点石文库
全部分类
  • 学术论文 >
    学术论文
    机械毕业设计 电气毕业论文 土木工程论文 医学论文 法学论文 管理论文 人力资源论文 计算机论文 软件工程 英语学论文 教育学论文 开题报告 冶金学论文 任务书 通信工程论文 生物学论文 毕业设计 毕业论文 文献综述 外文翻译 答辩PPT 参考文献 课程设计 期刊论文 减速器设计 其他
  • 机械毕业设计精选 >
    机械毕业设计精选
    含3D结构设计 结构设计/毕业设计 注塑模具设计(含模 注塑模具设计(含数 注塑模具设计 夹具设计类 夹具设计(机床类课 夹具设计(含三维模 数控工艺类 冲压模具(单工序) 冲压模具(复合模) 冲压模具(级进模) 压铸及其他模具类 matlab仿真类 ansys仿真类 plc控制类 单片机控制类 其他控制类 减速器课程类
  • 图纸模型 >
    图纸模型
    机械设备 零部件模型 交通运输 电子产品 生活用品 电子电工 五金工具 军工模型 建筑模型 模具图纸 钣金图纸 设计方案 机器人模型 航空航天 海洋船舶 艺术品/工艺品 CAD建筑图纸 文体用品 科幻模型 其他模型
  • 土木建筑 >
    土木建筑
    工程造价 室内装修 建筑图纸 规划方案 市政工程 园林工程 结构设计 环保行业 建筑设计 水电图 建筑标准 安全施工 建筑材料 技术标书 其他 施工组织
  • 行业资料 >
    行业资料
    机械类 仿真类 国家标准 企业标准 机械标准 金融经济 医学类 交通电力 全国省级标准 环保消防 机械行业标准 铁路行业标准 化工行业标准 建筑行业标准 城建市政标准 其他类
  • 办公文档 >
    办公文档
    PPT模板 工作汇报/总结 演讲稿/致辞 工作计划 活动策划 读后感/观后感 调研文书 招标投标 产品使用说明 会议纪要 商业策划 合同协议 商务礼仪 财务报表 广告营销 通知/申请 制度体系 个人简历 其他
  • 认证考试 >
    认证考试
    财会类 学历类 公务员/事业单位类 教师资格考试 技工职业考试 司法考试 网络工程师考试 质量工程师 成考/自考/函授 建筑类 外语类 资格类 外贸类 医药类 计算机类 其他
  • 教育辅导 >
    教育辅导
    幼儿教育 小学资料 中学资料 高中资料 成人高考 大学教育 研究生教育 自考/成人/函授 考试试卷 高中政治 高中生物 高中地理 高中数学 高中语文 高中外语 高中历史 其他
  • 生活休闲 >
    生活休闲
    运动健康 养生知识 服装配饰 科普知识 时政新闻 游戏攻略 旅游攻略 两性情感 美食烹饪 摄影摄像 其他 党团政务
  • 首页 点石文库 > 资源分类 > PDF文档下载
     

    A study of the mechanical properties of steel-aluminium-GRP laminates.pdf

    • 资源ID:3334       资源大小:320.13KB        全文页数:4页
    • 资源格式: PDF        下载权限:游客/注册会员/VIP会员    下载费用:1
    换一换
    游客快捷下载 游客一键下载
    会员登录下载
    下载资源需要1

    邮箱/手机:
    温馨提示:
    支付成功后,系统会根据您填写的邮箱或者手机号作为您下次登录的用户名和密码(如填写的是手机,那登陆用户名和密码就是手机号),方便下次登录下载和查询订单;
    特别说明:
    请自助下载,系统不会自动发送文件的哦;
    支付方式: 微信支付    支付宝   
    验证码:   换一换

          加入VIP,下载共享资源
     
    友情提示
    2、PDF文件下载后,可能会被浏览器默认打开,此种情况可以点击浏览器菜单,保存网页到桌面,既可以正常下载了。
    3、本站不支持迅雷下载,请使用电脑自带的IE浏览器,或者360浏览器、谷歌浏览器下载即可。
    4、本站资源下载后的文档和图纸-无水印,预览文档经过压缩,下载后原文更清晰   

