Unidirectional carbon fiber reinforced polyamide 6 (CF/PA6) laminates after tensile tests exhibited two different types of fracture modes, namely, splitting and step-like. In this study, the mechanical properties and fracture behavior of the unidirectional CF/PA6 laminates were simulated and analyzed by using finite element simulation of a tensile test. The simulations considered the actual deformation and damage mechanism (matrix plastic deformation, stochastic fiber fracture, and interfacial debonding between the fiber and the matrix) experimentally observed in previous research. Results of the numerical simulations were in good with the experimental stress–strain curves. Moreover, the above-mentioned two types of fracture mode were well simulated by changing the interfacial properties. The simulated results showed that the unidirectional laminates with weak interface properties exhibit the splitting fracture mode. Meanwhile, the unidirectional laminates with strong interface properties show the step-like fracture behavior.
MaYZhangYSugaharaT, et al. Off-axis tensile fatigue assessment based on residual strength for the unidirectional 45° carbon fiber-reinforced composite at room temperature. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf2016; 90: 711–723.
2.
MaYJinSYokozekiT, et al. Effect of hot water on the mechanical performance of unidirectional carbon fiber-reinforced nylon 6 composites. Compos Sci Technol2020; 200: 108426.
3.
ZhangSHaoANguyenN, et al. Carbon nanotube/carbon composite fiber with improved strength and electrical conductivity via interface engineering. Carbon2019; 144: 628–638.
4.
MaYSugaharaTYangY, et al. A study on the energy absorption properties of carbon/aramid fiber filament winding composite tube. Compos Struct2015; 123: 301–311.
5.
XuJMaYZhangQ, et al. Crashworthiness of carbon fiber hybrid composite tubes molded by filament winding. Compos Struct2016; 139: 130–140.
MishnaevskyLLJr.Computational mesomechanics of composites: numerical analysis of the effect of microstructures of composites of strength and damage resistance. Hobokken, NJ: Wiley, 2007.
8.
TanakaMHojoMHobbiebrunkenT, et al. Influence of non-uniform fiber arrangement on tensile fracture behavior of unidirectional fiber/epoxy model composites. Compos Interf2005; 12: 365–378.
9.
C.ChamisMechanics of load transfer at the interface. In: PlueddemannEP (ed) Interfaces in polymer composites. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1974. pp.33–77.
10.
KeuschSQueckHGliescheK.Influence of glass fibre/epoxy resin interface on static mechanical properties of unidirectional composites and on fatigue performance of cross ply composites. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf1998; 29: 701–705.
11.
SelzerRFriedrichK.Mechanical properties and failure behaviour of carbon fibre-reinforced polymer composites under the influence of moisture. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf1997; 28: 595–604.
12.
BoccardiSMeolaCCarlomagnoG, et al. Effects of interface strength gradation on impact damage mechanisms in polypropylene/woven glass fabric composites. Compos Part B: Eng2016; 90: 179–187.
13.
TaketaI.Analysis of failure mechanisms and hybrid effects in carbon fibre reinforced thermoplastic composites, PhD Thesis. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Heverlee, België, 2011.
14.
MaYYangYSugaharaT, et al. A study on the failure behavior and mechanical properties of unidirectional fiber reinforced thermosetting and thermoplastic composites. Compos Part B: Eng2016; 99: 162–172.
15.
MaYUedaMYokozekiT, et al. A comparative study of the mechanical properties and failure behavior of carbon fiber/epoxy and carbon fiber/polyamide 6 unidirectional composites. Compos Struct2017; 160: 89–99.
16.
KusanoHAokiYHiranoY, et al. Visualization on static tensile test for unidirectional CFRP. In: Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Composite Materials. Edinburgh, UK, 2009.
17.
OkabeTTakedaNKamoshidaY, et al. A 3D shear-lag model considering micro-damage and statistical strength prediction of unidirectional fiber-reinforced composites. Compos Sci Technol2001; 61: 1773–1787.
18.
OkabeTTakedaN.Size effect on tensile strength of unidirectional CFRP composites – experiment and simulation. Compos Sci Technol2002; 62: 2053–2064.
19.
OchiaiSHojoMInoueT.Shear-lag simulation of the progress of interfacial debonding in unidirectional composites. Compos Sci Technol1999; 59: 77–88.
20.
LiLBSongYDSunYC.Modeling the tensile behavior of unidirectional C/SiC ceramic-matrix composites. Mech Compos Mater2014; 49: 659–672.
21.
DwaikatMMSSpitasCSpitasV.Predicting nonlinear stress–strain curves of unidirectional fibrous composites in consideration of stick–slip. Compos Part B: Eng2013; 44: 501–507.
22.
LiuJZhuWYuZ, et al. Dynamic shear-lag model for understanding the role of matrix in energy dissipation in fiber-reinforced composites. Acta Biomater2018; 74: 270–279.
23.
WuJYuanHLiL-Y.Effect of viscoelasticity on interfacial stress transfer mechanism in the biocomposites: a theoretical study of viscoelastic shear lag model. Compos Part B: Eng2019; 164: 297–308.
24.
MandelJAPackSCTaraziS.Micromechanical studies of crack growth in fiber reinforced materials. Eng Fract Mech1982; 16: 741–754.
25.
ChandraNLiHShetC, et al. Some issues in the application of cohesive zone models for metal–ceramic interfaces. Int J Solid Struct2002; 39: 2827–2855.
26.
MSC.Marc Volume A: theory and user information. Geneva, Switzerland: MSC Corp, 2010.
27.
BeyerleinIJPhoenixSL.Statistics of fracture for an elastic notched composite lamina containing Weibull fibers – part I. Features from Monte-Carlo simulation. Eng Fract Mech1997; 57: 241–265.
