Skip to main content
Log in

Characterization of the Strain Rate-Dependent Deformation Response and Fracture Behaviour of a Three-Part Snap-Cure Epoxy Resin Under Tension and Compression Loading

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Dynamic Behavior of Materials Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The recent development of snap-curing epoxy resins and rapid manufacturing processes has led to increased usage of fiber-reinforced plastic composite materials in high-volume production vehicles. For energy absorbing composite structures, characterizing the epoxy strain rate-dependent response and local failure behaviour is critical to assess their crashworthiness performance. The current study investigated the tensile and compressive deformation response of a three-part snap-cure epoxy resin over a range of strain rates (i.e., \({10}^{-4} {\text{to}} {10}^{3} {{\text{s}}}^{-1}\)) using a suite of testing apparatuses. The average tensile elastic modulus, yield strength, and ultimate strength increased by 32%, 55%, and 49%, respectively, with increasing strain rate over the range considered. Tensile specimens fractured in a brittle manner despite deforming plastically, while fracture surface morphology was slightly influenced by the strain rate. The compressive elastic modulus was insensitive to increasing strain rate, while the compressive yield strength increased by 81% over the strain rates considered and was higher than the tensile yield strength at similar strain rates. This study addresses a critical gap in the literature by providing a comprehensive data set for a snap-cure epoxy material, which will support future development of a virtual multiscale-modeling framework aimed at predicting impact performance of composite automotive structures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig.16

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data is available upon request.

References

  1. Elmarakbi A (2014) Overview of composite materials and their automotive applications. In: Elmarakbi A (ed) Advanced composite materials for automotive applications: structural integrity and crashworthiness. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp 3–28

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cherniaev A, Zeng Y, Cronin D, Montesano J (2019) Quasi-static and dynamic characterization of unidirectional non-crimp carbon fiber fabric composites processed by HP-RTM. Polym Testing 76:365–375

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Malnati P, Sloan J (2018) CompositesWorld. https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/fast-and-faster-rapid-cure-epoxies-drive-down-cycle-times. Accessed 11 May 2022

  4. Robins J, Wright CD (1987) Fast curing epoxy resin compositions. United States Patent 4,668,736

  5. Morley TA, Koeniger R, Reimers M, Cate P, Jelic N, Sikman Z (2016) Novel epoxy resin system for making carbon fiber composites. International Patent WO2016/209864A1, 29 12 2016

  6. Padarthi Y, Kuppusamy RRP, Neogi S (2023) Recent advances in characterization of rapid cured composite materials. In: Hameed N et al (eds) Rapid cure composites: materials, processing and manufacturing. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, pp 149–178

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Perry JI, Walley SM (2022) Measuring the efect of strain rate on deformation and damage in fibre-reinforced composites: a review. J Dyn Behav Mater 8:178–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Morelle XP, Chevalier J, Bailly C, Pardoen T, Lani F (2017) Mechanical characterization and modeling of the deformation and failure of the highly crosslinked RTM6 epoxy resin. Mech Time Depend Mater 21:419–454

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Goldberg RK, Robertsa GD, Gilat A (2003) Incorporation of mean stress effects into the micromechanical analysis of the high strain rate response of polymer matrix composites. Compos Part B 34(2):151–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen W, Lu F, Cheng M (2002) Tension and compression tests of two polymers under quasistatic and dynamic loading. Polym Testing 21(2):113–121

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hasan OA, Boyce MC (1995) A constitutive model for the nonlinear viscoelastic viscoplastic behavior of glassy polymers. Poly Eng Sci 35(4):331–344

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Brown R (1999) Handbook of polymer testing: physical methods. CRC Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Gerlach R, Siviour CR, Petrinic N, Wiegand J (2008) Experimental characterisation and constitutive modelling of RTM-6 resin under impact loading. Polymer 49(11):2728–2737

