figure 27.
Description of the FE model used in the DCB and ENF recreations.
Figure 28.
Example of optimization of cohesive parameters to meet a specified output.
Figure 28.
Example of optimization of cohesive parameters to meet a specified output.
Figure 29.
FE model validation with DCB results for a interface laminate.
Figure 29.
FE model validation with DCB results for a interface laminate.
Figure 30.
FE model validation with ENF results for a interface laminate.
Figure 30.
FE model validation with ENF results for a interface laminate.
Table 1.
PM45 specimen layups and thicknesses.
Table 1.
PM45 specimen layups and thicknesses.
| Sample | Layup | Thickness (mm) |
|---|
| [45/−45/45/−45]s | |
| [/]s | |
Table 2.
Interface characterization specimens.
Table 2.
Interface characterization specimens.
| Sample | Interface Type | Thickness (mm) |
|---|
| A | | |
| B | | |
| C | | |
Table 3.
Interface characterization layups.
Table 3.
Interface characterization layups.
| Sample | Layup |
|---|
| A | [] |
| B | [] |
| C | [] |
Table 4.
Calculated mode I fracture toughness values for each layup.
Table 4.
Calculated mode I fracture toughness values for each layup.
| Sample | (N/mm) |
|---|
| A | |
| B | |
| C | |
Table 5.
Calculated mode II fracture toughness values for each layup.
Table 5.
Calculated mode II fracture toughness values for each layup.
| Sample | (N/mm) |
|---|
| A | |
| B | |
| C | |
Table 6.
Additional interface characterization specimens from prior studies.
Table 6.
Additional interface characterization specimens from prior studies.
| Sample | Interface Type |
|---|
| D | |
| E | |
| F | |
| G | |
Table 7.
M21 interface cohesive parameters.
Table 7.
M21 interface cohesive parameters.
| Sample | Type | (MPa) | (MPa) | (N/mm) | (N/mm) |
|---|
| A | Woven | 106 | 198 | | |
| B | Hybrid | 90 | 140 | | |
| C | Hybrid | 95 | 146 | | |
| D | Woven | | 168 | | |
| E | Woven | 101 | 199 | | |
| F | Hybrid | | 142 | | |
| G | Tape | 100 | 120 | | |