Ballistic impact response and failure mechanism of aluminum/ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene fiber laminates with different adhesive quantity
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of metal‐composite interface (MCI) adhesive quantity on the energy absorption and failure behavior of fiber metal laminates (FMLs) under ballistic impact. The dynamic shear and ballistic impact tests were systematically conducted, and CT scan was employed to quantitatively investigate the damage and failure mechanisms of the FMLs. The results reveal that the dynamic shear strength of MCI initially increases and then remains constant with the increase in the adhesive quantity at a constant strain rate. Moreover, the MCI adhesive quantity has a certain influence on the impact energy absorption of FMLs, and the degree of influence is related to the impact velocity. At an impact velocity of 360 m/s, the difference of energy absorption is maximal, approximately 14.7%. The distribution of total debonding area changes with increase in the adhesive quantity. When the impact velocity is 212 m/s, compared to FMLs with the lowest adhesive quantity, the total debonding area of FMLs with the highest adhesive quantity decreases by 774.57 mm2 (9.20%), otherwise the debonding area near the rear aluminum alloy sheet increases by 595.94 mm2 (58.99%).
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Fiber-reinforced polymer composites · Textile materials and evaluations
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
State Key Laboratory of Explosion & Impact and Disaster Prevention & Mitigation Army Engineering University of PLA Nanjing China
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China
References (37)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1002/pc.2610710.1002/pc.26107 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2018.04.01110.1016/j.ijimpeng.2018.04.011 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.tws.2021.10802610.1016/j.tws.2021.108026 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.10567910.1016/j.compositesa.2019.105679 ↗
5. Zarezadeh Mehrizi M. A. · Polym. Compos. · 1936 · 2022 · 43
6. 10.1016/j.matdes.2011.03.01110.1016/j.matdes.2011.03.011 ↗
7. Wu G. · JOM · 1989 · 2005 · 72
8. 10.1002/pc.2644610.1002/pc.26446 ↗
9. Chen Y. · Adv. Polym. Technol. · 2020 · 2020 · 1
10. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2021.10384510.1016/j.ijimpeng.2021.103845 ↗
11. 10.1002/pc.2647410.1002/pc.26474 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.polymer.2021.12412510.1016/j.polymer.2021.124125 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.11499110.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114991 ↗
14. 10.1002/pc.2641910.1002/pc.26419 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.12.01110.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.12.011 ↗
16. 10.1177/1099636221102045910.1177/10996362211020459 ↗
17. 10.1002/pc.2634710.1002/pc.26347 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.12.03310.1016/j.compstruct.2016.12.033 ↗
19. 10.1002/pc.2642110.1002/pc.26421 ↗
20. 10.1002/pc.2575710.1002/pc.25757 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.06.08510.1016/j.compstruct.2018.06.085 ↗
22. 10.1134/S102995992101010010.1134/S1029959921010100 ↗
23. 10.1007/s10853-017-1871-210.1007/s10853-017-1871-2 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.02.00910.1016/j.compstruct.2019.02.009 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2018.03.00510.1016/j.ijadhadh.2018.03.005 ↗
26. 10.1080/09276440.2019.170702310.1080/09276440.2019.1707023 ↗
27. 10.1007/s12206-017-1019-y10.1007/s12206-017-1019-y ↗
28. 10.1016/j.matdes.2018.11.04810.1016/j.matdes.2018.11.048 ↗
29. 10.1007/s42114-020-00189-710.1007/s42114-020-00189-7 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.05.09410.1016/j.compositesb.2019.05.094 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.10771810.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107718 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.jma.2019.02.00810.1016/j.jma.2019.02.008 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.05.09810.1016/j.compstruct.2016.05.098 ↗
34. 10.1016/S0263-8223(01)00031-910.1016/S0263-8223(01)00031-9 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.msea.2010.10.07110.1016/j.msea.2010.10.071 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11226410.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112264 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.matdes.2022.11057810.1016/j.matdes.2022.110578 ↗