An experimental investigation on impact dynamics response of woven roved glass fiber reinforced polyester laminated composites
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract This research deals with the effect of stacking sequence over, the mechanical behavior of laminates that includes tensile, flexural, fractography, area of impact damage, and residual tensile strength. The angle‐ply laminate specimens were analyzed theoretically and correlated with experimental results. The highest interlaminar shear strength 32.89 MPa was exhibited by (60/30/60/30)S with better transverse stiffness of 444 N/mm. Among the developed laminates, (60/30/60/30)S showed the highest rate of residual strength degradation of 0.271. It has been found that an increase in interlaminar shear strength decreases the impact damage resistance of the composites. The angle‐ply laminate composites exhibited superior residual tensile and impact resistant properties when compared with uniply laminate composites.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Textile materials and evaluations · Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Mechanical Engineering Thiagarajar College of Engineering Madurai Tamil Nadu India
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Guindy Anna University Chennai Tamil Nadu India
Department of Mechanical Engineering Anna University Madurai Tamil Nadu India
Centre for Material Science, Department of Mechanical Engineering Karpagam Academy of Higher Education Coimbatore Tamil Nadu India
References (36)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1177/109963621983013410.1177/1099636219830134 ↗
2. 10.1177/147776061989501110.1177/1477760619895011 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.10791110.1016/j.compositesb.2020.107911 ↗
4. 10.1515/ntrev-2021-001810.1515/ntrev-2021-0018 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.10870410.1016/j.compositesb.2021.108704 ↗
6. Raturi A. · Sustain. Biopolym. Compos. · 2022 · 265 · 79
7. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.11387010.1016/j.compstruct.2021.113870 ↗
8. 10.1002/pc.2599310.1002/pc.25993 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11312910.1016/j.compstruct.2020.113129 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.12.05910.1016/j.compositesb.2017.12.059 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2019.05.01010.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2019.05.010 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.optlastec.2019.10558710.1016/j.optlastec.2019.105587 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.09.04310.1016/j.compositesb.2018.09.043 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.10824910.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108249 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.10844810.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108448 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.msec.2020.11077110.1016/j.msec.2020.110771 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.dental.2020.10.02310.1016/j.dental.2020.10.023 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11341510.1016/j.compstruct.2020.113415 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11331510.1016/j.compstruct.2020.113315 ↗
20. 10.1177/002199832095423010.1177/0021998320954230 ↗
21. 10.1002/pc.2623910.1002/pc.26239 ↗
22. 10.1063/1.502411910.1063/1.5024119 ↗
23. 10.1108/RPJ-01-2021-000310.1108/RPJ-01-2021-0003 ↗
24. Subhedar K. M. · Ind. J. Eng. Mat. Sci. · 2020 · 27 · 1100
25. 10.1080/15440478.2019.169799610.1080/15440478.2019.1697996 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2021.10305010.1016/j.ijadhadh.2021.103050 ↗
27. 10.1177/00219983840180060110.1177/002199838401800601 ↗
28. Miracle D. B. · 2001
29. Mallick P. K. · 2008
30. 10.1002/pc.2108210.1002/pc.21082 ↗
31. 10.1007/s10570-018-2079-610.1007/s10570-018-2079-6 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.matdes.2014.10.00310.1016/j.matdes.2014.10.003 ↗
33. 10.1177/073168440606057710.1177/0731684406060577 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.11.04110.1016/j.compositesb.2014.11.041 ↗
35. 10.3390/polym1320358710.3390/polym13203587 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.09.03210.1016/j.compositesb.2015.09.032 ↗