journal article·2024-08-10Open access

Insights on the bearing response of glass fiber‐reinforced stainless steel laminates: Investigating the influence of natural fiber and specimen geometry

M. Vasumathi, S. Rashia Begum, P. Gokul Nath, V. Kavimani, Valentin Romanovski, Bashir Salah

Polymer Composites· Volume 45· Issue 11

Abstract

Abstract This study delves into the bearing response of two types of Fiber Metal Epoxy Laminates (FMLs): Glass Fiber/Stainless Steel laminates and Glass Fiber/Jute/Stainless Steel laminates, where a portion of glass fiber is replaced with jute. The primary focus is to assess the impact of introducing natural fiber (jute) into FML on its pin‐type bearing performance, considering various edge‐to‐hole ratios (e/D), width‐to‐hole ratios (W/D), and stacking orders. The study aims to understand how these parameters influence the bearing load and failure modes of the laminates. Observations reveal that variations in e/D and W/D ratios, along with the stacking arrangement of materials in the FMLs, exert a significant influence on the ultimate load‐bearing capacity of the pinned joint. It is observed from the study that, for the two stacking sequences considered, the load bearing capacity of the FMLs with W/D ratio 6 is greater than those with W/D ratio of 4 by a maximum of 23.06%. Moreover, if the weight fraction of the glass fiber content in the FML is reduced, the ultimate load bearing capacity of the FML also gets curtailed to a maximum extent of 44%. The experimental findings suggest that the prepared fiber metal laminate, characterized by lower weight, cost‐effectiveness, and enhanced environmental friendliness, exhibits a substantial capacity to withstand bearing loads. Consequently, it emerges as a promising candidate for the construction of structures such as storage silos, offering a balanced combination of structural performance and sustainability. Highlights FML bearing performance: Glass/Stainless versus Glass/Jute/Stainless. Influence of e/D and W/D ratios on pin‐type bearing. Stacking order impact on load‐bearing capacity. Lightweight, cost‐effective, and eco‐friendly FMLs. Promising for silo construction: structural and sustainable.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites · Structural Load-Bearing Analysis

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Mechanical Engineering College of Engineering, Guindy, Anna University Chennai India

Department of Mechanical Engineering Karpagam Academy of Higher Education Coimbatore India

Centre for Material science Karpagam Academy of Higher Education Coimbatore India

Department of Material Science and Engineering University of Virginia Charlottesville Virginia United States

Department of Industrial Engineering College of Engineering King Saud University Riyadh Saudi Arabia

Funding

King Saud University

References (35)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1002/pc.2699010.1002/pc.26990 ↗
2. 10.1002/pc.2796510.1002/pc.27965 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.matdes.2011.03.01110.1016/j.matdes.2011.03.011 ↗
4. 10.3390/polym1422500710.3390/polym14225007 ↗
5. 10.1016/1359-835X(95)00006-N10.1016/1359-835X(95)00006-N ↗
6. 10.1016/j.matlet.2006.04.04310.1016/j.matlet.2006.04.043 ↗
7. 10.1002/pc.2611310.1002/pc.26113 ↗
8. 10.1002/pc.2605010.1002/pc.26050 ↗
9. 10.1002/pc.2759310.1002/pc.27593 ↗
10. 10.1002/pc.2617610.1002/pc.26176 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2012.11.00510.1016/j.engfracmech.2012.11.005 ↗
12. 10.1002/pc.2679110.1002/pc.26791 ↗
13. 10.1002/pc.2727410.1002/pc.27274 ↗
14. 10.1002/pc.2645510.1002/pc.26455 ↗
15. 10.3390/insects1207059010.3390/insects12070590 ↗
16. 10.1007/s10518-023-01751-610.1007/s10518-023-01751-6 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e0127110.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01271 ↗
18. 10.1177/002199831562047810.1177/0021998315620478 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.02.03210.1016/j.compositesb.2019.02.032 ↗
20. 10.15376/biores.11.2.3575-358610.15376/biores.11.2.3575-3586 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.03.11410.1016/j.jmrt.2020.03.114 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.jobe.2020.10130610.1016/j.jobe.2020.101306 ↗
23. 10.32381/JPM.2019.36.01.110.32381/JPM.2019.36.01.1 ↗
24. 10.1016/S0263-8223(02)00185-X10.1016/S0263-8223(02)00185-X ↗
25. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2008.08.02110.1016/j.compscitech.2008.08.021 ↗
26. 10.1007/s00170-018-2091-x10.1007/s00170-018-2091-x ↗
27. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.06.00610.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.06.006 ↗
28. 10.1002/pc.2780210.1002/pc.27802 ↗
29. 10.1002/pc.2771610.1002/pc.27716 ↗
30. 10.1002/pc.2713610.1002/pc.27136 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2003.10.01210.1016/j.compstruct.2003.10.012 ↗
32. Thermal and dynamic mechanical analysis of hybrid jute/sisal fibre reinforced epoxy composite
33. 10.3390/jcs508020410.3390/jcs5080204 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.08.16610.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.08.166 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2005.01.01410.1016/j.compositesa.2005.01.014 ↗