CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
In the most basic form of a composite material it is one which is composed of at least
two elements working together to produce material properties that basically are different
to the properties of those elements of their own nature.
Overall, the properties of the composite are determined by:
 The orientation and geometry of the fibres in the composite

 The properties of the resin

 The properties of the fibre

 The ratio of fibre to resin in composite

Today, the composites can be divided into three main groups:

 Polymer Matrix Composites (PMC’s) – These are most used in places like automobile
industries. Also known as FRP - Fiber Reinforced Polymers - these materials use a
polymer-based resin as the matrix, and a variety of fibers such as glass (GLARE),
aramid (ARALL) and carbon (CARALL) as the reinforcement.
 Metal Matrix Composites (MMC’s) - Increasingly found in the automotive industry,
these materials use a metal such as steel, aluminium as the matrix, and reinforce it
with fibres such as silicon carbide.
 Ceramic Matrix Composites (CMC’s) - Used in environments where the temperature
is mostly high, these materials use a ceramic as the matrix and reinforce it with short
fibres such as those made from boron nitride and silicon carbide.

Out of these PMC’s is a really emerging section that provides effective results when it
comes to an easy fabrication and application in various fields. FML’s (Fibre Metal
Laminates) or Sandwich structure has always been an important phase in which there is a
continuous research to provide a better result.

1
1.1. SANDWICH COMPOSITE MATERIAL:

Sandwich composites generally consist of two outer metal sheets (steel, aluminium or

any other) with a stabilizing core of insulation sandwiched between them. However the
core and skin interact to create a lightweight structural panel material. The metal sheets
are bonded to the insulation core with specialized adhesives. These materials have great
advantages such as low weight and considerably higher shear stiffness to weight ratio than
an equivalent beam made of only the core material or the face-sheet material and also high
tensile strength to weight ratio. The high stiffness of the face-sheet leads to the overall
high bending stiffness to weight ratio for the composite. Overall the sandwich setup allows
achieving excellent mechanical performance at minimal weight.
There are different manufacturing processes for sandwich composite materials .They
are cold working and hot working process. In cold working process there in no external
heat is used in hot working process external heat is supplied to the material to improve its
properties and also to minimize curing time.
Materials used for manufacturing are as in the form of sheets and some- times core
materials are in the form of granulated powder. Mostly aluminum is used in manufacturing
of sandwich composite material due to its low weight and easy deformation on applying of
load. Depending upon the required number of layers, the sheets and reinforcement
materials used are increased. In general it is a three layer composite that is widely
preferred for research purpose. Fig.1.1. shows the sandwich composite material.

2
 Fig.1.1. Sandwich composite material

1.2. SANDWICH STRUCTURE

Sandwich structures can be classed as composite materials in that they consist of two
or more individual components of differing properties which when combined result in a
high performance material. In contrast to monolithic composites - which consist of an
intimate mixture of fibers (glass, kevlar, carbon, metal, etc) supported within a continuous
matrix (e.g. thermoplastic or thermoset resin) - sandwich materials have a discrete
structure in which a core material is bonded and faced with a skin material. The skin
material usually has a high stiffness, whereas the core typically has high compressive and
shear strength. When these are bonded together, this combination gives the sandwich
structure a high flexural modulus.
Skin material can vary greatly but common forms include:
 FRP (fibre reinforced polymer - thermoplastic and thermoset)
 Polymer
 Wood
 Aramid sheet
 Metals (aluminium, titanium, steel, etc)
 Ceramic
The core can exist in a number of structures and materials:
 Expanded/extruded foam (polymer - polyurethane, epoxy; metal - aluminium)
 Honeycomb structure {metal - aluminium, steel; Nomex - aramid fibre dipped in
resin (epoxy, phenolic or polyamide) to form a paper-like material}
 Solid (wood - balsa; polymer - epoxy)

The skins are bonded to the core with film, liquid or paste adhesives and normally
cured using heat and pressure, although some adhesives can cure at room temperature. It is
important to note that the chosen adhesive needs to have the appropriate mechanical and
thermal properties to achieve compatibility between the skin and core materials, especially
with respect to thermal expansion differences.

3
 Sandwich panels are used in preference to conventional composites where the
characteristics of low weight and high resistance to bending are required.

1.3. SANDWICH THEORY

Sandwich theory describes the behavior of a beam, plate, or shell which consists of
three layers - two face sheets and one core. The most commonly used sandwich theory is
linear and is an extension of first order beam theory. Linear sandwich theory is of
importance for the design and analysis of sandwich panels. Sandwich panels are used in
those applications where high structural rigidity and low weight is required sandwich
panels is aircraft where mechanical performance and weight saving is essential. Other
applications include packaging (e.g. fluted polypropylene boards of polypropylene
honeycomb boards), transportation and automotive as well as building & construction.

1.3.1. Some Advantages of Sandwich Construction

 Sandwich cross sections are composite. The composite has considerably higher
shear stiffness to weight ratio than a simple monolithic material i.e., an equivalent
beam made of only the core material or the face-sheet material. The composite also
has a high tensile strength to weight ratio.
 The high stiffness of the face-sheet leads to a high bending stiffness to weight ratio
for the composite.
 Better fire retardant property, corrosion resistant.

1.4. MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR SANDWICH SHEET

Metal forming processes, also known as mechanical working processes, are primary
shaping processes in which a mass of metal or alloy is subjected to mechanical forces.
Under the action of such forces, the shape and size of metal piece undergo a change. By
mechanical working processes, the given shape and size of a machine part can be achieved

4
with great economy in material and time
Metal forming is possible in case of such metals or alloys which are sufficiently
malleable and ductile. Mechanical working requires that the material may undergo “plastic
deformation” during its processing. Frequently, work piece material is not sufficiently
malleable or ductile at ordinary room temperature, but may become so when heated. Thus
we have both hot and cold metal forming operations.
Mechanical working of metals may either be,
1. Hot working process
2. Cold working process

1.4.1. Hot Working Process

Plastic deformation of metal carried above the recrystallization temperature, is called

hot working. Under the action of heat and force, when the atoms of metal reach a certain
higher energy level, the new crystals start forming, this is called recrystallization. When
this happens, the old grain structure deformed by previously carried out mechanical
working no longer exist, instead new crystals which are strain-free are formed.
In hot working, the temperature at which the working is completed is critical since
any extra heat left in the material after working will promote grain growth, leading to poor
mechanical properties of material.
In comparison with cold working, the advantages of hot working are:
 No strain hardening and residual stress.
 Lesser forces are required for deformation.

 Greater ductility of material is available, and therefore more deformation is

possible.

 Equipment of lesser power is needed.

Some disadvantages associated in the hot-working of metals are:
 Heat energy is needed which makes handling difficult and troublesome.
 Poor surface finish of material due to scaling of surface.

5
  Poor accuracy, dimensional control, reproducibility, interchangeability of parts.

 Lower life of tooling and equipment.

1.4.2. Cold Working Process

Plastic deformation of metals below the recrystallization temperature is known as cold

working. It is generally performed at room temperature. In some cases, slightly elevated
temperatures may be used to provide increased ductility and reduced strength. Cold
working offers a number of distinct advantages, and for this reason various cold-working
processes have become extremely important. Significant advances in recent years have
extended the use of cold forming, and the trend appears likely to continue.

In comparison with hot working, the advantages of cold working are:

 No heating is required
 Better surface finish is obtained with minimal contamination problems

 Better dimensional control is achieved; therefore no secondary machining is

generally needed.

 Products possess better reproducibility and interchangeability.

 Better strength, fatigue, and wear properties of material.

 Some disadvantages associated with cold-working processes are:

 Higher forces are required for deformation so, heavier and powerful machines are
required
 Less ductility is available.

 Strain hardening occurs (may require intermediate annealing).

 Undesirable residual stresses may be produced.

6
Here we are using hand-layup method for fabrication of sandwich sheet.

1.5. OBJECTIVE OF THIS STUDY

There are four main objectives in this study:

 The research work has to be carried out in room temperature condition and with
simple cost effective experimental setup procedure.

 To fabricate a sandwich sheet using two AA5052 sheets with E-Glass Fibre core in
between the skin sheets using Epoxy Resin as an adhesive material.

 To find the formability parameters and mechanical properties of the sandwich

material using a tensile test. Also to determine various mechanical parameters with
the help of tests like flexural, lap shear, impact, hardness, corrosion and erichsen
cupping.

 Finally, the fractography analysis is done using Scanning Electron microscope.

This helps to view and interpret the fractured regions of sandwich structure that is
obtained after mechanical testing.

1.6. SCOPE OF PROJECT

In order to reduce the weight of the body panel and increase the material properties.
Suitable materials have been selected for such purpose. It will be used in an automotive
industries, aerospace industries and marine application.

1.7. METHODOLOGY

1. An extensive literature survey has been carried out.

2. Proper materials are selected for the sandwich panel creations that are suitable for
stated application and purchase of required materials is done.
3. The experimental setup has been created and step by step sequence is followed to
fabricate the sandwich structure.

7
4. The sandwich Material was fabricated using by cold working processing-hand
layup method.
5. The sandwich Materials tested for its technological characteristics using various
mechanical testing to determine macro characterization and results are furnished.
6. Finally, the micro structural characterization is determined with fractography
analysis using Scanning Electron microscope.

1.8. FLOW DIAGRAM

8
Fig.1.2. Depicts the general Flow diagram followed for the whole system

9
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Venkateshkannan M, et al., (2014) in Influence of Tool geometry on metallurgical and

mechanical properties of friction stir welded dissimilar AA2024 and AA5052. Tests like
tensile, hardness are basically done to analyze the mechanical behaviour of the material
used. These Macro tests are carried out to depict flaws present in the materials adapted,
like discontinuities and fractures that help to compare them with the former materials
further stating enhanced nature. Microstructure characterization like, SEM/EDAX analysis
are done to examine the metallurgical changes of every trial.

2. Liu Jian-Guang, et al., (2012) in Influence of interfacial adhesion strength on

formability of AA5052/polyethylene/AA5052 sandwich sheet, Science Direct-Elsevier,
Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. The effects of interfacial adhesion strength between skin
sheet and core polymer on the formability of AA5052/polyethylene/AA5052 sandwich
sheets was investigated. The results show that the interface stress can suppress the
increasing of void volume fraction and then postpone the fracture of skin sheet. Compared
with monolithic metallic sheet, metal−plastic sandwich sheet offers a lower density, higher
specific flexural stiffness, better dent resistance and better sound and vibration damping
characteristics. AA5182/polypropylene/AA5182 sandwich sheet have been developed for
potential application of these materials for automotive body panels in future high
performance automobiles with significant mass reduction.

3. S. Mahabunphachai and M. Koç., (2010) in Investigations on forming of aluminum

5052 and 6061 sheet alloys at warm temperatures, Materials and Design-Elsevier,
Materials and Design. The main objective is to achieve a low mass transportation vehicle
with enhanced fuel efficiency. So, the deformation characteristics of AA5052 and
AA6061 are investigated. Initially the material behaviour is studied by simply performing
various tests at required temperatures and suitable experimental conditions. The

10
microstructure analysis showed that the change of grain size due to the effects of elevated
temperatures and strain rates were not significant; therefore, it was concluded that the
decrease in the flow stress at high temperature levels was mainly due to the thermally
activated dislocation lines.

4. Jian-Guang Liu et al., (2013) in Formability of AA5052/polyethylene/AA5052

sandwich sheets, Science Direct-Elsevier, Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. Different kinds of
AA5052/polyethylene/AA5052 sandwich specimens with varying thicknesses of core
materials were prepared by the hot pressing adhesive method. Then, the uniaxial tensile
tests were conducted to investigate the mechanical properties of AA5052/polyethylene/
AA5052 sandwich sheets. The experimental results show that the forming limit of the
AA5052/polyethylene/AA5052 sandwich sheet is higher than that of the monolithic
AA5052 sheet, and it increases with increasing the thickness of PP core. Further the
complete mechanical properties and formability parameters of the monolithic sheet
(AA5052) are present.

5. M. El Gouri, et al., (2011) in A phosphazene compound multipurpose application-

Composite material precursor and reactive flame retardant for epoxy resin materials. The
thermal stability and flame retardancy of HGCP thermoset with MDA curing agent and its
blend as flame retardant with DGEBA were checked by thermal gravimetric analysis
coupled with infrared spectoscopy and the UL-94 vertical test. The correlation between
these properties (thermal stability and flame retardancy) and the HGCP contents
(phosphorus content) were discussed. Epoxy resins are widely applied as advanced
composite matrices in electronic/electrical industries where a remarkable flame-retardant
grade is required, but the fire risk is a major drawback of these materials.

6. Nikolaos D. Alexopoulos, et al., (2012) in Accelerated corrosion exposure in ultra thin

sheets of 2024 aircraft aluminium alloy for GLARE applications, Corrosion Science.
Aircraft engineers should also take into account the natural ageing effect of precipitate-

11
hardened aluminium alloy 2024-T3 sheets. Hence, the combination of all types of damage
and natural ageing is a real problem to the engineering community regarding repairing and
maintaining the structural integrity of aircraft components. Researchers are trying to
simulate real-time conditions and to simplify the problem. The realistic problem that
engineers have to solve is the interaction between fatigue and corrosion damage.
Evaluated tensile mechanical properties of transverse sheet rolling direction were lower
than the respective of the longitudinal direction. Corrosion-induced mechanical properties
degradation is much more intense for T than L sheet rolling direction for the same
exposure time.

7. S.W. Hadley and S. Das, J.W. Miller., (2000) in Aluminum R&D for Automotive Uses
and the Department of Energy’s Role. Aluminum offers a lower weight alternative to
steel, potentially increasing the efficiency of vehicles. However, the application of
aluminum has been only in select areas of use, most notably cast aluminum in the engine,
transmission, and wheels. Aluminum has the potential to significantly reduce the weight of
vehicles, improving fuel efficiency while maintaining other desirable attributes. Federally
funded research contributes to this goal.

8. Kee Joo Kim, et al., (2010) in Development of Application Technique of Aluminum

Sandwich Sheets for Automotive Hood, International Journal of Precision Engineering
And Manufacturing. The aluminum sandwich sheet is the material fabricated by adhering
two aluminum skins to one polypropylene core. When it has the same bending stiffness as
a steel sheet, it is 65% lighter than the steel sheet and 30% lighter than an aluminum alloy
sheet. Therefore, it is notified exclusively as good substitutive materials for a steel body to
improve the fuel efficiency. Through aluminum sandwich sheet, however, it has relatively
lower formability than that of the steel sheet for automotive application. Light-weight,
high formability, damping resistance and low price sheet materials have been developed
with an appearance of electric vehicle in recent years.

12
9. C. A. J. R. Vermeeren et al., (2003) in An Historic Overview of the Development of
Fibre Metal Laminates, Applied Composite Materials. Fibre Metal Laminates are hybrid
laminates consisting of thin alternating bonded layers of aluminium and fibre/epoxy. Their
behaviour is a mixture of metals and composites, they have high damage tolerance
properties, and were primarily developed for aerospace applications where good fatigue
properties and high strength are necessary. Another phenomenon was also found, ‘de-
lamination’, the adhesive loaded in fatigue, coming apart from the metal. This release of
the bond would appear to be a bad thing. However, without this delamination the fibres
would be stretched too much when the crack opened and would therefore break. If, on the
other hand, the delamination is too large then the crack will open too much and will
consequently grow too fast. Therefore, there is a balance between delamination and crack
growth. This balance is assured by the strength of the adhesive and its resistance to
delamination.

10. Ka Zhang et al., (2011) in Comparative study on flame retardancy and thermal
degradation of phosphorus- and silicon-containing epoxy resin composites. Thermal and
flame retardant properties of EPMS/MFAPP and DGEBA/MFAPP composites were
evaluated by Limited Oxygen index (LOI), UL-94 test and thermogravimetric analysis
(TGA). The higher LOI value and UL-94 rating confirmed that MFAPP was an effective
flame retardant in DGEBA compared with EPMS. However, lacking of flame retardancy
limits its more extensive applications. Several approaches have been reported in the
literatures for the improvement of flame retardancy. Consequently, halogen free flame
retardants are especially focused to meet the requirements of new regulations.

11. B. P. Singh, et al., (2013) in Enhanced microwave shielding and mechanical properties
of high loading MWCNT–epoxy composites. Dispersion of high loading of carbon
nanotubes (CNTs) in epoxy resin is a challenging task. Up to 20 wt% of multiwalled
carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) loading in the composite was achieved by forming CNT
prepreg in the epoxy resin as a first step. These prepreg laminates were then compression

13
molded to form composites. Thermal conductivity of the MWCNTs– epoxy composite
reached 2.18 W/mK as compared to only 0.14 W/mK for cured epoxy. MWCNT–epoxy
composites were fabricated using a novel dispersion and compression molding technique
which enabled dispersion of high loadings of CNTs (up to 20.4 wt%) uniformly.
Commercial applications such as radar, TV picture transmission, and telephone
microwave relay systems, etc. An addition of MWCNT in the epoxy also provided
structural integrity to the composites with tensile strength of the order of 60 MPa along
with improved thermal conductivity which is a prerequisite for efficient heat dissipation in
microelectronics devices.

12. Ji Sun Ima, et al., (2010) in Improved flame retardant properties of epoxy resin by
fluorinated MMT/MWCNT additives, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis. Epoxy
resins are widely used as a matrix for structural complexes and as an encapsulating
material for electric devices, because they are easy to handle, are readily processed, shrink
minimally upon curing and adhere well to many substrates. However, epoxy use has been
limited by its weak oxidation resistance properties, which correlate with high
flammability. Thus, flame-retarded enhanced epoxy resins should be investigated for
industrial application. In general, fillers with a high aspect ratio have been regarded as
good candidates for a retardant additive. Presently, montmorillonite (MMT) and carbon
nanotube (CNT) are the most widely used fillers, because they improve not only the flame
retardant properties but also the mechanical properties. As an additional advantage, they
do not generate toxic smoke or corrosive fumes during combustion, unlike halogen
compounds, which have conventionally been used as flame retardant materials. The epoxy
resin was prepared with flame retardant additives – MMT and MWCNTs – to improve the
thermal stability. MMT and MWCNTs were fluorinated to improve their dispersion within
the epoxy resin. MWCNTs increased the char yield, which can act as heat barrier and as
thermal insulation, and they also decreased the degradation rate of epoxy resin.

