ArticlePolymers2024
Comparison of Mechanical Property Simulations with Results of Limited Flexural Tests of Different Multi-Layer Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites.
Article in Polymers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prediction of the Interface Behavior of a Steel/CFRP Hybrid Part Manufactured by Stamping.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article is focused on the experimental study of flexural properties in different multi-layer carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) composites and correlations with the results of finite element method (FEM) simulations of mechanical properties. The comparison of the results shows the possibility of reducing the number of experimental specimens for testing. The experimental study of flexural properties for four types of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites with twill weaves (2 × 2) was carried out. As input materials, pre-impregnated carbon laminate GG 204 T and GG 630 T (prepreg) and two types of carbon fiber fabrics (GG 285 T and GG 300 T (fabric)) were used. Multi-layer samples were manufactured from two types of prepregs and two types of fabrics, which were hand-impregnated during sample preparation. The layers were stacked using same orientation. All specimens for flexural test were cut with the longer side in the weft direction. Pre-impregnated carbon laminates were further impregnated with resin DT 121H. Carbon fabrics were hand-impregnated with epoxy matrix LG 120 and hardener HG 700. To fulfill the aim of this research, finite element method (FEM)-based simulations of mechanical properties were performed. The FEM simulations and analysis were conducted in Hexagon's MSC Marc Mentat 2022.3 and Digimat 2022.4 software. This paper presents the results of actual experimental bending tests and the results of simulations of bending tests for different composite materials (mentioned previously). We created material models for simulations based on two methods-MF (Mean Field) and FE (Finite Element), and the comparative results show better agreement with the MF model. The composites (GG 285 T and GG 300 T) showed better flexural results than composites made from pre-impregnated carbon laminates (GG 204 T and GG 630 T). The difference in results for the hand-impregnated laminates was about 15% higher than for prepregs, but this is still within an acceptable tolerance as per the reported literature. The highest percentage difference of 14.25% between the simulation and the real experiment was found for the software tool Digimat FE 2022.4-GG 630 T composite. The lowest difference of 0.5% was found for the software tool Digimat MF 2022.4-GG 204 T composite. By comparing the results of the software tools with the results of the experimental measurements, it was found that the Digimat MF 2022.4 tool is closer to the results of the experimental measurements than the Digimat FE 2022.4 tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.