Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Investigates mechanical properties of fiber metal laminates using varying curing pressures and surface treatments, suggesting optimal manufacturing conditions.
This study investigates the effect of key manufacturing parameters and graphene nanoparticle additions on the tensile behavior of fiber metal laminates (FMLs) using a Taguchi-based experimental design. Several manufacturing parameters were considered: laminate configuration (glass fiber and hybrid glass-carbon fiber reinforcement), aluminum surface treatment (chemical treatment and laser surface texturing with scanning spacings of 1 mm and 2 mm), aluminum thickness (0.5, 0.7, and 1.0 mm), graphene nanoparticle content (0, 0.1, and 0.25 wt%), and curing pressure (2, 5, and 7 bar). Eighteen FMLs specimens were fabricated according to the Taguchi orthogonal array and tested under tensile loading. Ultimate tensile strength ( \:\: ult ), tensile modulus ( E ), toughness modulus (U T ), and failure strain ( \:ε\: f ) were evaluated as performance responses. The findings show laminate configuration significantly affects \:\: ult , U T , and \:ε\: f , with the all-glass fiber configuration exhibiting superior performance responses. Graphene content and curing pressure had a minimal effect on tensile properties. The optimal parameter combination for \:\: ult and U T involved a glass fiber laminate configuration with chemically treated aluminum, an aluminum thickness of 0.5 mm, 0% graphene, and a curing pressure of 2 bar. Optimal parameters for E include a laser 1 mm scanning texture, glass fiber laminate configuration, aluminum thickness of 0.5 mm, 0% graphene nanoparticles, and a curing pressure of 5 bar. Additionally, optimal parameters for \:ε\: f are glass fiber configuration, chemical surface treatment, aluminum thickness of 1 mm, 0% graphene, and curing pressure of 2 bar. Validation tests indicated the model’s predictions were accurate, with prediction errors under 5%, highlighting its statistical reliability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Megahed et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: