Experimental Investigation of Flexural Fatigue Behavior and Damage Mechanisms in Flax‐Epoxy/Date Palm Petiole Bio‐Sandwich Beams
Source abstract
Abstract
ABSTRACT By this paper, an experimental investigation was conducted to evaluate the flexural fatigue behavior and damage mechanisms of new bio‐based sandwich beams (BBSBs) composed of flax fiber/epoxy face sheets and petiole date palm cores (PDPCs). Acoustic emission techniques were employed to monitor and analyze the damage evolution during three‐point bending tests. Subsequently, the fatigue life of the BBSBs was evaluated through three‐point bending fatigue tests. The mechanical response was quantified by analyzing the load–deflection behavior and the energy dissipated at each loading level. Due to the inherent flexibility of the PDPC, the bending tests showed that under moderate loads, the BBSBs exhibited predominantly elastic behavior without permanent deformation. Three distinct failure mechanisms were observed during testing: crushing at the mid‐span of the beam, followed by buckling of the upper face sheet, and finally the shearing of the core. Despite the presence of localized damage, the fatigue tests revealed that the BBSBs could withstand up to 90% of the static failure load, demonstrating a remarkable fatigue lifespan. Finally, BBSBs offer lightweight and durable solutions for building and transportation applications. Their predictable fatigue behavior allows for the design of components that withstand cyclic loads, while the use of agricultural residues promotes environmentally friendly, locally sourced materials.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites · Hygrothermal properties of building materials · Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
LSCMI, USTO Mohamed Boudiaf Oran Algeria
CIMAP, UMR 6252, CNRS, CEA, ENSICAEN, UNICAEN Caen France
References (70)
Show source-provided references
1. Zenkert D. · 1995
2. 10.1002/pc.2554310.1002/pc.25543 ↗
3. 10.1177/109963621773890810.1177/1099636217738908 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2018.04.00510.1016/j.compositesa.2018.04.005 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.11736110.1016/j.compstruct.2023.117361 ↗
6. 10.1080/15376494.2020.171275110.1080/15376494.2020.1712751 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.06.00910.1016/j.matdes.2017.06.009 ↗
8. 10.1007/s43452-020-00109-y10.1007/s43452-020-00109-y ↗
9. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.10.04510.1016/j.compositesb.2014.10.045 ↗
10. 10.1177/109963621348700410.1177/1099636213487004 ↗
11. 10.3390/en1519723910.3390/en15197239 ↗
12. 10.5552/drvind.2024.017610.5552/drvind.2024.0176 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.istruc.2025.10872610.1016/j.istruc.2025.108726 ↗
14. Mechanical Behavior of Bio‐Inspired Laminated MXene Reinforced GFRP Composite Core of Structural Sandwich Panels: Numerical and Experimental Study
15. 10.1002/pc.2797210.1002/pc.27972 ↗
16. 10.1177/109963621668015310.1177/1099636216680153 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2017.01.03710.1016/j.ijsolstr.2017.01.037 ↗
18. 10.1080/20426445.2017.139456010.1080/20426445.2017.1394560 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.11443610.1016/j.indcrop.2021.114436 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.matdes.2022.11101310.1016/j.matdes.2022.111013 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.02.08410.1016/j.compstruct.2019.02.084 ↗
22. 10.1002/pc.7057510.1002/pc.70575 ↗
23. 10.1177/152808372095803610.1177/1528083720958036 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e2650210.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26502 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.11648010.1016/j.indcrop.2023.116480 ↗
26. 10.1007/s11043-021-09500-510.1007/s11043-021-09500-5 ↗
27. Vibration Behavior of Partially Bio‐Sourced Sandwich Panel With Orthogonally Stiffened Core: Analytical and Experimental Study
28. 10.18280/rcma.29040110.18280/rcma.290401 ↗
29. 10.1002/pc.2833610.1002/pc.28336 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.05.02710.1016/j.compstruct.2011.05.027 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.matdes.2013.09.02210.1016/j.matdes.2013.09.022 ↗
32. 10.1177/109963621876030710.1177/1099636218760307 ↗
33. 10.1002/pc.2694410.1002/pc.26944 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.06.12210.1016/j.compstruct.2018.06.122 ↗
35. 10.48084/etasr.642410.48084/etasr.6424 ↗
36. 10.3390/buildings1308191710.3390/buildings13081917 ↗
37. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification in 10th Edition With 2022 Interim Revisions Section on Fatigue and Fracture.”
