4.7 Article

Energy absorption of braiding pultrusion process composite rods

Journal

COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
Volume 55, Issue 4, Pages 407-417

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0263-8223(01)00160-X

Keywords

energy absorber; braided pultrusion; composite rod; failure mechanism; crush behaviour

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Composite body structures are now commonly used in road and rail vehicles, ships and submarines, aircraft and spacecraft due to their capability to effectively absorb high kinetic energy to weight ratio. One such structure designed as an energy device with predetermined properties is a braided pultruded process (BPP) composite rod of either circular or square cross-section. This paper reports the results of an investigation on circular BPP rods and unidirectional pultruded process rods in epoxy matrix subjected to compressive loading. Test results depict BPP rods to have superior properties in comparison to the unidirectional rods in terms of energy absorption capability that is manifested through well-defined progressive crushing failure mechanisms. Generally the rods' fracture and complete failure mechanisms show distinct creation of buckling zone, followed by generation of fronds as the wedge area increases with every augmentation of applied load. Fracture morphology related to overall performance characteristics is discussed through the step-by-step analysis of microphotography. The specific energy absorption property is shown to be best achieved in carbon/carbon (C/C) BPP followed by glass/carbon (G/C) rod combination and then the glass/glass (G/G) BPP rods. The latter (G/G), although worst performer of all the rods in terms of energy characteristics, still outperforms the documented best tubes made of Kevlar fibres, steel and aluminium. On average, the carbon/carbon (C/C) BPP rod's specific energy absorption is between 35% and 55% more than the nearest comparable tubes. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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