| Literature DB >> 31547117 |
L Prince Jeya Lal1, S Ramesh2, S Parasuraman3, Elango Natarajan4, I Elamvazuthi5.
Abstract
Nanosilica particles were utilized as secondary reinforcement to enhance the strength of the epoxy resin matrix. Thin glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) composite laminates of 3 ± 0.25 mm were developed with E-Glass mats of 610 GSM and LY556 epoxy resin. Nanosilica fillers were mixed with epoxy resin in the order of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1 wt% through mechanical stirring followed by an ultrasonication method. Thereafter, the damage was induced on toughened laminates through low-velocity drop weight impact tests and the induced damage was assessed through an image analysis tool. The residual compression strength of the impacted laminates was assessed through compression after impact (CAI) experiments. Laminates with nanosilica as secondary reinforcement exhibited enhanced compression strength, stiffness, and damage suppression. Results of Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy revealed that physical toughening mechanisms enhanced the strength of the nanoparticle-reinforced composite. Failure analysis of the damaged area through scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evidenced the presence of key toughening mechanisms like damage containment through micro-cracks, enhanced fiber-matrix bonding, and load transfer.Entities:
Keywords: CAI behaviour; GFRP composites; damage assessment; nanosilica fillers; secondary reinforcement
Year: 2019 PMID: 31547117 PMCID: PMC6804005 DOI: 10.3390/ma12193057
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Instrumented low-velocity impact test facility.
Figure 2Image analysis technique used to compute the damaged area.
Figure 3(a) FTIR spectrum of pristine epoxy resin; (b) FTIR spectrum of 0.75 wt% nanosilica-loaded epoxy resin.
Figure 4Responses of low-velocity impact (a) Contact force versus displacement behavior of composite laminates. (b) Contact force versus time history of composite laminates.
Figure 5Induced damage due to low-velocity impact in (a) Pristine composite; (b) 0.25 wt% nanosilica- reinforced composite; (c) 0.5 wt% nanosilica-reinforced composite; (d) 0.75 wt% nanosilica-reinforced composite; (e) 1 wt% nanosilica-reinforced composite.
Responses of low-velocity impact.
| Responses of Low-Velocity Impact | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nanosilica Content (wt%) | Peak Contact Force (N) | Absorbed Energy (J) | Damage Area (mm2) | Peak Compression Load (N) | Compression Strength (MPa) |
| 0 | 4226 | 7.11 | 369 | 10,600 | 378.57 |
| 0.25 | 4275 | 7.13 | 275 | 14,700 | 525.2 |
| 0.5 | 4552 | 7.66 | 239 | 16,100 | 575.4 |
| 0.75 | 4582 | 7.74 | 175 | 20,300 | 725.3 |
| 1 | 4116 | 6.53 | 145 | 28,600 | 1021.8 |
Figure 6Post-impact compressive behavior of pristine and toughened composites.
Figure 7Failure analysis of pristine composites (a) Fibre pulled out neatly without fracture and damage (b) Poor interfacial bonding between matrix and fibre.
Figure 8Fracture analysis of toughened composites with 0.75 wt% nanosilica as secondary reinforcements (a) Enhanced fibre damage; (b) Crack initiation and propagation in matrix.