Effects of Rubber Core on the Mechanical Behaviour of the Carbon–Aramid Composite Materials Subjected to Low-Velocity Impact Loading Considering Water Absorption
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
2.2. Experimental Method
2.2.1. Low-Velocity Drop Impact Test
2.2.2. Moisture Absorption
2.2.3. Post-Impact Microscopic Analysis
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Results Obtained in Low-Velocity Impact Tests for Dried Specimens
3.2. Comparative Analysis of the Impact Behaviour for Both Composite Materials Tested before Immersion in Water
3.3. Absorption Data
3.4. Results Obtained in Low-Velocity Impact Tests after Immersion in Water
3.5. Effects of Water Absorption on the Behaviour of the Composite Materials in Low-Velocity Impact Tests
3.6. Failure Modes in Low-Velocity Impact Test
4. Conclusions
- Maximum displacement recorded for the CK2R sandwich composites with a rubber core is 26% and 22% higher for the impact energies of 25 J and 50 J, respectively, than the values recorded for the CK carbon–aramid composite materials. It is obvious that the time until reaching the maximum displacement is greater for the CK2R sandwich composites with a rubber core.
- The replacement of the middle two layers reinforced with carbon–aramid hybrid fabric with the rubber core in the sandwich composite leads to a delay in energy absorption during the low-velocity impact test while the absorbed energy is approximately the same as the one absorbed by the CK composite materials at the final of the impact test for both the 25 J and 50 J impact energies.
- In the case of impact tests for the dry specimens, matrix cracks and delamination at the fibre–matrix interface developed in the low-velocity impact test at an impact energy of 25. It was found that at an impact energy of 50 J, both the carbon fibres and aramid fibres break in the sandwich composite materials with rubber core, while only breakages of carbon fibres are observed in the composite material without rubber core. A complete rupture of all layers was not observed in the case of both composite materials;
- For the CK2R sandwich composite materials with rubber core, the water content of 4.97% at saturation is twice the water content (2.42%) absorbed by the CK composite materials until saturation.
- In the case of testing of the CK composite materials reinforced with carbon–aramid fabrics, with the impact energy of 50 J, the average value of the absorbed energy was 41.84 J for the complete breakage of all the layers after 8440 h of immersion in water while the absorbed energy was 49.79 J for dried specimens which were not perforated. It follows that the absorbed energy of the wet CK specimens was approximately 16% less than the one absorbed by dried specimens. The damages occurred for the CK dried specimens are carbon fibre breakage, matrix cracks, and delamination at matrix-fibre interfaces.
- In the case of testing of the CK2R composite materials, the average value of the absorbed energy was 23.26 J for the complete breakage of all the layers after 10,513 h of immersion in water while the absorbed energy was 49.77 J for dried specimens which were not perforated. Therefore, the decrease in the absorbed impact energy was 53.26% after 10,513 h of immersion in water. The damages that occurred for the CK2R dried specimens are breakage of both the carbon and aramid fibres, matrix cracks, and delamination at matrix–fibre interfaces.
