Ultrasonics inspections and confocal microscopy to evaluate fatigue damage in fiber reinforced polymer composites V. G. García
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Ultrasonics inspections and confocal microscopy to evaluate fatigue damage in fiber reinforced polymer composites V. G. García

on

  • 350 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
350
Views on SlideShare
350
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Ultrasonics inspections and confocal microscopy to evaluate fatigue damage in fiber reinforced polymer composites V. G. García Ultrasonics inspections and confocal microscopy to evaluate fatigue damage in fiber reinforced polymer composites V. G. García Presentation Transcript

  • Ultrasonics inspections and confocalmicroscopy to evaluate fatigue damage in fiber reinforced polymer compositesV.G. García, J. Sala, L. Crispí, J.M. Cabrera, A. Istúriz, A. Sàez, M. Millán, C. Comes, D. TriasComposites
  • 1. Introduction: Outline2. Experimental Procedure: Materials inspected and tested Ultrasound equipment Ultrasound visualization software 4-Point bending fatigue tests3. Results: Wöhler plot Ultrasound scans at N=4,000 cycles Ultrasound scans in at N=26,079 cycles Confocal microscopy in a GFRP at N=26,079 cycles Confocal microscopy in a CFRP at N=20,000 cycles4. Conclusions 2/20
  • 2. Experimental Procedure Fig. 1. Dimensions of the glass fiber/phenolic resin bars Fig. 3. Ultrasound inspections every 2,000 cycles. Until 20,000 Fig. 2. Dimensions carbon fiber/epoxy resin bars cycles. Fig. 4. 4-Point bending flexural fatigue. 3/20
  • 2. Experimental Procedure: Materials inspected and tested The Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) was Isovid G-3 manufactured by Composites Ate. -Isovid G-3 consists of 200g/m2 plain weave E-glass, and a modified phenolic resin that enhances flame retardant characteristics. -Layers are 0.24mm thick. -All plies were stacked to match 0º and 90º. -Composite was high speed milled to reach dimensions. Fig. 5. GFRP samples. Fig. 6. GFRP sample after exposure Fig. 7. Woven appearance. to sun light. 4/20
  • 2. Experimental Procedure: Materials inspected and tested The Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) was manufactured using Hexcel 8552/32%/134/IM7(12K) at the INTA Materials and Structures Department. -The 8552/32%/134/IM7(12K) pre-impregnated carbon fiber plies consisted of tows of 12,000 individual fibers of IM7 intermediate modulus carbon. -The pre-preg contained 32% of 8552, an amine cured, Fig. 8. CFRP samples. toughened epoxy resin system. -The nominal ply thickness was 134µm. -Measured ply thickness was 129µm to 134µm. Table 1. Stacking sequences and percentages of layers oriented 90º, 0º or ±45º. % % % % # Specimens Stacking sequence 90º 0º 45º -45º layers [(0/±45/02/±45/02/90) / CFRP-P011 8.8 54.4 18.4 18.4 283 ( 02/±45/02/±45/02/ )12]S 90 [(0/90) / CFRP-P021 9.5 54.7 17.9 17.9 201 ( 02/±45/02/±45/0290)9]S / Fig. 9. Smooth, rough, and [(0/90/0/±45/02/90) / machined surfaces of CFRP CFRP-P041 11.9 54.2 16.9 16.9 59 ( 02/±45/02/±45/0290)2]S / samples. 5/20
  • 2. Experimental Procedure: Ultrasound equipment -A single crystal longitudinal wave transducer of 1MHz and 13mm diameter was used for most inspections. -The gain was set at 15dB. -Specimens CFRP-P041 were inspected using a 5MHz (10mm diameter) transducer at 5dB. -Acoustic wave propagation was set at 3275m/s. -Mapro developed a software, based on LabView, to process the pulse-echo signals and visualize A-scans, B-scans, C- scans, plus optional ∫-scans.Fig. 10. Ultrasound equipment built by Mapro using a Socomate USPC3100LA card. Y (Index) X (scan) Fig. 11. A pulse-echo inspection in an Fig. 12. Before an inspection the Fig. 13. Inspection of immersion bath. transducer is positioned at the (0,0) a GFRP specimen. origin. 6/20
  • 2. Experimental Procedure: Ultrasound visualization software Fig. 14. Screen image of the visualization software, after loading the ultrasound signal data. 7/20
  • 2. Experimental Procedure: Ultrasound visualization softwareFig. 15. Screen image after: digitally aligning the first peak, positioning the cut off lines, and setting a color range. 8/20
  • 2. Experimental Procedure: Ultrasound visualization software Interface (I) echo Back-wall (B) echo Fig. 16. In this study the A-scans was passed through different algorithms to create alternative scan images. 9/20
  • 2. Experimental Procedure: Ultrasound visualization software C-scan minus I & B ∫-scan with I &B ∫-scan minus I & B ∫-scan with I & B minus mean ∫-scan minus I & B minus mean Fig. 17. A menu in the C-scan label allows processing the A-scan to create different ∫-scans. 10/20
