1

I. Composite Samples Tested

Hexcel provided 8 samples oI E-Glass Iiber reinIorced epoxy (GFRP) composite bars
with rectangle cross section. These bars were Ilexure tested in both 3-point and 4-point loading
using an Instron 3369 test machine. The geometry oI each sample was recorded and averaged
(Table I).
Table I: Average geometry oI glass Iiber reinIorced epoxy bars.
Length (mm) Width (mm) Thickness (mm)
101.37 I 0.1 12.79 I 0.2 2.66 I 0.1

The style oI the Hexcel glass Iibers is 7781 50 F155-5EM. The GFRP consisted oI 62
Iibers by volume. This composite consists oI 10 plies and the epoxy matrix has a T
g
oI 121
C
.
The weave oI the glass Iibers in this Hexcel composite is 8H Satin.
1
This is the most widely
used weave style used in the composites industry. This weave style is ideal Ior laying up
contoured surIaces with minimal distortion and is excellent Ior high impact applications.
2
The
Iabric weight oI this GFRP is 299 g/m
2
with a ply thickness oI 0.22 mm.
The Iibers also have a Volan size to exhibit a Iaster and more complete wet out with most
thermoset resins to improve air bubble entrapment and porosity.
2

II. Flexure Testing
Four samples were tested in a 3-point loading and deIlected at constant rates oI crosshead
motion until rupture occurred in the outer Iibers. ASTM standard D 790-03 procedure A was
Iollowed Ior this Ilatwise bend test. The span to depth ratio was determined through these
standards to be 16:1. ThereIore with an average thickness oI 2.66 mm, the width oI the support
span was calculated to be 42 mm. A schematic representation (Figure 1) shows how each sample
was loaded.

2

Figure 1: Schematic oI the support span oI the GFRP bar under 3-point loading.
3
ASTM standards indicated that Iive samples are needed Ior each test, yet it was
concluded that Iour samples (samples A-D) would be suIIicient as it was all that was provided.
The standard load rate was given by the Iollowing equation:
3

IH

R rate oI crosshead motion |mm/min|
Z rate oI strain oI outer Iiber (standard: 0.01 mm/mm/min)
L support span |mm|
d depth oI beam |mm|
The rate oI crosshead motion was calculated to be 1.1 mm/min. Bluehill soItware was
used to develop a 3-point bend test method. Sensitivity was set at 40 and data was collected
every 100 milliseconds.
The testing machine had a loading nose and supports with cylindrical surIaces in order to
avoid excessive indentation, or Iailure to due stress concentration directly under the loading
nose.
3
The Iixtures used to bend test were Wyoming Test Fixtures number WTF-FL-60. Each
specimen was centered between supports oI the loading jig with its rough surIace Iacing up. The
immobility oI the support and loading jigs was double checked Ior stability prior to testing.
ASTM standards claims that a 3-point Ilexure test is suIIicient Ior specimens that Iail
beIore 5 strain,

yet an additional 4-point Ilexure test (Figure 2) was conducted Ior the purpose
oI comparison.
3
The Bluehill test method oI the 3-point test was simply modiIied to a 4-point test
and ASTM standard D 6272-02 procedure A was Iollowed. This test involved two loading noses
with a load span oI one halI oI the support span, and the equation Ior this standard load rate was
the same as the 3-point test and was thereIore maintained at 1.1 mm/min.
4
All other testing
parameters and procedures were leIt the same as in 3-point Ilexure test. Four samples (samples
E-H) were tested by the 4-point Ilexure test.

3

Figure 2: Schematic oI the support span and load span oI the GFRP during 4-point Ilexure test.
4

III. Results
The results oI both test methods yielded a Ilexural strength at approximately 513 MPa.
Despite this similarity in Ilexure strength, these two tests resulted in diIIerent Iailure loads and
Iailure strains. The results oI the tested samples can be seen in Table II. These values were
obtained by manually interpreting the raw data to Iind the exact point oI Iailure in the composite.
A necessary comparison oI the two tests (Figure 3) shows that the samples in the 4-point tests
Iail at a smaller Ilexural extension at relatively similar stresses.

Table II: Sample Failures oI 3-Point and 4-Point Flexure Tests
Sample
Test
Type
Max Flexural Stress
(MPa)
Max Load
(N) Strain
Flexural Extension
(mm)
A 3-point 530.26 768.03 2.86 3.14
B 3-point 513.87 744.3 1.82 2.85
C 3-point 504.25 727.73 2.85 3.15
D 3-point 502.8 720.95 2.76 3.03
Average 3-point 512.795 740.25 2.57 3.04
Std. Dev 3-point 12.64 20.96 .503 .139
E 4-point 505.4 1363.8 1.82 2.85
F 4-point 500.28 1486.6 1.95 2.92
G 4-point 521.9 1487 2.01 3.07
H 4-point 531.13 1433 1.68 2.64
Average 4-point 514.6775 1442.6 1.87 2.87
Std. Dev 4- point 14.33 58.34 .147 .179


4


Figure 3: Graphed is Ilexural stress on the y-axis and Ilexural extension on the x-axis comparing samples A and E,
displaying the diIIerence between 3 and 4 point bending.


