Talk:Composite material

Heading Clarifications - & Several edits

to clarify and introduce the various sections --edited section headings belowSunKider (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Intro

I revised the intro to add some clarity and to allow the inclusion of other types of composites. Removed "naturally occurring" Composites are generally considered to be created by humans (engineered) by combining the two different materials. The idea of "naturally occurring" composites does not belong in the intro. There are too many other main stream composite materials to discuss. Wood as "natural composite" is included later in the article. also included more common examples of composite materials. (not very many people are familiar with brake pad construction) Removed the very interesting but minor information about history (wattle & daub). placed the info in History section.SunKider (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

composition - Renamed to Overview

Wood is not a good example to start the discussion with. Moved "wood-natural composite" to end of section. added a clarifying statement (only this particular author is calling wood a naturally occurring composite). This idea is not widely accepted in the modern composite industry. removed plywood graphic. plywood is a poor example of a composite (what are the two sub-components?). Wish i had time to locate a better photo. moved historical information to history section.SunKider (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

matrices - now Matrix - Resin

combined headings - redundant headings are not helpful - not enough separate information to justify two headings. removed irrelevant information. curing info. doesn't belong here. road surfaces, cement, daub, and doors are not helpful here. Heading - "Fibers" - changed to singular to match "resin" singular. It reads better too.SunKider (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Molding Methods - changed to Fabrication Methods

there are many methods of creating composites. not just molds. inserted a brief introduction to the section.SunKider (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Tooling

not enough information for a main heading. Made it a sub heading under fabrication. It is a part of fabrication. added an intro statement to orient the discussion.SunKider (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I have the following comments:

• I would like to bring to all of the respected contributor's kind attention that the title "Mechanics" does not really fit into the context that is written there. Mechanics of composites is completely different thing.
• Since the area of composites is very vast, I would recommend to split this areticle at the beginning. Something like types of composites such as fiber reinforcd, metal matrix etc. Then let the links flow to individual pages. For example, Fiber reinforced polymer(FRP) composite is pretty much worth a whole new page.
• Overall organization needs over hauling. So,if anyone adding new things, please consider doing so with appropriate title of your content, not just fit into this format. I wanted to add things but did not mess the current format without asking you all.unsigned comment by User:Prasun92 on 6 October [2006]].

Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. :-) Actually, your bringing it up here is appreciated and the page would benefit from your expertise. You could either try your hand at changing this page directly, or you could experiment in a sandbox. Just create the page User:Prasun92/sandbox, copy this article over, make your changes there and tell us about them. I will be happy to comment on them there or here. Good luck! By the way, to sign your comments, just add four tildes '''~~~~''' and you user name, date and time will appear just like magic. :-) Luigizanasi 18:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I think the introduction section needs a serious rewrite. I'm not sure I want to start on it tonight but my general idea is to make it more of a progression from early examples of composites to a discussion of modern composite materials. The section currently doesn't seem to be written in the most encyclopedic language and is mostly unreferenced. I think there is a lot of room for improvement here on what could be a very interesting and useful article. Any help from other editors interested in this topic would be greatly appreciated as I am not particularly good at writing up long sections of prose. Stardust8212 04:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

section "Geometry"

I would like the input of others. Suggest the section "Geometry" be deleted as the original writer did not specify what he was talking about, thus the text is gobblegook, and it is unlikely to be clarified/improved. I suspect the writer was referring to polymer chemistry which is well covered in Polymer section 'Structures and properties'. If others more conversant with polymer chemistry confirm that my suspicion is correct then a change of text with an internal link would be appropriate.Geoffrey Wickham 03:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's useless in its current form and completely lacking context. If someone knowledgeable about whatever that's supposed to be comes along and wants to expand on it that'd be great but until then I think removing it is the best course of action. As it is now I think it will only confuse people unfamiliar with the topic, certainly confuses me. Stardust8212 03:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and removed it. The original text follows below for anyone hoping to improve it. Stardust8212 00:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The geometry of a two-phase composite material may have any of the following 10 connectivities: 0-0, 0-1, 0-2, 0-3, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-2, 2-3, and 3-3, where 0, 1, 2, 3 represent the dimensions of either phase.

slight mistake "Space Shuttle Columbia"

The carbon fibre was only the heat shield, if I remeber correctly, and the internal structure of the wing is composed of aluminium. The wing also failed not due to the impact, but doe to reheated gas from reentry entering the internal space of the wing, heating (therefore softening) the structure. The tires of the internal landing gear where also heated, and exploded as a result. Therefore the primary cause of the failure can be attributed to the fracture of the composite heat shield, however that was NOT the reason for the destruction of the shuttle - the reason was entry of heated gas to the internal section of the wing, its bursting and following rotation of the shuttle exposed parts of the shuttle not protected against excessive re-entry heat.

J.K.cz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.2.172 (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

big mistake "Shuttle Columbia"

Please, forgive me: this is my first comment to wiki, and also not in my mother language (so please be patient), but I have to say that in the article: "The best known failure occurred when the carbon-fiber wing of the Space Shuttle Columbia fractured when impacted during take-off. It led to catastrophic break-up of the vehicle when it re-entered the earth's atmosphere on February 1, 2003." and also in the discussion above: "The carbon fibre was only the heat shield..." there is a mistake.

