Effect of salt water exposure on foam-cored polyurethane sandwich composites
Source abstract
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of moisture absorption on the mechanical performance of polyurethane sandwich composites. The core material was a closed cell polyurethane foam. Face sheets were made of E-glass/polyurethane composite laminates. Vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding process was used to manufacture specimens for testing. The foam core, laminates, and sandwich composites were submerged in salt water for prolonged periods of time. Mechanical property degradation due to moisture absorption for each constituent was evaluated. Compression test was performed on the foam core samples. Laminates were evaluated by three-point bending tests. The interfacial bond strength in the sandwich structure was evaluated by double cantilever beam mode-I interfacial fracture test. The testing results revealed that the effect of salt water exposure on the compressive properties of the foam core is insignificant. The flexural modulus of polyurethane laminates degraded 8.9% and flexural strength degraded 13.0% after 166 days in 50% salinity salt water at 34°C conditioning. The interfacial fracture toughness of polyurethane sandwich composites degraded 22.4% after 166 days in 50% salinity salt water at 34°C conditioning.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Polymer composites and self-healing · Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Silicone and Siloxane Chemistry
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO, USA
References (30)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1177/00219983770110010210.1177/002199837701100102 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2004.12.02810.1016/j.compscitech.2004.12.028 ↗
3. 10.1016/S1359-835X(96)00154-610.1016/S1359-835X(96)00154-6 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2005.09.02210.1016/j.compstruct.2005.09.022 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2004.04.05810.1016/j.compstruct.2004.04.058 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.jcis.2005.12.02310.1016/j.jcis.2005.12.023 ↗
7. 10.1016/0010-4361(94)90191-010.1016/0010-4361(94)90191-0 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.06.00510.1016/j.compstruct.2014.06.005 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.09.01710.1016/j.compositesa.2015.09.017 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2011.06.01610.1016/j.compositesb.2011.06.016 ↗
11. 10.1016/S0263-8223(03)00060-610.1016/S0263-8223(03)00060-6 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.03.01610.1016/j.compstruct.2009.03.016 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2003.09.00410.1016/j.compositesb.2003.09.004 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.07.00410.1016/j.compstruct.2009.07.004 ↗
15. Penumadu D, Weitsman YJ, Siriruk A. Effect of sea environment on interfacial delamination behavior of sandwich layups. In: 16th International conference on composite materials , Kyoto, Japan, 8–13 July 2007, pp.1–5.
16. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2004.04.01210.1016/j.compositesb.2004.04.012 ↗
17. 10.1201/b1234310.1201/b12343 ↗
18. 10.1177/109963621558221810.1177/1099636215582218 ↗
19. ASTM D1621-10 · 2010
20. ASTM D790-15. · 2015
21. ASTM D5528-13 · 2013
22. ASTM D3433-99 · 2012
23. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.01.00910.1016/j.compstruct.2006.01.009 ↗
24. Smith SA · AIAA Paper · 2001 · 1221 · 1
25. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2017.07.02010.1016/j.compositesa.2017.07.020 ↗
26. 10.1177/109963620504708510.1177/1099636205047085 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2007.03.04510.1016/j.engfracmech.2007.03.045 ↗
28. 10.1243/03093247V24420710.1243/03093247V244207 ↗
29. Ripling EJ · Mater Res Standard · 1964 · 4 · 129
30. Mostovoy S · J Mater · 1967 · 2 · 661