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

345

8

Fig. 4 represents the most similar behaviour it will be seen throughout this study in terms of curve trace and values, due to similar impact energy despite dissimilar layups. Although it can be said that, the peak force happens in a different way in terms of displacement. L1 suffers lower peak impact force despite higher energy impact but shows more permanent plastic deformation. Also, the curve behaviour in the beginning between the layups is distinct, meaning that in the initial elastic regime, L2 requires less force to deform, even though the impact energy is 0,4 J less.

Fig. 5. Tier 1:(a) L1 before permanent damage; (b) L1 at its highest deformation; (c) L1 after impact

Fig. 5 shows the evolution of the damage during the impact event of L1, being very localized and relatively reduced, but the impact starts to compromise the second most inboard layer.

Fig. 6. Tier 1: (a) L2 before permanent damage; (b) L2 at its highest deformation; (c) L2 after impact

Fig. 6 shows the evolution of the damage during the impact event of L2, being a lot more dispersed compared to L1 but on the contrary, it only affects the most inboard layer.

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2

L1 L2

1,77

1,55

1,31 1,09

Total Energy [J]

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Time [ms]

Fig. 7. Tier 1: L1 and L2 total energy-time graph with internal damage