Open Access

Influence of Composite Lay-Up on the Load-Carrying Capacity of Structures with Closed Rectangular Cross-Section

Kuba ROSŁANIEC

Kuba ROSŁANIEC

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Machine Design and Mechatronics, Lublin University of TechnologyLublin, Poland
Orcid profile
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
ROSŁANIEC, Kuba
 and 
Patryk RÓŻYŁO

Patryk RÓŻYŁO

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Machine Design and Mechatronics, Lublin University of TechnologyLublin, Poland
Orcid profile
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
RÓŻYŁO, Patryk
  
Jun 06, 2025
Influence of Composite Lay-Up on the Load-Carrying Capacity of Structures with Closed Rectangular Cross-Section's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Download Cover
Published Online: Jun 06, 2025
Page range: 189 - 196
Received: Nov 28, 2024
Accepted: Jan 30, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ama-2025-0022
Keywords
© 2025 Kuba ROSŁANIEC et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Fig. 1.

Overall dimensions of test specimen
Overall dimensions of test specimen

Fig. 2.

Test stand
Test stand

Fig. 3.

Numerical model with boundary conditions
Numerical model with boundary conditions

Fig. 4.

Summary of post-buckling equilibrium paths
Summary of post-buckling equilibrium paths

Fig. 5.

Comparison of numerical-experimental failure: a) FEM – 1 lay-up, b) EXP – 1 lay-up, c) FEM – 2 lay-up, d) EXP – 2 lay-up, e) FEM – 3 lay-up, f) EXP – 3 lay-up
Comparison of numerical-experimental failure: a) FEM – 1 lay-up, b) EXP – 1 lay-up, c) FEM – 2 lay-up, d) EXP – 2 lay-up, e) FEM – 3 lay-up, f) EXP – 3 lay-up

Fig. 6.

Damaged structures with graphical visualization of deformations and enlarged representation of selected damage areas: a) 1 lay-up, b) 2 lay-up, c) 3 lay-up
Damaged structures with graphical visualization of deformations and enlarged representation of selected damage areas: a) 1 lay-up, b) 2 lay-up, c) 3 lay-up

Fig. 7.

Comparison of the damage level of individual layers
Comparison of the damage level of individual layers

Material properties of the carbon–epoxy composite:average values with standard deviation from a number of material test trials more extensively described in papers [13,19]

Mechanical properties Strength parameters
Young’s modulus E1 (MPa) 103014.11 (2145.73) Tensile strength (0°) Ftu (MPa) 1277.41 (56.23)
Young’s modulus E2 (MPa) 7361.45 (307.97) Compressive strength (0°) Fcu (MPa) 572.44 (46.20)
Poisson’s ratio u12 [-] 0.37 (0.17) Tensile strength (90°) Ftu (MPa) 31.46 (9.64)
Kirchhoff modulus G12 (MPa) 4040.53 (167.35) Compressive strength (90°) Fcu (MPa) 104.04 (7.34)
Shear strength (45°) Fsu(MPa) 134.48 (2.71)

Failure force values obtained experimentally and numerically

Spec. No\Lay-up 1 (N) 2 (N) 3 (N) EXP Avg.Value (N) FEM (N)
[0/90/0/90]s 39799.60 39150.57 40573.07 39841.08 40462.60
[45/-45/90/0]s 33661.53 34416.62 34364.65 34147.60 34456.80
[90/-45/45/0]s 29448.82 31415.54 31172.51 30678.96 31884.60
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
4 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Electronics, Mechanical Engineering, Mechanics, Bioengineering and Biomedical Engineering, Biomechanics, Civil Engineering, Environmental Engineering
Journal RSS Feed