PSI - Issue 53

A. Neto et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 53 (2024) 338–351 Alexandre de Oliveira Neto / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

344

7

Two different layups were tested, L1 and L2 having very distinct orientations to examine potential differences, and it can be observed the following energy values created the damage mentioned in every tier for each layup (Table 5). In short, L1 was able to sustain higher energy values throughout, and the results will be evaluated next.

Table 5. Numerical testing methodology – energy gradient

Internal damage

Intermediate level

Visible external damage

Layup (Lx)

No. of layers

Layup orientation

E 1

V 1

E 2

V 2

E 3

V 3

L1

[+45/-45] 6

3,5 J

1,11 m/s

15,3 J

2,36 m/s

27 J

3,13 m/s

12

L2

[0/90/+45/-45/90/0] 2

3,1 J

1,06 m/s

7,1 J

1,61 m/s

11 J

2 m/s

Worth saying that after the first impact, the impactor was not let to bounce back to prevent consecutive damage and that was achieved but the combination of simulation parameters. 3. Results and findings For each tier, the Force-Displacement and the Total Energy (kinetic + internal)-Time graphs will be presented along with a section-cut view of the specimen. For each figure, there will be the representation of the tube right before permanent damage, the tube at its highest deformation (coincidently with the point of most impactor displacement) and the end result after the full contact. The results will be analysed within the context of the present study, and major takeaways will be drawn. For contextualization, it must be said that disappearing elements signify surpassed criteria values, meaning the part has permanent damage when that occurs.

3.1. Tier 1: Internal damage

1,4

1,29

L1 L2

1,2

1

1,19

0,8

0,6

Force [kN]

0,4

1,59

0,2

1,51

0

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2,0

Displacement [mm]

Fig. 4. L1 and L2 F-D graph with internal damage