PSI - Issue 56

Dan Micota et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 56 (2024) 144–152 Dan Micota / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

150

7

(a)

(b)

Fig. 5. Scalar field for a11 term of the fiber orientation tensor in the principal direction mapped at 0°orientation onto the 2mm thick specimen (a) vs. 3.2mm thick specimen (b).

The elasto-plastic material models and the FOT mapped files have all been introduced and virtually tensile loaded in ANSYS Workbench as the finite element (FEA) solver. All the tested angles specimen types and materials have been simulated and simulation results (dotted curves) vs. test results (solid curves) can be compared in Fig.6, for PPA 3.2mm thick (a) and PPS 3.2mm thick (b). Curves are plotted in force over displacement, and they share the same scale only for the force axis, as the variations in strain at break between materials are substantial. A quite good calibration can be observed for the PPA material and not as good for the PPS, though the differences in displacement/travel between the simulation and test curves are amplified by the lower scale of the strain, this was imposed due to the more brittle behavior of the PPS-GF40 specimens.

(b)

(b)

Fig. 6. Force-displacement curves of FEA validation material models at all tested orientations for PPA-GF33 (a) and PPS-GF40 (b).

6. Conclusions This paper investigates the effects of increasing the wall thickness of SFRP injected parts and it has focused on the mechanical properties also going through material modeling and structural FEA simulations and calibrations. As