4.7 Article

Acoustic emission-based failure load prediction for plain woven laminates under quasi-static indentation

Journal

COMPOSITES SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 245, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2023.110355

Keywords

Acoustic emission (AE); Quasi-static indentation (QSI); Failure load prediction; Plain woven composites (CFRP)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study proposes a method for accurately predicting the penetration failure load of composites using acoustic emission (AE) data. The method includes a cyclic loading test schedule and an extrapolation method based on uncertainty. The results show that this method can accurately predict the failure load when LR equals 1.
Composites are widely used in engineering applications, and their penetration resistance is critical for performance and safety. However, testing the failure load of composites directly leads to component failure, making it challenging to evaluate the expected residual capacity. To address this issue, this study proposes an artificial neural network (ANN) method that accurately predicts the penetration failure load of composites using acoustic emission (AE) data. A cyclic loading test schedule is designed to capture the AE data during each cycle, and a relationship between AE data and load ratio (LR) is established. To predict the failure load, an extrapolation method (EM) based on uncertainty is proposed in this paper. This approach enables the prediction of failure load intervals when LR equals 1, with relative errors of less than 7.66%. In cases where multiple loads are not feasible, the single-point prediction method (SPM) can be used instead of the extrapolation method. However, it is crucial to avoid training AE data during the initial loading stage for accurate predictions. This study recommends a loading ratio of more than 0.1 for optimal results with this approach.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available