4.7 Article

Crushing Characteristics Comparison between Aluminum/CFRP and Aluminum/CFRP/Aluminum Hybrid Tubes

期刊

POLYMERS
卷 14, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/polym14194034

关键词

aluminum; CFRP hybrid tubes; axial crushing behavior; geometry size; experiment

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20210438]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study experimentally investigated the axial crushing characteristics of hybrid tubes with aluminum/CFRP and aluminum/CFRP/aluminum configurations. The results showed that hybrid tubes with [0 degrees/90 degrees] fiber lay-up sequence exhibited better energy absorption performance. Selecting an appropriate tube length-to-diameter ratio is important to achieve a stable and controllable progressive crushing failure mode. The hybrid effect of the energy absorption of hybrid tubes was better than that of individual tubes.
This study experimentally investigated the axial crushing characteristics of the hybrid tubes with the configuration of aluminum/carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) (1/1) and aluminum/CFRP/aluminum (2/1). The effects of geometry size and fiber lay-up sequence on the axial crushing energy-absorption performances and failure modes of the two types of hybrid tubes were compared. The results showed that the energy absorption of the specimens with [0 degrees/90 degrees] lay-up sequence was better than that of the ones with [45 degrees/-45 degrees] lay-up sequence for both types of hybrid tubes. The proper length of the tubes should be selected to avoid too small a length-to-diameter ratio so that a stable and controllable progressive crushing failure mode can be achieved. When the crushing failure process was relatively stable, the specific energy absorption and crushing force efficiency of the 2/1 hybrid tubes were not affected by the geometric size. The energy absorption of the hybrid tubes was higher than the sum of the energy absorption of all the corresponding individual tubes, showing a positive hybrid effect.

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