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Littell JD, Ruggeri CR, Goldberg RK, Roberts GD, Arnold WA, Binienda WK (2008) Measurement of epoxy resin tension, compression, and shear stress-strain curves over a wide range of strain rates using small test specimens. J Aerosp Eng 21(3):162–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Werner B, Daniel I (2014) Characterization and modeling of polymeric matrix under multi-axial static and dynamic loading. Compos Sci Technol 102:113–119

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Boyce MC, Parks DM, Argon AS (1988) Large inelastic deformation of glassy polymers. Part I: rate dependent constitutive model. Mech Mater 7(1):15–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Argon AS (2013) The physics of deformation and fracture of polymers. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Pae KD, Bhateja SK (1975) The effects of hydrostatic pressure on the mechanical behavior of polymers. J Macromol Sci 13(1):1–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Parry EJ, Tabor D (1974) Pressure dependence of the shear modulus of various polymers. J Mater Sci 9:289–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gilat A, Goldberg RK, Roberts GD (2007) Strain rate sensitivity of epoxy resin in tensile and shear loading. J Aerosp Eng 20(2):75–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jordan JL, Foley JR, Siviour CR (2008) Mechanical properties of Epon 826/DEA epoxy. Mech Time Depend Mater 12:249–272

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Tamrakar S, Ganesh R, Sockalingam S, Haque BZ, Gillespie JW Jr (2018) Experimental investigation of strain rate and temperature dependent response of an epoxy resin undergoing large deformation. J Dyn Behav Mater 4:114–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Siviour C, Jordan J (2016) High strain rate mechanics of polymers: a review. J Dyn Behav Mater 2:15–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mattucci S, Moulton J, Chandrashekar N, Cronin D (2012) Strain rate dependent properties of younger human cervical spine ligaments. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 10:216–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ouellet S, Cronin D, Worswick M (2006) Compressive response of polymeric foams under quasi-static, medium and high strain rate conditions. Polym Testing 25(6):731–743

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Salisbury C (2001) Spectral analysis of wave propagation through a polymeric Hopkinson Bar. M.S. thesis, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, University of Waterloo

  27. Gray GT III (2000) Classic split-Hopkinson pressure bar testing. In: Kuhn H, Medlin D (eds) Mechanical testing and evaluation. ASM handbook, vol 8. ASM International, Detroit, pp 462–476

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sligtenhorst CV, Cronin DS, Brodland G (2006) High strain rate compressive properties of bovine muscle tissue determined using a split Hopkinson bar apparatus. J Biomech 39(10):1852–1858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wasley RJ, Hoge KG, Cast JC (1969) Combined strain Gauge-Quartz crystal instrumented Hopkinson split bar. Rev Sci Instrum 40(7):889–894

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Chen W, Lu F, Zhou B (2000) A quartz-crystal-embedded split Hopkinson pressure bar for soft materials. Exp Mech 40:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Chen W, Zhang B, Forrestal MJ (1999) A split Hopkinson bar technique for low-impedance materials. Exp Mech 39:81–85

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Frew DJ, Forrestal MJ, Chen W (2002) Pulse shaping techniques for testing brittle materials with a split Hopkinson pressure bar. Exp Mech 42:93–106

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Frew DJ, Forrestal MJ, Chen W (2005) Pulse shaping techniques for testing elastic-plastic materials with a split Hopkinson pressure bar. Exp Mech 45(2):186–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhao H, Gary G, Klepaczko JR (1997) On the use of a viscoelastic split Hopkinson pressure bar. Int J Impact Eng 19(4):319–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bacon C (1998) An experimental method for considering dispersion and attenuation in a viscoelastic Hopkinson bar. Exp Mech 38:242–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Salisbury CP, Cronin DS (2009) Mechanical properties of ballistic gelatin at high deformation rates. Exp Mech 49:829–840

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Salisbury C, Cronin D, Lien F (2015) Deformation mechanics of a non-linear hyper-viscoelastic porous material, part I: testing and constitutive modeling of non-porous polychloroprene. J Dyn Behav Mater 1:237–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Liu Q, Subhash G (2006) Characterization of viscoelastic properties of polymer bar using iterative deconvolution in the time domain. Mech Mater 38(12):1105–1117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gorham DA (2000) A numerical method for the correction of dispersion in pressure bar signals. J Phys E Sci Instrum 16(6):477–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Benatar A, Rittel D, Yarin A (2003) Theoretical and experimental analysis of longitudinal wave propagation in cylindrical viscoelastic rods. J Mech Phys Solids 51(8):1413–1431

