Impact response of laminated cylindrical shells

Authors

  • Carlos Alexandre Campos Pais Coelho Escola Superior de Tecnologia de Abrantes - Instituto Politécnico de Tomar
  • Fábio V.P. Navalho ESTA, Escola Superior de Tecnologia de Abrantes, Instituto Politécnico de Tomar, Tomar, Portugal
  • P.N.B. Reis C-MAST, Depart. of Electromechanical Engineering, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5203-3670

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3221/IGF-ESIS.48.39

Keywords:

Impact strength, Composites, Cylindrical shells, Mechanical testing

Abstract

Composite laminates subjected to low-velocity impact events on the through-thickness direction are conveniently studied and disseminated in the open literature. However, in terms of laminated cylindrical shells this subject is less common. Therefore, the main goal of the present work is to study the impact response of laminated composite cylindrical shells composed by different type of fibres. For this purpose, laminates with different configurations (6C, 2C+2K+2C and 2C+2G+2C), where the “number” represents the number of layers used and C=Carbon, K=Kevlar and G=Glass fibre layers, were analysed in terms of static and impact strength. It is possible to conclude that both static and impact performance are strongly influenced by the shells’ configuration. In terms of compressive static strength, the Kevlar hybrid shells present values 53.2% higher than the 6C shells, while the glass hybrid shells present values 17.3% lower. The impact analyses shows, regardless the similarity of the maximum loads for all configurations, that Kevlar hybrid shells achieved the highest elastic recuperation and the glass hybrid shells the maximum displacement.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Published

02-03-2019

Issue

Section

SI: Portuguese contributions for Structural Integrity

Categories

How to Cite

Impact response of laminated cylindrical shells. (2019). Frattura Ed Integrità Strutturale, 13(48), 411-418. https://doi.org/10.3221/IGF-ESIS.48.39

Most read articles by the same author(s)