A study on the anchoring orientations of foam and sandwich composites with metal
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Metallic anchors are used as the load transfer components for foam and sandwich composites when they are used as structural elements in design applications. The traditional method of fixation of these components is by gluing and fastening. The anchors are in the form of inserts and are imbedded in the foam during the foaming process. In this study, flexural testing was conducted on different metal anchor/foam configurations to establish typical interaction trends. The load‐deflection response, mode of failure, and fracture stresses of the structures were elucidated. Tests were conducted on foam and sandwich composites having rectangular, cylindrical, and taper geometries with different lengths. Leaf inserts were designed, manufactured, and tested inside foam and sandwich composites. Comparisons between the taper and leaf inserts are presented. Leaf inserts had better results compared with taper inserts in terms of adhesion and failure stresses. Finite element analysis (FEA) of the interactions between the inserts and the foam and sandwich composites under different loads was carried out. The FEA modeling results were very similar to the experimental results, thus validating the model. Simulations were also run with foam and sandwich composites with closeout configuration. Foam–sandwich with inserts had better adhesion and load‐bearing properties compared with same structures with closeouts. POLYM. COMPOS., 2011. © 2011 Society of Plastics Engineers
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Cellular and Composite Structures · Polymer composites and self-healing · Mechanical Behavior of Composites
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (22)
Show source-provided references
1. Gibson J.L. · 1997 · 20710.1017/CBO9781139878326 ↗
2. 10.1023/A:100473501146310.1023/A:1004735011463 ↗
3. 10.1016/0032-3861(79)90229-510.1016/0032-3861(79)90229-5 ↗
4. Huang W.H. · Int. Mater. Sci. · 2003 · 45 · 1531
5. 10.1016/j.msea.2006.05.13310.1016/j.msea.2006.05.133 ↗
6. 10.1016/S0266-3538(00)00039-710.1016/S0266-3538(00)00039-7 ↗
7. 10.1177/002199830303381810.1177/0021998303033818 ↗
8. 10.1016/0263-8223(91)90062-410.1016/0263-8223(91)90062-4 ↗
9. Sarzynski M.D. · Compos. Mater. · 2004 · 12 · 1067
10. 10.1016/S0263-8223(98)00133-010.1016/S0263-8223(98)00133-0 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2004.01.02110.1016/j.compstruct.2004.01.021 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2005.05.00210.1016/j.ijfatigue.2005.05.002 ↗
13. 10.1177/073168440402934710.1177/0731684404029347 ↗
14. 10.1007/s11029-005-0039-310.1007/s11029-005-0039-3 ↗
15. 10.1177/073168440504820510.1177/0731684405048205 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2007.08.00110.1016/j.compositesb.2007.08.001 ↗
17. 10.1016/0263-8223(90)90018-A10.1016/0263-8223(90)90018-A ↗
18. 10.1016/S1359-835X(03)00136-210.1016/S1359-835X(03)00136-2 ↗
19. 10.1016/S0266-3538(03)00273-210.1016/S0266-3538(03)00273-2 ↗
20. 10.1016/S0266-3538(98)00010-410.1016/S0266-3538(98)00010-4 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.04.08310.1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.04.083 ↗
22. 10.1016/0266-3538(93)90019-D10.1016/0266-3538(93)90019-D ↗