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Salisbury C (2001) Spectral analysis of wave propagation through a polymeric Hopkinson Bar [Master's dissertation, University of Waterloo], UWSpace, Waterloo http://hdl.handle.net/10012/799

  42. Semeliss M, Wong G, Turtle M (1990) The yield and post-yield behavior high-density polyethylene. NASA-Langley Research Center Grant No. NAG-I-974.

  43. ASTM International (2015) ASTMD638: standard test method for tensile properties of plastics. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hsieh T, Kinloch A, Masania K, Taylor A, Sprenger S (2010) The mechanisms and mechanics of the toughening of epoxy polymers modified with silica nanoparticles. Polymer 51(26):6284–6294

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Sharifpour F, Montesano J, Talreja R (2022) Micromechanical assessment of local failure mechanisms and early-stage ply crack formation in cross-ply laminates. Comp Sci Technol 220:109286

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Morelle X (2015) Mechanical characterization and physics-based modeling of highly-crosslinked epoxy resin (Ph.D. dissertation). Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve

    Google Scholar 

  47. Roulin-Moloney AC (1989) Fractography and failure mechanics of polymers and composites. Elsevier Applied Science, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) through Collaborative Research and Development Grant No. CRDPJ-507776-16, as well as the industrial sponsors Honda Research Institute US, Westlake Epoxy, Zoltek Corp., and Laval.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Y.Z. performed all the experiments and analyzed the data, while D.C. and J.M. verified the results. D.C. and J.M. supervised Y.Z. and provided resources for the study. J.M. administered the project and acquired funding. Y.Z. wrote the original manuscript draft. D.C. and J.M. reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Montesano.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

The cylindrical and dog-bone specimens shown in Table 1 for the tensile tests were analyzed using the commercial Finite Element (FE) software, Abaqus (Dassault Systèmes, Vélizy-Villacoublay, France). FE models were constructed for both specimen geometries (Fig. 17), employing the Johnson–Cook plasticity material model calibrated with quasi-static tensile test data presented in this paper. Mesh sensitivity was investigated, and a 0.2 mm mesh size was chosen for the models. Boundary conditions were set to emulate quasi-static tensile tests, applying displacement to the reference point, and corresponding reaction forces were calculated through simulations. The extension of the specimens was measured in the gauge section, mirroring the experimental digital image correlation (DIC) analysis. Numerical simulation results indicated that the stress and strain curves for the two specimen types differed by less than 1% (Fig. 18). Consequently, the impact of the two specimen geometries on the tensile response of the polymer is deemed to be negligible.

Fig. 17
figure 17

FE models and simulation results for the cylindrical and rectangular specimens subjected to quasi-static tensile loading

Fig. 18
figure 18

Calculated engineering stress-train curves for the indicated specimens under quasi-static tensile loading

Appendix B

To firmly mount the specimens onto the polymer bars (minimize the free movement of the specimen), a tapered thread clamping fixture was designed and manufactured (refer to Fig. 19). The clamping fixture consists of four parts: one RH connector (linked to the RH male thread side of the specimen), one LH connector (linked to the LH male thread side of the specimen), and two RH female thread rings. The downside of employing the fixture is an elevation in geometric impedance and mass. In comparison to a solid bar, the fixture exhibits an 8% increase in mass.

Fig. 19
figure 19

Custom clamping fixture for the tension SHPB specimens

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zeng, Y., Cronin, D. & Montesano, J. Characterization of the Strain Rate-Dependent Deformation Response and Fracture Behaviour of a Three-Part Snap-Cure Epoxy Resin Under Tension and Compression Loading. J. dynamic behavior mater. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40870-024-00419-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40870-024-00419-9

Keywords

Navigation