- The replacement of two core layers reinforced with carbon–aramid fabric with the rubber core is a reliable solution for the applications of these types of composite materials in dried environments because the degradation of the impact properties is much more pronounced for the composite material with rubber core after water absorption.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gururaja, M.N.; Rao, A.N.H. A Review on Recent Applications and Future Prospectus of Hybrid Composites. Int. J. Soft Comput. Eng. (IJSCE) 2012, 1, 352–355. [Google Scholar]
- Zagho, M.M.; Hussein, E.A.; Elzatahry, A.A. Recent Overviews in Functional Polymer Composites for Biomedical Applications. Polymers 2018, 10, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ravishankar, B.; Nayak, S.K.; Kader, M.A. Hybrid composites for automotive applications—A review. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2019, 38, 835–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sathishkumar, T.P.; Naveen, J.; Satheeshkumar, S. Hybrid fiber reinforced polymer composites—A review. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2014, 33, 454–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanjay, M.R.; Arpitha, G.R.; Yogesha, B. Study on Mechanical Properties of Natural-Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer Hybrid Composites: A Review. Mater. Today-Proc. 2015, 2, 2959–2967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunna, S.; Chandra, P.R.; Shrivastava, S.; Jalan, A.K. A review on mechanical behavior of natural fiber based hybrid composites. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2012, 31, 759–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramana, M.V.; Ramprasad, S. Experimental Investigation on Jute/Carbon Fibre reinforced Epoxy based Hybrid Composites. Mater. Today-Proc. 2017, 4, 8654–8664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Priyanka, P.; Dixit, A.; Mali, H.S. High-Strength Hybrid Textile Composites with Carbon, Kevlar, and E-Glass Fibers for Impact-Resistant Structures. A Review. Mech. Compos. Mater. 2017, 53, 685–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagih, A.; Sebaey, T.A.; Yudhanto, A.; Lubineau, G. Post-impact flexural behavior of carbon-aramid/epoxy hybrid composites. Compos. Struct. 2020, 239, 112022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerbu, C.; Ursache, S.; Botis, M.F.; Hadar, A. Simulation of the Hybrid Carbon-Aramid Composite Materials Based on Mechanical Characterization by Digital Image Correlation Method. Polymers 2021, 13, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerbu, C.; Wang, H.W.; Botis, M.F.; Huang, Z.; Plescan, C. Temperature effects on the mechanical properties of hybrid composites reinforced with vegetable and glass fibers. Mech. Mater. 2020, 149, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, D.H.; Cerbu, C.; Wang, H.W.; Rosca, I.C. Analysis of the hybrid composite materials reinforced with natural fibers considering digital image correlation (DIC) measurements. Mech. Mater. 2019, 135, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guiman, M.V.; Stanciu, M.D.; Rosca, I.C.; Georgescu, S.V.; Nastac, S.M.; Campean, M. Influence of the Grain Orientation of Wood upon Its Sound Absorption Properties. Materials 2023, 16, 5998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanciu, M.D.; Draghicescu, H.T.; Tamas, F.; Terciu, O.M. Mechanical and Rheological Behaviour of Composites Reinforced with Natural Fibres. Polymers 2020, 12, 1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simil, T.S.; Midhun, A.J.; James, V.J.; Lakshmidasan, S.K.; Usha, K.M.; Rakesh, S. Study on Mechanical Properties of Carbon-Carbon Composites Developed for Aerospace Applications. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Carbon Materials (CCM)—Carbon Materials for Energy Harvesting, Environment, Nanoscience and Technology (Carbon Materials), Mumbai, India, 1–3 November 2012; pp. 163–167. [Google Scholar]
- Grimberg, R.; Savin, A.; Steigmann, R.; Bruma, A. Eddy current examination of carbon fibres in carbon-epoxy composites and Kevlar. Int. J. Mater. Prod. Technol. 2006, 27, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, H.; Markina, A.A.; Porotnikov, M.V.; Ahmad, F.; Publishing, I.O.P. A review of carbon fiber materials in automotive industry. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Modern Trends in Manufacturing Technologies and Equipment (ICMTMTE), Sevastopol, Crimea, 7–11 September 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Yashiro, S.; Ogi, K. Fracture behavior in CFRP cross-ply laminates with initially cut fibers. Compos. Part A-Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2009, 40, 938–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hadar, A.; Baciu, F.; Voicu, A.D.; Vlasceanu, D.; Tudose, D.I.; Adetu, C. Mechanical Characteristics Evaluation of a Single Ply and Multi-Ply Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Subjected to Tensile and Bending Loads. Polymers 2022, 14, 3213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spanu, P.; Doicin, C.V.; Ulmeanu, M.E.; Baciu, F. Analyzing the Tensile Strength of Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Epoxy Composites Using LabVIEW Virtual Instrument. Materiale Plastice 2024, 61, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baba, M.N.; Dogaru, F. Low-Velocity Transverse Impact Investigations of CFRP Composite Laminated Plates—Simplified Static Simulations Versus Dynamic Experimental Tests. In The 15th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 386, pp. 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baba, M.N.; Dogaru, F.; Guiman, M.V. Low Velocity Impact Response of Laminate Rectangular Plates Made of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastics. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 46, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pincheira, G.; Canales, C.; Medina, C.; Fernandez, E.; Flores, P. Influence of aramid fibers on the mechanical behavior of a hybrid carbon-aramid-reinforced epoxy composite. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part L-J. Mater.-Des. Appl. 2018, 232, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rashid, A.H.A.; Ahmad, R.; Jaafar, M.; Roslan, M.N.; Ariffin, S. Mechanical Properties Evaluation of Woven Coir and Kevlar Reinforced Epoxy Composites. Adv. Mater. Res. Qir 12 2011, 277, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sismanoglu, S.; Gungor, A.; Aslan, B.; Sen, D. The synthesis and mechanical characterisation of laminated hybrid-epoxy matrix composites. Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 2017, 31, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, W.; Yu, Y.; Zhang, Z.X.; Liu, C.Y.; Tong, Y. Impact resistance of CFRP-reinforced wood beams under axial force using a digital image correlation method. Compos. Struct. 2021, 261, 113276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gustin, J.; Joneson, A.; Mahinfalah, M.; Stone, J. Low velocity impact of combination Kevlar/carbon fiber sandwich composites. Compos. Struct. 2005, 69, 396–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, T.P.; Saadatmanesh, H. Behavior of concrete beams strengthened with fiber-reinforced polymer laminates under impact loading. J. Compos. Constr. 2003, 7, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dorey, G.; Sidey, G.R.; Hutchings, J. Impact properties of carbon fibre/Kevlar 49 fibre hybrid composites. Composites 1978, 9, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jang, B.Z.; Chen, L.C.; Wang, C.Z.; Lin, H.T.; Zee, R.H. Impact resistance and energy-absorption mechanisms in hybrid composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 1989, 34, 305–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ursache, S.; Cerbu, C.; Hadar, A. Characteristics of Carbon and Kevlar Fibres, Their Composites and Structural Applications in Civil Engineering-A Review. Polymers 2024, 16, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Akay, M.; Mun, S.K.A.; Stanley, A. Influence of moisture on the thermal and mechanical properties of autoclaved and oven-cured Kevlar-49/epoxy laminates. Compos. Sci. Technol. 1997, 57, 565–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maharana, S.M.; Pandit, M.K.; Pradhan, A.K. Effect of Moisture Absorption on Mode II Fracture Behavior of Fumed Silica Reinforced Hybrid Fiber Composite. J. Nat. Fibers 2022, 19, 12548–12564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mani, M.; Thiyagu, M.; Krishnan, P.K. Effects of moisture absorption analysis of kevlar/carbon/glass/polyurethane epoxy hybrid sandwich composites with nano silicon particles. Adv. Mater. Process. Technol. 2024, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doxsee, L.E.; Janssens, W.; Verpoest, I.; Demeester, P. Strength of aramid-epoxy composites during moisture absorption. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 1991, 10, 645–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, Y.Z.; Chen, G.C.; Huang, Y.; Li, Q.Y.; Zhou, F.G.; Xin, J.Y.; Wang, Y.L. Characterization of three-dimensional braided carbon/Kevlar hybrid composites for orthopedic usage. Mater. Sci. Eng. A-Struct. Mater. Prop. Microstruct. Process. 2005, 398, 227–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pai, Y.; Pai, K.D.; Kini, M.V. Experimental investigations on the moisture absorption and mechanical behaviour of basalt-aramid/epoxy hybrid interply composites under different ageing environments. Cogent Eng. 2022, 9, 2080354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minoshima, K.; Tsuru, K.; Komai, K. Influence of vacuum and water on tensile fracture behaviour of aramid fibres. Damage Fract. Mech. Comput. Aided Assess. Control 1998, 19, 595–604. [Google Scholar]
