PSI - Issue 28

N. Selyutina et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 28 (2020) 1310–1314 N. Selyutina / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

1313

4

data by Sharma et al. (2019) and Xia et al. (2007), we evaluated the following model parameters τ Al =5 μs, σ Al =302.29 MPa, E 0 =27.22 GPa, E 1 =41.1 GPa, E 2 =77.5 GPa, σ comp =160 MPa, σ glass =340 MPa, τ f 1 =11 s, τ layer =36 s for glass fiber metal laminate and τ Al =5 μs, σ Al =302.29 MPa, E 0 =70 GPa, E 1 =90 GPa, E 2 =127 GPa, σ comp =160 MPa, σ glass =1000 MPa, τ f 1 = τ layer =47.3 μs for carbon fiber metal laminate. Theoretical and experimental deformation diagrams are shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. The deformation response for glass-fiber metal laminate is higher at a strain rate on the order of magnitude of 1000 s –1 , compared to that at a strain rate of 10 –3 s –1 . The two stress drops observed in Fig. 1, due to consecutive failures of the two epoxy/fiber layers (Sharma et al. 2019), was captured by the relaxation model of plasticity.

Fig. 1. Dynamic and quasi-static deformation diagrams of glass fiber-metal laminate plotted by the relaxation model of plasticity (RP model) (1)– (7) and experimental data by Sharma et al. (2019).

Fig. 2. Dynamic and quasi-static deformation diagrams of carbon fiber-metal laminate plotted by the relaxation model of plasticity (RP model) (1)–(7) and experimental data by Xia et al. (2007).

Dynamic deformation diagrams for carbon fiber metal laminate (Fig. 2) coincide in the second nonlinear part of the plastic deformation aluminium layers, where the first part is linear elastic deformation of composite. The maximum