    A study of the mechanical properties of steel-aluminium-GRP laminates.pdf

    Materials Science and Engineering A 412 2005 137–140Abstractfiber/adhesiofthistheirofK1.theirloFiberinatedandboncombinetilitycompositestiflinesinherentandaircraftasturesaerospacerizedsteel-C/epoxy0921-5093/doi10.1016/j.msea.2005.08.016A study of the mechanical properties of steel/aluminium/GRP laminatesS.M.R. Khalilia,∗, R.K. Mittalb, S. Gharibi KalibaraaMechanical Engineering Department, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, IranbApplied Mechanics Department, I.I.T., New Delhi, IndiaReceived in revised form 18 August 2005One of the new and advanced composite materials, known as fiber–metal laminates FMLs consisting of bonded thin metal sheets andve layers, is rapidly becoming a good substitute for metal structures, especially in aerospace and aircraft applications. This is becauseits good mechanical properties such as excellent fatigue and impact resistance as well as damage tolerance, without sacrificing low weight. Inarticle, standard FML samples prepared from various lay ups of glass fiber/epoxy laminates with steel and/or aluminum sheets were tested andmechanical characteristics compared with each other and with monolithic metals or fiber composite laminates in order to study the feasibilitytheir replacement in aerospace industry.2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.eywords Steel/aluminium sheets; Glass fiber/epoxy laminates; Fiber–metal laminatesIntroductionDuring last few decades, many scientists have been aimingefforts to develop new materials, which would retain thenate consisting of aluminum, steel and glass fiber/epoxy layershas been introduced. Its fabrication and testing for mechanicalproperties were reported earlier [5].w weight and good mechanical properties of aluminum alloys.reinforced metal laminates FMLs are a new type of lam-composites, consisting of thin metal layers 0.2–0.5 mmthin polymeric composite layers reinforced with glass, car-or Kevlar fibers 0.2–0.3 mm as shown in Fig. 1. Theyboth the good characteristics of metals such as duc-, impact and damage tolerances with the benefits of fibermaterials such as high specific strength, high specificfness and good corrosion and fatigue resistance. The bondact as barriers against corrosion and the laminate has anhigh burn-through resistance as well as good dampinginsulation properties. They can be a good choice for mainstructures, for example in lower and upper wings as wellin the fuselage and tail sections. Till now different FML struc-have been tested and some have been applied in differentapplications. The important FML lay-ups are catego-in four groups 1 GLARE, 2 ARALL, 3 CARE, 4, 5 HTCL [1–4]. In this paper, a new FML lami-∗Corresponding author. Tel. 98 21 77343300; fax 98 21 77334338.E-mail address smrkhalilimail.com S.M.R. Khalili.2.metal.ingg/cmhlay-up90glassaboutwereing75–15662–832.7ertiesyieldweightlay-up– see front matter 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Specimen preparationThe three essential FML components are fiber, resin andIn the present study, the epoxy resin with the follow-properties was used specimen code No. 1 ρ 1.1–1.23, viscosity 1000–1400 MPa s, curing time 15–30below 25◦C. Glass-reinforced epoxy, fabricated by handmethod is a combination of glass fibers of the type T◦/M 225 – E10 with the above-mentioned epoxy resin. Thefiber is unidirectional with an average glass fiber content of20 in all the GRP layers. The properties of GRP layersobtained from the tests specimen code No. 2.Metals are mainly aluminium AA.1050 with the follow-properties specimen code No. 3 tensile strength MPa, yield strength 28–148 MPa, shear strength MPa, Young’s modulus 69 GPa, specific weight g/cm3, and stainless steel 316 L with the following prop-specimen code No. 4 tensile strength 450 MPa,strength 70 MPa, Young’s modulus 200 GPa, specific 7.9 g/cm3.Four types of FML lay-ups were fabricated by the handmethod. The metals were surface treated metalized138 andandtypesac3.namelyweretheFMLs.digits.second3.1.weresileing25Fig.ofeGRPFig. 2. Comparison of tensile stress–strain curves for various FMLs.TTProperty/sampleYUltimateDisplacementEnerDensitySpecificSpecificEnerSpecificSpecificSpecificSpecificS.M.R. Khalili et al. / Materials ScienceFig. 