14
13. MA HaiYun, et al., (2011) in Flame retarded polymer nanocomposites: Development,
trend and future perspective, SCIENCE CHINA Chemistry. A very small amount of nano
flame retardants (normally < 5 wt%) can significantly reduce the heat release rate (HRR)
and smoke emission (SEA) during the combustion of polymer materials. Moreover, the
addition of nano flame retardants can also improve the mechanical properties of polymer
materials compared with the deterioration of traditional flame retardants. Nanocomposites
represent a relatively new technology in the field of flame retardancy. In recent 20 years,
flame retarded polymer nanocomposites has achived encouraging progress in both
fundamental research and industrial application.Very promising developments in the
synergy aspects are then expected and efforts should be made in this direction.

14. Peng-Cheng Maa, et al., (2014) in Perspectives of carbon nanotubes/polymer

nanocomposites for wind blade materials, Renewable and Sustainable Energy. With
unique structural and transport properties, carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have attracted much
interest as the reinforcement to develop polymer-based nanocomposites delivering
exceptional mechanical properties and multi-functional characteristics. In light to current
status in carbon- materials, suitability of CNT/polymer nanomaterials for wind blade
materials are analyzed. These special properties make CNTs excellent candidates for high
strength and electrically conductive polymer nano-composite applications.

15. Patrizia Savi, Mario et al., (2014) in Analysis of Microwave Absorbing Properties of
Epoxy MWCNT Composites, Progress In Electromagnetics. There is an increasing
demand for lightweight and Radar Absorbing Material (RAM) in both commercial and
military applications. Carbon Nano Tubes (CNTs) and graphene have already been
investigated for microwave absorption applications due to their great thermal stability,
reluctance toward chemical agents and excellent mechanical and electrical properties.
CNTs are much more attractive since they have a lower cost of production and are less
troublesome to disperse in host polymers. Moreover, CNTs have aspect ratios (i.e., length
vs diameter ratio) that can exceed 1000. The samples were prepared using a commercial

15
epoxy resin: Epilox, T 19-36/700. It was chosen because it is thermoset and can withstand
high temperatures. Commercial MWCNTs were used and samples with different MWCNT
concentrations (0.5, 1, 3, 5wt.%) were prepared. Weight percentages greater than 7 wt.%
were not considered because in that case it is very difficult to realize homogeneous
samples and it is not cost effective.

16. H. Zhang, et al., (2014) in Impact Behaviour of GLAREs with MWCNT Modified
Epoxy Resins. Uniform dispersion of MWCNTs in epoxy resin was achieved via a two-
step dispersion method with concentration up to 2.0 wt%. The influence of MWCNTs on
the flexural property and the impact performance of GLAREs were investigated through
the three-point bending and drop weight impact testings, respectively. Diversified failure
mechanisms including plastic deformation and rupture of metal layers, breakage of fibres
and matrix, delamination between composite and metal layers, and delamination between
composite plies were observed. Fibre-metal laminates (FMLs) were first developed in the
1970s as an alternative option to traditional monolithic aluminum (Al) alloys in aerospace
applications. By combining monolithic Al alloys with composites, overall weight can be
reduced, as well as material properties such as fatigue and fire tolerance over conventional
monolithic Al alloys can be improved. Currently, GLAREs have been used as the upper
fuselage skin structure in Airbus A380.

17. G Venkata Raman, et al., (2010) in Mechanical properties of MWCNT reinforced

polymer composites, Indian Journal of Engineering and Material Science, Vol. CNT’s
have diameters in few nanometers and length in few microns, so the aspect ratio of the
material is very high. These small dimensions mean that they have much higher surface
area per unit mass and a low density. The variation in the nature of reinforcement (Aligned
& Randomly oriented MWNTS) has resulted in the improvement of mechanical properties
like flexural modulus, tensile strength and hardness. A small change in chemical treatment
of the nanotubes has a great effect in the mechanical and morphological properties of
nanocomposites due to effective load transfer mechanism and state of dispersion. SEM is

16
taken to have a glance upon the micro structural view over the sandwich material. The
change in mechanical as well as morphological nature has been verified by SEM of
Fractographic surface this proved the elasticity and ductility of the composites.

18. P.V.Elumalai1, et al., (2013) in Design Fabrication and Static Analysis of Single
Composite Lap Joint, IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research & Development.
The composite structural members are highly used in the following applications such as
aerospace, automobiles, marine, architecture etc., Adhesive bonding is a practical joint
method for joining composite materials which provide low shear and Tensile strength. A
Glass fibre Epoxy composite is to be fabricated by hand lay-up method. The matrix material
surrounds and supports the reinforcement materials by maintaining their relative positions.
The reinforcements impart their special mechanical and physical properties to enhance the
matrix properties Due to strength and safety requirements, these applications require joining
composites either to composites or to metals.

19. G Venkata Raman, et al., (2010) in Mechanical properties of MWCNT reinforced

polymer composites, Indian Journal of Engineering and Material Science, Vol. CNT’s
have diameters in few nanometers and length in few microns, so the aspect ratio of the
material is very high. These small dimensions mean that they have much higher surface
area per unit mass and a low density. The variation in the nature of reinforcement (Aligned
& Randomly oriented MWNTS) has resulted in the improvement of mechanical properties
like flexural modulus, tensile strength and hardness. A small change in chemical treatment
of the nanotubes has a great effect in the mechanical and morphological properties of
nanocomposites due to effective load transfer mechanism and state of dispersion. SEM is
taken to have a glance upon the micro structural view over the sandwich material. The
change in mechanical as well as morphological nature has been verified by SEM of
Fractographic surface this proved the elasticity and ductility of the composites.

17
20. LIU Jian-guang, LIU et al., (2012) in Influence of interfacial adhesion strength on
formability of AA5052/polyethylene/AA5052 sandwich sheet. Typically a metal−plastic
sandwich sheet consists of two layers of metallic sheet as skin and a polymeric material as
core. Three layers are glued together. The skin metallic materials can be steel or
aluminium alloy and the core polymeric material is polypropylene or polyethylene
generally.

18
 CHAPTER 3

EXPERIMENTAL WORKS
The present chapter discusses the fabrication of the sandwich composite material,
various testing procedures involved and the techniques used for damage assessment of the
impacted specimen. The composite plate specimens for the different orientations were
fabricated by manual method. A brief discussion on fabrication of the composite plates is
presented in this chapter.

Combination Used:
AA (5052)-H32/MWCNT/GF/MWCNT/AA (5052)-H32
1. AA (5052)/MWCNT (3%)/GF/MWCNT (3%)/AA (5052) with density 1.3×10-3 g/cm3
2. AA (5052)/MWCNT (4%)/GF/MWCNT (4%)/AA (5052) with density 1.6×10-3 g/cm3
3. AA (5052)/MWCNT (5%)/GF/MWCNT (5%)/AA (5052) with density 1.8×10-3 g/cm3

3.1 MATERIALS USED IN PREPARATION OF SANDWICH SHEETS ARE:

 Aluminum sheet (AA5052-H32) of 0.5mm thickness.
 E-Glass fiber of woven type.
 Adhesive (resin and hardener) epoxy type.
 Multi Walled Carbon Nano-tubes (MWCNT)

3.2. ALUMINIUM ALLOY (AA5052-H32)

Aluminium is the lightest i.e., light weight and of the most commonly used metal. Its
electrical and thermal conductivity properties are very good, being second only to copper
and it also good corrosion resistance and is cheaper. The aluminium is most malleable and
ductile. Malleability is the property of a metal to be deformed by compression without
cracking or rupturing, and ductility is the ability to deform plastically without fracture
under tensile force.

19
 Aluminium alloys have a wide range of properties and are used in most of the
engineering structures and application. Selecting the right alloy for a given application by
considering its tensile strength, density, ductility, formability, workability, weldability and
corrosion resistance, to name a few. Fig.3.1.show below depicts the aluminium sheet

Fig.3.1. 5052 Aluminium sheet

Aluminium alloys are most extensively used in aircraft due to their high strength-to-
weight ratio and low weight which reduces fuel consumption. On the other hand, pure
aluminium metal is much too soft material, and it does not have the high tensile strength
which is mostly needed in manufacturing of airplanes and helicopters.

Why 5xxx Series Alumium Sheet Used With Extreamly Low Thickness?
5XXX series alloys, with magnesium as the major alloying element, combine a wide
range of strength, good forming and welding characteristics, and high resistance to general
corrosion.
 Strength: Generally increases with increasing magnesium content, and can be
further enhanced by cold work.
 Forming: 5XXX alloys are easily cold formed. Formability tends to increase as
alloy strength decreases.
 Welding: 5XXX alloys are easily welded using GMA-W or GTA-W processes.
Welds also show good ductility, facilitating cold forming.
 Corrosion Resistance: 5XXX alloys generally have excellent corrosion
resistance, often being used in marine applications.

20
3.2.1. Aluminium Alloy 5052 composition limits (% weight):
The below shown Table 3.1. represents clearly the AA5052 composition with
respect to the total weight percentages.
Table 3.1. Chemical Composition of AA5052

AA5052 Mg Cr Si Fe Cu Mn Zn Al
– H32
% 2.292 0.162 0.066 0.341 0.009 0.050 0.007 Balanced

3.2.2. Properties of Aluminium Alloy 5052:

 Strength to weight ratio
Aluminum has a density around one third that of steel and is used advantageously
in applications where high strength and low weight are required. This includes
vehicles where low mass results in greater load capacity and reduced fuel
consumption.
 Corrosion resistance
When the surface of aluminum metal is exposed to air, a protective oxide coating
forms almost instantaneously. This oxide layer is corrosion resistant and can be
further enhanced with surface treatments such as anodising.
 Electrical and thermal conductivity
Aluminum is an excellent conductor of both heat and electricity. The great
advantage of aluminum is that by weight, the conductivity of aluminum is around
twice that of copper. This means that aluminum is the most commonly used material
in large power transmission lines. The best alternatives to copper are aluminum alloys
in the 1000 or 6000 series. These can be used for all electrical conduction applications
including domestic wiring. Weight considerations mean that a large proportion of
overhead, high voltage power lines now use aluminum rather than copper.
 Toxicity
Aluminium is not only non-toxic but also does not release any taint products with
which it is in contact. This makes aluminium suitable for use in packaging for

21
 sensitive products such as food or pharmaceuticals where aluminium foil is used.
 Light and heat reflectivity
Aluminium is a good reflector of both visible light and heat making it an ideal
material for light fittings, thermal rescue blankets and architectural insulation.

3.2.3. Applications of AA5052-H32:

The properties of the various aluminium alloys has resulted in aluminium being used
in industries as diverse as transport, food preparation, energy generation, packaging, hulls,
deckhouses, and hatch covers of commercial ships, as well as in equipment items, such as
ladders, railings, gratings, windows, and doors, architecture, and electrical transmission
applications. Depending upon the application, aluminium can be used to replace other
materials like copper, steel, zinc, tin plate, stainless steel, titanium, wood, paper, concrete
and composites. Certain important applications of AA5052 are:
 Marine applications
 Building and architecture
 Furniture
 Ladders
 Gas Cylinders

3.3. GLASS FIBERS

Glass fiber (also spelled glass fiber) is a material consisting of numerous extremely
fine fibers of glass. Glass fiber is commonly used as an insulating material. It is also used
as a reinforcing agent for many polymer products; to form a very strong and light fiber
reinforced polymer (FRP) composite material called glass-reinforced plastic (GRP). Glass
fiber has roughly comparable properties to other fibers such as polymers and carbon fiber.
Although not as strong or as rigid as carbon fiber, it is much cheaper and significantly less
brittle. Fig.3.2. as shown below depicts the Glass fiber.

22
 Fig.3.2. Glass Fiber (woven type)

3.3.1. Glass fibres can be classified into two sets:

 Have a modulus of around 70 GPa and low to medium strength – E, A, C glass
 Have a modulus of around 85 GPa and have a higher strength – R & S2 glass.
A Glass – High Alkali (essentially soda-lime silica)
E Glass – Electrical grade (a calcium alumino-borosilicate with low alkali oxide content)
ECR Glass – Chemically resistant modified E glass grade (with calcium alumino-silicate)
S Glass – High strength (with magnesium alumino-silicate and no boron oxide)
Glass fibres are commonly used for reinforcing as they have good properties, good
processing characteristics and are inexpensive. E glass is the most widely used. Glass fibre
is spun on the melt and when the continuous glass fibres are produced they are
transformed to;
i) Continuous or woven rovings
ii) Chopped strands
iii) Yarns
iv) Mats.
v) Performs
E-glass has the lowest cost of all commercially available reinforcing fibers, which is
the reason for its widespread use in the FRP industry.
The below shown Table 3.2. represents clearly the E-Glass fiber composition with respect
to the total weight percentages.

23
Table 3.2. Composition of E-Glass fiber
E-Glass SiO2 Al2O3 CaO MgO B2O3 Na2O

% 54.5 14.5 17 4.5 8.5 0.5

E- and S-glass fibers are quite low, which gives them a better corrosion resistance to
water as well as higher surface resistivity. The internal structure of glass fibers is a three-
dimensional, long network of silicon, oxygen, and other atoms arranged in a random
fashion. Thus, glass fibers are amorphous (non crystalline) and isotropic (equal properties
in all directions).

Fig.3.3. Classification of glass fibers

24
There are different types of glass fibers out of these mostly used are of two types

i) E-glass fiber.

ii) S-glass fiber.

In this project we are using for E-glass fiber of woven type.

3.3.2. Physical Properties:

 Dimensional Stability:
Fiber glass is a dimensionally stable engineering material. Fiber glass does not
stretch or shrink after exposure to extremely high or low temperature. The maximum
elongation for “E” glass at break is 4.8 percent with a 100 percent elastic recovery
when stressed close to its point of rupture.
 Thermal:
Glass fibers are useful thermal insulators because of their high ratio of surface
area to weight. However, the increased surface area makes them much more
susceptible to chemical attack. By trapping air within them, blocks of glass fiber
make good thermal insulation, with a thermal conductivity of the order of 0.05
W/(m·K).
 Moisture Resistance
Glass fibers do not absorb moisture, and do not change physically or chemically
when exposed to water.
 High Strength
The high strength-to-weight ratio of fiber glass makes it a superior material in
applications where high strength and minimum weight are required. In textile form,
this strength can be unidirectional or bidirectional, allowing flexibility in design and
cost.
 Fire Resistance
Fiber glass is an inorganic material and will not burn or support combustion. It
retains approximately 25 percent of its initial strength at 1,000ºF.

25
 Electrical Properties
Fiber glass is an excellent material for electrical insulation. The combination of
properties such as low moisture absorption, high strength, heat resistance and low
dielectric constant makes fiber glass fabrics ideal as reinforcement for printed circuit
boards and insulating varnishes.

3.4. ADHESIVES (Epoxy Resin).

Structural or performance adhesives are load-bearing adhesives. That is they add
strength to the products being bonded. Structural adhesives are used to build products as
varied as office furniture, boats, trains, cars to name a few. There are approximately ten
adhesive families commonly referred to as structural adhesives: Acrylic, Anaerobic,
Cyanoacrylate, Epoxy, Hot Melt, Methacrylate, Phenolic, Polyurethane, Solvent cement
and Tapes. Below represented pic 3.4. shows the resin

Fig.3.4. Epoxy Resin with Hardener

Epoxy is the cured end product of epoxy resins, as well as a colloquial name for
the epoxide functional group. Epoxy is also a common name for a type of strong adhesive
used for sticking things together and covering surfaces, typically two resins that need to be
mixed together before use.

26
The seven most commonly used are:
i) Acrylic.
ii) Anaerobic.
iii) Cyanoacrylate.
iv) Epoxy.
v) Hot Melt.
vi) Methacrylate.
vii) Polyurethane.
Epoxy Adhesives have been available longer than any engineering adhesive and are
the most widely used structural adhesive. Epoxy adhesives are thermosetting resins which
solidify by polymerization. Two part resin/hardener systems will solidify on mixing
(sometimes accelerated by heat), while one part materials require heat to initiate the
reaction of a latent catalyst.
Generally epoxy bonds are rigid: they fill small gaps well with little shrinkage. Epoxy
Resins are thermosetting resins, which cure by internally generated heat. Epoxy systems
consist of two parts, resin and hardener. When mixed together, the resin and hardener
activate, causing a chemical reaction, which cures (hardens) the material.
Epoxy resins generally have greater bonding and physical strength than do polyester
resins. Most epoxies are slower in curing, and more unforgiving in relation to proportions
of resins and hardener than polyesters. Superior adhesion is important in critical
applications and when “glassing” or gluing surfaces – such as steel, redwood, cedar, oak
and teak – as well as other non-porous surfaces.
Ever coat Epoxy resins are superior to polyester resins in that they impart exceptional
strength in stress areas. Examples of areas where epoxy resins products must be used are
redwood, hardwoods, styrofoam, some plastic surfaces, and metal. They are generally
higher in cost than polyester resins. Epoxy resins may be mixed with various fillers to
thicken them for special applications. In working with epoxies, the resin to hardener ratio
is very important and should never be adjusted in an attempt to slow down or speed up the
curing process.

27
3.4.1. Features and Advantages of Epoxy Resin:
i. When superior adhesion and strength is necessary. Excellent adhesion to metals,
woods, glass, rubber, fiberglass and many plastics .As a tough coating for
protection on window sills, concrete floors, and stair treads, shower stalls, and
down spouts. To protect metal from rusting. To repair gutters, drain pipes (metal
or plastic), pools, roofs, boats, decks, and auto bodies. To repair blister problems
on fiberglass surfaces, i.e., blistering on fiberglass boat hulls. Provides excellent
bond between non-porous surfaces, like metals including aluminum.
ii. As a tough coating or repaid material for most surfaces including Styrofoam,
redwood, cedar and oak.
iii. Where a smooth glossy surface is important. Epoxy is however, more expensive
than polyester resin and requires more care when mixing and applying.
iv. Epoxy should be used at room temperature (70-90 0F); otherwise rate of cure may
be affected. The user should not attempt to adjust the ratio of hardener to resin.
v. The hardener should be used as directed with the epoxy resin. The two parts
should be measured into a mixing container, not simply dumped together, even
when the entire quantity of each can will be used.

