Laboratory tests evaluated tensile strength and energy absorption in glass fiber composites, indicating Coremat impacts performance.
This study is among the first to characterize the tensile response of composites with quadriaxial glass fiber fabrics designed for marine structural applications. Four composite configurations were fabricated at laboratory scale, combining two matrix types (unsaturated polyester resin and epoxy resin) and the presence or absence of a Coremat Xi3 middle layer. Tensile tests were conducted at four test rates (10 mm/min, 200 mm/min, 500 mm/min, and 1000 mm/min), ranging from quasi-static to moderately dynamic conditions. Tests were conducted using the Instron 5982 universal testing machine (from Laboratory for Advanced Materials and Tribology, INCAS Bucharest, Romania). The specimens have a rectangular cross section, in agreement with SR EN ISO 527-4:2023. For strain measurements, an Instron advanced video extensometer (AVE) was used. Key mechanical parameters, such as maximum force, tensile strength, Young’s modulus, strain at break, and energy absorption, were extracted and analyzed. Results show that the polyester-based composite without a mat interlayer displayed the best overall performance, with the highest ultimate strength (~280 MPa), significant energy absorption (~106 J), and a consistent increase in ductility with increasing test rate. In contrast, the epoxy composite with Coremat Xi3 exhibited lower stiffness and strength, but higher strain and energy absorption at higher test rates, indicating a progressive failure behavior. These findings enhance the understanding of the tensile response of composites made of quadriaxial glass fiber fabric and provide valuable design data for structural components in marine environments, where both strength and energy absorption are essential. These insights support producers and end-users of non-crimp fabrics in making experimentally based selections of a composite, technological strategies, and design optimization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deleanu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: