Effect of drop weight impact on the torsional-loading behavior of filament wound and prepreg-wrapped composite tubes
Source abstract
Abstract
This article presents an experimental study on the torsional behavior of composite tubes subjected to impact loadings. Four types of composite tubes with the winding angle of 30°, 45°, 60°, and 75° ([±30] FW , [±45] FW , [±60] FW , and [±75] FW ) were produced with the filament winding method. Besides, a [0,90] PP composite tube was manufactured with the prepreg wrapping technique. After the composite tubes were impacted at 2.5 J, 5.0 J, and 7.5 J, non-impacted and impacted composite tubes were tested under torsional loading. Contact force–deformation curves of impacted tubes are presented. Torsional moment–twist angle relations for both impacted and non-impacted composite tubes were obtained. In addition, front view and side view of the impacted zone of composite tubes are given. The results showed that sample [±60] FW had the best impact performance with regard to absorbed energy. The impacted samples of [±60] FW and [±75] FW had the lowest torsional strength for each energy level.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Cellular and Composite Structures · Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Mechatronics Engineering, H.F.T. Faculty of Technology, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Turgutlu, Manisa, Turkey
Department of Mechanical Engineering, H.F.T. Faculty of Technology, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Turgutlu, Manisa, Turkey
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey
Funding
Manisa Celal Bayar University Scientific Research Projects Uni
References (30)
Show source-provided references
1. Gireesh B · Int J Eng Res Appl · 2013 · 3 · 1510
2. 10.1007/s40430-018-1099-310.1007/s40430-018-1099-3 ↗
3. 10.1088/2053-1591/ab015110.1088/2053-1591/ab0151 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.09.06010.1016/j.compositesb.2012.09.060 ↗
5. 10.1016/S0266-3538(98)00184-510.1016/S0266-3538(98)00184-5 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.12.06110.1016/j.compstruct.2016.12.061 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.matdes.2010.08.04210.1016/j.matdes.2010.08.042 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.matdes.2005.05.02110.1016/j.matdes.2005.05.021 ↗
9. 10.1177/002199830404247910.1177/0021998304042479 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.matdes.2009.06.01510.1016/j.matdes.2009.06.015 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.09.09810.1016/j.compstruct.2017.09.098 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.matdes.2013.05.00410.1016/j.matdes.2013.05.004 ↗
13. 10.1177/002199831772204310.1177/0021998317722043 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.04.05610.1016/j.compositesb.2018.04.056 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.matdes.2014.09.07310.1016/j.matdes.2014.09.073 ↗
16. 10.1108/MMMS-03-2019-005910.1108/MMMS-03-2019-0059 ↗
17. 10.1080/09243046.2016.120712610.1080/09243046.2016.1207126 ↗
18. Fang P
19. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.12.06710.1016/j.compstruct.2014.12.067 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.05.00610.1016/j.compositesb.2018.05.006 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.01.00510.1016/j.compositesb.2017.01.005 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.11.06910.1016/j.compstruct.2015.11.069 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.03.02710.1016/j.compositesb.2018.03.027 ↗
24. 10.1177/002199831141048310.1177/0021998311410483 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.05.01110.1016/j.compositesb.2019.05.011 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.09.04910.1016/j.compstruct.2018.09.049 ↗
27. 10.12783/asc34/3127010.12783/asc34/31270 ↗
28. ASTM D5448/D5448M-11 · 2011
29. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.05.04710.1016/j.compositesb.2013.05.047 ↗
30. Zorica D