3.4.2. Resin and Hardener Used in this Project:

The epoxy resin used in this project is of resin AV-138 HV-998
Araldite® AV 138M-1 / Hardener HV 998 is a two component, room temperature
curing paste adhesive of high strength.
When fully cured the adhesive will have excellent performance at elevated
temperatures and has high chemical resistance. It is suitable for bonding a wide variety of
metals, ceramics, glass, rubbers, rigid plastics and other materials, and is widely used in
many industrial applications where resistance to aggressive or warm environments are
required. The low out gassing makes this product suitable for specialist electronic
telecommunication and aerospace applications.

28
KEY PROPERTIES:
1) Low out gassing / volatile loss.
2) Excellent chemical resistance.
3) Temperature resistant to 120°C.
4) Thixotropic, gap filling paste.
5) Cures at temperature down to 5°C
Storage:
Araldite® AV 138M-1 / Hardener HV 998 can be stored up to 6 years and 3 years at
room temperature provided and components to be stored in a sealed container.

3.5. MULIT WALL CARBON NANO TUBES (MWCNT).

Carbon Nano Tubes have high Young’s modulus and axial tensile strength but
they are also very flexible. So that they can be knotted tightly without breakage and
exhibit a plastic behavior in contrast with conventional carbon fibers.
It has been verified that carbon nano tubes improve thermal and flammability
properties of a number of polymers.

Fig.3.5. Multi Walled CNT powder

CNTs show outstanding mechanical properties: stiffness, strength and resilience

exceeds any current material .CNTs also superior thermal and electrical properties:
thermal stability up to 2,800◦C in vacuum thermal conductivity about twice as high as
diamond, electric current-carrying capacity 1,000 times higher than copper wires.

29
3.6. STEPS INVOLVED IN FABRICATION OF SANDWICH SHEET
The fiber-reinforced composite material used in this study was produced at
LAPAX firm. Other reason of the selection these lay-ups are to observe variety of failure
modes. All laminates balanced about the mid-plane both to prevent thermal distortion
during manufacture and to eliminate bending and twisting when under tension. All
laminates were made from E glass fiber and epoxy resin using press-mould technique. For
matrix material, epoxy Araldite® AV 138 M-1 and hardener HV998 were mixed in the
mass ratio of 100:40. Later, MWCNT is dispersed into the solution with different weight
percentages like-3%, 4%, 5%. The resin and hardener mix is now applied to the fibers.
Fibers were coated with this mix. Subsequent plies were placed one upon another as
required orientations. A hand roller was used to compact plies and remove entrapped air
that could later lead to voids or layer separations. The mold and lay-up were covered with
a release fabric. Once the matrix and fibers are combined, it is necessary to apply the
proper temperature and pressure for specific periods of time to produce the fiber
reinforced structure. For this purpose, resin-impregnated fibers were placed in the mold
for curing. The press generates the temperature and pressure required for curing. In all
cases, the mould was closed to stops giving nominal thickness. The glass fiber and epoxy
were cured at room temperature under maximum weight of 50kg’s.

3.6.1. Cutting of Aluminum Sheet:

The actual sheet dimension is 1220mm length and 1020mm width. By using of tin
cutter the sheet is cut into 9 pieces of each having dimensions of 406 mm length and
340mm width. It is because on the total six sheets are required as skin sheets for the
fabrication of 3 sandwich structure to take place.

30
 Fig.3.6. Aluminium sheet

3.6.2. Preparation of Sheet Surface:

By using high quality emery paper rub the shine surface side of sheets which provides
scratches in order to provide grip to sandwich sheet without causing de-lamination.

Fig.3.7. Rubbing of aluminium with emery paper.

3.6.3. Cutting of Glass Fiber:

As glass fiber used is of woven type it will simply delaminate while cutting in order to
prevent this use 5cm box tape(plaster) and paste it on glass fiber which helps in
preventions of de-lamination of glass fiber and by using a strong scissor cut the glass fiber
to required dimension upon box tape.

31
 Fig.3.8. Glass fiber cutting

3.6.4. Mixing of Resin and Hardner:

Before starting work with epoxy one should wear face mask and rubber gloves why
because resin and hardner smell is very bitter and it is difficult to work with it without
wearing face mask which helps in covering your nose and chemicals in resin and hardner
are highly reactive while coming in contact to skin leads skin diseases and allergies in
order to overcome this wear gloves, allow proper work space i.e., prepare sheet at proper
ventilation area.
For 1000gms of resin mix 400 grams of hardner and stirrer the combination using
stirrer for 20 to 30 minutes. Now epoxy mix is ready to apply.

3.6.5. Applying of Resin Hardner Mix to Aluminum Sheet:

Hand layup process
Hand lay-up is a simple method for composite production. A mould must be used
under hand lay-up fabrication technique unless the composite is to be joined directly to
another structure. This process of applying to skin, core and reinforcement material
laminates over the mould manually with brushes and rollers-an economical but effective
method, requiring no specialized equipment, and therefore the most popular DIY (do it
yourself) method.

32
 Fig.3.9. Hand layup
Take proper quantity of resin hardner mixture by using spoon and pour it on
aluminum sheet after that by using a roller distribute mixture to all the sheet without any
gaps and place the glass fiber piece upon it repeat the step and place the another sheet
upon glass fiber so as aluminum sheets are placed on both sides of glass fiber. now cover
the both sides of sandwich sheet with plastic cover which helps in removing of sheet
easily after curing why because by application of load upon sheet leads to squeeze the
epoxy mixture to outer edges of sheet which will stick to other surfaces in order to
overcome this plastic cover is used to cover both sides of sandwich sheet.

Fig.3.10. Applying of epoxy

33
 Figure 3.11 Cover up before application of load on laminated sheet metal
3.6.6. Application of Load on Sheets:
After completion of above steps place a plywood piece which is larger in dimension
of sheet upon the sandwich sheet, on application of load upon wood leads to equal
distribution of load to all sides of sheet. After that apply load of around 40 to 50kgs and
allow the sheets to curing as curing time is 19 hours, after curing remove the sheets and
cut the extra glass fiber on each edges of sandwich sheet gently and sandwich sheet is
ready for testing.

Fig.3.12. After the sandwich sheet fabrication has finished

3.7. SPECIMEN PREPARATION

A water jet cutter is an industrial tool capable of cutting a wide variety of materials
using a very high-pressure jet of water, or a mixture of water and an abrasive substance.
Water jet cutting is often used during fabrication of machine parts. It is highly preferred
method when the materials being cut are sensitive and further posses an intricate shape of
cut. This is achieved with the help of specialized 3D-software. Water jet cutting is used in
various industries, including mining and aerospace, for cutting, shaping, and reaming. An
important benefit of the water jet is the ability to cut material without interfering with its
inherent structure, as there is no heat-affected zone (HAZ). This method is also used when
fabrication flaw like pores and debonding and delamination should not be carried any
further, moreover a clear surface finish is required.

34
 Fig.3.13. Represents water jet cutting machines head [6].

Materials commonly cut with a water jet include textiles, rubber, foam, plastics,
leather, composites, stone, tile, glass, ceramics, metals, food, paper and much more.
The samples were cut as per ASTM and IS standards corresponding to various stated
dimensions that are preferred for mechanical, micro structural and flame testing.

35
 CHAPTER 4

MACRO CHARACTERIZATION OF SANDWICH MATERIALS

In this present chapter, sandwich materials were examined in different tests for the
bond strength of the individual layers and for their mechanical properties, flexural
properties, forming behaviour. The deep drawing behaviour is for an example in the
Erichsen cupping test. The height of the cup is a reference value to compare different
values of sandwich samples.
Characterization, when used in material science, refers to the broad and general
process by which a material's structure and properties are probed and measured. It is a
fundamental process in the field of materials science, without which no scientific
understanding of engineering materials could be ascertained. The characterization is
divided into two broad categories namely-

a) Macro characterization
b) Micro-structural characterization.

Macro characterization is a huge range of techniques that are used to characterize various
macroscopic properties of materials, including:
 Mechanical testing, including tensile, compressive, torsional, creep, fatigue,
toughness and hardness testing.
 Differential thermal analysis (DTA),
 Impulse excitation technique (IET),
 Ultrasound techniques, including Resonant ultrasound spectroscopy and time
domain Ultrasonic testing methods.

Mechanical Testing-

36
 The purpose of testing is to find the formability parameters and the relative
mechanical properties of sandwich material.
Types of Mechanical Tests:
Various types of tests like-
 Tensile test
 Flexural test
 Lap shear test
 Izod impact test
 Hardness test
 Corrosion test
 Erichsen Cupping
can be conducted to display the formability of sheet metal blank. These are explained
below.

4.1. TENSILE TEST

The FML combination AA5052/Epoxy+MWCNT/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT/AA5052
sandwich sheet was investigated with the help of tensile test, to find the mechanical and
formability parameters like stress, strain, anisotropic characteristics, strain hardening and
strength co-efficient. ASTM (American society for testing Materials) is the standard that is
followed. The specimen for tensile test was prepared with a gauge length of 50mm and
gauge width of 13mm as per ASTM D638-03 standard.

Fig.4.1. Tensile test specimen as per ASTM D638-03

The sandwich specimen is then clamped on its either sides with the FIE make

37
Universal Testing Machine (UTM) as shown in figure. It is capable of applying a
maximum load up to 5ton. A constant pull rate of 3mm/min was maintained by the head
until there is a fracture occurrence.

Fig.4.2. Tensile test setup in UTM–operation in progress with sample

The stress developed was determined by the equation,

σ = kεn
Where σ is the true stress of sandwich sheet, k is the Strength co-efficient, n is the
Strain hardening exponent and ε is the true strain of single layer sheets, respectively. The
strain hardening exponent (n), the plastic strain ratio (R) and the planar anisotropy (ΔR) are
the formability parameters of sandwich sheet metal.

Fig.4.3. Represents Tensile specimen orientation for determining ‘R’ value [28].

38
In sheet materials the properties depend on the direction, the state of anisotropy is usually
indicated by the ‘R’ value. The thickness strain is measured directly, but it may be
calculated also from the length and width measurements using constant volume
assumption.
R = εw/εt,
εw = ln (w/w0),
εt = ln (t/t0).
Where, ‘R’ is the state of anisotropy, is the ratio of true width strain to true thickness
strain and the value of ‘R’ is evaluated and εw is the width strain, εt is the thickness strain, w
is the change in width, wο is the original width, t is the change in thickness, t ο is the original
thickness was found as per as per ASTM D638-03 using observed formula.

Fig.4.4. Axes used to define normal and planar anisotropic values [28]

The Measured ‘R’ value differs from unity, this shows a difference between average in-
plane and through thickness properties which is characterized by the normal plastic
anisotropy ratio calculated as follows,
ΔR = (Rο + R90 – 2R45)/2

= (Rο + 2R45 + R90)/2

Where, ΔR planar anisotropy, ͞R is the normal plastic anisotropy ratio be the weighted
average of R values obtained in three directions Rο is the longitudinal rolling direction 00,
R45 is diagonal rolling direction 450, and R90 is the transverse rolling direction 900.

39
 (a) (b)
Fig.4.5. Samples (a) before testing and (b) after testing

4.2. FLEXURAL TEST

The FML combination AA5052/Epoxy+MWCNT/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT/AA5052
sandwich sheet was investigated with the help of flexural test or otherwise known as the
bend test, to find the mechanical properties like stress, strain, stiffness, max deflection to
applied load. ASTM (American society for testing Materials) is the standard that is
followed. The specimen for flexural test was prepared with a length of 100mm and width
of 12.7mm as per ASTM D790 standard.

Fig.4.6. Flexural test specimen as per ASTM D790

The standard specimen is then balanced on its either sides with the FIE make
Universal Testing Machine (UTM) as shown. It is capable of applying a maximum load up
to 5ton. A constant compression force is simply applied at the rate of 3mm/min by the
head until there clear failure shown in the sample.

40
 Fig.4.7. Flexural test set up in UTM-operation in progress with sample

In case of flexural test the materials ability to resist the deformation load until fracture
is determined. The transverse bending test is most frequently employed, in which a
specimen having either a circular or rectangular cross section is bent until fracture or
yielding using a three point frectural test technique.

Fig.4.8. Flexural test specimen as per ASTM D790

The applied load, displacements were recorded and obtained also the maximum stress
and strain are calculated for increment of load.

41
σf = 3PL/2bd2 ,
εf =6Dd/L2
Where, σf' is the flexural stress in sheet metal at mid point, εf is flexural strain in sheet
metal, ‘P’ is the load at a given point on the load deflection curve, ‘L’ is the span length, ‘d’
depth of the sheet metal and ‘D’ is the maximum deflection of the centre of the sheet
material.
From the theory of simple bending equation,
M/I =E/R,
I= bd3/12,
Sf =P/D
Where, Sf is the flexural Stiffness, ‘M’ is the moment produced by the maximum
bending stress, ‘E’ is the flexural modulus, ‘I’ is the moment of inertia, ‘b’ is the width of
the sheet metal.

(a) (b)
Fig.4.9. Samples (a) before testing and (b) after testing.

4.3. LAP SHEAR TEST

The FML combination AA5052/Epoxy+MWCNT/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT/AA5052
sandwich sheet was investigated with the help of lap shear test, to find the nature of the
bonding between the adhesive and skin material. ASTM (American society for testing
Materials) is the standard that is followed. The specimen for lap shear test was prepared
with a lap length of 40mm, width of 12.5mm and the overlap span length is 15mm as per
ASTM D790 standard.

42
 Fig.4.10. Lap shear test specimen as per ASTM D790

The standard specimen is then balanced on its either sides with the FIE make
Universal Testing Machine (UTM) as shown in the figure below. It is capable of applying
a maximum load up to 5ton. A constant shear force is applied at an average rate of
3mm/min by the head until there clear shear failure shown in the sample.

Fig.4.11. Lap shear test set up in UTM-operation in progress with sample

Lap shear determines the shear strength of adhesives for bonding materials when
tested on different lap-joint specimens like-single, double, butt lap joint etc,. The test is
applicable for determining adhesive strength,preparation parameters and adhesive

43
environmental durability.

(a) (b)
Fig.4.12. Samples (a) before testing and (b) after testing.

4.4. IZOD IMPACT TEST

The FML combination AA5052/Epoxy+MWCNT/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT/AA5052
sandwich sheet was investigated with the help of izod impact test, to find the ability of the
material to withstand the sudden shock loads. ASTM (American society for testing
Materials) is the standard that is followed. The specimen for izod impact test was prepared
with a length of 65.5mm, width of 12.7mm and the V-notch of angle 45 0 are provided at
the center of the specimen along one side of its length as per ASTM D256 standard.

Fig.4.13. Izod impact test specimen as per ASTM D256

This test is conducted in an Impact testing machine of model XJJU-5.5. The machine
consists of a loading striker which on releasing gives the fixed kinetic energy at a rate of
3.5m/s. The specimen made as per the ASTM standards would be kept in the machine and
the load will be released towards it. The final absorbed energy by the specimen would be

44
indicated in the digital screen as the results are automatically calculated.

Fig.4.14. Izod impact testing machine

The izod impact test is a standardized high strain-rate test that provides info on how a
specimen of a known material will respond to a suddenly applied stress. The test
ascertains whether the material is tough or brittle in nature. The result usually reported as
which determines the amount of energy absorbed by a material during fracture.

(a) (b)

45
 Fig.4.15. Samples (a) before testing and (b) after testing

4.5. ERICHSEN CUPPING TEST

The FML combination AA5052/Epoxy+MWCNT/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT/AA5052
sandwich sheet was investigated with the help of erichsen cupping test, to find the stretch
formability oh specimen. IS (International Standards) is followed for this test. The
specimen for erichsen cupping test was prepared with a length and width of 90×90mm as
per IS 10175 standard.

Fig.4.16. Erichsen cupping test specimen as per IS 10175

Erichsen cupping test is used to determine the capability of deformation of a sandwich

sheet material. The sandwich sheet metal specimen is clamped between two circular flat
dies. The maximum drawing force 100 KN, blank holder force 45 KN, maximum blanking
force 200 KN are applied to the sample corresponding to such standard. Usually a steel or
round punch is pushed hydraulically into the sheet metal until a crack begins to appear on
the specimen.

46
 Fig.4.17. Erichsen cupping test machine-operation in progress with sample

In the Erichsen test, the punch is pressed into the sheet until fracture occurs, at which
point the test is stopped immediately and the depth of the bulge noted. The distance the
punch travels is referred to as the erichsen drawing index IE (index Erichsen) and is a
measure for the formability of the sheet during stretch forming. This depth (mm) gives the
Erichsen number. There isn’t basically any analytical theory on Erichsen cupping test as
this test is used for comparative purposes of sheet metals.

(a) (b)
Fig.4.18. Samples (a) before testing and (b) after testing

4.6. HARDNESS TEST:

Hardness test is used to measure the resistant of solid matter with various kinds of
specifically shaped diamond, carbide or hardened steel indenter pressed into the material
with a known force using a defined test procedure.

47
 Fig.4.19. Micro Vickers Hardness tester

The hardness values are determined by measuring either the depth of the intender
penetration or the size of the resultant intent. Hardness is dependent on strength and
toughness.

(a) (b)
Fig.4.20. Shows the (a) Before and (b) After testing image of specimen

4.7. SALT SPRAY (CORROSION TEST):

The salt spray test is a standardized test method used to check corrosion resistant of
coated samples. Coating provides corrosion resistance to metallic parts that made of steel
or brass. Since coating can provide a high corrosion resistant through the intended life of
the part in use, it is necessary to check corrosion resistance by other means

48
 Fig.4.21 Salt spray test chamber

Salt spray test is an accelerated corrosion test produces a corrosion attack to the
coating samples in order predict its suitability in use a protective finish. It is with the help
of salt spray corrosion test the materials nature to corrode to natural circumstances is
gauged and is further the corrosion over the material is depicted in form of results.

(a) (b)
Fig.4.22. Shows (a)before and (b)after testing.