38. 10.1155/2017/361954510.1155/2017/3619545 ↗
39. ACI Committee 318andACI Committee 215 “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318–19 With Updates); and Report on Fatigue and Fracture Considerations for Structural Concrete (ACI 215R‐20) ”American Concrete Institute.
40. Ministry of Transport of the People's Republic of China “JTG D60 2015 General Specifications for Design of Highway Bridges and Culverts; and GB 50010–2010 (2020 Revision) Code for Design of Concrete Structures.”
41. Fib (Fédération Internationale du Béton) “Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010 With 2020 Extensions—Fatigue Provisions and Cumulative Damage Modeling; CEB Bulletin 188 ‘Fatigue of Concrete Structures’ ” Reissued/Follow‐Up Commentary.
42. 10.1002/suco.20220089410.1002/suco.202200894 ↗
43. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) "Eurocode 3: EN 1993‐1‐9: Design of Steel Structures-Fatigue
44. and Eurocode 2: EN 1992‐1‐1: Design of Concrete Structures-General Rules (Including Fatigue Commentary and Detail Category Classifications)."
45. 10.4186/ej.2012.16.5.10510.4186/ej.2012.16.5.105 ↗
46. 10.15376/biores.11.2.3575-358610.15376/biores.11.2.3575-3586 ↗
47. Fatigue Behaviour of Flax Fibre Composites: Influence of Manufacturing‐Induced Microstructural Parameters
48. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.11.00310.1016/j.compositesa.2015.11.003 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2022.10730610.1016/j.ijfatigue.2022.107306 ↗
50. ISO “ISO 13003‐20: Fibre‐Reinforced Plastics—Determination of Fatigue Properties Under Cyclic Loading Conditions International Organization for Standardization Geneva Switzerland ” 2003.
51. AFNOR “NFT 54‐606: Plastics Based Sandwich Structures—Bend Test La Plaine Saint‐Denis France ” 1987.
52. 10.3390/applmech604009010.3390/applmech6040090 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2004.01.02110.1016/j.compstruct.2004.01.021 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.01.04310.1016/j.compstruct.2014.01.043 ↗
55. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.01.00510.1016/j.compstruct.2019.01.005 ↗
56. S.Essid “Sandwiches à Fibres de Lin et Anas de Lin: Optimisation Structure Imprégnation Propriétés (PhD Thesis Normandie Université 2020).”
57. 10.1177/105678951455313410.1177/1056789514553134 ↗
58. 10.1007/BF0119088010.1007/BF01190880 ↗
59. 10.1002/pc.3004710.1002/pc.30047 ↗
60. 10.1177/00219983990330120510.1177/002199839903301205 ↗
61. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.10.02410.1016/j.compstruct.2012.10.024 ↗
62. 10.1002/pc.2417710.1002/pc.24177 ↗
63. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.10633810.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.106338 ↗
64. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.11777110.1016/j.compstruct.2023.117771 ↗
65. 10.1023/A:101757672588510.1023/A:1017576725885 ↗
66. Y.Menail A.El Mahi B.Redjel R.Berbaoui andM.Assarar “Effect of Fatigue Testing on the Properties of Glass–Epoxy Composites Using the Acoustic Tool ” MATEC Web of Conferences 83 2017 03015.10.1051/matecconf/201712103015 ↗
67. A. B.Haskell “A Durability and Utility Analysis of EFPI Fiber Optic Strain Sensors Embedded in Composite Materials for Structural Health Monitoring ” 2006.
68. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2014.01.00310.1016/j.ijfatigue.2014.01.003 ↗
69. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.10559210.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.105592 ↗
70. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.02.02410.1016/j.compositesb.2012.02.024 ↗