Impact Behavior of Titanium‐Based Carbon‐Fiber Laminates: Effects of Surface Treatment and Ply Sequence via Integrated Experiment and Simulation
Source abstract
Abstract
ABSTRACT The impact resistance of titanium‐based fiber metal laminates (Ti‐FMLs) is often limited by weak metal‐composite interfaces and non‐optimal ply sequences. To overcome these limitations, the low‐velocity impact performance of Ti‐FMLs was enhanced through synergistic interface engineering and structural optimization. Ti‐6Al‐4V sheets were modified via abrasion (A), sandblasting (S), alkaline anodization (AAn), and EDTA anodization (EAn), and combined with carbon fiber/epoxy prepreg in [0/90] and [45/−45] layups. Fracture toughness and impact tests revealed that the ASEAn treatment, by producing an optimal micro‐porous morphology, yielded the highest interface strength and impact resistance. Under various energy impacts, the laminate treated with ASEAn presents the least damage in the [0/90] laminates while the [45/−45] laminate with ASEAn treatment resisted perforation. A 3D finite element model with interface parameters defined by layup angle and surface treatment accurately captured the damage progression. The predicted results showed superior agreement with experiments (mean mismatch below 10% for maximum force and total displacement). This work conclusively identifies the synergy between high‐performance surface treatment and a [45/−45] ply sequence as the key to developing Ti‐FMLs with superior impact resistance, providing a reliable model for future design.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Surface Treatment and Residual Stress · Advanced ceramic materials synthesis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics Sun Yat‐Sen University Shenzhen People's Republic of China
Funding
Natural Science Foundation of Shenzhen Municipality
References (51)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2024.11174410.1016/j.compositesb.2024.111744 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2023.10794210.1016/j.compositesa.2023.107942 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2024.11.04510.1016/j.jmrt.2024.11.045 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.matdes.2011.03.01110.1016/j.matdes.2011.03.011 ↗
5. Linganiso L. Z. · 2016 · 101
6. 10.1016/S0924‐0136(96)02652‐010.1016/S0924‐0136(96)02652‐0 ↗
7. Vlot A. · 2002 · 1
8. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2015.11.00310.1016/j.ijadhadh.2015.11.003 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2007.03.00510.1016/j.ijadhadh.2007.03.005 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.proeng.2013.09.13110.1016/j.proeng.2013.09.131 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.tws.2020.10695210.1016/j.tws.2020.106952 ↗
12. 10.1080/0021846950801439210.1080/00218469508014392 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.12.00110.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.12.001 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2021.10385310.1016/j.ijimpeng.2021.103853 ↗
15. 10.1080/15376494.2021.197461810.1080/15376494.2021.1974618 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2025.10555110.1016/j.ijimpeng.2025.105551 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2021.10760810.1016/j.engfracmech.2021.107608 ↗
18. 10.1002/pc.2771610.1002/pc.27716 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.12.01110.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.12.011 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2021.10655210.1016/j.compositesa.2021.106552 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.tws.2024.11174410.1016/j.tws.2024.111744 ↗
22. 10.1002/pc.2895210.1002/pc.28952 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.12.03310.1016/j.compstruct.2016.12.033 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.10646210.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.106462 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2022.10987110.1016/j.compscitech.2022.109871 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11239810.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112398 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2022.10986510.1016/j.compscitech.2022.109865 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2022.10964110.1016/j.compscitech.2022.109641 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2023.11038710.1016/j.compscitech.2023.110387 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.tws.2025.11309010.1016/j.tws.2025.113090 ↗
31. 10.2139/ssrn.515131510.2139/ssrn.5151315 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.03010.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.030 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.05.03510.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.05.035 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.tws.2022.11035510.1016/j.tws.2022.110355 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11208310.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112083 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2018.04.01110.1016/j.ijimpeng.2018.04.011 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.10434210.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.104342 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2025.10929310.1016/j.compositesa.2025.109293 ↗
39. D30 Committee “Test Method for Measuring the Damage Resistance of a Fiber‐Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite to a Drop‐Weight Impact Event ”https://doi.org/10.1520/D7136_D7136M‐20.10.1520/D7136_D7136M ↗
40. 10.1051/jp4:1991311910.1051/jp4:19913119 ↗
41. 10.1007/s00170‐008‐1521‐610.1007/s00170‐008‐1521‐6 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2013.04.01010.1016/j.ijimpeng.2013.04.010 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.procir.2025.02.00310.1016/j.procir.2025.02.003 ↗
44. G. R.JohnsonandT. J.Holmquist “Test Data and Computational Strength and Fracture Model Constants for 23 Materials Subjected to Large Strains High Strain Rates and High Temperatures LA‐11463‐MS Los Alamos National Laboratory ” 1989.
45. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.08.01310.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.08.013 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.02.00710.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.02.007 ↗
47. 10.1016/0266‐3538(96)00005‐X10.1016/0266‐3538(96)00005‐X ↗
48. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.08.02510.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.08.025 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.tws.2024.11200410.1016/j.tws.2024.112004 ↗
50. 10.1002/pc.2906610.1002/pc.29066 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2007.01.01710.1016/j.compositesa.2007.01.017 ↗