  • 2. Experimental Procedure: 4-Point bending fatigue tests Flexural Stress The maximum strength σ0 for σ = (3FL)/(4Wh2) the GFRP was 391MPa, and for the CFRP was 1135MPa. F→ force, L → support length, W → specimen width, Normalized fatigue stresses for h → specimen thickness. L GFRP specimens was set at 0.2 to 0.9 and for the CFRP F F Fig. 19. GFRP specimen tested until fracture specimens at 0.36 to 0.60. 2 2 to determine σ0. F L S L F Normalized fatigue stress is 2 4 4 2 defined as σmax / σ0 where σmax L is the maximum flexural fatigue Fig. 18. Loading diagram stress in the outer layers.according to ASTM D6272- 02 (2008). L Fig. 20. CFRP specimen tested until fracture to determine σ0. 11/20
  • 3. Results: Wöhler plot 600 400 Maximum stress, σmax (MPa) GFRP-P011-40-1000-38_1/3 GFRP-P031-40-710-16_2/6 CFRP-P011-40-1440-38_1/2 Maximum stress, σmax (MPa) 400 CFRP-P011-40-1440-38_2/2 300 GFRP-P011-40-1000-38_2/3 GFRP-P011-40-1000-38_3/3 GFRP-P031-40-710-16_3/6 GFRP-P031-40-710-16_4/6 CFRP-PO21-40-1040-27_1/2 GFRP-P021-40-1000-27_1/3 GFRP-P031-40-710-16_5/6 200 GFRP-P021-40-1000-27_2/3 GFRP-P031-40-710-16_6/6 200 f = 0,8 Hz CFRP-P021-40-1040-27_2/2 GFRP-P021-40-1000-27_3/3 GFRP-P041-40-307-8_1/2 R=0,1 CFRP-P041-40-307-8_2/2 100 GFRP-P031-40-710-16_1/6 GFRP-P041-40-307-8_2/2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Number of cycles (x1000) -200 Number of cycles (x1000) -100 4-point bending tests -400 -200 -600 -300 4-point bending tests f = 0,8 Hz -400 R = 0,1 -800 Fig. 21. Maximum stresses during fatigue every Fig. 22. Maximum stresses during fatigue every 2,000 cycles for the CFRP specimens. 2,000 cycles for the GFRP specimens. 400 Maximum stress, σmax (MPa) 350 300 4-point bending 250 fatigue tests, 235 MPa 200 R=0,1 150 f=0,8Hz 13,344 cycles 100 Isovid G-3: 50 Plain weave 200g/m2 fiber glass with flame retardant phenolic resin 0 101 102 103 100 104 105 Number of cycles to failure, N Fig. 23. Maximum stresses versus cycles to failure of Isovid G-3 GFRP. 12/20
  • 3. Results: Ultrasound scans a GFRP at N=4,000 cycles Y (Index) X (scan) (a) X (scan) Y (Index) C-scan of the B echo (b) ∫-scan with I & B (c) ∫-scan minus I & B (d) ∫-scan with I & B minus mean (e) ∫-scan minus I & B minus mean (f) Fig. 24. In (a) specimen GFRP-P031-40-710-16_5/6 that broke at N=4001 cycles is shown. Images (b) to (f) show different types of scans performed at N=4000. 13/20
  • 3. Results: Ultrasound scans in a GFRP at N=26,079 cycles N=26,504 Y (Index) Y (Index) (a) X (scan) (b) C-scan of the B echo (c) ∫-scan with I & B ∫-scan minus I & B (d) ∫-scan with I & B minus mean (e) ∫-scan minus I & B minus mean (f) Fig. 25. In (a) specimen GFRP-P031-40-710-16_3/6 that broke at N=26,504 cycles is shown. Images (b) to (f) show different types of scans performed at N=26,079. 14/20
  • 3. Results: Ultrasound scans in a GFRP at N=26,079 cycles N=26,504 (a) X (scan) Y (Index) (b) C-scan of the B echo (c) ∫-scan with I & B ∫-scan minus I & B (d) ∫-scan with I & B minus mean (e) ∫-scan minus I & B minus mean (f) Fig. 26. In (a) specimen GFRP-P031-40-710-16_3/6 was cracked open to reveal the red color of the penetrating liquid. Images (b) to (f) show different types of scans performed at N=26,079. 15/20
  • 3. Results: Confocal microscopy in a GFRP at N=26,079 cycles (b)(a) (c) Fig. 27. Image in (a) shows specimen GFRP-P031-40-710-16_3/6 being inspected by a Sensofar Plμ 2300 confocal microscope, in (b) and (c) two contiguous surface areas show a crack on the site of maximum bending stress. 16/20
  • 3. Results: Confocal microscopy in a CFRP at N=20,000 cycles X (scan)(a) Y (Index) (d)(b) X (scan)(c) Y (Index) (e) (f) Fig. 28. Images in (a) and (b) shows specimen CFRP-P021-40-1040-27_1/2, in (c) the C- scan image, in (d) a photo of the damaged surface, and in (e) and (f) two contiguous confocal images show a normal surface and a worn surface, respectively. 17/20
  • 3. Results: Confocal microscopy in a CFRP at N=20,000 cycles (e) (f) Fig. 28. Images in (a) and (b) shows specimen CFRP-P021-40-1040-27_1/2, in (c) the C- scan image, in (d) a photo of the damaged surface, and in (e) and (f) two contiguous confocal images show a normal surface and a worn surface, respectively. 18/20
  • 3. Results: Confocal microscopy in a CFRP at N=20,000 cycles (f) (g) (h) Fig. 29. Image in (f) is again the worn surface of specimen CFRP-P021-40-1040-27_1/2. A closer observation in shown in (g) and the damage can be quantified in image (h). 19/20
  • 4. Conclusions -The additional information (i. e. newer spots) provided by the ∫-scans still require further corroboration with the actual internal damage. -However, the observations of this study seem to point to the ∫-scan without the I & B echoes, as the image that can combine the most information both from internal and superficial damage. -Ultrasound inspections in the GFRP specimens of this study helped locate possible surface damage, and confocal microscopy was capable of noticing cracks on that surface. -In CFRP specimens the damage was visually evident, but confocal images helped quantify the depth and type of damage. 20/20
  • Thank you for your attention.