1. A sample of FML lay up.anodized for adequate bonding between the layers. Theand their corresponding specimen codes are as followsSt/GRP/Al/GRP/St code No. 5 b Al/GRP/St/GRP/Al code No. 6Al/GRP/Al/GRP/Al code No. 7 d St/GRP/St/GRP/St code No. 8.Mechanical testsAccording to the ASTM standards [6], three mechanical tests;tensile test, three-point bend test and Charpy impact testconducted on the standard samples mentioned above andresults were compared to study the mechanical behavior ofThe code numbers for each sample consist of doubleThe first digit indicates the test code number and theindicates the sample code number.Tensile testAccording to the ASTM D 3039-76, flat tensile specimensfabricated and the end tabs fixed to the specimens. Ten-tests were conducted using Instron 8502 machine, keep-the crosshead speed as 5 mm/min and the temperature at◦C. The tensile test results are given in Table 1 and Fig. 2.3 shows samples 2, 7 and 8 after fracture. The integritysamples 7 and 8, which have metal layers, is much better,ven after fracture, as compared to sample 2, which is plain.ofaluminiumstrengthites,higheruesthethehenceEable 1ensile test resultsCode no. 12 Code no. 15 Codeoung’s modulus GPa 20.79 90.9 53.33tensile strength MPa 416.9 345.5 243.2at break mm 3.329 38.68 35.86gy absorption J 17.13 171.4 90.80ρ g/cm3 1.46 3.748strength MPa/g/cm3 285.5 92.18 99.88stiffness GPa/g/cm3 14.24 24.25 21.90gy absorption/GRP energy absorption 1 9.9tensile strength increase incomparison to aluminium 432 72 86tensile strength increase incomparison to steel 402 62 76stiffness increase in comparison toGRP – 70 5toughness 11.73 45.73 37.28Engineering A 412 2005 137–140Fig. 3. Samples 2, 7 and 8 after tensile fracture.From Table 1, it can be concluded that the specific strengthsFML composites are higher than that of the monolithicby 46–103 and steel by 38–91 layers. Theof GRP is comparable with that of the FML compos-but due to the density, the specific strength of GRP is muchthan that of the FML composites. Comparison of the val-of stiffness and specific stiffness show the improvement inFML composites with respect to the GRP. In elastic region,increase in metal content increases the tensile modulus andthe stiffness. This feature is summarized as18E15E16E17E12no. 16 Code no. 17 Code no. 18 Code no. 13 Code no. 1440.25 102.5 69 200214.5 340 145 4505.32 43.74 – –11 294.2 – –2.435 1.97 4.10 2.7 7.9108.88 82 53.7 56.9620.43 25 25.56 25.315.3 0.64 17 – –103 46 – 691 38 – –4 43 75.5 79 785.6 71.75 – –and Engineering A 412 2005 137–140 139TThree-pointProperty/sample 22 Code no. 25 Code no. 26 Code no. 27 Code no. 28BendingMaximumMaximumBendingSpecificSpecificAslayerstheButfoundthecificofabsorptioning,theingincrease17Tflayerslayersapplication.oflaminates.GRP8specific3.2.Dlatedsamplesdeformedthatstressincrease.ESinceoftheandsamples26,andadvpositecrackingoftensilesamplecomparisonminumtheaxis.S.M.R. Khalili et al. / Materials Scienceable 2bending test resultsCode no. 21 Code no.yield stress, σyMPa 19.3 81.1bending strength, σbMPa 71.2 413.4strain at breaking point εmax 1.6 2.3stiffness, E MPa 3558.3 10306.1408bending strength MPa/g/cm3 59.8 283bending stiffness GPa/g/cm3 2.99 7in the hand lay up technique, the fiber content in polymericcannot be exactly kept constant in all samples, and hencetensile characteristics could not be compared in a fair manner.the error was calculated using the rule of mixtures and it wasto be less than 10. As can be seen from Table 1, althoughGRP composites have good specific tensile strength and spe-stiffness, yet they are not widely used in primary structuresairplanes or aerospace vehicles. This is due to the low energyproperty of GRP during bending and impact load-as observed experimentally. In Table 1, the areas understress–strain curves indicating the energy absorption dur-deformation are also shown. This area increases with thein steel content, for example the sample 8 has an areatimes higher than for the sample 2. It can be concluded fromable 1 that FML samples which use aluminium in their lay-upail at about 3 mm elongation of these layers. After this, the steeltake up the applied load. This suggests that the aluminiumused are not suitable for FML composites in structuralAs can be seen from Table 1, the specific toughnesssample 8 is nearly seven times greater than that of the GRPAs poor energy absorption is the main weakness ofpanels in primary structural applications, sample code No.is the best choice due to its good tensile properties, i.e. highstrength and stiffness.Bending testThe three-point bending tests, using specifications of ASTM790M-93, were carried out on Zwick 1484 and results tabu-in Table 2.InFig. 