- Yahaya, R.; Sapuan, S.M.; Jawaid, M.; Leman, Z.; Zainudin, E.S. Water absorption behaviour and impact strength of Kenaf-Kevlar reinforced epoxy hybrid composites. Adv. Compos. Lett. 2016, 25, 98–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jagadeesh, P.; Puttegowda, M.; Girijappa, Y.G.T.; Shivanna, P.; Rangappa, S.M.; Siengchin, S. Investigations on physical, mechanical, morphological and water absorption properties of ramie/hemp/kevlar reinforced vinyl ester hybrid composites. J. Vinyl Addit. Technol. 2023, 29, 555–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raja, N.D.; Kumar, K.V.A.; Salunkhe, S.; Hussein, H.M.A. Investigation of Water Absorption Properties of 2D Interwoven Kevlar-Jute Reinforced Hybrid Laminates. J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samlal, S.; Santhanakrishnan, R. Low-Velocity Impact Behavior of Foam Core Sandwich Panels with Inter-Ply and Intra-Ply Carbon/Kevlar/Epoxy Hybrid Face Sheets. Polymers 2022, 14, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gowda, T.G.Y.; Vinod, A.; Madhu, P.; Rangappa, S.M.; Siengchin, S.; Jawaid, M. Mechanical and thermal properties of flax/carbon/kevlar based epoxy hybrid composites. Polym. Compos. 2022, 43, 5649–5662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Priyanka, P.; Mali, H.S.; Dixit, A. Dynamic mechanical behaviour of kevlar and carbon-kevlar hybrid fibre reinforced polymer composites. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C-J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 2021, 235, 4181–4193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agarwal, S.; Pai, Y.; Pai, D.; Mahesha, G.T. Assessment of ageing effect on the mechanical and damping characteristics of thin quasi-isotropic hybrid carbon-Kevlar/epoxy intraply composites. Cogent Eng. 2023, 10, 2235111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, Y.Z.; Wang, Y.L.; Huang, Y.; Luo, H.L.; He, F.; Chen, G.C. Moisture absorption in a three-dimensional braided carbon/Kevlar/epoxy hybrid composite for orthopaedic usage and its influence on mechanical performance. Compos. Part A-Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2006, 37, 1480–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, S.; Zheng, X.T.; Zhang, D.; Ya, L.L. Impact Response of Carbon/Kevlar Hybrid 3D Woven Composite Under High Velocity Impact: Experimental and Numerical Study. Appl. Compos. Mater. 2020, 27, 285–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Technical Data Sheet of SIGRATEX Woven Fabrics. In Brochure: The Drapables. Our Textile Materials Made from Carbon, Glass and Aramid Fibres. p. 13. Available online: https://www.sglcarbon.com/pdf/SGL-Brochure-The-Drapables-EN.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2024).
- Technical Datasheet of Epolam 2031 Epoxy Resin and EPOLAM 2031–2032 Hardeners. Available online: https://www.jacomp.fi/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/epolam2031-2031-2032.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2024).
- Technical Datasheetfor Ruber Sheets. COMART Rubber Sheet. Available online: https://artego.ro/en/rubber-sheets/ (accessed on 20 July 2024).
- Bolton Adhesives. Technical Datasheet—BISON EPOXY UNIVERSAL BLISTER 24 ML. Available online: https://www.bison.net/en-en/products/bison-epoxy-universal-blister-24-ml-multi-lan (accessed on 20 July 2024).
- Petrescu, H.A.; Hadar, A.; Pastrama, S.D. Experimental program for impact tests on a honeycomb core composite material. Proc. Rom. Acad. Ser. A-Math. Phys. Tech. Sci. Inf. Sci. 2017, 18, 150–157. [Google Scholar]
- EN ISO 6603-2:2000; Plastics—Determination of Puncture Impact Behaviour of Rigid Plastics—Part 2: Instrumented Impact Testing. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2000.
- EN ISO 7765-2:2022; Plastic Film and Sheeting—Determination of Impact Resistance by the Free Falling Dart Method—Part 2: Instrumented Puncture Test. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022.
