The effect of alternating the sequence of variable‐energy repeated impact on the residual strength and damage evolution of composite laminates
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract This article investigates the effect of alternating the sequence of variable‐energy repeated low‐velocity impact on the residual strength of carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) laminates. Quasi‐isotropic CFRP specimens were impacted using three impact energy levels, that is, Low (L), Medium (M), and High (H). Every group, out of three groups in total, was impacted consecutively using one of three sequences: LMH, HML, and MLH. Delamination and its growth after each impact was quantified using a phased‐array ultrasonic probe. The impacted specimens were then subjected to compression after impact loading with in situ acoustic emission (AE) and digital image correlation (DIC) measurement. Mechanical results showed that the residual strength of the specimens was not significantly affected by alternating the impacts sequence. However, the AE, sentry function and DIC results revealed that the impact‐induced damage in HML configuration was activated much earlier than MLH, and the damage induced in LMH configuration was activated later than both.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation · Smart Materials for Construction
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Faculty of New Technologies and Aerospace Engineering Shahid Beheshti University Tehran Iran
Advanced Materials Research Center Technology Innovation Institute Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates
References (31)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.01.00610.1016/j.compositesb.2019.01.006 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.09.01610.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.09.016 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.06.00810.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.06.008 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.12.02610.1016/j.compositesb.2013.12.026 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.11.12610.1016/j.compositesb.2018.11.126 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2020.10814510.1016/j.compscitech.2020.108145 ↗
7. 10.1002/pc.2671810.1002/pc.26718 ↗
8. 10.1002/pc.2730210.1002/pc.27302 ↗
9. 10.1002/pc.2710610.1002/pc.27106 ↗
10. 10.1002/pc.2698310.1002/pc.26983 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.02810.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.028 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.07.01610.1016/j.compositesb.2018.07.016 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.10578310.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.105783 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.11596210.1016/j.compstruct.2022.115962 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.11610010.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116100 ↗
16. 10.1002/pc.2072810.1002/pc.20728 ↗
17. 10.1002/pc.2677710.1002/pc.26777 ↗
18. 10.1002/pc.2631610.1002/pc.26316 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.10557610.1016/j.compositesa.2019.105576 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2020.10583310.1016/j.compositesa.2020.105833 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2020.10596410.1016/j.compositesa.2020.105964 ↗
22. HexPly · 2013
23. ASTM Standards · 2015
24. ASTM International · 2015
25. ASTM International · 2017
26. ASTM International · 2010
27. 10.1016/j.tws.2018.02.01110.1016/j.tws.2018.02.011 ↗
28. 10.1007/s11665-014-1291-210.1007/s11665-014-1291-2 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.10803910.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108039 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2006.04.01310.1016/j.compositesa.2006.04.013 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.matdes.2010.08.04810.1016/j.matdes.2010.08.048 ↗