Simulation on impact response of FMLs: effect of fiber stacking sequence, thickness, and incident angle
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract We built a three-dimensional finite element (FE) model to investigate the impact response of fiber-metal laminates (FMLs). This FE model comprises two metal layers as facesheets and a carbon woven fabric-reinforced plastic laminate as inner core. Simulation was performed on ABAQUS/Explicit platform, and stiffness progressive degeneration criteria were implemented to evaluate damages in composites. The Johnson-Cook model was selected to calculate failures in metal, while surface-based cohesive behavior was adopted to simulate the delamination phenomenon. We studied the fiber stacking sequence, panel thickness, and incident angle effect on the impact behavior of FMLs. The critical penetration energy of the FMLs was determined, and the impact parameter history was discussed.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Structural Response to Dynamic Loads · High-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Mechanical and Power Engineering , East China University of Science and Technology , Meilong Road 130 , Shanghai 200237 , China , Phone: + 862164251623
College of Aerospace and Civil Engineering , Harbin Engineering University , Harbin , China
References (18)
Show source-provided references
1. Alderliesten RC, Homan JJ. Int. J. Fatigue 2006, 28, 1116–1123.10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2006.02.01510.1016/j.ijfatigue.2006.02.015 ↗
2. Sitnikova E, Guan ZW, Schleyer GK. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2014, 51, 3135–3146.10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.05.01010.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.05.010 ↗
3. Yang B, Wang ZQ, Zhou LM, Zhang JF, Liang WY. Compos. Struct. 2015, 132, 464–476.10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.05.06910.1016/j.compstruct.2015.05.069 ↗
4. Yaghoubi AS, Liaw B. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2013, 54, 138–148.10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2012.10.00710.1016/j.ijimpeng.2012.10.007 ↗
5. Edison EH, Jerzy AS, Akindele GO. Compos. Part A 2016, 87, 54–65.10.1016/j.compositesa.2016.04.007
6. Zohreh A, Taheri F. Compos. Struct. 2016, 140, 136–146.10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.12.01510.1016/j.compstruct.2015.12.015 ↗
7. Yu GC, Wu LZ, Ma L, Xiong J. Compos. Struct. 2015, 119, 757–766.10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.09.05410.1016/j.compstruct.2014.09.054 ↗
8. Chai GB, Manikandan P. Compos. Struct. 2014, 107, 363–381.10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.08.00310.1016/j.compstruct.2013.08.003 ↗
9. Iannucci L. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2006, 32, 1013–1043.10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2004.08.00610.1016/j.ijimpeng.2004.08.006 ↗
10. Moriniere FD, Alderliesten RC, Benedictus R. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2014, 67, 27–38.10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2014.01.00410.1016/j.ijimpeng.2014.01.004 ↗
11. Johnson GR, Cook WH. In Seventh International Symposium on Ballistics, The Hague, Netherlands, 1983, 541–547.
12. Buyuk M, Kan S, Loikkanen MJ. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2009, 22, 287–295.10.1061/(ASCE)0893-1321(2009)22:3(287)10.1061/(ASCE)0893-1321(2009)22:3(287) ↗
13. Krueger R, Minguet PJ, Brien TK. ASTM STP 1383; NASA Langley Research Center 2000, 105–128.
14. Balzani C, Wagner W. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2008, 75, 2597–2615.10.1016/j.engfracmech.2007.03.01310.1016/j.engfracmech.2007.03.013 ↗
15. Hashin Z. J. Appl. Mech. 1980, 47, 329–334.10.1115/1.315366410.1115/1.3153664 ↗
16. Naik NK, Sekher YC, Meduri S. J. Reinf. Plast. Comp. 2000, 19, 912–954.10.1106/X80M-4UEF-CPPK-M15E10.1106/X80M-4UEF-CPPK-M15E ↗
17. Abaqus 6.9 Example Problems Manual 1.4.6. Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corporation, 2010.
18. Johnson G, Cook W. Eng. Fract. Mech. 1985, 21, 31–48.10.1016/0013-7944(85)90052-910.1016/0013-7944(85)90052-9 ↗