Comparing damage from low-velocity impact and quasi-static indentation in automotive carbon/epoxy and glass/polyamide-6 laminates

The results of a low-velocity impact programme on both carbon/epoxy and glass/polyamide-6 composite laminates are compared to the results of quasi-static indentation. Cross-ply and quasi-isotropic stacking sequences are impacted and quasi-static indentation tests are performed up to the same maximum...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPolymer testing Vol. 65; pp. 231 - 241
Main Authors Spronk, S.W.F., Kersemans, M., De Baerdemaeker, J.C.A., Gilabert, F.A., Sevenois, R.D.B., Garoz, D., Kassapoglou, C., Van Paepegem, W.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Barking Elsevier Ltd 01.02.2018
Elsevier BV
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:The results of a low-velocity impact programme on both carbon/epoxy and glass/polyamide-6 composite laminates are compared to the results of quasi-static indentation. Cross-ply and quasi-isotropic stacking sequences are impacted and quasi-static indentation tests are performed up to the same maximum displacement. The response of the laminates to both test methods is compared in terms of force-displacement behaviour, dissipated energy and resulting damage. Significant differences between low-velocity impact and quasi-static indentation are found for both material systems. It is therefore concluded that the test methods cannot be interchanged for material characterisation. •Quasi-static indentation is evaluated as alternative to low-velocity impact testing.•Carbon/epoxy and glass/polyamide-6, both cross-ply and quasi-isotropic are assessed.•Comparison of force-displacement response, dissipated energy and resulting damage.•Three different C-scanning techniques and micrographic damage analysis are applied.•The two test methods cause significantly different damage in material configurations.
ISSN:0142-9418
1873-2348
DOI:10.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.11.023