49
4.8. MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

1. Bulk modulus (K): Ratio of pressure to volumetric compression (N/mm2)

2. Compressive strength: stress a material can withstand before compressive failure
(N/mm2)
3. Creep: the slow and gradual deformation of an object with respect to time
4. Ductility: Ability of a material to deform under tensile load (% elongation)
5. Fatigue limit: Maximum stress a material can withstand under repeated loading (MPa
or N/mm2)
6. Fracture toughness (G): Energy absorbed by unit area before the fracture of material
(J/m2)
7. Hardness: Ability to withstand surface indentation (e.g. Brinnell hardness number)
8. Plasticity: Ability of a material to undergo irreversible deformations
9. Poisson's ratio (υ): Ratio of lateral strain to axial strain (no units)
10. Resilience: Ability of a material to absorb energy when it is deformed elastically
(MPa or N/mm2)
11. Shear modulus (G or S): Ratio of shear stress to shear strain (MPa or N/mm2)
12. Shear strength (τ): Maximum shear stress a material can withstand
13. Specific modulus: Modulus per unit volume (M Pa/ m3)
14. Specific strength: Strength per unit density (Nm/kg)

50
15. Specific weight (γ): Weight per unit volume (N/m3)
16. Tensile strength: Maximum tensile stress a material can withstand before failure
(MPa or N/mm2)
17. Yield strength (σy): The stress at which a material starts to yield (MPa or N/mm2)
18. Young's modulus (E): Ratio of linear stress to linear strain (MPa or N/mm2)

4.9. FORMABILITY PARAMETER

Formability tests were conducted a room temperature to evaluate formability parameters
such as:
1. Plastic strain ratio (r)
It is the ratio of the width strain to the thickness strain.
2. Strain hardening exponent (n)
It is a phenomenon exhibited by most metals and alloys in the soft condition
whereby the strength or hardness of the material increases with plastic deformation.
Values assigned for different annealing temperatures.
3. Poisson Ratio (1/m)
Within the elastic limit, the ratio lateral dimension/longitudinal strain is
represented by 1/m is a constant for a particular material. This ratio is known as
Poisson’s ratio.
4. Density (ρ)
Density defined in a qualitative manner as the measure of the relative "heaviness"
of objects with a constant volume.
5. Yield strength (σy)
The maximum stress that can be applied without exceeding a specified value of
permanent strain (typically 0.2% = .002 in/in).
6. Ultimate tensile stress (σu)

51
 The maximum load, divided by the initial cross-sectional area of the sample, is
called the ultimate tensile stress (UTS).
7. Total Elongation (E Tot)
Total elongation is the total amount of permanent extension in the vicinity of the
fracture in the tensile test to failure; usually expressed as a percentage of the original
gauge length.

CHAPTER 5

RESULT AND DISCUSSION – MACRO CHARACTERIZATION

Macro characterization is a technique with the help of which one can easily determine
the formability parameters and mechanical properties by simple performing numerous
Mechanical tests (tensile, flexural, lap shear, drop impact, izod impact, hardness, salt spray
corrosion test, erichsen cupping test) over the Fabricated Sandwich structure. In this
chapter the formability parameters and mechanical properties are determined by
calculation from the given data that is obtained over testing. This extensively helps to
compare and find out the differences between the experimental-observed and calculated
values.

5.1. TENSILE TEST

5.1.1. AA/GF-Epoxy-3%/AA: 00

The table represented below has the values of sandwich material of combination
AA5052/GF/AA5052 reinforced with MWCNT-3%wt.
The stacking sequence is 00.
Usually, 3 specimens are taken over the same percentage of weight composition as well as
and stacking sequence in order to have a very precise and an accurate result as shown in
Table 5.1. below.

52
Table.5.1. Observed test result of three specimens

Specimens 1 2 3
Breaking load 1895 N 2915 N 2965 N
Ultimate load 4125 N 4110 N 4070 N
Displacement at max 6.100mm 5.000mm 6.200mm
Maximum displacements 6.8mm 5.700mm 7.300mm
Area 28.930mm2 28.930mm2 28.930mm2
Ultimate stress 143N/mm2 142N/mm2 141N/mm2
Elongation 12.2% 9.500% 12.167%
Yield stress 136N/mm2 109N/mm2 128N/mm2
YS/UTS ratio 0.843 0.766 0.909

Calculations:-

Given data for specimen/degree of cut

Gauge length, l0 = 50 mm

Final gauge length, l = [( Avg % of Elongation × l0) + l0 ]

= [(11.29 × 50)] + 50
= 55.65mm

Original gauge width, w0 = 13 mm

Thickness, t = 2.7mm

Avg. of % elongation = 11.29 %

Yield stress, σy=124.33N/ mm2

Final gauge width, w =12.73 mm

Initial area, A0 (w0×t) = (13×2.7)

= 35.10 mm2

UTS (avg) = 142 N/mm2

Average area, A = 28.93 mm2

Formability Parameters:-

53
1) Engineering stress, σeng= load/original length = (P/A0)
= (4101.66/35.10)
= 116.85 N/mm2

2) Engineering strain, εeng= change in length /original length = (Δl/l0)=(l-l0/l0)

= (55.65 - 50/50)
= 0.113

3) % of elongation, (Avg. strain ×100) = 11.3 %

4) UTS, P/ A = (4101.66/28.93) = 141.78 N/mm2

5) Poisson ratio, 1/m= lateral strain/longitudinal strain = (w0-w/l-l0)

= (13 - 12.73 / 55.65 - 50)
= 0.0478

6) Anisotropy, R = ln( w/w0)/ ln(w0l0/wl)

= (ln 0.979/ln51.070)
= 0.2438

7) Yield load, Ry= (yield load×area) = (σy×A0)

= (124.33×35.10)
= 4363.98 N

8) Breaking stress, (Load at fracture / Avg. Area) = (2621.67/28.93)

= 90.62 N/mm2
9) Strain hardening (co-efficient and exponent):
True stress, σt= σe(1+εe)
σt = 0.1168(1+0.112)
σt = 0.1167

True strain, εt = ln(1+εe)

εt= ln(1+0.113)
εt= 0.1071

log σt= 0.1299

log εt= - 0.9702

54
Strain hardening, n = Δy/Δx
n = 0.1339

Strength coefficient, k = σt/ εtn

k = 1751.94 N/mm2

nR = 0.1339×0.2438 = 0.0326

Graphical Representation

Fig.5.1. Graph that shows slope with the help of which strain hardening exponent is fond out
(similar method is followed to obtain the slope-n of line plotted along log σtvs. log εt)

5.1.2. AA/GF-Epoxy-3%/AA: 450

The table represented below has the values of sandwich material of combination
AA5052/GF/AA5052 reinforced with MWCNT-3%wt.
The stacking sequence is 450.

55
 Usually, 3 specimens are taken over the same percentage of weight composition as well as
and stacking sequence in order to have a very precise and an accurate result as shown in
Table 5.2. below.
Table.5.2. Observed test result of three specimens

Specimen 1 2 3
Breaking load 1885 N 2815 N 2605 N
Ultimate load 3225 N 3165 N 3170 N
Displacement at max 6.500 mm 6.000 mm 6.500 mm
Maximum displacements 6.800 mm 6.500 mm 6.800 mm
Area 28.930 mm2 28.930 mm2 28.930 mm2
Ultimate stress 113 N/mm2 109 N/mm2 110 N/mm2
Elongation 11.33% 10.8333% 11.333%
Yield stress 98 N/mm2 95 N/mm2 92 N/mm2
YS/UTS ratio 0.868 0.864 0.839
Calculations:-

Given data for specimen/degree of cut

Gauge length, l0 = 50mm

Final gauge length, l = [(avg % of elongation × l0) + l0 ]

= [ (11.16 × 50)]+50
= 55.58mm

Original gauge width, w0 = 13 mm

Thickness, t = 2.33 mm

Avg. of % elongation = 11.16 %

Yield stress, σy =95 N/ mm2

Final gauge width, w = 12.83mm

Initial area, A0= (w0×t)

= (13×2.7)
= 30.29 mm2

UTS (avg) = 110.67 N/mm2

Average area, A = 28.93 mm2

56
Formability Parameters:-

1) Engineering stress, σeng=load/original length = P/A0

= (3196.66/30.29)
= 105.54 N/mm2

2) Engineering strain, εeng= change in length /original length= Δl/l0 = l-l0/l0

= (55.58-50/50)
= 0.112
3) % of elongation, (avg strain ×100) = 11.2 %

4) UTS, P/ A = (3196.66/28.93) = 110.50 N/mm2

5) Poisson ratio,1/m = lateral strain/longitudinal strain= 1/m = (w0-w / l-l0)

= (13-12.83 / 55.58-50)
= 0.0478

6) Anisotropy, R = (width strain/thickness strain) = ln(w/w0) / ln(w0l0/wl)

= ln(12.83/50)/ln(13×50/55.58×12.73)
= 0.2438

7) Yield load, Ry = (yield load×area) = (σy×A0)

= (95×28.93)
= 2877.55 N

8) Breaking stress, (Load at fracture / avg. Area) = (2435/28.93)

= 84.14 N/mm2
9) Strain hardening (co-efficient and exponent):

True stress, σt= σe(1+εe)

σt = 0.105(1+0.112)
σt = 0.1167

True strain, εt = ln(1+εe)

εt = ln(1+0.112)

57
 εt = 0.1062

log σt= 0.9329

log εt = - 0.9739

Strain hardening, n = Δy/Δx

n = 0.9579

Strain hardening, k = σt/ εtn

k = 9998.76 N/mm2
nR = 0.958 ×0.1421 = 0.1349

5.1.3. AA/GF-Epoxy-3%/AA: 900

The table represented below has the values of sandwich material of combination
AA5052/GF/AA5052 reinforced with MWCNT-3%wt.
The stacking sequence is 900.
Usually, 3 specimens are taken over the same percentage of weight composition as well as
and stacking sequence in order to have a very precise and an accurate result as shown in
Table 5.3. below.
Table.5.3. Observed test result of three specimens

Specimen 1 2 3
Breaking load 2790 N 2660 N 2795 N
Ultimate load 4510 N 4040 N 4385 N
Displacement at max 6.800mm 4.700mm 4.800mm
Maximum displacements 7.000mm 7.100mm 5.500mm
Area 28.930mm2 28.930mm2 28.930mm2
Ultimate stress 138N/mm2 140N/mm2 152N/mm2
Elongation 11.667% 11.833% 9.167%
Yield stress 69N/mm2 113N/mm2 119N/mm2
YS /UTS ratio 0.439 0.807 0.783

Calculations:-

Given data for specimen/degree of cut

58
Gauge length, l0 = 50mm

Final gauge length, l’= [(avg % of elongation×l0) + l0 ]

= [ (10.88×50)] + 50
= 55.44mm

Original gauge width, w0 = 13mm

Thickness, t = 2.46mm

Avg. of % elongation = 10.88 %

Yield stress, σy=100.33 N/ mm2

Final gauge width, w = 12.86 mm

Initial area, A0 = (w0×t)

= (13×2.7)
= 31.98 mm2

UTS (avg) = 143.33 N/mm2

Average area, A = 28.93 mm2

Formability Parameters:-

1) Engineering stress, σeng = load/original length

= p/A0
= (4331.66/31.98)
= 135.45 N/mm2

2) Engineering strain, εeng= change in length /original length=Δl/l0

=l-l0/l0
= (55.44-50/50)
= 0.109

3) % of elongation, (Avg strain ×100) = 10.9 %

4) UTS, (P/ A) = (4331.66/28.93)

= 149.72 N/mm2

59
 5) Poisson ratio, 1/m =lateral strain/longitudinal strain = ( w0-w/l-l0)
= (13-12.83/55.58-50)
= 0.0257

6) Anisotropy, R =(width strain/thickness strain)= ln( w/w0)/ln( w0l0 /wl )

= ln(12.3/50)/ln(13×50/55.44×12.86)
= 0.0257

7) Yield load, Ry= (yield load×area) =(σy×A0)

= (10.33×31.98)
= 3208.55 N

8) Breaking stress, (load at fracture / avg. Area) = (2735/28.93)

= 94.54N/mm2

9) Strain hardening (co-efficent and exponent):

True stress, σt= σ(1+εe)

σt = 0.135(1+0.109)
σt= 0.1497

True strain, εt = ln(1+εe)

εt =ln(1+0.109)
εt = 0.1035

log σt= 0.8247

log εt = - 0.9851

Strain hardening, n = Δy/Δx

n = 0.8372

Strain hardening, k = σt/ εtn

k = 9998.014 N/mm2

nR = 0.83×0.1171 = 0.0972

 Planar Anisotropy, ∆R = ((R0+R90-2R45)/2) = (0.0767/2) = 0.0384

60
  Plastic Anisotropy Ratio, = ((R0+2R45+R90)/4) = (0.4245/4) = 0.1061

Tabulation
Below depicted tables 5.4 and 5.5 show the numerous mechanical and formability
parameters respectively

Table.5.4. Represents the Mechanical Properties of AA5052/Epoxy(MWCNT-3%)-GF-

Epoxy(MWCNT-3%)/AA5052
Orientation AA5052/Epoxy(MWCNT-3%)-GF-Epoxy(MWCNT-3%)/AA5052
relative to n K (Mpa) σy(Mpa) σu(Mpa)
rolling direction
00 0.13 1751.94 124.33 142
450
0.95 9998.76 95 110.67
900
0.83 9998.014 100.36 143.33
Average 0.63 7249.57 106.56 132

Table.5.5. Represents the Formability Parameters of AA5052/Epoxy(MWCNT-3%)-GF-

Epoxy(MWCNT-3%)/AA5052
Orientation AA5052/Epoxy(MWCNT-3%)-GF-Epoxy(MWCNT-3%)/AA5052
relative to rolling R nR ∆R
direction
00 0.2438 0.0326
0.0384 0.1061
45 0
0.1421 0.1349
900 0.1171 0.0972
Average 0.1676 0.0882

Graphical Representation
Now the graph is plotted using origin and plotter software for the results that is obtained
from the test lab. This graph provides us a clear cut representation of the best result over 3
stacking sequences (00, 450, 900) for the same percentage weight composition – 3%.

61
 Fig.5.2. Represents the collective graphical image of different stacking sequence for 3%.

 It is found out that the specimen cut along the rolling direction of 00 behaves more
like a ductile material. The yield strength obtained is 124.33MPa, its ultimate tensile
strength is 142MPa and finally the failure occurred at 90.62MPa after necking was
observed. This is because of tensile type load acting along the gauge length of
specimen.

 It is found out that the specimen cut along the rolling direction of 450 behaves more
like a brittle material. The yield strength obtained is 95MPa which was very difficult
to determine, its ultimate tensile strength is 110.67MPa and finally the failure
occurred at 64.14MPa after necking was observed at a very smaller rate. This is
because of application of shear type load acting along the gauge length of specimen.

 It is found out that the specimen cut along the rolling direction of 900 behaves more
like a brittle material. The yield strength was not clearly obtained, its ultimate tensile
strength is 143.33MPa and finally the failure occurred at 94.54MPa without any
macro visibility of necking. This is because of application of shear type load acting
along the gauge length of specimen.

62
5.1.4. AA/GF-Epoxy-4%/AA: 00

The table represented below has the values of sandwich material of combination
AA5052/GF/AA5052 reinforced with MWCNT-4%wt.
The stacking sequence is 00.
Usually, 3 specimens are taken over the same percentage of weight composition as well as
and stacking sequence in order to have a very precise and an accurate result as shown in
Table 5.6. below.
Table.5.6. Observed test result of three specimens
Specimen 1 2 3
Breaking load 3315 N 2820 N 2565 N
Ultimate load 4250 N 4115 N 4070 N
Displacement at max 4.500mm 4.900mm 5.000mm
Maximum displacements 5.700mm 6.400mm 6.400mm
Area 32.294mm2 32.294mm2 32.294mm2
Ultimate stress 132N/mm2 127N/mm2 126N/mm2
Elongation 9.500% 910.667% 10.667%
Yield stress 118N/mm2 108N/mm2 103N/mm2
YS/UTS ratio 0.896 0.851 0.821

Calculations :-

Given data for specimen/degree of cuts

Gauge length, l0 = 50 mm

Final gauge length, l = [(avg % of elongation × l0) +l0 ]

= [ (10.27 × 50)] + 50
= 55.14mm

Original gauge width, w0 = 13mm

Thickness, t = 2.91mm

Avg. of % elongation = 10.27 %

63
Yield stress, σy =109.66 N/ mm2

Final gauge width, w = 12.26mm

Initial area, A0 = (w0×t)

= (13×2.91)
= 37.83 mm2

UTS (avg) = 128.33 N/mm2

Average area , A =32.294 mm2

Formability Parameters :-

1) Engineering stress, σeng = P/A0

= (4145/37.83)
= 109.56 N/mm2

2) Engineering strain, εeng=Δl/l0 =l-l0/l0

= (55.14-50/50)
= 0.1028

3) % of elongation,= (Avg strain ×100)

= 10.3 %

4) UTS, P/ A = (4145/32.294)

= 3.9738 N/mm2

5) Poisson ratio, 1/m = w0-w/l-l0

= (13-12.26/55.14-50)
= 0.1440

6) Anisotropy, R = ln(w/w0) / ln(w0l0/wl)

= ln(12.26/13)/ln(13 × 50 / 12.26 × 55.14)
= 0.4934

7) Yield load , Ry = (σy× A0)

= (109.66 × 37.83) = 4363.98 N

64
 8) Breaking stress, = (load at fracture / avg. Area)
= (2900 / 32.29)
= 89.8111 N/mm2

9) Strain hardening(co-efficient and exponent):

True stress, σt= σe(1+εe)

σt = 0.109(1 + 0.1028)
σt= 0.1202

True strain, εt = ln (1+εe)

εt= ln(1+0.1028)
εt = 0.0978

log σt= 0.9200

log εt= - 1.00097

Strain hardening exponent, n= Δy/Δx

= (y2-y1)/(x2-x1)
n = 0.91

Strength coefficient, k = σt/ εtn

k = 9970.02 N/mm2

nR = 0.91×0.0.4934 = 0.0.4489

5.1.5. AA/GF-Epoxy-4%/AA: 450

The table represented below has the values of sandwich material of combination
AA5052/GF/AA5052 reinforced with MWCNT-4%wt.
The stacking sequence is 450.
Usually, 3 specimens are taken over the same percentage of weight composition as well as
and stacking sequence in order to have a very precise and an accurate result as shown in
Table 5.7. below.

65
Table.5.7. Observed test result of three specimen:
Specimen 1 2 3
Breaking load 2200 N 2690 N 2620 N
Ultimate load 3070 N 2915 N 4410 N
Displacement at max 6.200 mm 5.000 mm 5.500 mm
Maximum displacements 6.400 mm 6.000 mm 6.800mm
Area 32.294 mm2 32.924 mm2 32.294 mm2
Ultimate stress 95 N/mm2 90 N/mm2 137 N/mm2
Elongation 10.667% 10.000% 11.333%
Yield stress 90 N/mm2 83 N/mm2 106 N/mm2
YS/UTS ratio 0.946 0.923 0.773

Calculations:-

Given data for specimen/degree of cut

Gauge length, l0 = 50 mm

Final gauge length, l = [(avg % of elongation × l0) + l0 ]

= [(32.294 × 50)] + 50
= 55.33 mm

Original gauge width, w0 = 13 mm

Thickness, t = 2.88 mm

Avg. of % elongation = 10.66 %

Yield stress, σy =93 N/ mm2

Final gauge width, w = 12.1 mm

Initial value, A0 = (w0×t)

= (13×2.7)
= 37.44 mm2

UTS (avg) = 107 N/mm2

Average area, A = 32.294 mm2

Formability Parameters:-

66
1) Engineering stress , σeng = P/A0

= (3465 / 37.83)
= 92.55 N/mm2

2) Engineering strain, εeng=Δl/l0 =(l-l0/l0)

= (55.33-50 / 50)
= 0.1066

3) % of elongation, = (Avg strain ×100)

= 10.7 %

4) UTS = ( P/ A)
= (3465 / 32.294)
= 107.31 N/mm2

5) Poisson ratio, 1/m = (w0-w/l-l0)

= (13-12.26/55.14-50)
= 0.1440 N/mm2

6) Anisotropy, R = ln( w/w0) / ln(w0l0/wl)

= ln (12.26 / 13) / ln(13×50/12.26×55.14)
= 0.4280

7) Yield load, Ry = (σy×A0)

= (109.66×37.83)
= 3481.92 N

8) Breaking stress, ( load at fracture / avg. Area)

= (2503.33 / 32.29)
= 77.53 N/mm2

9) Strain hardening(co-efficent and exponent):

True stress, σt= σ(1+εe)
σt = 0.092(1 + 0.1066)
σt= 0.1018

True strain, εt = ln(1+εe)

67
 εt =ln(1 + 0.1066)
εt = 0.1013

log σt= 0.9922

log εt = - 0.9944

Strain hardening exponent, n = Δy/Δx

=(y2-y1)/(x2-x1)
n = 0.99

Strength coefficient, k = σt/ εtn

k = 9821.87 N/mm2

nR = 0.99×0.4280 = 0.4158

5.1.6. AA/GF-Epoxy-4%/AA: 900

The table represented below has the values of sandwich material of combination
AA5052/GF/AA5052 reinforced with MWCNT-4%wt.
The stacking sequence is 900.
Usually, 3 specimens are taken over the same percentage of weight composition as well as
and stacking sequence in order to have a very precise and an accurate result as shown in
Table 5.8.

Table.5.8. Observed test result of three specimens

Specimen 1 2 3
Breaking load 2680 N 2675 N 1855 N
Ultimate load 3470 N 3755 N 3.650 N
Displacement at max 4.600 mm 5.100 mm 5.300mm
Maximum displacements 7.400 mm 8.700 mm 7.200 mm

68
 Area 32.294 mm2 32.294 mm2 32.294mm2
Ultimate stress 107 N/mm2 116 N/mm2 113 N/mm2
Elongation 12.333% 14.500 % 12.000 %
Yield stress 89 N/mm2 96 N/mm2 93 N/mm2
YS/SUTS ratio 0.830 0.823 0.826

Calculations:-

Given data for specimen/degree of cut

Gauge length, l0 = 50mm

Final gauge length, l = [(avg % of elongation × l0) +l0 ]

= [ (12.94 × 50)] + 50
= 56.94 mm

Original gauge width, w0 = 13 mm

Thickness, t = 2.63 mm

Avg. of % elongation = 12.94 %

Yield stress, σy = 92.66 N/ mm2

Final gauge width, w = 12.36 mm

Initial area, A0= (w0×t)

= (13 × 2.7)
= 34.19 mm2

UTS (avg) = 112 N/mm2

Average area, A = 32.294 mm2

Formability Parameters:-

1. Engineering stress, σeng = p/A0

= (3625 / 34.19)
= 106.03 N/mm2

2. Engineering strain, εeng=Δl/l0 = l-l0/l0

69
 = (56.47 – 50 / 50)
= 0.1294

3. % of elongation, (Avg strain ×100) = 12.9 %

4. UTS = P/ A
= (3625 / 32.294)
= 112.26 N/mm2

5. Poisson ratio, 1/m = (w0-w/l-l0 )

= (13-112.26 / 55.14 - 50)
= 0.0989 N/mm2

6. Anisotropy, R = ln( w/w0)/ ln(w0l0/wl)

=ln(12.36/13) / ln(13 × 50 / 12.36 × 56.47)

= 0.7090

7. Yield load, Ry = (σy×A0) = (92.66×34.19)

1. = 3168.04 N

8. Breaking stress,= ( load at fracture / avg. Area)

= (2403.33/32.29)
= 77.43 N/ mm2

9. Strain hardening(co-efficent and exponent):

True stress, σt= σ(1+εe)

σt = 0.106(1+0.1294)
σt= 0.1371

True strain, εt = ln(1+εe)

εt = ln(1+0.294)
εt = 0.1217

log σt= 0.8629

log εt = - 0.9147

Strain hardening exponent, n = Δy/Δx

=( y2-y1)/(x2-x1)

70
 n = 0.94

Strength coefficient, k = σt/ εtn = 9928.05 N/mm2

nR = 0.94×0.7090 = 0.6664

 Planar Anisotropy, ∆R = ((R0+R90-2R45)/2) = (0.35/2) = 0.175

 Plastic Anisotropy Ratio, = ((R0+2R45+R90)/4) = (2.03/4) = 0.5075

Tabulation
Below depicted tables 5.9 and 5.10 show the numerous mechanical and formability
parameters respectively

Table.5.9. Represents the Mechanical Properties of AA5052/Epoxy(MWCNT-4%)-GF-

Epoxy(MWCNT-4%)/AA5052
Orientation AA5052/Epoxy(MWCNT-4%)-GF-Epoxy(MWCNT-4%)/AA5052
relative to rolling n K (Mpa) σy(Mpa) σu(Mpa)
direction
00 0.91 9970.02 109.66 128.33
45 0
0.99 9821.87 93 107.33
90 0
0.94 9928.05 92.66 112
Average 0.94 9906.64 98.44 115.88

Table.5.10. Represents the Formability Parameters of AA5052/Epoxy(MWCNT-4%)-GF-

Epoxy(MWCNT-4%)/AA5052
Orientation AA5052/Epoxy(MWCNT-4%)-GF-Epoxy(MWCNT-4%)/AA5052
relative to R nR ∆R
rolling direction
00 0.4934 0.4489
0.175 0.5075
450
0.4283 0.4158
900 0.7090 0.6664
Average 0.5366 0.5104

71
Graphical Representation
Now the graph is plotted using origin and plotter software for the results that is obtained
from the test lab. This graph provides us a clear cut representation of the best result over 3
stacking sequences (00, 450, 900) for the same percentage weight composition – 4%.

Fig.5.3. Represents the collective graphical image of different stacking sequence for 4%.

 It is found out that the specimen cut along the rolling direction of 00 behaves more
like a brittle material. The yield strength obtained is 109.66MPa which was very
difficult to determine, its ultimate tensile strength is 128.33MPa and finally the failure
occurred at 79.81MPa after necking was observed at a very smaller rate. This is
because of application of shear type load acting along the gauge length of specimen.

 It is found out that the specimen cut along the rolling direction of 450 behaves more
like a brittle material. The yield strength was not clearly obtained, its ultimate tensile
strength is 107MPa and finally the failure occurred at 77.53MPa without any macro
visibility of necking. This is because of application of shear type load acting along the
gauge length of specimen.

 It is found out that the specimen cut along the rolling direction of 900 behaves more
like a ductile material. The yield strength obtained is 92.66MPa, its ultimate tensile
strength is 112MPa and finally the failure occurred at 77.43MPa after necking was

72
 observed. This is because of tensile type load acting along the gauge length of
specimen.
5.1.7. AA/GF-Epoxy-5%/AA: 00

The table represented below has the values of sandwich material of combination
AA5052/GF/AA5052 reinforced with MWCNT-5%wt.
The stacking sequence is 00.
Usually, 3 specimens are taken over the same percentage of weight composition as well as
and stacking sequence in order to have a very precise and an accurate result as shown in
Table 5.11. below.
Table.5.11. Observed test result of three specimens

Specimen 1 2 3
Breaking load 2050 N 2995 N 3020 N
Ultimate load 3925 N 3525 N 4.000 N
Displacement at max 4.800 mm 4.800 mm 4.900 mm
Maximum displacements 6.100 mm 6.600 mm 7.200 mm
Area 48.650 mm2 48.650 mm2 48.650 mm2
Ultimate stress 81 N/mm2 72 N/mm2 82 N/mm2
Elongation 10.167 % 11.000% 12.000%
Yield stress 70 N/mm2 60 N/mm2 69 N/mm2
Ys WTS ratio 0.865 0.821 0.838

Calculations:-

Given data for specimen/degree of cuts

Gauge length, l0 = 50 mm

Final gauge length, l’ = [(avg % of elongation × l0) + l0 ]

= [ (11.05 × 50)] + 50 = 55.33 mm

Original gauge width, w0 = 13 mm

Thickness, t = 2.93 mm

Avg. of % elongation = 11.05 %

Yield stress, σy = 66 N/ mm2

73
Final gauge width, w = 12.76 mm

Initial area A0= (w0×t)

= (13×2.91)
= 38.09 mm2

UTS (avg) = 78.33 N/mm2

Average area, A = 33.65 mm2

Formability Parameters:-
1) Engineering stress, σeng = load/original length
= P/A0 = (3816.66/38.09)
= 100.20 N/mm2

2) Engineering strain, εeng = change in length /original length= Δl/l0 = (l-l0/l0)

= (55.33-50/50) = 0.1106

3) % of elongation, (Avg. strain ×100) = 11.1 %

4) UTS = P/A
= (3816.66 / 33.65)
= 113.42 N/mm2

5) Poisson ratio, 1/m = lateral strain/longitudinal strain = (w0-w/l-l0)

= (13-12.76 / 55.53-50)
= 0.0434 N/mm2

6) Anisotropy, R = (width strain/thickness strain) = ln( w /w0)/ln(w0l0 /wl)

= ln(12.76 / 13) / ln(13 × 50 / 12.76 × 55.53)

= 0.2160

7) Yield load, Ry, = (yield load×area) = (σy×A0)

= (66 × 38.09)
= 2513.94 N

8) Breaking stress = (Load at fracture / avg. Area) = (2688.33/33.65)

= 79.89 N/mm2

74
9) Strain hardening(co-efficent and exponent):

True stress, σt= σe(1+εe)

= 0.1(1+0.1106)
= 0.01106

True strain, εt = ln(1+εe)

= ln(1+0.1106)
= 0.1049

log σt= 0.9562

log εt = - 0.9792

Strain hardening exponent, n = Δy/Δx

=(y2-y1)/(x2-x1)
= 0.9765

Strength coefficient, k = σt/εtn

= 8644.9 N/mm2
nR = 0.9765×0.2160 = 0.2109

5.1.8. AA/GF-Epoxy-5%/AA: 450

The table represented below has the values of sandwich material of combination
AA5052/GF/AA5052 reinforced with MWCNT-5%wt.
The stacking sequence is 450.
Usually, 3 specimens are taken over the same percentage of weight composition as well as
and stacking sequence in order to have a very precise and an accurate result as shown in
Table 5.12. below.
Table.5.12. Observed test result of three specimens
Specimen 1 2 3
Breaking load 1595 N 1410 N 1575 N
Ultimate load 3070 N 2985 N 2975 N
Displacement at max 5.500 mm 5.500 mm 5.300 mm
Maximum displacements 7.300 mm 6.900 mm 6.000 mm
Area 48.650 mm2 48.650 mm2 48.650 mm2
Ultimate stress 63 N/mm2 61 N/mm2 61 N/mm2

75
 Elongation 12.167 % 11.500 % 10.000%
Yield stress 57 N/mm2 55 N/mm2 54 N/mm2
YS/UTS ratio 0.904 0.903 0.884

Calculations :-

Given data for specimen/degree of cuts

Gauge length, l0 = 50mm

Final gauge length, l = [(avg % of elongation × l0) + l0 ]

= [ (11.22×50)] + 5
= 55.61 mm

Original gauge width, w0 = 13 mm

Thickness, t = 2.83 mm

Avg. of % elongation = 11.22 %

Yield stress, σy= 55.33 N/ mm2

Final gauge width, w = 12.74 mm

Initial area, A0 (w0×t) = (13×2.91) = 36.79 mm2

UTS (avg) = 61.66 N/mm2

Average area, A = 33.65 mm2

Formability Parameters:-

1) Engineering stress, σeng= load/original length

= P/A0 = (3010/36.79)
= 81.81 N/mm2

2) Engineering strain, εeng= change in length /original length =Δl/l0 = l-l0/l0

= (55.61-50/50)
= 0.112

3) % of elongation, (avg strain ×100) = 11.2 %

76
 4) UTS, ( P/avg A )= (3010/33.65) = 89.45 N/mm2

5) Poisson ratio= lateral strain/longitudinal strain = 1/m = w0-w/l-l0

= (13-12.74/55.61-50)
=0.0463 N/mm2

6) Anisotropy, R = (width strain/thickness strain)= ln( w/w0)/ln(w0l0/wl)

=ln(12.74/13)/ln(13×50/12.74×55.61)
= 0.2345

7) Yield load, Ry , = (yield load×area) =(σy×A0)

= (55.33×36.79)
= 2035.59 N

8) Breaking stress =(Load at fracture / avg. Area)

= (1526.66/33.65)
= 45.36 N/mm2

9) Strain Hardening,

True stress,σt= σ(1+εe)

σt = 1.081(1+0.112)
σt= 0.0900

True strain, εt = ln(1+εe)

εt =ln(1+0.112)
εt = 0.1062

log σt= 0.945

log εt = - 0.9739

Strain hardening, n = Δy/Δx

n = 0.9742

Strain cofficient, k = σt/ εtn

k = 7923.22 N/mm2

77
nR = 0.9742 ×0.2345 = 0.2284

5.1.9. AA/GF-Epoxy-5%/AA: 900

The table represented below has the values of sandwich material of combination
AA5052/GF/AA5052 reinforced with MWCNT-5%wt.
The stacking sequence is 900.
Usually, 3 specimens are taken over the same percentage of weight composition as well as
and stacking sequence in order to have a very precise and an accurate result as shown in
Table 5.13. below.
Table.5.13. Observed test result of three specimens
Specimen 1 2 3
Breaking load 2060 N 4100 N 2465 N
Ultimate load 4410 N 4315 N 3825 N
Displacement at max 4.800 mm 4.800 mm 4.900 mm
Maximum displacements 5.900 mm 5.400 mm 5.900 mm
Area 48.650 mm2 48.650 mm2 48.650 mm2
Ultimate stress 91 N/mm2 89 N/mm2 79 N/mm2
Elongation 9.833 % 9.000% 9.000%
Yield stress 67 N/mm2 73 N/mm2 67 N/mm2
YS/UTS ratio 0.740 0.820 0.858

Calculations:-

Given data for specimen/degree of cuts

Gauge length, l0 = 50 mm

Final gauge length, l = [(avg % of elongation×l0) + l0 ]

= [ (9.55×50)] + 50
= 55.33 mm

Original gauge width, w0 = 13 mm

Thickness, t = 2.6 mm

Avg. of % elongation = 9.55 %

78
Yield stress, σy=69 N/ mm2

Final gauge width, w = 12.77 mm

Initial area, A0 = (w0×t)

= (13×2.91)
= 33.8 mm2

UTS (avg) = 86.33 N/mm2

Average area, A = 33.65 mm2

Formability Parameters:-

1) Engineering stress, σeng=load/original length = P/A0 = (4183.33/38.8)

= 123.76 N/mm2

2) Engineering strain, εeng= change in length /original length= Δl/l0 = (l-l0/l0)

= (54.78-50/50)
= 0.0956

3) % of elongation, (avg strain ×100) = 9.6 %

4) UTS, (P/A) = (4183.33/33.65)

= 124.32 N/mm2

5) Poisson ratio,= lateral strain/longitudinal strain= 1/m = (w0-w/l-l0)

= (13-12.77/54.
= 0.0481 N/mm2

6) Anisotropy, R = (width strain/thickness strain)= ln( w/w0)/ln(w0l0/wl)

= ln(12.77/13)/ln(13×50/12.77×54.78) = 0.2430

7) Yield load, Ry = (yield load×area) = (σy×A0)

= (69×38.8) = 2332.2 N

8) Breaking stress, (Load at fracture / avg.Area) = (2975/33.65)

= 85.44 N/mm2

79
9) Strain hardening (co-efficent and exponent):

True stress, σt= σ(1+εe)

σt = 0.123(1+0.0956)
σt= 0.1347

True strain, εt = ln(1+εe)

εt =ln(1+0.956)
εt = 0.0913

log σt= 0.8706

log εt = - 1.0395

Strain hardening, n = Δy/Δx = 0.8379

Strain hardening, k = σt/ εtn

k = 1000.89 N/mm2

nR = 0.8379×0.2430 = 0.2036

 Planar Anisotropy, ∆R = ((R0+R90-2R45)/2) = (0.01/2) = 0.005

 Plastic Anisotropy Ratio, = ((R0+2R45+R90)/4) = (0.928/4) = 0.232

Tabulation
Below depicted tables 5.14 and 5.15 show the numerous mechanical and formability
parameters respectively

Table.5.14. Represents the Mechanical Properties of AA5052/Epoxy(MWCNT-5%)-GF-

Epoxy(MWCNT-5%)/AA5052
Orientation AA5052/Epoxy(MWCNT-5%)-GF-Epoxy(MWCNT-5%)/AA5052
relative to rolling n K (Mpa) σy(Mpa) σu(Mpa)
direction
00 0.9765 8644.9 66.33 78.33
450 0.9742 7923.22 55.33 61.66
90 0
0.8379 1000.89 69 86.33
Average 0.9295 5856.34 63.55 75.44

80
Table.5.15. Represents the Formability Parameters of AA5052/Epoxy(MWCNT-5%)-GF-
Epoxy(MWCNT-5%)/AA5052
Orientation AA5052/Epoxy(MWCNT-5%)-GF-Epoxy(MWCNT-5%)/AA5052
relative to rolling R nR ∆R
direction
00 0.2160 0.2109
0.005 0.232
45 0
0.2345 0.2284
900 0.2430 0.2036
Average 0.2312 0.2143

Graphical Representation
Now the graph is plotted using origin and plotter software for the results that is obtained
from the test lab. This graph provides us a clear cut representation of the best result over 3
stacking sequences (00, 450, 900) for the same percentage weight composition – 5%.

Fig.5.4. Represents the collective graphical image of different stacking sequence for 5%.

 It is found out that the specimen cut along the rolling direction of 00 behaves more
like a brittle material. The yield strength obtained is 66MPa which was very difficult
to determine, its ultimate tensile strength is 78.33MPa and finally the failure occurred

81
 at 62.43MPa after necking was observed at a very smaller rate. This is because of
application of shear type load acting along the gauge length of specimen.

 It is found out that the specimen cut along the rolling direction of 450 behaves more
like a ductile material. The yield strength obtained is 55.33MPa, its ultimate tensile
strength is 61.66MPa and finally the failure occurred at 33.36MPa after necking was
observed. This is because of tensile type load acting along the gauge length of
specimen.

 It is found out that the specimen cut along the rolling direction of 900 behaves more
like a brittle material. The yield strength was not clearly obtained, its ultimate tensile
strength is 86.33MPa and finally the failure occurred at 48.42MPa without any macro
visibility of necking. This is because of application of shear type load acting along the
gauge length of specimen.

5.2. FLEXURAL TEST

General formulas used :-

Flexural stress, σf =3PL/2bd2 N/mm2

where, p = load applied (n)

l = length of the span (mm)

b = width of the span (mm)

d = depth of the span (mm)

Flexural strain, εf = 6Dd / L2

where, D = maximum displacements at the center (mm)

D = depth of the span (mm)

L = length of the span (mm)

Moment of inertia, I = bd3/12

82
Simple bending equation, M/I = E/R

where, M = bending moment (n-mm)

I = moment of inertia (mm4)

E = flexural modulus (N/mm2)

R = radius of the curvature

Bending moment,M = PL/4

Radius of curvature, R = length of the arc = A/360 ×2 R

Flexural stiffness,Sf = P/D (Nmm2)

EXPERIMENTAL DATA (Observed And Recorded Values):-

Below represented table Table.5.16 shows the different observed values of flexural test

Table.5.16. Observed test result of three specimens

Specimen/ 3% 4% 5%
parameter Sp1 Sp2 Sp3 Sp1 Sp2 Sp3 Sp1 Sp2 Sp3
s
P N 85 65 95 50 65 85 55 75 75
L mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
B mm 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.4 12.4 12.4
d mm 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8
D mm 12.1 12.6 11.8 12.7 11.4 10.9 12.2 10.7 11.9
(C – B) 11.5 11.5 11.5 10 10 10 9.9 9.9 9.9
mm
A0 1540 1520 1560 1580 1590 1570 1670 1680 1680

5.2.1. AA/GF-Epoxy-3%/AA

The table represented below has the values of sandwich material of combination
AA5052/GF/AA5052 reinforced with MWCNT-3%wt.

83
Usually, 3 specimens are taken over the same percentage of weight composition in order
to have a very precise and an accurate result.

Calculation:-

Flexural stress, σf =3PL/2bd2 N/mm2

2
=3×81.6×100/ 12.36×2 (2.88)

= 24480/192.86
σf = 126.93 N/mm2

Flexural strain, εf= 6Dd / L2

= 6×12.2×2.8/ 1002
Εf = 0.0205

Moment of inertia, I = bd3/12

= 12.3× (2.8)3 / 12
I = 22.5 mm4

Bending moment, M = PL/4

= 81.6 ×100 / 4
M = 2040 Nmm

Flexural stiffness, Sf = P/D (N/mm)

= 81.6/ 9.5
Sf = 4.2×104 N/mm

Radius of curvature,(R) = length of the arc = A/360 ×2 R

= 11.5×360 / 154×2
R = 4.2785

Simple bending equation, M/I = E/R

= 2040×4.2785 / 22.5
E = 387.9173 N/mm2

5.2.2. AA/GF-Epoxy-4%/AA

The table represented below has the values of sandwich material of combination
AA5052/GF/AA5052 reinforced with MWCNT-4%wt.

84
Usually, 3 specimens are taken over the same percentage of weight composition in order
to have a very precise and an accurate result.

Calculation:-

Flexural stress, σf = 3PL/2bd2 N/mm2

=3×66.6×100/ 2× 12.3×2 (2.8)2
= 103.59 N/mm2

Flexural strain, εf=6Dd / L2

= 6×11.2×2.8/ 100×100
εf = 0.0188

Moment of inertia, I = bd3/12

= 12.3×(2.8)3 / 12
I = 22.5 mm4

Bending moment, M = PL/4

= 66.6×100 / 4
M = 1665 Nmm

Flexural stiffness, Sf = P/D (N/mm)

= 66.6/ 8.5
Sf = 5.9464N/mm

Radius of curvature, (R) = length of the arc = A/360 ×2 R

= 10×360 / 158×2
R = 3.6263

Simple bending equation, M/I = E/R

= 1665×3.6263 / 22.5
E = 268.3462 N/mm2

5.2.3. AA/GF-Epoxy-5%/AA

The table represented below has the values of sandwich material of combination
AA5052/GF/AA5052 reinforced with MWCNT-5%wt.

85
Usually, 3 specimens are taken over the same percentage of weight composition in order
to have a very precise and an accurate result.
Calculation:-

Flexural stress, σf =3PL/2bd2 N/mm2

= 3×68.3/ 2× 12.4×2 (2.8)2
σf = 1.234×106 N/mm2

Flexural strain, εf=6Dd / L2

= 6× 11.6×2.8/ 100×100
εf = 0.0195

Moment of inertia, I = bd3/12

= 12.4×(2.8)3 / 12
I = 22.5 mm4

Bending moment, M = PL/4

= 68.3×100 / 4
M = 1707.5 Nmm

Flexural stiffness, Sf = P/D (N/mm)

= 68.3/ 6.5
Sf =5.8879N/mm

Radius of curvature, R = length of the arc = A/360 ×2 R

= 9.9×360 / 168×2
R = 3.3764

Simple bending equation, M/I = E/R

= 1707.5×3.3764 / 22.68
E = 253.9878 N/mm2

Tabulation

The Table.5.17. Represents the final MWCNT weight percentages

Table.5.17. Calculated Flexural strength of the AA5052/Epoxy(MWCNT)-GF-

Epoxy(MWCNT)/AA5052
MWCNT AA5052/Epoxy(MWCNT)-GF-Epoxy(MWCNT)/AA5052
Weight % in P (KN) D (mm) Sf (MPa) E (MPa)

86
 MWCNT 3% 81.6 12.2 6.6885 387.9173
MWCNT 4% 66.6 11.2 5.9464 268.3462
MWCNT 5% 68.3 11.6 5.8879 253.9878

Graphical Representation:

Now the graph is plotted using origin and plotter software for the results that is obtained
from the test lab. This graph provides us a clear cut representation of the best result over
all the 3 different weight compositions.

Fig.5.5. Represents the collective graphical image of different weight percentage (3%,4%&
5%).
The flexural test of three different weight % of sandwich sheet metals are as depicted in
the table below. The load (P), maximum deflection (D), flexural stiffness (S f), and also the
flexural modulus of sandwich material is calculated and represented. Among all these
different materials fabricated MWCNT of 3% weight is considered best material in terms
of flexural test result outcome. It is because the stiffness as well as the max deflection of
the material is comparatively higher than others. This proves that this particular material
has the ability to absorb maximum load forced to it and further has the capacity to transmit
the load uniformly without any failure.

87
5.3. LAP SHEAR TEST
The Table 5.18. as shown below depicts the lap shear values for different weight
percentages (3%, 4% & 5%)

Table.5.18. Observed test result of three specimens

% ULT/BL DISP.AT. MAX. AREA ULT. ELONG
FMAX DISP STRESS ATION
(KN) (mm) (mm) (mm2) (KN/mm2) (%)
3 1.490 2.800 3.400 31.059 0.048 18.889

4 1.090 2.800 4.100 31.059 0.035 22.778

5 1.145 3.000 3.500 31.059 0.037 19.444

Graphical Representation:

Now the graph is plotted using origin and plotter software for the results that is obtained
from the test lab. This graph provides us a clear cut representation of the best result over
all the 3 different weight compositions.

88
 Fig.5.6. Represents the collective graphical image of different weight percentages
(3%,4%&5%).

In lap shear test the bonding between the adhesive materials that has been used for
fabrication is checked. Since it is with the help of the bond strength, the whole FML of
sandwich material stays intact without delimitation. So, it becomes necessary to know the
better bond strength achieved among the test specimen. From the results shown below the
MWCNT-4%weight reinforcement material possesses a good binding nature as its
ultimate tensile stress value corresponds to lowest value though it has the maximum
elongation% as well as the maximum deflection comparatively.

5.4. DROP IMPACT

Impact Resistance Test at Room Temperature:

Test Condition:

89
 Temperature : Room Temperature (27±2°C).

Diameter of Impact Core : 12.7 mm.

Height of Weight Fall (1kg) : 50cm, 100 cm & 150 cm.

Test Observation:

 Sample No: 1 – AL+GF+CNT-3%, 4% & 5%

No Cracks Observed at the Height of 1kg Weight Fall from 150 cm.

5.5. IZOD IMPACT TEST

The Table.5.19. represented below shows the erichsen impact values for different
specimens

Table.5.19. Observed test result of three specimens

SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE ID IZOD IMPACT TEST RESULTS
(Joules)
1 AL+CNT(3%)+GF 6, 4, 6
2 AL+CNT(4%)+GF 6, 4, 4
3 AL+CNT(5%)+GF 6, 4, 6

Fig.5.7. Represents bar chart for izod impact test

90
The specimen AL+CNT (3% and 5%) posses a good impact load or simply energy
absorbing nature as they both have the same experimental test results. Hence these
materials have the nature to absorb a high shock load without failure.

5.6. HARDNESS TEST

Equipment Used: Micro Hardness Tester- Wilson (Wolpert Group-Germen)

Observation:

Hardness (HV1 kg) – AL+CNT (3%)+GF

 Sample 1 : 73.4, 72.4, 74.4

 Sample 2 : 72.9, 73.7, 71.9
 Sample 3 : 73.0, 71.9, 74.5

Hardness (HV1 kg) – AL+CNT (4%)+GF

 Sample 1 : 73.7, 72.8, 73.0

 Sample 2 : 72.1, 76.5, 73.8
 Sample 3 : 73.2, 72.6, 74.1

Hardness (HV1 kg) – AL+CNT (5%)+GF

 Sample 1 : 75.1, 74.1, 75.6

 Sample 2 : 74.2, 75.7, 74.9
 Sample 3 : 73.0, 75.5, 74.0

91
 Fig.5.8. Represents the bar chart for hardness test

The specimen AL+CNT (5%) posses a good resistance to indentation due to load acting
upon it. Hence these materials have the nature highest hardness number.

5.7. SALT SPRAY CORROSION TEST

Test Parameters:

1. Concentration of Sodium Chloride : 5.1% NaCl

2. Chamber Temperature : 34.2 – 35.°C

3. pH of Salt Solution : 7.1

4. Air Pressure : 15 psi

5. Collection of Solution per Hour : 1.2

6. Method of /Cleaning of Specimen : a) Specimen cleaned gently prior to loading.

Before Loading and After Completion of b) Specimen washed gently in clean running water
Testing to remove salt deposits from their surfaces and then dried immediately.

7. Required Exposure Period : 96 Hrs

8. Exposure Period : 96 Hrs

9. Date of start and end of the test : 09.03.16 – 12.03.16

10. Test Observation : AL+CNT (3%, 4%, 5%)+GF

The Table.5.20. represented below shows the salt spray values at different time

Table.5.20. Observed test result of three specimens at different time intervals

Sl.No. Time Observation (3%) Observation (4%) Observation (5%)
1 At 21 Hrs No corrosion No corrosion No corrosion
2 At 42 Hrs No corrosion No corrosion No corrosion
3 At 63 Hrs No corrosion No corrosion No corrosion
4 At 96 Hrs No corrosion No corrosion No corrosion

92
5.8. ERICHSEN CUPPING TEST
The Table.5.21. represented below shows the erichsen cupping values for four different
specimens.

Table.5.21. Represents the Erichsen Cupping values

Sample No. Erichsen Cupping Erichsen Cupping Erichsen Cupping
Value (mm) – Value (mm) – Value (mm) –
3%CNT 4%CNT 5%CNT
1 7.51 8.62 7.42
2 8.04 7.93 8.56
3 9.68 8.12 8.15
4 8.67 10.04 8.68

Fig.5.9. Represents the bar chart for erichsen cupping test

The specimen AL+CNT (4%) posses a good result because on an average they have the
highest erichsen cupping index value compared to other fabricated sandwich sheets. The
highest value of AL+CNT (4%) which is an epoxy based composite sheet metal is 10.
Hence its formability and ductility is good which makes it’s the better alternative for
automobile application.

93
 CHAPTER 6

MICRO STRUCTURAL CHARACTERIZATION

Characterization, when used in material science, refers to the broad and general process
by which a material's structure and properties are probed and measured. It is a
fundamental process in the field of materials science, without which no scientific
understanding of engineering materials could be ascertained. The scope of the term often
differs; some definitions limit the term's use to techniques which study the microscopic
structure and properties of materials, while others use the term to refer to any materials
analysis process including macroscopic techniques such as mechanical testing, thermal
analysis and density calculation. The scale of the structures observed in materials
characterization ranges from angstroms, such as in the imaging of individual atoms and
chemical bonds, up to centimeters, such as in the imaging of coarse grain structures in
metals.

6.1. MICRO STRUCTURAL EXAMINATION

Microscopy is a category of characterization techniques which probe and map the

surface and sub-surface structure of a material. These techniques can
use photons , electrons , ions or physical cantilever probes to gather data about a sample's
structure on a range of length scales. Some common examples of microscopy instruments
include:

 Optical microscope
 Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)
 Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM)
 Atomic Force Microscope (AFM)
 X-Ray Diffraction Topography (XRD)

We use SEM for fractographical analysis in this research work.

94
6.2. SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE (SEM).

A scanning electron microscope (SEM) is a type of electron microscope that

produces images of a sample by scanning it with a focused beam of electrons. The
electrons interact with atoms in the sample, producing various signals that contain
information about the sample's surface topography and composition. The electron beam is
generally scanned in a raster scan pattern, and the beam's position is combined with the
detected signal to produce an image. SEM can achieve resolution better than 1 nanometer.
Specimens can be observed in high vacuum, in low vacuum, in wet conditions (in
environmental SEM), and at a wide range of cryogenic or elevated temperatures.

Fig.6.1. Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) machine

The high-resolution, three-dimensional images produced by SEMs provide

topographical, morphological and compositional information makes them invaluable in a
variety of science and industry applications.

95
6.2.1. SEM Advantages

 Advantages of a Scanning Electron Microscope include its wide-array of

applications, the detailed three-dimensional and topographical imaging and the
versatile information garnered from different detectors.
 SEMs are also easy to operate with the proper training and advances in computer
technology and associated software make operation user-friendly.
 This instrument works fast, often completing SEI, BSE and EDS analyses in less
than five minutes. In addition, the technological advances in modern SEMs allow
for the generation of data in digital form.
 Although all samples must be prepared before placed in the vacuum chamber, most
SEM samples require minimal preparation actions.

6.2.2. SEM Disadvantages

 The disadvantages of a Scanning Electron Microscope start with the size and cost.
 SEMs are expensive, large and must be housed in an area free of any possible
electric, magnetic or vibration interference.
 Special training and maintenance is required to operate an SEM as well as prepare
samples.
 The preparation of samples can result in artifacts. The negative impact can be
minimized with knowledgeable experience researchers being able to identify
artifacts from actual data as well as preparation skill. There is no absolute way to
eliminate or identify all potential artifacts.
 In addition, SEMs are limited to solid, inorganic samples small enough to fit inside
the vacuum chamber that can handle moderate vacuum pressure.
 Finally, SEMs carry a small risk of radiation exposure associated with the
electrons that scatter from beneath the sample surface.

96
6.2.3. SEM Applications

 SEMs have a variety of applications in a number of scientific and industry-related

fields, especially where characterizations of solid materials is beneficial.
 In addition to topographical, morphological and compositional information, a
Scanning Electron Microscope can detect and analyze surface fractures, provide
information in microstructures, examine surface contaminations, reveal spatial
variations in chemical compositions, provide qualitative chemical analyses and
identify crystalline structures.
 SEMs can be as essential research tool in fields such as life science, biology,
medical and forensic science, metallurgy.
 In addition, SEMs have practical industrial and technological applications such as
semiconductor inspection, production line of miniscule products and assembly of
microchips for computers.