- ISO 62:2008; Plastics—Determination of Water Absorption, Third Edition. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
- Cerbu, C.; Cosereanu, C. Moisture Effects on the Mechanical Behavior of Fir Wood Flour/Glass Reinforced Epoxy Composite. Bioresources 2016, 11, 8364–8385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, C.H.; Springer, G.S. Moisture Absorption and Desorption of Composite-Materials. J. Compos. Mater. 1976, 10, 2–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naceri, A. An analysis of moisture diffusion according to Fick’s law and the tensile mechanical behavior of glass-fabric-reinforced composite. Mech. Compos. Mater. 2009, 45, 331–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Reinforcement Material | Thread Counts per cm (Warp/Weft Direction) | Type of Woven Fabric | Density per Area Unit (g/m2) | Fineness of Yarns (dtex) |
---|---|---|---|---|
SIGRATEX H W215-TW2/2 | 5.7 | Twill 2/2 | 215 | 2000 (for C 1) 1600 (for K 1) |
Material | Tensile Modulus (MPa) | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Flexural Modulus E (MPa) | Flexural Strength (MPa) |
---|---|---|---|---|
EPOLAM 2031 epoxy resin complex | 3600 | 80 | 2900 | 130 |
Composite Material | Specimen Codes 1 | Material Structure of the Specimen | Type of Specimens | Number of Specimens Tested | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Impact Energy 25 J | Impact Energy 50 J | ||||
Carbon–aramid/epoxy Epolam 2031 | CK801…CK810 | Panel having eight layers reinforced with carbon–aramid hybrid fabric | Dried specimens | 5 | 5 |
CK811…CK815, CK818…CK822 | Wet specimens | 5 | 5 | ||
Carbon–aramid with rubber core/epoxy Epolam 2031 | CK2R17…CK2R26 | Sandwich panel with both faces made of composite material containing three layers reinforced with carbon–aramid hybrid fabric and a rubber core | Dried specimens | 5 | 5 |
CK2R01…CK2R10 | Wet specimens | 5 | 5 |
Impact Energy E (J) | Specimen Code 1 | Thickness of the Specimen h (mm) | Absorbed Energy W (J) | Maximum Displacement δmax at Velocity v = 0 (mm) | Time t at Maximum Displacement δmax (s) | Recoil Velocity vR (m/s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
25 | CK806 | 2.61 | 23.79 | 7.96 | 0.0058 | −0.60 |
CK807 | 2.55 | 23.57 | 7.91 | 0.0057 | −0.63 | |
CK808 | 2.65 | 23.63 | 7.91 | 0.0058 | −0.62 | |
CK809 | 2.59 | 23.94 | 8.19 | 0.0061 | −0.58 | |
CK810 | 2.62 | 23.74 | 7.86 | 0.0058 | −0.61 | |
Average (stdev) | 2.60 (0.037) | 23.73 (0.144) | 7.97 (0.130) | 0.0058 (0.00015) | −0.61 (0.019) | |
50 | CK801 | 2.62 | 49.91 | 11.69 | 0.0064 | −0.46 |
CK802 | 2.65 | 49.87 | 11.63 | 0.0063 | −0.46 | |
CK803 | 2.61 | 49.97 | 11.63 | 0.0064 | −0.45 | |
CK804 | 2.61 | 49.57 | 11.36 | 0.0062 | −0.51 | |
CK805 | 2.62 | 49.63 | 11.63 | 0.0062 | −0.51 | |
Average (stdev) | 2.62 (0.016) | 49.79 (0.178) | 11.59 (0.130) | 0.0063 (0.0001) | −0.48 (0.030) |
Impact Energy E (J) | Specimen Code 1 | Thickness of the Specimen h (mm) | Absorbed Energy W (J) | Maximum Displacement δmax at Velocity v = 0 (mm) | Time t at Maximum Displacement δmax (s) | Recoil Velocity (m/s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
25 | CK2R22 | 3.74 | 23.91 | 10.41 | 0.0077 | −0.61 |
CK2R23 | 3.83 | 23.92 | 9.65 | 0.0069 | −0.56 | |
CK2R24 | 3.82 | 23.37 | 9.33 | 0.0068 | −0.63 | |
CK2R25 | 3.74 | 24.11 | 9.90 | 0.0079 | −0.57 | |
CK2R26 | 3.85 | 23.16 | 9.87 | 0.0071 | −0.67 | |
Average (stdev) | - - | 3.79 (0.052) | 23.69 (0.406) | 9.83 (0.40) | 0.00728 (0.000492) | −0.61 (0.045) |
