4.7 Article

Experimental validation of the vibration correlation technique robustness to predict buckling of unstiffened composite cylindrical shells

期刊

COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
卷 224, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111107

关键词

Nondestructive experiments; Vibration Correlation Technique; Unstiffened composite laminated cylindrical; shells; Buckling; Imperfection-sensitive structures

资金

  1. European Space Agency (ESA) [4000119184/17/NL/MH/GM]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Considering the design of aerospace structures, an experimental campaign is essential for validating the sizing methodology and margins of safety. Particularly for buckling-critical cylindrical shells, the traditional buckling test could lead the specimen to permanent damage. Therefore, the validation of nondestructive experimental procedures for estimating the buckling load of imperfection-sensitive structures from the prebuckling stage is receiving more attention from the industry. In this context, this paper proposes an experimental verification of the robustness of a vibration correlation technique developed for imperfection-sensitive structures. The study comprises three nominally identical unstiffened composite laminated cylindrical shells. Each specimen is tested 10 times for buckling at DLR and, the reproducible results - within a small range of deviation between them - corroborate the equivalence of the cylinders. For the robustness assessment of the vibration correlation technique, two different buckling test facilities are considered. Furthermore, the material properties are recalculated through composite composition rules and the influence of enhanced theoretical buckling loads on the VCT predictions is verified. The experimental campaigns corroborate that the vibration correlation technique provides appropriate estimations representing the influence of the different test facilities; moreover, enhanced theoretical buckling loads can improve the predictions for some of the test cases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据