97
 CHAPTER 7

RESULT OF MICROSTRUCTRAL TESTING

7.1. TENSILE TEST - FRACTOGRAPHY ANALYSIS USING SEM IMAGE

7.1.1. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(3%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(3%)/AA at 00 rolling direction

(b) (c)

voids

Delamianation
Debonding

Fibre Cracks
Fibre pullout

(a)

AA55052 (skin material)

Epoxy Resin (matrix material)
(skin material)
E-Glass Fibre (reinforcement material)
Epoxy Resin (matrix material)
(skin material)
AA55052 (skin material)

(d) Void (e)

Pores

Dimpled Fracture

98
Fig.7.1. (a) Represents Fractography analysis using SEM image - Tensile test sample of 3%wt. at
00 rolling direction, (b), (c), (d) & (e) Shows magnified SEM images from various regions of (a)
that helps us study the flaws due to which failure has occurred during Macro characterization-
tensile test.
7.1.2. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(3%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(3%)/AA at 450 rolling direction

(b) (c)
Cracks

Fibre wrap

GF Fracture Fatigue lines

Resin rich region

(a)

(d) (e)

Dimples

Debonding
Micro pores

Fibre pullout

99
Fig.7.2. (a) Represents Fractography analysis using SEM image - Tensile test sample of 3%wt. at
450 rolling direction, (b), (c), (d) & (e) Shows magnified SEM images from various regions of (a)
that helps us study the flaws due to which failure has occurred during Macro characterization-
tensile test.

7.1.3. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(3%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(3%)/AA at 900 rolling direction

(b) Micro pores (c)

Delamination Fracture

Fibre pullout region

GF Crack

(a)

100
 (d) (e)

Air Voids

Cracks

Resin rich region

Fig.7.3. (a) Represents Fractography analysis using SEM image - Tensile test sample of 3%wt. at
900 rolling direction, (b), (c), (d) & (e) Shows magnified SEM images from various regions of (a)
that helps us study the flaws due to which failure has occurred during Macro characterization-
tensile test.

7.1.4. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(4%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(4%)/AA at 00 rolling direction

(b) Fracture
(c)

Crack Fibre pullout

Voids

(a)

101
 (d) Pores (e)
Fatigue stripes

Fibre Cracks

Fig.7.4. (a) Represents Fractography analysis using SEM image - Tensile test sample of 4%wt. at
00 rolling direction, (b), (c), (d) & (e) Shows magnified SEM images from various regions of (a)
that helps us study the flaws due to which failure has occurred during Macro characterization-
tensile test.

7.1.5. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(4%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(4%)/AA at 450 rolling direction

(b) Crack Fracture (c)

Micro Pores
Wrap fibres

Air Voids

Delamination

(a)

102
 (d) (e)
Resin rich phase
GF cracks

Pores
GF pullout

Fig.7.5. (a) Represents Fractography analysis using SEM image - Tensile test sample of 4%wt. at
450 rolling direction, (b), (c), (d) & (e) Shows magnified SEM images from various regions of (a)
that helps us study the flaws due to which failure has occurred during Macro characterization-
tensile test.
7.1.6. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(4%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(4%)/AA at 900 rolling direction

(b) Voids (c)

Crack

GF Crack

103
 (a)

(d) (e)
Fractured face

Fine pores

Debonding
Fibre pullout

Fig.7.6. (a) Represents Fractography analysis using SEM image - Tensile test sample of 4%wt. at
900 rolling direction, (b), (c), (d) & (e) Shows magnified SEM images from various regions of (a)
that helps us study the flaws due to which failure has occurred during Macro characterization-
tensile test.
7.1.7. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(5%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(5%)/AA at 00 rolling direction

Debonding (c)

Fibre Fracture

Crack
Void
Fibre pullout

Pores

104
 (b)

(a)

(d) (e)

Air void

Debonding

Fig.7.7. (a) Represents Fractography analysis using SEM image - Tensile test sample of 5%wt. at
00 rolling direction, (b), (c), (d) & (e) Shows magnified SEM images from various regions of (a)
that helps us study the flaws due to which failure has occurred during Macro characterization-
tensile test.
7.1.8. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(5%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(5%)/AA at 450 rolling direction

(b) (c)

Debonding

Fibre cracks Resin rich area

105
 (a)

(d) Dimpled Fracture

(e)

Pores
Crack

Fibre pullout

Fig.7.8. (a) Represents Fractography analysis using SEM image - Tensile test sample of 5%wt. at
450 rolling direction, (b), (c), (d) & (e) Shows magnified SEM images from various regions of (a)
that helps us study the flaws due to which failure has occurred during Macro characterization-
tensile test.

7.1.9. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(5%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(5%)/AA at 900 rolling direction

(b) (c)
Hairline Cracks
Debonding

Fibre wrap
Fibre pullout

106
 (a)

(d) (e)
Cracks
Pores

Fibre Fracture
Cracks Air Void

Fig.7.9. (a) Represents Fractography analysis using SEM image - Tensile test sample of 5%wt. at
900 rolling direction, (b), (c), (d) & (e) Shows magnified SEM images from various regions of (a)
that helps us study the flaws due to which failure has occurred during Macro characterization-
tensile test.
7.2. FLEXURAL TEST - FRACTOGRAPHY ANALYSIS USING SEM IMAGE

7.2.1. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(3%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(3%)/AA

(b) (c)
Resin rich region

Crack
Voids Fibres pullout

Fracture

107
 (a)

AA5052 (skin material)

Epoxy Resin (matrix material)
E-Glass Fibre (reinforcement material)
Epoxy Resin (matrix material)
AA5052 (skin material)

Debonding

(d) (e)
Resin rich region Dimples

Cracks

Fracture
Voids
Resin rich region

Fig.7.10. (a)SEM image of Flexural specimen-3% after testing, (b)A magnified view from (a)
where flaws like fracture, crack and voids are visible, (c)Shows a resin rich region and fibre
pullouts, (d)Another magnifies section from (a) where the cracks continuation are clearly depicted,
(e)An overlapping magnified portion that displays micro structural characterization like voids,
fracture and dimples.

7.2.2. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(4%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(4%)/AA

(b) (c) Resin rich region

Resin rich region

Fibres crack
Wrap Fibres
Debonding

Pores

108
 (a)
Debonding
AA5052 (skin material)
Epoxy Resin (matrix material)
E-Glass Fibre (reinforcement material)
Epoxy Resin (matrix material)
AA5052 (skin material)

(d) (e)
Flat fracture
Fibres pullout Dimpled fracture

Fibres crack

Fig.7.11. (a)SEM image of Flexural specimen-4% after testing, (b)SEM image display a resin rich
region and fibre cracks, (c)An overlapping magnified portion that displays debonding, micro pores
and resin rich region, (d) A magnified view from (a) where the fibre pullouts are depicted clearly,
(e) Another magnified section from (a) in which the flaws like fibre crack, dimpled and flat
fracture are viewed.

7.2.3. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(5%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(5%)/AA

109
 Resin rich region
(b) (c)
Void

Debonding Fibre fracture

Resin rich region Resin rich region

(a)

(d) Fibre fracture (e) AA5052 (skin material)

Epoxy Resin (matrix material)

Debonding
Debonding
E-Glass Fibre (reinforcement material)

Fracture
Epoxy Resin (matrix material)
AA5052 (skin material)

Fig.7.12. (a)SEM image of Flexural specimen-5% after testing, (b)SEM image display a resin rich
region and debonding that has occurred between resin and fibre, (c)Another magnified portion of
(a) that shows fractures and voids, (d) & (e) Microstrucrural image is obtained using SEM where
other portions of the specimen are magnified further to depict the fracture and debonding
continuation.

110
7.3. LAP SHEAR TEST - FRACTOGRAPHY ANALYSIS USING SEM IMAGE

7.3.1. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(3%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(3%)/AA

(b) (c)
Fibre
pullout
Pores

(a)

Skin
crack

AA5052 E-Glass Fibre

(d) (e)

Debonding

Fibre
Dimpled
Fracture
Fracture

Fig.7.13. (a) SEM image of Lap shear specimen of 3%wt, (b) & (c) Magnified images of (a) over
different region of importance. These depict the micro structural character of the specimen after
lap shear test is conducted over it. This helps us show skin crack, fibre pullout and pores, (d) & (e)

111
Represents the SEM image that exhibit debonding and fracture.
7.3.2. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(4%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(4%)/AA

(b) Fibre (c)

Fibre pullout
wrap

Fibre crack

Resin and fibre bonding

(a)

AA5052

Epoxy
Resin

(d) (e)

Fatigue stripes
Fracture
E-Glass
Fibre

Voids

Fig.7.14. (a) SEM image of Lap shear specimen of 4%wt that expresses skin, reinforcement and
matrix material, (b), (c), (d) & (e) Magnified images of (a) over different region of importance.

112
These depict the micro structural character of the specimen after lap shear test is conducted over it.
This Fractography analysis helps us show skin crack, fibre pullout, voids and fracture.
7.3.3. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(5%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(5%)/AA
(b)
(c)
Fibre crack

GF Fracture
Micro pores

Flat Fracture

(a)

E-Glass
Fibre

AA5052

Epoxy
Resin

(d) (e)
Fibre pullout

Dimpled
Fracture Fracture
face
Skin tear

Fig.7.15. (a) SEM image of Lap shear specimen of 5%wt that expresses skin, reinforcement and
matrix material, (b), (c), (d) & (e) Magnified images of (a) over different region of importance.

113
These depict the micro structural character of the specimen after lap shear test is conducted over it.
This Fractography analysis helps display skin tear, fibre pullout, micro pores and fractures.

7.4. IZOD IMPACT TEST - FRACTOGRAPHY ANALYSIS USING SEM IMAGE

7.4.1. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(3%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(3%)/AA

(a) (b)
Fibre pullout
Skin Fracture

(c) (d) Necking

Delamination

Fibre twist

(e)
Crack

Fibre twist

Fig.7.16. (a), (b), (c), (d) & (e) Micro structural characterization-Fractography analysis is done
using SEM Image. Various flaws are discussed over the specimen after carrying out Impact test of
3%wt.

114
7.4.2. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(4%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(4%)/AA

(a) Fibre (b) Fibre wrap

pullouts

Fracture
Skin material
Fracture

(c) (d)
Delamination

Pores
Hairline Crack

(e)

Dimpled
Fracture

Fig.7.17. (a), (b), (c), (d) & (e) Micro structural characterization-Fractography analysis is done
using SEM Image. Various flaws are discussed over the specimen after carrying out Impact test of
4%wt.

115
7.4.3. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(5%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(5%)/AA

(a) Necking (b) Fibre wrap

Fibre twist
Delamination

(c) (d) Hairline Crack

Void

Fibre Fracture

(e) Pores

Flat Fracture

Fig.7.18. (a), (b), (c), (d) & (e) Micro structural characterization-Fractography analysis is done
using SEM Image. Various flaws are discussed over the specimen after carrying out Impact test of
5%wt.

116
7.5. ERICHSEN CUPPING TEST - FRACTOGRAPHY ANALYSIS USING SEM
IMAGE

7.5.1. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(3%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(3%)/AA

(a) AA5052 (b)

E-Glass Fibre
Pores
Fibres pullout

(c) (d) (e)

AA5052 tear

Fig.7.19. (a)Represents the SEM image of Erichen Cupping sample-3%, (b)SEM image shows the
micro-pores on the resin and Fibers pullout due to the cupping force exhibited during testing, (c),
(d) & (e) Shows the Skin (AA5052) crack and tear on three different sides over the same
specimen.

117
7.5.2. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(4%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(4%)/AA

(a) AA5052 (b) Fibre crack

E-Glass Fibre

(c) (d) (e)

AA5052 tear

Fig.7.20. (a)Represents the SEM image of Erichen Cupping sample-4%, (b)SEM image is a
magnified portion from (a) that shows the Fibre crack, (c), (d) & (e) Shows the Skin (AA5052)
crack initiation and tear due to the cupping force exhibited during testing on three different sides
over the same specimen.

118
7.5.3. AA/Epoxy+MWCNT(5%)/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT(5%)/AA

(a) (b)
AA5052 Fibre cracks

E-Glass Fibre

(c) Fibre cracks

Debonding

Epoxy Resin

(d) (e) (f)

AA5052 tear

Fig.7.21. (a)Represents the SEM image of Erichen Cupping sample-5%, (b)SEM image is a
magnified portion from (a) that shows the Fibre cracks, (c) SEM image is a magnified portion
from (a) that shows the other portion of Fibre cracks and debonding of skin sheet metal and matrix
material, (d), (e) & (f) Shows the Skin (AA5052) crack initiation and tear.

119
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS OBTAINED – MICRO STRUCTURAL TESTING

7.6. TENSILE TEST

 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-3%/GF/MWCNT-3%/AA
sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin at a 0 0 rolling direction possesses micro
structural defects like cracks & fractures (due to mechanical test imposed on
specimen-usually present in brittle materials like, GF), voids & pores (gaps or simply
entrapped air-due to improper bonding of resin during fabrication), debonding &
delamination (occurs due to loss in adhesion or bonding nature of resin over time),
fiber pullout (improper interfacial binding of sandwich material or an uneven
distribution of shear force during mechanical testing).
 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-3%/GF/MWCNT-3%/AA
sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin at a 450 rolling direction possesses
numerous micro structural defects like cracks (due to mechanical test imposed on
specimen-usually present in brittle materials like, GF), micro pores (gaps present due
to improper bonding of resin during fabrication), debonding (occurs due to loss in
adhesion between GF), fiber pullout (an uneven distribution of shear force during
mechanical testing).
 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-3%/GF/MWCNT-3%/AA
sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin at a 900 rolling direction possesses
micro structural defects like cracks & fractures (due to mechanical test imposed on
specimen-present in brittle materials like, GF and in resin), air voids & micro pores
(gaps or simply entrapped air-due to improper bonding of resin during fabrication),
delamination (occurs due to loss in adhesion or bonding nature of resin over time),
fiber pullout (here, an improper interfacial binding of sandwich material).
Among the above three different rolling direction of MWCNT3% specimen, 0 0 is
considered as a better material in micro structural level. It is because of the minimal
defects they posses compared to others.

 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-4%/GF/MWCNT-4%/AA

sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin at a 0 0 rolling direction possesses micro

120
 structural defects like cracks & fractures (due to mechanical test imposed on
specimen-usually present in brittle materials like, GF and in resin), voids & pores
(gaps or simply entrapped air-due to improper bonding of resin during fabrication),
fiber pullout (improper interfacial binding of sandwich material or an uneven
distribution of shear force during mechanical testing).
 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-4%/GF/MWCNT-4%/AA
sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin at a 450 rolling direction possesses
micro structural defects like cracks & fractures (due to mechanical test imposed on
specimen-present in resin phase), air voids & pores (gaps or simply entrapped air-due
to improper bonding of resin during fabrication), delamination (occurs due to loss in
adhesion or bonding nature of resin over time between the skin), fiber pullout (here,
an uneven distribution of shear force during mechanical testing-to a very small
extent).
 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-4%/GF/MWCNT-4%/AA
sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin at a 900 rolling direction possesses
numerous micro structural defects like cracks & fractures (due to mechanical test
imposed on specimen-usually present in brittle materials like, GF and resin phase),
voids & pores (gaps or simply entrapped air-due to improper bonding of resin during
fabrication), debonding & delamination (occurs due to loss in adhesion or bonding
nature of resin over time), fiber pullout (improper interfacial binding of sandwich
material or an uneven distribution of shear force during mechanical testing).
Among the above three different rolling direction of MWCNT4% specimen, 45 0 is
considered as a better material in micro structural level. It is because of the minimal
defects they posses compared to others.

 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-5%/GF/MWCNT-5%/AA

sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin at a 00 rolling direction possesses
numerous micro structural defects like cracks & fractures (due to mechanical test
imposed on specimen-usually present in brittle materials like, GF and resin), voids &
pores (gaps or simply entrapped air-due to improper bonding of resin during
fabrication), debonding (occurs due to loss in adhesion or bonding nature of resin over
time), fiber pullout (improper interfacial binding of sandwich material or an uneven
distribution of shear force during mechanical testing).
 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-5%/GF/MWCNT-5%/AA
sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin at a 450 rolling direction possesses
micro structural defects like cracks & dimpled fractures (due to mechanical test
imposed on specimen-usually present in brittle materials like, GF and resin), air voids
& pores (gaps or simply entrapped air-due to improper bonding of resin during

121
 fabrication), debonding (occurs due to loss in adhesion or bonding nature of resin over
time), fiber pullout (improper interfacial binding of sandwich material or an uneven
distribution of shear force during mechanical testing).
 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-5%/GF/MWCNT-5%/AA
sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin at a 900 rolling direction possesses
numerous micro structural defects like cracks & fractures (due to mechanical test
imposed on specimen-usually present in brittle materials like, GF and resin), air voids
& pores (gaps due to improper bonding of resin during fabrication), debonding
(occurs due to loss in adhesion or bonding nature of resin over time), fiber pullout (an
uneven distribution of shear force during mechanical testing, here very little).
Among the above three different rolling direction of MWCNT5% specimen, 90 0 is
considered as a better material in micro structural level. It is because of the minimal
defects they posses compared to others.

7.7. FLEXURAL TEST

 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-3%/GF/MWCNT-3%/AA
sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin possesses numerous structural and
micro structural defects like cracks & fractures (due to bending force imposed on
specimen-usually present in brittle materials like, GF and resin), air voids & pores
(gaps due to improper bonding of resin during fabrication), debonding (occurs due to
loss in adhesion or bonding nature of resin over time), fiber pullout (at a very small
rate in only a short span, mainly due to the continuous force imposed over sample
until fracture).
 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-4%/GF/MWCNT-4%/AA
sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin possesses micro structural defects like
cracks & fractures (due to bending force imposed on specimen-present in brittle
structure, resin phase), micro pores (very negligible gaps due to improper bonding of
resin during fabrication), debonding (occurs due to loss in adhesion or bonding nature
of resin over time), fiber pullout (at a considerable rate but only in a short span,
mainly due to the continuous force imposed over sample until fracture).
 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-5%/GF/MWCNT-5%/AA
sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin possesses numerous structural and
micro structural defects like fractures (due to bending force imposed on specimen-
usually present in brittle materials like, GF and resin), air voids (gaps due to improper
bonding of resin during fabrication), debonding (in a very large span-occurs due
continuous mechanical force exhibited), fiber pullout (at a very small rate in only a
short span).

122
Among the above three different weight percentages of sandwich material MWCNT 4%
specimen, is considered as a better material in micro structural level. It is because of the
minimal defects they posses compared to others.