A comparison oI the Iailure loads must also be made (Figure 4) since the 4-point Ilexure
test exhibited a much higher load on the samples. The maximum loads oI the samples in the 4-
point Ilexure test were nearly twice those oI the samples Irom the 3-point Ilexure test.



Figure 4: Graphed is Ilexure load on the y-axis and Ilexural extension on the x-axis. Samples A and E are being
compared to express the diIIerence in Iailure load between the two tests.

0
100
200
300
400
300
600
0 03 1 13 2 23 3 33
I
|
e
x
u
r
a
|

S
t
r
e
e
s
s

(
M

a
)
I|exura| Lxtens|on(mm)
Sample A
(3 olnL)
Sample L
(4 olnL)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 03 1 13 2 23 3 33
L
o
a
d

(
N
)
I|exura| Lxtens|on(mm)
Sample A
(3 olnL)
Sample L
(4 olnL)
3

IV. Discussion
The results oI the 4-point Ilexure test showed a higher standard deviation in Ilexure
strength, maximum Ilexure load and Ilexural extension than that oI the 3-point test. This
expresses a higher degree oI variability in the 4-point test, although this is diIIicult to conclude
since the proper number oI samples according to ASTM standards was not used. 4-point Ilexure
testing exhibited a lower standard deviation in reIerence to strain, expressing that 4-point
bending Iails more consistently at the same percent strain.
The basic diIIerence between the two test methods is the location oI the maximum
bending moment and maximum axial Iiber stresses.
3
The maximum axial stress occurs at the
location oI the maximum moment in the bar. In 3-point bending, this moment occurs at a single
cross section in the middle oI the bar. ThereIore, maximum stress Ior 3-point bending is
exhibited at a single point along the bar. In 4-point bending, this maximum moment ranges
across the load span. This allows the load to dissipate across an area oI the bar, permitting the bar
to withstand higher loads. In other words, the maximum stress in the bar spans an area in the
middle oI the bar instead oI being concentrated at a single cross section. The bending moment
diagrams and shear Iorce diagrams (Figure 5) Ior each test can be used to observe the location oI
the maximum moment in the bar. The applied load oI the 4-point Ilexure test was distributed
more uniIormly along the composite than in the 3-point Ilexure test.
Flaws on the Iiber at the location oI the maximum moment are most susceptible to
causing Iailure. In 3-point bending, the Ilaws on the Iibers at the middle point oI the support span
are most catastrophic and result in Iailure. But in 4-point bending, any Ilaws present in the load
span are susceptible to Iailure. 4-point bending thereIore gives a better representation oI the total
composites response to maximum stresses.
The Ilexure strength oI the GFRP can be taken Irom either oI the two tests since the mean
Ilexure strengths oI both tests were nearly the same. The true Ilexure strength would likely be the
value Irom the 4-point test because it represents the maximum Ilexure stress oI more oI the
material.
In composite applications, loads are oIten not concentrated at a single point on the
composite, but are instead oIten a combination oI multiple loads resulting in multiple places
where a maximum moment is present. For this reason as well, 4-point Ilexure tests should be
preIerred over 3-point tests.
6


Figure 5: The shear Iorce diagrams and bending moment diagrams oI 3-point and 4-point Ilexure tests. Note that the
maximum moment in the 4-point test spans the middle halI oI the bar.



V. References
1. Pages - Fabrics-DS-Glass. Hexcel.com - Carbon Fiber and Composites for Aerospace,
Wind Energy and Industrial. Web. 15 May 2011.
http://www.hexcel.com/Resources/Fabrics-DS-Glass~.
2. Fiberglass Cloth 8H Satin Weave 9 Oz/sq/yd Hexcel 7781. #ockford Industrial Area
#evival Profect - Moderated Newsgroup. Web. 15 May 2011. http://www.rockIord-
industrial.com/Welding-and-Fabricating-/RockIord-/Fiberglass-cloth-8H-satin-weave-9-
oz-sq-yd-hexcel-7781.HTML~.
3. ASTM Standard D 790-03.
4. ASTM Standard D 6272-02.












The Superior of the Two Flexural Test Methods


GriIIin Beemiller
Concentration Gradient
5/16/2011
Mate 330
Dr. London