IRJET- Mechanical Characterization of Polymer Matrix Composites for Transport...
Design & Analysis of Self Healing Sandwich Composites
1. DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
OF
SELF-HEALING
SANDWICH COMPOSITES
Supervisor
Dr R. Asokan, PhD
Professor
School Of Aeronautical Sciences
Hindustan University
Prepared By:-
Arjun Balachandran (1100108015)
Athira Chandra Babu (1100108019)
Dhinesh Karthikeyan (1100108036)
Pranavu Raveendran (1100108106)
3. INTRODUCTION
• Use of composites are rapidly increasing in all
the industries
• Beside the advantages they are intolerable to
damages
• Matrix de-lamination, fibre fracture, fibre de-
bonding and fiber pull out can occur during
impact load
4. OBJECTIVE
• To analyze two different sandwich composite
materials that are adhesively joined by epoxy
resin and self healing resins to know the flexural
rigidity, resistance to impact and to perform
water observation on the specimens
5. SELF HEALING MATERIALS
• Self healing composites are a class of smart
composites that is structurally incorporated with
the ability to repair the damage caused by
mechanical usage over time
• Inspired from biological healing systems
7. CAPSULE BASED HEALING
• The healing agent is stored in discrete capsules
• Damage triggers rupture and capsule contents
are released
• Thus Self Healing takes place due to the
triggering of the capsules
8. VASCULAR BASED HEALING
• Similar to that of capsule based healing method
• Vascular Method can either be 2- dimensional or
3 – dimensional
• Healing is based on capillarity
9. INTRINSIC SELF HEALING
• Less complex design for self healing mechanism
• Matrix is self healing inherently and thus no
release of self healing agents is required
• Avoids the cons of integration and healing-agent
compatibility that usually arise in capsule based
and vascular based healing systems
10. IONOMERIC SELF HEALING (INTRINSIC)
• Copolymers - the materials has ionic segments
that can form which acts as crosslink
• Simulated by external stimuli
• Multiple Local Healing
• Formation of above mentioned clusters are
reversible
11. VASCULAR BASED
HEALING – 2D
VASCULAR BASED
HEALING – 3D
CAPSULE BASED
HEALING – 2D
INTRINSIC SELF
HEALING
13. E-GLASS
• Electrical grade and low alkali
glass
• For its relatively low cost
it is a remarkable material
• Light weight with an inherent
strength to provide a weather
resistant finish
15. PVC FOAM
• Closed cell foam, based on
divinyl polymer, modified with
the throughout aramids link
• Core material for sandwich
structure
• Foam is perforated with 2mm
holes(based on foam thickness
and density)
300 x 300 x 10 mm PVC
FOAM
19. SELF HEALING RESIN (UR5083)
• Polyurethane Resin
• Ratio of Resin to Hardener 2:1
• Excellent impact resistance
• Good adhesion to a variety of
substrates
• Excellent electrical properties
• Low water absorption
• Fire resistance
21. FABRICATION – A CASE STUDY
• Fabrication is done using
Vacuum Infusion technique
• Material Failed due to the
wrong ratio of epoxy resin and
hardener
22. FABRICATION – HAND LAY UP
• Preparing the mould
• Material Preparation
• Pre measured resin and
hardener is mixed thoroughly
• Rollers or brushes are used to
apply
• Left for curing
24. WATER JET CUTTING
• Water jet cutting was used to cut the
specimens for the tests
• Flexural Specimen Size
200 x 35 x 15 mm
• Water Observation Specimen Size
25 x 25 mm
• Impact Specimen Size 60 x 60 mm
25. FLEXURAL TEST
• Behavior of materials
subjected to simple beam
loading.
• 3 point bend test
• Load Displacement Curves are
plotted and the comparison
for both epoxy and self healing
adhesive composites are
shown
38. WATER OBSERVATION
• Test Specimen Size- 25 x
25 mm
• Initial Weight is taken
• Specimen immersed in
water for 24 hours in
room temperature
• Variation in weight is
observed after cleaning.
39. WATER OBSERVATION - DATA
Sample Id Initial
Weight
Final
Weight
Increasing
Weight
Percentage of water
observation
Epoxy-1 2.490 g 2.510 0.20 8.032
Epoxy-2 2.510 g 2.540 0.30 11.952
Epoxy-3 3.390 g 3.410 0.20 5.899
Self Healing-1 4.100 g 4.120 0.20 4.878
Self Healing-2 3.820 g 3.830 0.10 2.617
Self Healing-3 3.640 g 3.650 0.10 2.747
40. IMPACT TEST
• High Velocity impact testing were performed on
the specimen
• The impact tests were performed in the
following conditions
Pressure = 344 737.865 Pa
Velocity = 37.5m/s
• Two kinds of bullets were used :- Sharp/Blunt
41. IMPACT TEST SPECIMEN
Self Healing Adhesive Specimens Epoxy Adhesive Specimens
Specimen Size 60 mm x 60 mm
45. FINDINGS – IMPACT TEST
• It is found that impact resistivity for self healing
adhesive composite is greater than that for the
epoxy adhesive composites
46. CONCLUSIONS
• Flexural test was performed, and was found that
the load carrying capacity for epoxy adhesive
composites were better than that of self healing
adhesive composites.
• Water resistivity of self healing adhesive
specimens were found to be better compared to
epoxy adhesive composites.
• Impact resistivity of self healing adhesive
composites are excellent in comparison to epoxy
adhesive composites.
48. REFERENCES
• Self-Healing Polymers and Composites B.J. Blaiszik, S.L.B. Kramer, S.C.
Olugebefola, J.S. Moore, N.R. Sottos, and S.R. White ,2010
• Self-Healing CFRP for aerospace applications, Dr Ian P Bond, Mr Gareth J
Williams & Dr Richard S Trask,2007
• Puncture Self-healing Polymers for Aerospace Applications K. Gordon, R.
Penner, P. Bogert, W.T. Yost and E. Siochi,2003
• Self-healing: a new paradigm in materials design, MR Kessler,2006
• Low Velocity and High Velocity Impact Test on Composite Materials – A review
S.N.A. Safri,M.T.H. Sultan, N. Yidris, and F. Mustapha,2014
49. • Low Velocity Impact Properties of Foam Sandwich Composites: A
Brief Review, Ramadan Mohmmed, Azzam Ahmed, Mohamed
Ahmed Elgalib, Hashim Ali ,2014
• Impact Behaviour of Sandwich GFRP-Foam-GFRP Composites V. K.
Srivastava,2012
• Experiments on Epoxy, Polyurethane and ADP Adhesives Julia de
Castro San Román,2005
• Moisture Absorption Properties of Unidirectional Glass/Polymer
Composites Used in Composite (Non-Ceramic) Insulators L.
Kumosa, B. Benedikt, D. Armentrout and M. Kumosa,2004
• Self-sealing of mechanical damage in a fully cured structural
composite Jericho L. Moll , Henghua Jin, Chris L. Mangun , Scott R.
White , Nancy R. Sottos, 2013