7.8. LAP SHEAR TEST

 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-3%/GF/MWCNT-3%/AA
sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin possesses numerous structural and
micro structural defects like crack and fractures (due to shear or pull force imposed on
specimen- present in brittle and ductile materials like GF and AA), micro pores (gaps
due to improper bonding of resin during fabrication), debonding (in a smaller span-
occurs due continuous mechanical force exhibited or mere loss of adhesive bonding),
fiber pullout (uneven distribution of shear for during mechanical testing).
 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-4%/GF/MWCNT-4%/AA
sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin possesses structural and micro
structural defects like crack and fractures (due to shear or pull force imposed on
specimen- present in brittle and ductile materials like GF and AA), voids & pores
(gaps due to improper bonding of resin during fabrication), fiber pullout (uneven
distribution of shear for during mechanical testing).
 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-5%/GF/MWCNT-5%/AA
sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin possesses micro structural defects like
crack and fractures (due to shear or pull force imposed on specimen- present in brittle
and ductile materials like GF and AA), micro pores (gaps due to improper bonding of
resin during fabrication), fiber pullout (uneven distribution of shear for during
mechanical testing).
Among the above three different weight percentages of sandwich material MWCNT 4%
specimen, is considered as a better material in micro structural level. It is because of the
minimal defects they posses compared to others.

7.9. IZOD IMPACT TEST

 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-3%/GF/MWCNT-3%/AA
sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin possesses structural and micro
structural defects like crack and fractures (due to sudden impact force imposed on
specimen- viewed in brittle and ductile materials like core-GF and skin-AA
respectively), delaminate (in a greater span-occurs due impact mechanical force
exhibited over the specimen), fiber pullout and twist (sudden force during mechanical
testing).

123
 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-4%/GF/MWCNT-4%/AA
sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin possesses numerous structural and
micro structural defects like crack and fractures (due to sudden impact force imposed
on specimen- viewed in brittle and ductile materials like core-GF and skin-AA
respectively), micro pores (gaps due to improper bonding of resin during fabrication),
delaminate (in a greater span-occurs due impact mechanical force exhibited over the
specimen), fiber pullout and wrap (sudden force during mechanical testing and fiber
cluster due to change in shape of specimen after fracture).
 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-5%/GF/MWCNT-5%/AA
sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin possesses structural and micro
structural defects like crack and fractures (due to sudden impact force imposed on
specimen- viewed in brittle and ductile materials like core-GF and skin-AA
respectively), void (gaps due to improper bonding of resin during fabrication),
delamination (in a smaller span-occurs due impact mechanical force exhibited over
the specimen), fiber twist and wrap (sudden force during mechanical testing and fiber
cluster due to change in shape of specimen after fracture).
Among the above three different weight percentages of sandwich material MWCNT 5%
specimen, is considered as a better material in micro structural level. It is because of the
minimal defects they posses compared to others.

7.10. ERICHSEN CUPPING TEST

 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-3%/GF/MWCNT-3%/AA
sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin possesses structural and micro
structural defects like crack and fractures (due to continuous and constant cupping
force imposed on specimen- present in brittle and ductile materials like core-GF
fracture and skin-AA tear respectively), pores (gaps due to improper bonding of resin
during fabrication), fiber pullout (constant or even cupping force distribution during
mechanical testing over the specimen).
 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-4%/GF/MWCNT-4%/AA
sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin possesses structural and micro
structural defects like crack and fractures (due to continuous and constant cupping
force imposed on specimen- present in brittle and ductile materials like core-GF crack
and skin-AA tear respectively)
 Fractography analysis using SEM image for AA/MWCNT-5%/GF/MWCNT-5%/AA
sandwich material reinforced with epoxy resin possesses structural and micro
structural defects like crack and fractures (due to continuous and constant cupping
force imposed on specimen- present in brittle and ductile materials like core-GF crack

124
 and skin-AA tear respectively), debonding (in a smaller span-occurs due continuous
mechanical force exhibited or mere loss of adhesive bonding)
Among the above three different weight percentages of sandwich material MWCNT 4%
specimen, is considered as a better material in micro structural level. It is because of the
minimal defects they posses compared to others.

CHAPTER 8

8.1. FLAMMABILITY TEST

Flammability is the ability of a substance to burn or ignite, causing fire or
combustion. The degree of difficulty required to cause the combustion of a substance is
quantified through fire testing. A fire test can be conducted to determine the degree of
flammability. 
The tests in the Standard for Tests for Flammability of Small Polymeric Component
Materials should be used to evaluate small components which contain materials that
cannot be fabricated into standardized specimens in the minimum use thickness and
subjected to applicable preselecting tests in UL 94. Atlas material testing solution’s UL94
test machine from Guindy, CIPET was used to perform the flammability test i.e, both
horizontal and vertical burning test. Both the flame tests required an average of 5 samples
each from the sandwich sheet metal fabricated as the average value of flame test is
mention in the report. ASTM D-635 was the standard selected for the preparation of
sample prior to testing. This standard has the length of 127mm and width of 12.7mm.

125
 Fig.8.1. Flammability test specimen as per ASTM D-635

For the flame tests the ignition source is a laboratory bunsen burner that uses methane
as fuel source. The gas flow is controlled by a suitable regulator and meter for a proper
and a uniform gas flow.
 The horizontal burn test is used with the test specimen oriented in the horizontal
direction as shown in the schematic sketch below. This test determines the rate of
burning of a material as the flame front progresses between two benchmarks. The
flame is applied to the free end of the specimen for 30 seconds. The length of the test
specimen is 127mm with benchmarks at 25mm and 100mm position. The time for the
flame front to move between the benchmarks is measured as well as the distance the
flame progresses. From the parameters like time and distance the rate of burning is
calculated.
 The vertical burn test measures the self-extinguishing time of the vertically oriented
polymer specimen as shown in the schematic sketch below. The top of the test
specimen is clamped to a stand and the burner is placed directly below the specimen.
The flame is brought into contact with the test specimen for 10 seconds, after which
the burner is removed. The flame should be a blue flame and 20mm in height. Here
the V Rating scale is followed: The material will be rated V-0 if the flame extinguish
within 10 seconds after removal of the burner. The V-1 and V-2 rating requires that
the flame extinguish after 30 seconds after removal the burner. The V-2 rating allows
the cotton indicator be ignited by flaming particles.

126
 (a) (b)
Fig.8.2. (a) Represents the schematic layout of horizontal burning test, (b) Represents the
schematic layout of vertical burning test

8.2. RESULT AND DISCUSSION FOR FLAMMABILITY TEST

ASTM D-635 was the standard that was preferred to carry out the flame test. Both
horizontal and vertical flame tests were carried out from the machine shown in the figure
below.

Fig.8.3. Flammability testing machine (hzl. & vtl. flame tester)

 The horizontal flame test result shows that the specimen provided was of self
extinguished type which means that the flame did not travel when tested with the

127
 flame with respect to the proper standards hence it is declared as a good fire resistant
material.
 The vertical flame test on the other hand depicts V-0 is the result to the sample
provided. This means that the flame extinguishes within 10 seconds the burner is
withdrawn from the specimen. This also states that the specimen is highly a fire
retardant material.

(a) (b)
Fig.8.4. Samples (a) before testing and (b) after testing

CHAPTER 9

9.1. PROS OF CONDUCTING AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON

FML’s SANDWICH MATERIAL
9.1.1. Mechanical Test
 It is with the help of tensile testing the batch qualities of products are determined.
This also aids in design process thereby leading to low cost consumption hence
achieving lean manufacturing.
 It is with the aid of these tests, mechanical and formability parameters are determined.
 With the help of tests like flexural and lap shear the materials stiffness and bonding
nature is checked respectively
 Tests like impact and erichsen cupping simply forces the material to fracture and
provide us the max energy required for the materials to fail and also provide the
corresponding displacement in material.

128
9.1.2. Micro structural Test
 These mainly focus on the sub surface defects which are commonly not visible to the
human eye.
 Numerous internal defects like micro level crack or fracture could be viewed and
analysed using such methods.
 They are very easy to operate and understand. These tests are quite rapid in nature and
also they require a very minimal level of preparation.

9.1.3. Flame Test

 Flammability is the ability of a substance to burn or ignite, causing fire or
combustion. The degree of difficulty required to cause the combustion of a substance
is quantified through fire testing.
 Usually preferred in plastic industries to find out the fire resistance and rate of
burning level.
9.2. APPLICATIONS OF EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION IN FML’s
SANDWICH MATERIALS
9.2.1. Aerospace Industry
Applications of tensile, peel, shear testing in the aerospace industry include:
 Peel tests on airframe and fuselage composites.
 Shear and tensile strength testing of fasteners e.g. bolts, screws and nuts.

9.2.2. Automotive Industry

Applications of tensile, hardness, erichsen cupping and impact testing in
the automotive industry include:
 Quality assessment through tensile testing of interior fittings including: carpets,
airbags, dashboards, mirrors, electrical harness, handles, mud flaps, laminated trim,
number plates, seals and seatbelts and handbrake levers.

9.2.3. Construction Industry

Applications of tensile, lap shear, flexural, salt spray testing in the construction industry
include:

129
  Bond strength testing of adhesives, mastics, bonding and sealants between foam
and brick layers.
 Tensile and strength testing for geo-textiles and safety supports.

9.2.4. Electrical and Electronics Industry

Applications of tensile testing, compression, resistance in the electrical and
electronics industry include:
 Connector withdrawal force and PCB material tensile strength.
 Pull-off forces of welded, crimped or soldered electrical contacts.

CONCLUSION
Sandwich combination AA5052/Epoxy+MWCNT/GF/Epoxy+MWCNT/AA5052 was
successfully fabricated by hand layup technique with MWCNT as nanofiller and epoxy as
reinforcement or simply an adhesive material that binds the skin (AA5052-H32) and core
(E-Glass fiber) phase together.
Sandwich sheets of three different percentage weight composition of MWCNT (3%,
4% & 5%) are fabricated and numerous tests like; mechanical, micro structural and
flammability are conducted. These are carried out to determine numerous parameters in
relation to the mechanical & formability nature of materials, examination of surface and
sub-surface defects and flammability characteristic determination. Preparation of
specimen with respect to ASTM standards has been done before performing tests. So,
three samples are cut along each of rolling direction-00, 450& 900 respectively over the
sandwich sheets with the help of water jet cutting machine for performing Tensile test.
Similarly three samples are cut from each sandwich sheet fabricated to perform the tests.
 Tensile test performed on sandwich structure reveals that the specimen cut along 0 0
rolling direction simply has better mechanical and formability characteristics. It is

130
 because AA5052/GF+MWCNT(3%)/AA5052 specimen at 00 sequence showed
ductile behaviour.
 Flexural test results show that among all different materials fabricated MWCNT of
3% weight is best outcome. It is because the stiffness as well as the max deflection of
the material is comparatively higher than others. This proves that this particular
material has the ability to absorb maximum load forced to it and further has the
capacity to transmit the load uniformly without any failure.
 Lap shear is conducted to check the adhesive bond strength of fabricated sandwich
material. Among different weight percentages MWCNT-4% weight possesses a good
binding nature.
 Izod impact test shows MWCNT(3% and 5%) posses a good impact load as they both
have the same experimental test results. So, these materials have the nature to absorb
a high shock load without failure.
 Erichsen cupping test shows that the specimen MWCNT(4%) posses a good result
because on an average they have the highest erichsen cupping index value compared
to other fabricated sandwich sheets. The highest index value of MWCNT(4%) which
is an epoxy based composite sheet metal is 10. Hence its formability and ductility is
good which makes it’s the better alternative for automobile application.
 In case of both salt spray and drop impact tests the results obtained were simply better
compared to any monolithic sheet metal. As, no corrosion and no crack was their
outcome.
 Hardness test proved that MWCNT(5%) has the best result. This may be because of
the higher reinforcement they received due to the dispersion of nano filler with epoxy
resin during fabrication.
 The micro structural examination is done by fractographic analysis using SEM image.
In this the best materials are-
 Tensile test - AA/GF+MWCNT(3%)/AA at 00 rolling direction
 Flexural test - AA/GF+MWCNT(4%)/AA
 Lap shear test - AA/GF+MWCNT(4%)/AA

131
 Izod impact test - AA/GF+MWCNT(5%)/AA
 Erichsen cupping test - AA/GF+MWCNT(4%)/AA
It is because these materials posses low surface and sub-surface flaws when compared
to other fabricated sheets.
 For horizontal flame test the result depicts that specimen was self extinguished type &
for vertical flame test the result obtained was V-0. Both the results of flames test
signify that the samples posses a very high fire resistant nature.
Since the fabricated sheet metal is cheap, easily available and highly economical it is
considered as a better alternative to the conventional monolithic sheet metal and further
with research and development such materials could be highly improved in order to meet
various applications like, construction, electrical & electronics, aerospace, marine and
automotive industries.

REFERENCES

1. Venkateshkannan M, RajKumar V, Sadeesh P, Arivazhagan N, Narayanan S,

Devendranath Ramkumar K, Influence of Tool geometry on metallurgical and
mechanical properties of friction stir welded dissimilar AA2024 and AA5052, Science
Direct-Elsevier, Procedia Engineering 75 (2014), pp.154-158.
2. Liu Jian-Guang, Liu Wei, Wang Jing-Xuan, Influence of interfacial adhesion strength
on formability of AA5052/polyethylene/AA5052 sandwich sheet, Science Direct-
Elsevier, Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 22 (2012), pp.395−401.
3. S. Mahabunphachai, M. Koç, Investigations on forming of aluminum 5052 and 6061
sheet alloys at warm temperatures, Materials and Design-Elsevier, Materials and
Design 31 (2010), pp.2422–2434.
4. Jian-Guang Liu, Wei Xue, Formability of AA5052/polyethylene/AA5052 sandwich
sheets, Science Direct-Elsevier, Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 23 (2013),
pp.964-969.
5. M. El Gouri, A. El Bachiri, S. E. Hegazi, R. Ziraoui, M. Rafik, A. El Harfi, A
phosphazene compound multipurpose application-Composite material precursor and
reactive flame retardant for epoxy resin materials, ISSN : 2028-2508, J. Mater.
Environ. Sci. 2 (4) (2011), pp.319-334.

132
6. Nikolaos D. Alexopoulos, Charis J. Dalakouras, Panagiotis Skarvelis, Stavros K.
Kourkoulis, Accelerated corrosion exposure in ultra thin sheets of 2024 aircraft
aluminium alloy for GLARE applications, Corrosion Science 55 (2012), pp.289–300.
7. S.W. Hadley, S. Das, J.W. Miller, Aluminum R&D for Automotive Uses and the
Department of Energy’s Role, March 2000, ENERGY DIVISION-ORNL/TM-
1999/157
8. Kee Joo Kim, Meung Ho Rhee, Byung-Ik Choi, Cheol-Woong Kim, Chang-Won
Sung, Chang-Pyung Han, Ki-Weon Kang and Si-Tae Won, Development of
Application Technique of Aluminum Sandwich Sheets for Automotive Hood,
International Journal Of Precision Engineering And Manufacturing Vol. 10, No. 4,
pp.71-75.
9. C. A. J. R. VERMEEREN, An Historic Overview of the Development of Fibre Metal
Laminates, Applied Composite Materials 10: 189–205, 2003.
10. Ka Zhang &Min-Min Shen & Kun Wu & Hai-Feng Liu & Yankui Zhang,
Comparative study on flame retardancy and thermal degradation of phosphorus- and
silicon-containing epoxy resin composites, J Polym Res (2011) 18, pp.2061–2070.
11. B. P. Singh, Prasanta, Veena Choudhary, Parveen Saini, Shailaja Pande, V. N. Singh,
R. B. Mathur, Enhanced microwave shielding and mechanical properties of high
loading MWCNT–epoxy composites, J Nanopart Res (2013) 15, pp.1554-1565
12. Ji Sun Ima, Sung Kyu Leea, Se Jin Inb, Young-Seak Leea, Improved flame retardant
properties of epoxy resin by fluorinated MMT/MWCNT additives, Journal of
Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 89 (2010), pp.225–232
13. MA HaiYun, SONG PingAn & FANG ZhengPing, Flame retarded polymer
nanocomposites: Development, trend and future perspective, SCIENCE CHINA
Chemistry, February 2011 Vol.5, No.2, pp.302–313
14. Peng-Cheng Maa,b,n, YiZhang c, Perspectives of carbon nanotubes/polymer
nanocomposites for wind blade materials, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 30 (2014), pp.651–660.
15. Patrizia Savi, Mario Miscuglio, Mauro Giorcelli, and Alberto Tagliaferro, Analysis of
Microwave Absorbing Properties of Epoxy MWCNT Composites, Progress In
Electromagnetics Research Letters, Vol. 44, 63-69, 2014
16. H. Zhang, S. W. Gn, J. An, Y. Xiang , J. L. Yang, Impact Behaviour of GLAREs with
MWCNT Modified Epoxy Resins, Exp Mech (2014) 54, pp.83-93.
17. G Venkata Raman, Balaji Padya, R Naresh Kumar, K V P Prabhakar, P K Jain,
Mechanical properties of MWCNT reinforced polymer composites, Indian Journal of
Engineering and Material Science, Vol.17, Oct 2010, pp.331-337

133
18. P.V.Elumalai1 A.Sujatha2 R. Senthil Kumar3, Design Fabrication and Static Analysis
of Single Composite Lap Joint, IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research
& Development| Vol. 1, Issue 9, 2013
19. LIU Jian-guang, LIU Wei, WANG Jing-xuan, Influence of interfacial adhesion
strength on formability of AA5052/polyethylene/AA5052 sandwich sheet, Trans.
Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 22(2012) s395−s401.
20. I.M. Daniel, Y.D.S. Rajapakse, E.E. Gdoutos, Major Accomplishments in Composite
Materials and Sandwich Structures (2009), Springer
21. David Roylance, Mechanical properties of materials (2008)
22. C.A. Wilkie, D. Wang, Fire properties of polymer nanocomposites, Chapter 9
23. Joseph H. Koo, Polymer nocomposites, mcgraw-Hills, Nanoscience and technology
series (2006)
24. Edward Ghali, Corrosion resistance of Aluminium and Magnesium Alloys, Wiley
Series in corrosion (2010)

134