4.4 Article

Comparisons of axial compression behaviors between four-directional and five-directional braided composite tubes under high strain rate loading

Journal

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS
Volume 50, Issue 28, Pages 3905-3924

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0021998316628619

Keywords

Circular braided composite tubes; impact compression behavior; specific energy absorption; finite element method

Funding

  1. Chang Jiang Scholars Program
  2. National Science Foundation of China [11272087, 11572085]
  3. Foundation for the Fok Ying-Tong Education Foundation [141070]
  4. Shu Guang'' project [14SG31]
  5. Shanghai Municipal Education Commission
  6. Shanghai Education Development Foundation
  7. Central Universities of China
  8. DHU Distinguished Young Professor Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper reports the compressive behaviors of three-dimensional four-directional and three-dimensional five-directional circular braided composite tubes subjected to quasi-static and impact compressions along longitudinal direction. The compression tests of the three-dimensional four-directional and three-dimensional five-directional carbon fiber/epoxy circular braided composite tubes were tested under strain rates ranging from 0.001 to 884s(-1). The compression stress-strain curves were obtained and the damage morphologies were observed to analyze the damage behaviors. A microstructure model of the braided preform and the braided composite tube was established to calculate the compressive deformation and damage mechanisms with finite element method. The stress-strain curves, specific energy absorption, deformations, and damage morphologies were sensitive to the strain rate and the braiding structures. The three-dimensional five-directional braided composite tubes have higher compressive strength and specific energy absorptions than the three-dimensional four-directional braided composite tubes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available