Research Papers

Influence of Fabrication and Interference-Fit Techniques on Tensile and Fatigue Properties of Pin-Loaded Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastics Composites

[+] Author and Article Information
Sang-Young Kim

School of Engineering and Computer Science,  Washington State University, 14204 NE Salmon Creek Avenue, Vancouver, WA 98686

Daniel J. Hennigan

 U.S. Army, Fort Rucker, AL 36362

Dave (Dae-Wook) Kim1

Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering School of Engineering and Computer Science,  Washington State University, 14204 NE Salmon Creek Avenue, Vancouver, WA 98686kimd@wsu.edu


Corresponding author.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 134(4), 041012 (Sep 04, 2012) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4007351 History: Received December 05, 2011; Revised August 01, 2012; Published September 04, 2012; Online September 04, 2012

This paper aims to investigate the effect of fabrication processes on fatigue life enhancement of interference-fit pin-loaded glass fiber reinforced plastics (GFRP) composites. In this experimental study, three GFRP composite fabrication processes are used: hand lay-up (HL), vacuum infusion (VI), and hybrid (hand lay-up + vacuum infusion) processes. Stainless steel pins with interference fits ranging from 0% to 1% are inserted into the GFRP samples. The quasi-static and fatigue properties of the pin-loaded composites with interference fit (0.6% and 1%) are then compared to samples with transition-fit (0% of interference fit). Even with possible local damage on the joints, interference fit does not degrade the performance of the composite joints under quasi-static loading, especially when kept under 1% of interference fit. However, fatigue life is highly related to the fabrication processes. Vacuum infusion processed GFRP samples show most visible fatigue life improvement due to interference fit, while hand lay-up or hybrid samples have moderate improvement. Fractography and failure mode of each sample are examined using microscopes.

Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Quasi-static/fatigue sample size (unit = mm), Dp  = pin diameter, Dh  = hole diameter

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Photo of installation process with pin installation fixture

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Load versus displacement pin insertion force for each I %: (a) HL (b) VI, and (c) HYB

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Sectioned hole surface of each sample after drilling and pin installation (×50)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Typical quasi-static curves: (a) HL (b) VI, and (c) HYB

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Interference-fit percentage versus cycles to failure (arrows indicate run-out specimens.): (a) HL (b) VI, and (c) HYB

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

(a) A typical load versus pin displacement plot for a fatigue specimen, (b) an entire load displacement curve for a typical fatigue test, and (c) the pin displacement range versus fatigue cycles curve (HL, I = 0%)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

The joint stiffness per unit bearing area versus fatigue cycles: (a) HL (b) VI, and (c) HYB

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Fatigue failure characteristics of (a) HL (b) VI, and (c) HYB



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In