A new copolymer poly (aryl ether ketone) (PAEK) resin was used as a matrix to prepare carbon fiber (CF) reinforced composites with different crystallinity by slow and rapid cooling. Finite element (FE) models were constructed according to micromechanics, and the progressive damage method based on the three-dimensional (3D) PUCK damage criterion was used to analyze the low-velocity impact damage mechanism of the CF/PAEK composites. The experimental results show that the composites with lower crystallinity have higher impact resistance and smaller impact damage area. In the FE simulated impact damage evolution process, the damage of the impact side is mainly compressive damage of the matrix and the fiber, while that of the impact back side is mainly tensile damage of the matrix. Moreover, due to their high interfacial bonding strength, the main damage modes of rapid-cooled composites with lower crystallinity are severe matrix tensile damage and slight fiber tensile damage in the impact back side. However, the slow-cooled composites show more delamination. In addition, for the damage evolution of compression after impact, the FE simulation shows that fiber compression, matrix tension, matrix compression and delamination expand along the transverse to the compression load. Furthermore, the in-plane damage expansion occurs earlier in the rapid-cooled composites, which also have graver interlaminar damage.
FavaloroMA. Comparison of the environmental attributes of thermoplastic vs. thermoset composites. Cell2009; 978: 270–274.
2.
SarasiniFTirillòJD’AltiliaS, et al.Damage tolerance of carbon/flax hybrid composites subjected to low velocity impact. Compos B Eng2016; 91: 144–153.
3.
MaioLMonacoERicciF, et al.Simulation of low velocity impact on composite laminates with progressive failure analysis. Compos Struct2013; 103: 75–85.
4.
JohnsonAFToso-PentecôteNSchuelerD. Numerical modelling of impact and damage tolerance in aerospace composite structures. In: Numerical modelling of failure in advanced composite materials. Sawston, UK: Woodhead Publishing Series in Composites Science and Engineering, 2015, 479–506.
5.
SelvarajJKawashitaLFYasaeeM, et al.Soft body impact on composites: delamination experiments and advanced numerical modelling. Compos Sci Technol2021; 208: 108777.
6.
ShahSZHMegat-YusoffPSMKaruppananS, et al.Performance comparison of resin-infused thermoplastic and thermoset 3D fabric composites under impact loading. Int J Mech Sci2021; 189: 105984.
7.
MiaoHWuZYingZ, et al.The numerical and experimental investigation on low-velocity impact response of composite panels: effect of fabric architecture. Compos Struct2019; 227: 111343.
8.
EliasALaurinFKaminskiM, et al.Experimental and numerical investigations of low energy/velocity impact damage generated in 3D woven composite with polymer matrix. Compos Struct2017; 159: 228–239.
9.
StrieweJReuterCSauerlandKH, et al.Manufacturing and crashworthiness of fabric-reinforced thermoplastic composites. Thin-Walled Struct2018; 123: 501–508.
10.
TuoHLuZMaX, et al.Damage and failure mechanism of thin composite laminates under low-velocity impact and compression-after-impact loading conditions. Compos B Eng2019; 163: 642–654.
11.
AbrateSFerreroJFNavarroP. Cohesive zone models and impact damage predictions for composite structures. Meccanica2015; 50(10): 2587–2620.
FaggianiAFalzonBG. Predicting low-velocity impact damage on a stiffened composite panel. Compos Appl Sci Manuf2010; 41(6): 737–749.
14.
ShabaniPLiLLaliberteJ, et al.High-fidelity simulation of low-velocity impact damage in fiber-reinforced composite laminates using integrated discrete and continuum damage models. Compos Struct2023; 313: 116910.
15.
ZhaoZQDuCLiuP, et al.Effect of fiber architecture on the impact resistance of composite panels subjected to metallic projectile. Compos Struct2021; 273: 114273.
16.
FalcóOLopesCSommerD, et al.Experimental analysis and simulation of low-velocity impact damage of composite laminates. Compos Struct2022; 287: 115278.
17.