Infact the heat protection shields of "Space Shuttle" are not made of carbon fiber reinforced composite (fibers made of carbon or graphite, and matrix made, usually, of epoxy resin) but are made of a ceramic composite (made of a carbon-carbon material). infact, the epoxy resin usually used in most common composites loses it's mechanical and physical properties at temperatures above 150°C; temperatures that are much lower than the temperatures produced by the friction with atmosfere. In a carbon-carbon material, instead, is not correct to use the term "carbon fiber", just becouse during the manifacturing process carbon fibers are merged in a matrix of carbon, and the mechanical behaviour is not the same of a classical laminate. The result is a very stable material for "hot" uses. But also, like most of the ceramic composites, it's extremely fragile: that's why u can use it only as a shield for the aluminium structure.

I suggest you the "Bible" for composites materials: Jones, "Mechanics Of Composite Materials" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.57.78 (talk) 08:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was do not merge. Wizard191 (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Composite construction should be merged into this article due to significant overlap. Inwind (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It should not as these are completely different concepts in an engineering sense.--Patek (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Patek on this one, they are two distinct concepts that should remain separate. Wizard191 (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Patek. There are many different composite materials used in many different fields of endeavor. Composite construction has specific structural engineering implications in building construction and heavy construction.Newell Post (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger

Counter to WP:Articles for deletion/Metal Composite Material, Metal Composite Material was merged to Sandwich structured composite instead of here. The MCM is a sandwich construction, so that is a better place than here. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone

Some of the sentences in this article are written in first-person-collective, e.g. "Solid surface, imitation granite and cultured marble sinks and counter tops are widely used to enhance our living experiences." SnappingTurtle (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is another example of such weirdness:

"Those composites closest to our personal hygiene form our shower stalls and bathtubs made of fibreglass"

Sounds bizarre in a serious encyclopedia article, more appropriate for an entry intended for a children's encyclopedia or a breezy magazine piece. Irritating and distracting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.176.112 (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger into this article

FYI, I've proposed that Spread tow fabric and Technical fabric be merged into this article. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see the individual discussions at each article talk page. Wizard191 (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Generalise ? Gases and liquids, not just solids !

Ooh ! I'm sure when I was at uni (Scotland, 1979-83) we were taught there were many classes of composite materials !

Here we only seem to discuss solid-solid composites. How about linking Foam, Gel, Sol (colloid) and Aerosol 'phase-mixes' ? Surely this should be in the heading ? ---19S.137.93.171 (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Or re-name this to Structural composite materials (include Structural foam) and have a Stub linking the others ?---19S.137.93.171 (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Matrixes

shouldnt matrixes be matrices? Also, it mentions that there are two constituents, reinforcement and matrix. In the case of, say, ceramic composites, there are others as well, including interphase (fiber coating) which is neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.101.12.20 (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

--175.101.67.12 (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)my name do touy know any one did n;t know

Composition

Plywood is not a composite according to the definition. It certainly doesn't fit the modern understanding of a "Composite." Does anyone oppose deleting this photo and reference? Also, it seems that placing "wood" as a natural composite is out of place as the leading example. Does anyone disagree with placing this comment later in the discussion? SunKider (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Composite material. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219024138/http://www3.open.ac.uk/courses/bin/p12.dll?C01T838 to http://www3.open.ac.uk/courses/bin/p12.dll?C01T838
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528131849/http://www.nenastran.com/newnoran/chPDF/CASE_Chassis_Design.pdf to http://www.nenastran.com/newnoran/chPDF/CASE_Chassis_Design.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of paragraphs

Separate Wikipedia pages are created for Vacuum bag moulding, Pressure bag moulding, Autoclave moulding, Resin transfer moulding and Light resin transfer moulding. These processes need to have separate Wikipedia pages as each process describe the manufacturing of a composite. These pages will later be expanded. So, the information for these process are deleted from the composite material page as the information is same and repetition is not required.Thegreatestmanonearth (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Split?

NOTE: I'm neither proposing nor opposing this split, merely tagging the article retrospectively so that the community can form a consensus on whether what has been done already (see section above) is a good idea or not, and if yes, whether it should be done by removing content (amounting to ~ 10% of this article, as it was before the split) or replicating it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Is the infobox 'carbon fibre' meant to link to Carbon fiber reinforced polymer?

I'd expect it to link to the 'Carbon fiber' page, it seems ambiguous in this context (because it only explains it's used as a reinforcement component in the following brackets), and it doesn't explicitly link anywhere, 'carbon fibre' redirects there. Drone Better (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Stiffness and Compliance Elasticity: Choice of coordinate systems

I was surprised by the choice of structure coordinate system 1-2 and material (ply) coordinate system x-y. This is very different from most of the literature. 1-direction typically is the 1-direction, 2-3 plane of transerval isotropy. And the structure lives in the global coordinate system, that uses the regular spatial x,y,z coordinates (as for plates, beams, etc.) This should be changed, also in the figure of the section "Stiffness and Compliance Elasticity" 178.10.122.23 (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Isostrain rules of mixtures

there are a few incorrect statements in that small section including: 1. It is not the upper bound. 2. It is not about the strength but about the stiffness. 3. It is not a strictly isostrain assumption, but isostrain combined with isostress assumption in other directions. Please refer to Yu, Wenbin (2024). "Common Misconceptions on Rules of Mixtures for Predicting Elastic Properties of Composites". AIAA Journal. USA: AIAA. doi:10.2514/1.J063863 for more detailed explanation of common misconceptions related to rules of mixtures. WenbinWiki (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)