50 | CK2R17 | 3.74 | 49.97 | 14.22 | 0.0082 | −0.47 |
CK2R18 | 3.72 | 49.14 | 13.55 | 0.0071 | −0.61 | |
CK2R19 | 3.70 | 49.21 | 13.82 | 0.0073 | −0.55 | |
CK2R20 | 3.76 | 49.82 | 13.88 | 0.0073 | −0.51 | |
CK2R21 | 3.83 | 50.69 | 15.13 | 0.0099 | −0.36 | |
Average (stdev) | - - | 3.75 (0.050) | 49.77 (0.632) | 14.12 (0.613) | 0.00796 (0.001165) | −0.50 (0.094) |
Specimen Code 1 | Total Immersion Time at Saturation (hours) | Moisture Content at Saturation Mm (%) | Diffusion Coefficient D (10−6 mm2/s) |
---|---|---|---|
CK | 8440 | 2.42 | 0.0605 |
CK2R | 10,513 | 4.97 | 0.1287 |
Impact Energy E (J) | Specimen Code | Thickness of the Specimen h (mm) | Absorbed Energy W (J) | Maximum Displacement δmax at Velocity v = 0 (mm) | Time t at Maximum Displacement δmax (s) | Recoil Velocity (m/s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
25 | CK811 | 2.61 | 24.01 | 8.08 | 0.0071 | −0.55 |
CK812 | 2.62 | 23.86 | 7.91 | 0.0069 | −0.57 | |
CK813 | 2.59 | 24.02 | 7.87 | 0.0069 | −0.55 | |
CK814 | 2.60 | 24.02 | 8.08 | 0.0072 | −0.55 | |
CK815 | 2.58 | 23.86 | 7.80 | 0.0068 | −0.57 | |
Average (stdev) | 2.60 (0.0158) | 23.95 (0.086) | 7.95 (0.127) | 0.00698 (0.000164) | −0.56 (0.011) | |
50 | CK818 | 2.63 | 42.74 | - | - | - |
CK819 | 2.62 | 44.33 | - | - | - | |
CK820 | 2.60 | 43.17 | - | - | - | |
CK821 | 2.59 | 40.43 | - | - | - | |
CK822 | 2.58 | 38.51 | - | - | - | |
Average (stdev) | 2.60 (0.0207) | 41.84 (2.338) | - | - | - |
Impact Energy E (J) | Specimen Code 1 | Thickness of the Specimen h (mm) | Absorbed Energy W (J) | Maximum Displacement δmax at Velocity v = const. (mm) | Time t at Maximum Displacement δmax at Velocity v = const. (s) | Recoil Velocity (m/s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
25 | CK2R6 | 3.77 | 24.03 | 17.63 | 0.0133 | - |
CK2R7 | 3.69 | 23.00 | 18.22 | 0.0131 | - | |
CK2R8 | 3.77 | 23.33 | 17.55 | 0.0128 | - | |
CK2R9 | 3.60 | 22.88 | 18.42 | 0.0132 | - | |
CK2R10 | 3.63 | 23.07 | 18.59 | 0.0132 | - | |
Average (stdev) | 3.69 (0.0782) | 23.26 (0.460) | 18.08 (0.469) | 0.01312 (0.00019) | - | |
50 | CK2R1 | 3.70 | 27.48 | 30.01 | 0.0113 | - |
CK2R2 | 3.74 | 23.58 | 18.96 | 0.0073 | - | |
CK2R3 | 3.65 | 24.19 | 21.42 | 0.0083 | - | |
CK2R4 | 3.76 | 26.81 | 36.18 | 0.0148 | - | |
CK2R5 | 3.65 | 31.66 | 29.42 | 0.0127 | - | |
Average (stdev) | 3.70 (0.0505) | 26.74 (3.211) | 27.20 (6.978) | 0.01088 (0.0031) | - |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ursache, S.; Cerbu, C.; Hadăr, A.; Petrescu, H.A. Effects of Rubber Core on the Mechanical Behaviour of the Carbon–Aramid Composite Materials Subjected to Low-Velocity Impact Loading Considering Water Absorption. Materials 2024, 17, 4055. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17164055
Ursache S, Cerbu C, Hadăr A, Petrescu HA. Effects of Rubber Core on the Mechanical Behaviour of the Carbon–Aramid Composite Materials Subjected to Low-Velocity Impact Loading Considering Water Absorption. Materials. 2024; 17(16):4055. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17164055
Chicago/Turabian StyleUrsache, Stefania, Camelia Cerbu, Anton Hadăr, and Horia Alexandru Petrescu. 2024. "Effects of Rubber Core on the Mechanical Behaviour of the Carbon–Aramid Composite Materials Subjected to Low-Velocity Impact Loading Considering Water Absorption" Materials 17, no. 16: 4055. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17164055