journal article·2024-05-10Open access

Research on the reasonable sample dimension of woven composites in split Hopkinson pressure bar testing

Jikai Yu, Jinzhao Huang, Li Zhang, Shangyang Yu, Licheng Guo

Polymer Composites· Volume 45· Issue 7

Abstract

Abstract An experimental design method is proposed to guide the selection of specimen dimension and split Hopkinson pressure bar apparatus. This method is applicable to the woven composite with modulus independent of strain rate. This method can predict the maximum specimen dimension at the desired strain rate under the maximum strike velocity of the apparatus. Based on the proposed design method, the in‐plane dynamic compressive behavior of 2D plain weave carbon/aramid hybrid composite was obtained. The strength exhibited sensitive to strain rates. The nonlinear constitutive model described the dynamic constitutive relationship effectively. The distribution of delamination failure significantly influenced the final failure shape of the specimens through the high‐velocity camera. Microscopic observations indicated that carbon fiber yarns and aramid fiber yarns exhibited different fracture modes. Highlights An experimental design method applicable to woven composites in dynamic tests. Negative correlation between strength and strain rate of hybrid composites. The validity of the nonlinear constitutive model to dynamic property. The effect of hybridization and strain rates on damage modes.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: High-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior · Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Structural Response to Dynamic Loads

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

Affiliations

Department of Astronautic Science and Mechanics Harbin Institute of Technology Harbin China

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province · National Natural Science Foundation of China

References (25)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1088/0370‐1301/62/11/30210.1088/0370‐1301/62/11/302 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2004.01.00410.1016/j.polymertesting.2004.01.004 ↗
3. 10.1177/002199830504709410.1177/0021998305047094 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.msea.2007.05.03210.1016/j.msea.2007.05.032 ↗
5. 10.1002/pc.2676410.1002/pc.26764 ↗
6. 10.1002/pc.2706510.1002/pc.27065 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.msea.2007.10.12410.1016/j.msea.2007.10.124 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.04.08410.1016/j.compositesb.2016.04.084 ↗
9. 10.1080/13588265.2016.119800010.1080/13588265.2016.1198000 ↗
10. 10.1007/BF0242799210.1007/BF02427992 ↗
11. 10.1007/BF0232310210.1007/BF02323102 ↗
12. 10.1002/9781118095355.ch510.1002/9781118095355.ch5 ↗
13. 10.1243/03093247JSA53810.1243/03093247JSA538 ↗
14. 10.1016/0022-5096(63)90050-410.1016/0022-5096(63)90050-4 ↗
15. SiebelE.Grundlagen zur Berechnung des Kraft‐und Arbeitsbedarfs beim Schmieden und Walzen.1923.
16. 10.1007/s11771‐008‐0042‐710.1007/s11771‐008‐0042‐7 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.10899310.1016/j.compositesb.2021.108993 ↗
18. 10.5228/kstp.2017.26.5.31410.5228/kstp.2017.26.5.314 ↗
19. Kangwen L · 2021 · 3
20. A pulse shaper model for Hopkinson pressure bar
21. 10.15918/j.tbit1001‐0645.2021.01010.15918/j.tbit1001‐0645.2021.010 ↗
22. Mingjiu X · 2011
23. 10.1016/j.dt.2023.04.00510.1016/j.dt.2023.04.005 ↗
24. 10.1177/073168441771571210.1177/0731684417715712 ↗
25. 10.1007/BF0248658810.1007/BF02486588 ↗