Tampere University of technology Materials Science MOL-5516 Composites

The objective of this work is to put us in a team environment and challenge us to figure out a solution for a certain problem. In this first PBL our work was related to the substitution of a fiber reinforcement material (Toray T300 3K) that was used in a racing bicycle forks but due to its stock shortage by the supplier and an income order of new forks there was the need to chose a substitute material. To begin with, there was a group analysis of what were the main proprieties that the material should have in order to a be a valid substitute, and there was the decision of making density, tensile strength, E modulus, presentation method (being the way the material is sent to us i.e. fabric, tow), impact resistance, compatibility with epoxy and finally price. The reinforcement materials available by the supplier were, Basfiber TBR400-KV11, Twaron 1610 220 fabric, Ahlstrom R338-1200 tow, Siltex 040.12040303-C, 050.12040243-C, TeXtreme Carbon fabric 129g/m2 HM. After the division of groups, attribution of materials to these groups and finally a presentation of their respective materials proprieties, we started the elimination by taking out of the lists the materials which didnt have favorable proprieties. We started with the Basfiber TBR 400-KV11 that is a very good material in a lot of levels such as good chemically resistance, temperature range, tensile strength, resin compatibility, presentation method and price but it lacked in a very important aspect that is the density of it, in this case was considerably higher than the initial material (Toray T300 3K), and because the weight is very important for this application we add to discard it. The second material to be eliminated was Twaron 1610 220 fabric principally because of this material being an aramid fiber, it doesnt have an high impact resistance neither an high E modulus and because in this application the final piece needs to be very stiff we add o eliminate this material as an option. The third one was Ahlstrom R338-1200 tow and this is a glass fiber material, right away we add to eliminate it because these type of fiber has much more inferior mechanical capabilities, and also, because it was the only one on our list that was presented to us in the form of a tow, which means that if we chose this one we would have to spend more money putting the continuous fiber into a usable fabric. The forth material to be discarded was the TeXtreme Carbon fabric 129g/m2 HM because it had some amazing mechanical proprieties and because we didnt have the price information we deduced that this amazing proprieties came with a higher price, so we eliminated this one. Then we were left with two materials Siltex 040.12040303-C and Siltex 050.12040243-C, both materials are very similar with each other, one could say identical, these proprieties they have, are in general, very like the proprieties of the original material (Toray T300 3K), which makes for a very good substitute, so our material was chosen but now we add to chose one of this too materials and we chose the Siltex 050.12040243-C, simply because this one was a little bit lighter and the proprieties were the same. In the end, a material that was light, epoxy compatible, came on fabric form and that had the tensile and E modulus of the original material, was chosen.

Pedro Pinto da Costa No. 234691

September 2012