In-plane permeability characterization of engineering textiles based on radial flow experiments: A benchmark exercise. (June 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: May, D.; Aktas, A.; Advani, S.G.; Berg, D.C.; Endruweit, A.; Fauster, E.; Lomov, S.V.; Long, A.; Mitschang, P.; Abaimov, S.; Abliz, D.; Akhatov, I.; Ali, M.A.; Allen, T.D.; Bickerton, S.; Bodaghi, M.; Caglar, B.; Caglar, H.; Chiminelli, A.; Correia, N.; Cosson, B.; Danzi, M.; Dittmann, J.; Ermanni, P.; Francucci, G.; George, A.; Grishaev, V.; Hancioglu, M.; Kabachi, M.A.; Kind, K.; Deléglise-Lagardère, M.; Laspalas, M.; Lebedev, O.V.; Lizaranzu, M.; Liotier, P.-J.; Middendorf, P.; Morán, J.; Park, C.-H.; Pipes, R.B.; Pucci, M.F.; Raynal, J.; Rodriguez, E.S.; Schledjewski, R.; Schubnel, R.; Sharp, N.; Sims, G.; Sozer, E.M.; Sousa, P.; Thomas, J.; Umer, R.; Wijaya, W.; Willenbacher, B.; Yong, A.; Zaremba, S.; Ziegmann, G.;
• Is Part Of: Composites. Volume 121(2019)
• Page Start: 100
• Page End: 114
• Publication Date: 2019-06
• Subjects: A. Fabrics/textiles -- B. Permeability -- D. Process monitoring -- E. Liquid composite molding -- E. Resin flow; Composite materials -- Periodicals; Manufacturing processes -- Periodicals; Composite materials; Manufacturing processes; Periodicals; 620.11805
• DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.03.006
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1359-835X

Abstract

Abstract: Although good progress was made by two international benchmark exercises on in-plane permeability, existing methods have not yet been standardized. This paper presents the results of a third benchmark exercise using in-plane permeability measurement, based on systems applying the radial unsaturated injection method. 19 participants using 20 systems characterized a non-crimp and a woven fabric at three different fiber volume contents, using a commercially available silicone oil as impregnating fluid. They followed a detailed characterization procedure and also completed a questionnaire on their set-up and analysis methods. Excluding outliers (2 of 20), the average coefficient of variation (cv ) between the participant's results was 32% and 44% (non-crimp and woven fabric), while the average cv for individual participants was 8% and 12%, respectively. This indicates statistically significant variations between the measurement systems. Cavity deformation was identified as a major influence, besides fluid pressure/viscosity measurement, textile variations, and data analysis.