Using Experimental Observation and Numerical Analysis for Examining the Responses of Carbon and Kevlar Fibers in Cylindrical Composites Exposed to Low-Velocity Impact
الموضوعات : Analytical and Numerical Methods in Mechanical DesignSimin Dokht Rayat 1 , , M.Fazel Hajikarimi 2 , Ali Rahmati 3 , Hamed Ghasemi 4
1 - Ako Sanat Qarn Company, Center of Technology Incubators of Qazvin Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran
2 - Department of Mechanical Engineering ,Qa.C., Islamic Azad University ,Qazvin, Iran
3 - Department of Mechanical Engineering ,Qa.C., Islamic Azad University ,Qazvin, Iran
4 - Department of Mechanical Engineering ,Qa.C., Islamic Azad University ,Qazvin, Iran
الکلمات المفتاحية: Carbon fiber, cylindrical composite, finite element modeling, Kevlar fiber, low-velocity impact,
ملخص المقالة :
Recently, sandwich composites have been in high demand in the air, maritime, and land transportation industries. Particularly, epoxy matrix composites reinforced with carbon fiber have become desirable structural materials due to their high static strength and stiffness characteristics. On the other hand, if Kevlar fibers are used as a substitute for or alongside graphite fibers for reinforcement, the damage tolerance of composite materials may be significantly enhanced. The current research investigated how four composite cylinders constructed of Kevlar and carbon fiber react to low-velocity impact. These cylinders can be classified physically as carbon-only, Kevlar-only, carbon-outside/Kevlar-inside, or Kevlar-inside/carbon-outside. A drop-weight impact device containing a free-falling spherical steel impactor was used to apply the impact to the samples. Abaqus/Explicit software based on finite element modeling (FEM) was employed to assess the impact behavior of specimens. Then, the composite cylinders were modeled as standard shell composite lay-ups, while the impactor was represented as a stiff analytical part. The results demonstrated that carbon fiber was less effective at absorbing energy than Kevlar fiber and that the carbon-only specimen had the strongest contact force and the least deflection compared to the other samples. To further validate the analysis, empirical and numerical findings were carefully compared.
[1] Delvere I, Iltina M, Shanbayev M, et al. Evaluation of polymer matrix composite waste recycling methods. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2019; 23: 168-187.
[2] Benin S, Kannan S, Bright RJ, et al. A review on mechanical characterization of polymer matrix composites & its effects reinforced with various natural fibers. Materials Today: Proceedings 2020; 33: 798-805.
[3] Naik N, Ramasimha R, Arya H, et al. Impact response and damage tolerance characteristics of glass–carbon/epoxy hybrid composite plates. Composites Part B: Engineering 2001; 32: 565-574.
[4] Zhu S and Chai GB. Low-velocity impact response of composite sandwich panels. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications 2016; 230: 388-399.
[5] Mines R, Worrall C and Gibson A. Low-velocity perforation behavior of polymer composite sandwich panels. International Journal of Impact Engineering 1998; 21: 855-879.
[6] Dear J, Lee H, and Brown S. Impact damage processes in composite sheet and sandwich honeycomb materials. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2005; 32: 130-154.
[7] Kumar S, Nageswara Rao B and Pradhan B. Effect of impactor parameters and laminate characteristics on impact response and damage in curved composite laminates. Journal of reinforced plastics and composites 2007; 26: 1273-1290.
[8] Christoforou A and Swanson S. Analysis of impact response in composite plates. International Journal of Solids and Structures 1991; 27: 161-170.
[9] Cairns DS and Lagace PA. Transient response of graphite/epoxy and Kevlar/epoxy laminates subjected to impact. AIAA journal 1989; 27: 1590-1596.
[10] Prasad CB, Ambur DR and Starnes Jr JH. Response of laminated composite plates to low-speed impact by different impactors. AIAA journal 1994; 32: 1270-1277.
[11] Bachrach WE and Hansen RS. Mixed finite-element method for composite cylinder subjected to impact. AIAA journal 1989; 27: 632-638.
[12] Her S-C and Liang Y-C. The finite element analysis of composite laminates and shell structures subjected to low-velocity Impact. Composite Structures 2004; 66: 277-285.
[13] Kaneko T, Sato K, Ujihashi S, et al. Finite-element failure analysis of carbon fiber-reinforced plastic cylinders under transverse impact loading. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications 2007; 221: 103-112.
[14] David-West OS, Nash DH, and Banks WM. Low-velocity heavy mass impact response of singly curved composites. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications 2014; 228: 17-33.
[15] Khalili S, Soroush M, Davar A, et al. Finite element modeling of low-velocity Impact on laminated composite plates and cylindrical shells. Composite Structures 2011; 93: 1363-1375.
[16] Kistler LS and Waas AM. Impact response of cylindrically curved laminates, including a large deformation scaling study. International Journal of impact engineering 1998; 21: 61-75.
[17] Dassault System's Simulia Corp. The ABAQUS6.10-1 user's manual. USA; 2010.
[18] Mahesh V, Joladarashi S and Kulkarni SM. A comprehensive review of material selection for polymer matrix composites subjected to impact load. Defence Technology 2021; 17: 257-277.
[19] Andrew JJ, Srinivasan SM, Arockiarajan A, et al. Parameters influencing the impact response of fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composite materials: A critical review. Composite Structures 2019; 224: 111007.
[20] Ismail MF, Sultan MTH, Hamdan A, et al. Low-velocity impact behavior and post-impact characteristics of kenaf/glass hybrid composites with various weight ratios. Journal of Materials Research and Technology 2019; 8: 2662-2673.
[21] Uslu E, Gavgali M, Erdal MO, et al. Determination of mechanical properties of polymer matrix composites reinforced with electrospinning N66, PAN, PVA, and PVC nanofibers: A comparative study. Materials Today Communications 2021; 26: 101939.
[22] Kosedag E, Caliskan U and Ekici R. The effect of artificial aging on the impact behavior of SiC nanoparticle‐glass fiber‐reinforced polymer matrix composites. Polymer Composites 2022; 43: 964-976.
[23] Ashothaman A, Sudha J and Senthilkumar N. A comprehensive review of biodegradable polylactic acid polymer matrix composite material reinforced with synthetic and natural fibers. Materials Today: Proceedings 2023; 80: 2829-2839.
[24] Rajkumar D, Mahesh V, Joladarashi S, et al. A novel flexible green composite with sisal and natural rubber: investigation under low-velocity Impact. Journal of Natural Fibers 2022; 19: 11696-11707.
[25] Tu R, Liu T, Steinke K, et al. Laser-induced graphene-based out-of-autoclave curing of fiberglass reinforced polymer matrix composites. Composites Science and Technology 2022; 226: 109529.
[26] Rahman MB and Zhu L. Low-velocity impact response on glass fiber reinforced 3D integrated woven spacer sandwich composites. Materials 2022; 15: 2311.
[27] Al-Furjan M, Shan L, Shen X, et al. A review on fabrication techniques and tensile properties of glass, carbon, and Kevlar Fiber Reinforced Polymer composites. Journal of Materials Research and Technology 2022.
[28] Davies GA and Zhang X. Impact damage prediction in carbon composite structures. International Journal of Impact Engineering 1995; 16: 149-170.
[29] Foo C, Seah L and Chai GB. Low-velocity impact failure of aluminum honeycomb sandwich panels. Composite structures 2008; 85: 20-28.