ZhaoLHuangZXiongS, et al.Polyphenylene sulfide composite laminate from flexible nonwovens and carbon fiber fabrics prepared by thermal lamination and thermal treatment. Polym Bull2019; 76(11): 5633–5648.
18.
LeeJSKimJW. Effect of cooling rate on mechanical properties of carbon fibre fabric and polypropylene composites. Mater Res Express2017; 4(9): 095304.
19.
JinLBallJBremnerT, et al.Crystallization behavior and morphological characterization of poly (ether ether ketone). Polymer2014; 55(20): 5255–5265.
20.
PandaJNBijweJPandeyRK. Optimization of the amount of short glass fibers for superior wear performance of PAEK composites. Compos Appl Sci Manuf2019; 116: 158–168.
21.
ASTM D7136/D7136M-15. Standard test method for compressive residual strength properties of damaged polymer matrix composite plates. West Conshohocken: ASTM International, 2015.
22.
ASTM D7137/D7137M-12. Standard test method for compressive residual strength properties of damaged polymer matrix composite plates. West Conshohocken: ASTM International, 2012.
23.
ASTM D3039/D3039M-14. Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer matrix composite materials. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, 2014.
24.
ASTM D6641/D6641M-16. Standard test method for determining the compressive properties of polymer matrix composite laminates using a combined loading compression (CLC) test fixture. West Conshohocken: ASTM International, 2016.
25.
ASTM D3518/D3518M-13. Standard test method for in-plane shear response of polymer matrix composite materials by tensile test of a 45° laminate. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, 2013.
26.
ASTM D5528/D5528M-21. Standard test method for mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites. West Conshohocken: ASTM International, 2021.
27.
ASTM D7905/D7905M-14. Standard test method for determination of the mode II interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites. West Conshohocken: ASTM International, 2014.
28.
TuronADavilaCGCamanhoPP, et al.An engineering solution for mesh size effects in the simulation of delamination using cohesive zone models. Eng Fract Mech2007; 74: 1665–1682.
29.
PuckASchürmannH. Failure analysis of FRP laminates by means of physically based phenomenological models. Compos Sci Technol2002; 62(12–13): 1633–1662.
30.
ShirasuKGotoKNaitoK. Microstructure-elastic property relationships in carbon fibers: a nanoindentation study. Compos B Eng2020; 200: 108342.
31.
LiHLiuCChenJ. Predicting and characterizing plastic deformation behavior of transversely-isotropic carbon fiber monofilament using finite element simulation and nanoindentation. Fibers Polym2021; 22(8): 2316–2322.
32.
LiNChenP. Experimental investigation on edge impact damage and compression-after-impact (CAI) behavior of stiffened composite panels. Compos Struct2016; 138: 134–150.
33.
LeeWITalbottMFSpringerGS, et al.Effects of cooling rate on the crystallinity and mechanical properties of thermoplastic composites. J Reinforc Plast Compos1987; 6(1): 2–12.
34.
PerogamvrosNGLampeasGN. Experimental and numerical investigation of AS4/8552 interlaminar shear strength under impact loading conditions. J Compos Mater2015; 50(19): 2669–2685.
35.
ChoiD-KByunS-WLeeG-H, et al.Damage prediction of thick composite laminates subjected to low-velocity impact loads. Adv Compos2022; 31: 669–682.
36.
CartieDIrvingP. Effect of resin and fibre properties on impact and compression after impact performance of CFRP. Compos Appl Sci Manuf2002; 33(4): 483–493.
37.
TanWFalzonBG. Modelling the crush behaviour of thermoplastic composites. Compos Sci Technol2016; 134: 57–71.
38.
YanHOskayCKrishnanA, et al.Compression-after-impact response of woven fiber-reinforced composites. Compos Sci Technol2010; 70(14): 2128–2136.
39.
DlugoschMFritschJLukaszewiczD, et al.Experimental investigation and evaluation of numerical modeling approaches for hybrid-FRP-steel sections under impact loading for the application in automotive crash-structures. Compos Struct2017; 174: 338–347.
