4.5 Article

Experimental study on the indentation of epoxy resin-aluminum honeycomb composite sandwich panel

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15376494.2019.1605009

关键词

Sandwich; composite; epoxy resin; indentation; experiment

资金

  1. Yanshan University Dr. Fund [BL17027]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study introduces a new type of epoxy resin-aluminum honeycomb composite sandwich panel, which shows good integrality, stability, and energy absorption capacity. The typical force-displacement curve exhibits three types and is influenced by various parameters that affect the strength and energy absorption capacity of the composite sandwich panel. Compared to traditional sandwich panels, the newly developed composite sandwich panel demonstrates significantly improved mechanical properties and maintains good stability under indentation.
The present study develops a new type of epoxy resin-aluminum honeycomb composite sandwich panel. Failure modes and typical force-displacement curves are measured through quasi-static localized indentation tests. The effects of different parameters on the elastic ultimate load and energy absorption are analyzed. The results indicate that the newly developed composite sandwich panel has good integrality, stability, and energy absorption capacity. The typical force-displacement curve exhibits three types and all of them consist of six phases, namely: elastic phase, local damage phase, strengthening phase, global damage phase, compaction phase, and bottom destruction phase. The strength and the energy absorption capacity of the composite sandwich panel are affected by composite layer thickness, additional layer thickness, boundary condition, and indenter type. Compared to those of traditional sandwich panel, the mechanical properties of the integrated composite sandwich panel are significantly improved, as the specimen maintains good stability under indentation without undergoing detachment or cracking between the composite layer and the core.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据