journal article·2021-10

Comparative study of far‐field pyroshock responses of epoxy laminated composite panels

Mohamed Najeeb E., Murugan M.

Polymer Composites· Volume 42· Issue 10
Publisher page

Abstract

Abstract The experimental study on far‐field pyroshock responses of carbon/glass/Kevlar‐epoxy composite panels are presented in this article. Bi‐Plate Technology is used to conduct all the experiments on different combination of carbon, E‐glass, and Kevlar composite panel parameters, with epoxy resin as matrix. The structural responses computed from the acceleration–time histories are analyzed. Low range of chamber pressure and projectiles of three different lengths are used to carry out the experiments so that the far‐field response of the test panel is ensured. PCB accelerometers and NI‐DAQ system are used to capture the accelerations of panel at selected locations. Among all the composite panels, the one which is of Kevlar‐epoxy laminate shows the least acceleration because the said material has high vibrational energy absorption rate. The glass‐epoxy laminate being higher mass rate shows the intermediate category and the carbon‐epoxy accelerates itself the most. Hence, these types of fibers may be utilized in appropriate areas according to their degree of acceleration to minimize the effect of the far‐field pyroshock response.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Structural Response to Dynamic Loads · Structural Analysis of Composite Materials · Mechanical Behavior of Composites

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

Affiliations

Department of Civil Engineering Government College of Engineering Tirunelveli India

References (21)

Show source-provided references
1. MIL‐STD‐810F:Test Method Standard—Environmental Engineering Considerations and Laboratory Tests (2000) Department of Defense USA.
2. NASA‐STD‐7003:NASA Technical Standard—Pyroshock Test Criteria(1999) National Aeronautics and Space Administration USA.
3. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.20-23.145810.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.20-23.1458 ↗
4. 10.1299/spacee.1.7910.1299/spacee.1.79 ↗
5. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.108-111.104310.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.108-111.1043 ↗
6. 10.1115/1.282798510.1115/1.2827985 ↗
7. 10.1080/1537649080266428110.1080/15376490802664281 ↗
8. Bateman V. I. · Sound Vib. · 2012 · 6
9. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.9.8910.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.9.89 ↗
10. 10.1088/0022-3727/40/17/05210.1088/0022-3727/40/17/052 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.measurement.2011.12.01110.1016/j.measurement.2011.12.011 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.jsv.2012.02.02410.1016/j.jsv.2012.02.024 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.jsv.2013.06.01410.1016/j.jsv.2013.06.014 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2014.02.01310.1016/j.ijimpeng.2014.02.013 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.12.02210.1016/j.compositesb.2013.12.022 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.optlastec.2014.02.00510.1016/j.optlastec.2014.02.005 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.optlastec.2014.09.00510.1016/j.optlastec.2014.09.005 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.ast.2017.05.02810.1016/j.ast.2017.05.028 ↗
19. Bulut M. · J. Compos. Mater. · 2015 · 0 · 1
20. 10.1115/1.402722310.1115/1.4027223 ↗
21. 10.1002/pc.2500410.1002/pc.25004 ↗