Computational assessment of sustainable balsa and basalt composite sandwich for structural marine applications
Source abstract
Abstract
In response to environmental challenges and the demand for sustainability, this study explores a novel engineering structure, harnessing the potential of bio-based materials within the framework of composite sandwich structures. This investigation employs finite element modeling to assess sandwich structures composed of End-grain balsa wood and fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) facesheets. These facesheets incorporate glass, carbon, and basalt fibers, enabling a direct comparison between conventional and bio-based materials. Mechanical responses are evaluated under numerical flexural loading using Abaqus/Implicit, with a specialized wood material model integrated via a User Material (UMAT) subroutine. A 2D Hashin failure criterion assesses FRP facesheets. Intriguingly, findings indicate minimal influence from FRP on structural performance, while balsa wood and the core-casings interface emerge as decisive factors.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Structural Analysis and Optimization · Structural Analysis of Composite Materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Engineering, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
Intelligent System Design Laboratory, Faculty of Sciences, Abdelmalek Essaadi University, Tetouan, Morocco
Laboratoire des Sciences de l'Ingénieur et Applications, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, National School of Applied Sciences of Al Hoceima (ENSAH), Al Hoceima, Morocco
Technical Department, Intermarine Spa, Sarzana, Italy
Funding
Development of Ahead Systems and Processes for Highly AdvaNced TechnOlogies for low Magnetic Signature and HIghly eFFicient Electromagnetic shielded eco-friendly vessel – DAS PHANTOMSHIFFE
References (58)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1177/109963621879116210.1177/1099636218791162 ↗
2. 10.1007/BF0232629210.1007/BF02326292 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.mechmat.2015.01.01410.1016/j.mechmat.2015.01.014 ↗
4. Cremonini C, Negro F, Properzi M (2008) Wood-based composites in marine craft : the state of the art in Italy. In: COST action E49 international workshop in Slovenia on lightweight wood–based composites – production, properties and usage, COST Action 849, pp.15–33.
5. D7264 (2007) Flexural properties of polymer matrix composite materials 1. ASTM Stand: 1–11.
6. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2007.07.00310.1016/j.ijsolstr.2007.07.003 ↗
7. 10.1016/S0263-8223(03)00040-010.1016/S0263-8223(03)00040-0 ↗
8. 10.1106/10567890202724710.1106/105678902027247 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.12.01110.1016/j.compositesb.2014.12.011 ↗
10. 10.1016/S0013-7944(01)00083-210.1016/S0013-7944(01)00083-2 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11263110.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112631 ↗
12. 10.1177/109963621348700410.1177/1099636213487004 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.10871810.1016/j.compositesb.2021.108718 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.12.03410.1016/j.compositesb.2014.12.034 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.matdes.2014.10.03210.1016/j.matdes.2014.10.032 ↗
16. 10.1177/1056789521101906510.1177/10567895211019065 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.tws.2022.11050110.1016/j.tws.2022.110501 ↗
18. 10.1177/00219983730070040410.1177/002199837300700404 ↗
19. 10.1016/0025-5416(78)90045-910.1016/0025-5416(78)90045-9 ↗
20. 10.1098/rspa.1948.004510.1098/rspa.1948.0045 ↗
21. 10.1177/00219983670010021010.1177/002199836700100210 ↗
22. 10.1002/nme.241110.1002/nme.2411 ↗
23. Intermarine. Home Page. Available at: https://www.intermarine.it/it/home (accessed 7 October 2023).
24. 10.1016/j.culher.2015.09.00810.1016/j.culher.2015.09.008 ↗
25. 10.1177/10567895950040030210.1177/105678959500400302 ↗
26. 10.1007/978-3-7091-2806-010.1007/978-3-7091-2806-0 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2004.08.00410.1016/j.compscitech.2004.08.004 ↗
28. 10.1002/pc.2016210.1002/pc.20162 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2011.01.03010.1016/j.compositesb.2011.01.030 ↗
30. 10.1007/s00466-003-0423-610.1007/s00466-003-0423-6 ↗
31. 10.1177/1056789521103548010.1177/10567895211035480 ↗
32. 10.1177/109963621878198110.1177/1099636218781981 ↗
33. 10.1007/s40032-021-00676-w10.1007/s40032-021-00676-w ↗
34. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.11520610.1016/j.compstruct.2022.115206 ↗
35. 10.1007/978-94-007-2666-610.1007/978-94-007-2666-6 ↗
36. Nettles AT Douglas MJ. A comparison of quasi-static indentation testing to low velocity impact testing. In: Nettles AT and Zureick A (eds) Composite Materials: Testing Design and Acceptance Criteria ASTM STP 1416. West Conshohocken PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.
37. Nguyen AC Gamerro J Bocquet J-F et al. (2019) 3D finite element model for shear stiffness of wood-wood connections for engineered timber panels. Available at: http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/267583 (accessed 30 May 2023).
38. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.00910.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.009 ↗
39. 10.1016/S0266-3538(96)00140-610.1016/S0266-3538(96)00140-6 ↗
40. Sandhaas C (2011) 3D material model for wood based on continuum damage mechanics user subroutine umat. TU Delft factulteit CiTG. Available at: https://research.tudelft.nl/en/publications/3d-material-model-for-wood-based-on-continuum-damage-mechanics (accessed 26 May 2023).
41. Sandhaas C (2012) Mechanical behaviour of timber joints with slotted-in steel plates. Technische Universiteit Delft. Available at: https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3Adf5dbd8f-d19e-407d-aadd-48ad29a5fe97 (accessed 30 May 2023).
42. 10.1007/s00226-019-01142-810.1007/s00226-019-01142-8 ↗
43. Sandhaas C, Van De Kuilen JW, Blass HJ (2012) Constitutive model for wood based on continuum damage mechanics. In: World Conference on Timber Engineering, pp.159–167.
44. Sandhaas C, Van De Kuilen JWG (2013) Material model for wood. Heron 53: 179–200.
45. Sandhu RS (1972) A survey of failure theories of isotropic and anisotropic materials. Available at: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0756889 (accessed 29 May 2023).
46. 10.1177/109963621882233310.1177/1099636218822333 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.11036110.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110361 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.11.00110.1016/j.engstruct.2008.11.001 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.08.00710.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.08.007 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.04.09310.1016/j.jmrt.2020.04.093 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2007.02.02010.1016/j.compositesb.2007.02.020 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.03.01710.1016/j.engstruct.2014.03.017 ↗
53. 10.1177/00219983710050010610.1177/002199837100500106 ↗
54. 10.1177/1056789522114623910.1177/10567895221146239 ↗
55. 10.1177/105678951775252410.1177/1056789517752524 ↗
56. 10.1016/j.corsci.2010.09.05310.1016/j.corsci.2010.09.053 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2022.10972510.1016/j.compositesb.2022.109725 ↗
58. 10.3390/polym1414280410.3390/polym14142804 ↗