4.7 Article

Numerical and experimental investigations into post-buckling responses of stainless steel- and magnesium-based 3D-fiber metal laminates reinforced by basalt and glass fabrics

期刊

COMPOSITES PART B-ENGINEERING
卷 200, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108300

关键词

Three-dimensional fiber metal laminates (3DFMLs); Buckling analysis; Post-buckling analysis; Finite element modelling; Basalt fabric; E-glass fabric; Magnesium; Stainless steel

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. Killam Foundation
  3. Nova Scotia Graduate Scholarship (NSGS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents the details and results of a series of follow-up experimental and numerical investigations that were conducted to establish the buckling behaviour of special three-dimensional fiber metal laminates (3D-FMLs). This FML is made of a special 3D fiberglass fabric (3DFGF)-epoxy composite, which also hosts a two-part liquid urethane foam within its core cavities and further reinforced with basalt and E-glass bidirectional fabrics. 3D-FML panels with six different configurations were fabricated and beam-like specimens were extracted from the panels. The specimens were subjected to uniaxial compression loading. This follow-up study focuses on investigating the effects and level of improvement in the performance of the 3D-FMLs by utilizing magnesium and stainless steel as the face-sheet materials and the enhancement gained by the basalt and E-glass fabrics. The responses of the 3D-FMLs are also simulated numerically. By comparing the numerical and experimental results, it will be explicitly demonstrated that the developed FE framework could serve as an effective and accurate means for establishing the performance of such FMLs, including those with more complex geometries and loading conditions. In addition, the most effective 3D-FMLs are identified and ranked based on their buckling capacity with respect to their cost and weight.

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

4.7
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