4, the load-displacement curves of alltested are compared with each other and in Fig. 5 theshapes of FML samples are shown. It can be observedin the elastic region, the FML composites show better yieldand stiffness in bending as the number of steel layersThe following trend is noted28E25E26E27E22E21the aluminium alloy used in this work is weak, placementthese layers at the locations far away from the neutral axis ofsamples would not help in increasing the bending strengthstiffness of FML composites. The bending strength of thedecreasing according to the following sequence 28, 25,22, 27, 21.Since aluminium and steel are more flexible than resinGRP, new lightweight flexible structures are obtained foranced aerospace applications by stacking metal and com-εbehasideration,theresults405.3 205 118.8 447.4905 450 336.8 10205.9 3.8 2.5 5.8142858.8 45800.5 27990.2 168750.8240 185 171 248.838 18.8 14.21 41.1layers. Samples 5 and 8 did not show any breakage orin the layers, thus delaminating was the only causetheir failure, while samples 6 and 7 failed quickly due tofailure of external layers. The maximum deflection of8 is lower than that of 5, while the bending strengthis of opposite kind. This is because of the alu-layer at the mid section of sample 5, which takes uplow tensile load depending on its distance from neutralThis material is more deformable than steel. It is seen thatmax 25 εmax 28 εmax 26 εmax 27 εmax 22 εmax 21.It can be concluded that FML samples show more flexiblevior than the composite structures. Taking weight into con-the specific strength and stiffness also show almostsame trend as above, implying that the sample 8 shows bestamong the FML composites. Only the specific strengthFig. 4. Bending behavior comparison diagrams.Fig. 5. Bending deformation of FML samples.140 andTCharpProperty/sampleEnerofnesstimes3.3.thestandards.tancetheofAscomparedand4.compositestheobtainedthe-S.M.R. Khalili et al. / Materials Scienceable 3y impact test resultsCode no. 31 Code no. 32gy per unit area, S kJ/m2 24 195Fig. 6. Impact fracture appearancesample 8 is lower than that of sample 2, because of the brittle-of GRP. The specific stiffness of sample 8 is nearly sevenhigher than that of sample 2.Charpy impact testThe test was conducted using Ivory impact test machine andsamples were prepared according to the ASTM D 256–78The results are given in Table 3.Sample 8 has the highest impact energy and the highest resis-to impact load. The trend of impact energy absorbed bysamples is as follows S38 S35 S36 S32 S37 S31.Sample 7 has lower impact strength than sample 2, becausethe deficiency of aluminum layers in tolerating tensile loads.was observed, the FML samples show more flexibility whento GRP. The impact fracture appearance of samples 78 are shown in Fig. 6.ConclusionsFor the first time, a new combination of metal and fiberhas been reported for FML composites, namelysteel/aluminium/GRP laminate. By comparing the resultsin evaluating the mechanical properties in Tables 1–3,following conclusions can be drawnThe main characteristic of the FML composites is their dam-age tolerance limit, which can be obtained by the comparison--Refer[1][2][3][4][5][6]Engineering A 412 2005 137–140Code no. 35 Code no. 36 Code no. 37 Code no. 38290 240 185 340of FML samples.of the area under the stress–strain curves. This characteristicof FML composites is superior when compared to that of GRP.The presence of steel layers in FML sample helps in increasingthe energy absorption, stiffness and displacement with respectto other FML samples.The stiffness of the composite with steel layers sample 8 inbending shows an increase of 16 times and the displacementunder the point of loading shows an increase of nearly 4 timesas compared to the corresponding of GRP sample. However,this has been possible at the expense of increased weight ofsteel composite 2.7 times vis-a-vis GRP sample. The impactdamage tolerance of FML composites is much superior to thatof plain GRP. This facilitates the use of FML composites forprimary structures in aerospace industry.encesJ.F. Laliberto, C. Poon, P.V. Straznicky, J. Polym. Compos. 21 42000.A. Vlot, L.B. Vogelesang, T.J. Vries, International Glare Conference,Delft University, Netherlands, September 2001.L.B. Vogelesang, A. Vlot, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 103 1 2000.T.J. Vries, A. Vlot, F. Hashagen, Compos. Struct. 46 2 1999.K.S. Gharibi, Experimental Study on Mechanical Properties of FiberMetal Laminates with Respect to Their Application in Aerospace Tech-nology, M.S. thesis, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, February2003.L.A. Carlsson, R.B. Pipes, Experimental Characterization of AdvancedComposite Materials, Technomic Publishers, Lancaster, 1997.

    注意事项

    本文(A study of the mechanical properties of steel-aluminium-GRP laminates.pdf)为本站会员(王牌秘书)主动上传,点石文库仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对上载内容本身不做任何修改或编辑。 若此文所含内容侵犯了您的版权或隐私,请立即通知点石文库(发送邮件至3339525602@qq.com或直接QQ联系客服),我们立即给予删除!

    温馨提示:如果因为网速或其他原因下载失败请重新下载,重复下载不扣分。




    关于点石文库 - 投资与合作 - 会员权益 - 联系我们 - 声明 - 人才招聘

    本站资源为会员上传分享,如有侵犯您的版权,请联系我们删除

    网站客服QQ:3339525602  网上上传投稿QQ群862612017

      copyright@ 2016-2020  dswenku.com 网站版权所有   

    经营许可证编号:湘ICP备18013834 


    收起
    展开