4.1 Article Data Paper

Dataset for scanning electron microscopy based local fiber volume fraction analysis of non-crimp fabric glass fiber reinforced composites

Journal

DATA IN BRIEF
Volume 48, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2023.109058

Keywords

Bundle segmentation; SEM; Fiber volume fraction; Wind turbine blades

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This dataset consists of four large field-of-view scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images and associated Matlab scripts for analysis in a joint publication. The stitched images are generated from high-resolution scans and show the cross-section of fiber bundles in composite laminate. They are suitable for local fiber volume determination. The images have a resolution of 600 to 2000 pixels covering each fiber.
This dataset includes four large field-of-view scanning elec-tron microscopy (SEM) images together with associated Mat -lab scripts aimed for the analysis used in the joint publi-cation. Each of the four stitched images is generated from a large number (between 15500 and 24500) high-resolution (195nm/pixel) scans, which have been stitched into four im-ages stored as tiff-files. The images show the cross-section of fiber bundles in composite laminate and are well-suited for local fiber volume determination. The image resolution corre-sponds to between 600 and 2000 pixels covering each fiber. The imaged samples are from composite laminates with an overall fiber volume fraction in the range of 55% to 60%. The local fiber volume fraction is found both for the full cross-section, as an average fiber volume fraction over the individ-ual bundles, and as a local fiber volume fraction found in a moving averaging box with a size corresponding to 5 x5 fiber diameter (80 x80 mu m2) areas. (c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available