- Email: [email protected]
Corrigendum to: Evaluation of normalisation methods for uniaxial bias extension tests on engineering fabrics [Compos. Part A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 67 (2014) 61–69]
Composites: Part A 72 (2015) 49
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Composites: Part A journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesa
Corrigendum
Corrigendum to: Evaluation of normalisation methods for uniaxial bias extension tests on engineering fabrics [Compos. Part A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 67 (2014) 61–69] Frank Härtel a, Philip Harrison b,⇑ a b
Institute of Aircraft Design, University of Stuttgart, Germany School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, UK
The authors regret that an error was made in Fig. 3 which is corrected here; the predictions of Method 1 should be indicated as a broken line whereas the predictions of Method 2 should be indicated as a continuous line, currently all lines are shown in the original paper as broken lines. 7
0.003 0.0025
0.002
(a) =1000 Eq 6 - Method 1 Eq 7 - Method 1 Eq 8 - Method 1 Eq 6 - Method 2 Eq 7 - Method 2 Eq 8 - Method 2
0.0015 0.001
0.0005 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Shear Angle (o)
Contrbuon B / Contribuon A
Contrbuon B / Contribuon A
0.0035
6 5
4
(b) =2 Eq 6 - Method 1 Eq 7 - Method 1 Eq 8 - Method 1 Eq 6 - Method 2 Eq 7 - Method 2 Eq 8 - Method 2
3 2
1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Shear Angle (o)
Fig. 3. Ratio of the force contributions from Region B and Region A to the total UBE axial force for a sample aspect ratio of: (a) k = 1000 and (b) k = 2. The input equations used to create the curves are given in the legend.
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2014.08.011
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: R509 Level 5, Systems Power and Energy, James Watt Building South, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK. Tel.: +44 14 13 30 43 18. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Harrison). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.01.014 1359-835X/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Composites: Part A journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesa
Corrigendum
Corrigendum to: Evaluation of normalisation methods for uniaxial bias extension tests on engineering fabrics [Compos. Part A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 67 (2014) 61–69] Frank Härtel a, Philip Harrison b,⇑ a b
Institute of Aircraft Design, University of Stuttgart, Germany School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, UK
The authors regret that an error was made in Fig. 3 which is corrected here; the predictions of Method 1 should be indicated as a broken line whereas the predictions of Method 2 should be indicated as a continuous line, currently all lines are shown in the original paper as broken lines. 7
0.003 0.0025
0.002
(a) =1000 Eq 6 - Method 1 Eq 7 - Method 1 Eq 8 - Method 1 Eq 6 - Method 2 Eq 7 - Method 2 Eq 8 - Method 2
0.0015 0.001
0.0005 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Shear Angle (o)
Contrbuon B / Contribuon A
Contrbuon B / Contribuon A
0.0035
6 5
4
(b) =2 Eq 6 - Method 1 Eq 7 - Method 1 Eq 8 - Method 1 Eq 6 - Method 2 Eq 7 - Method 2 Eq 8 - Method 2
3 2
1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Shear Angle (o)
Fig. 3. Ratio of the force contributions from Region B and Region A to the total UBE axial force for a sample aspect ratio of: (a) k = 1000 and (b) k = 2. The input equations used to create the curves are given in the legend.
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2014.08.011
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: R509 Level 5, Systems Power and Energy, James Watt Building South, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK. Tel.: +44 14 13 30 43 18. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Harrison). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.01.014 1359-835X/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.