Next Article in Journal
Rheological Properties of Cholesteric Liquid Crystal with Visible Reflection from an Etherified Hydroxypropyl Cellulose Derivative
Next Article in Special Issue
Analysis of Sheep Wool-Based Composites for Building Insulation
Previous Article in Journal
Simulation and Modelling of Hydrogen Production from Waste Plastics: Technoeconomic Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Structural Behavior of RC Beams Containing Unreinforced Drilled Openings with and without CFRP Strengthening
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Polymers
Volume 14
Issue 10
10.3390/polym14102057
polymers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mechanical and Tribological Behavior of Functionally Graded Unidirectional Glass Fiber-Reinforced Epoxy Composites

by
Waleed Alhazmi
1,*,
Yosef Jazaa
2,
Sultan Althahban
1,
Saeed Mousa
1,
Ahmed Abu-Sinna
3,
Amr Abd-Elhady
4,
Hossam El-Din Sallam
5 and
Mahmoud Atta
5
1
Faculty of Engineering, Jazan University, Jazan 706, Saudi Arabia
2
Faculty of Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia
3
Force and Material Metrology Department, National Institute of Standards, Giza 12211, Egypt
4
Mechanical Design Department, Faculty of Engineering, Helwan University, Cairo 11718, Egypt
5
Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44511, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polymers 2022, 14(10), 2057; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/polym14102057
Submission received: 18 April 2022 / Revised: 13 May 2022 / Accepted: 16 May 2022 / Published: 18 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Development in Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper aims to assess experimentally the mechanical and tribological behavior of conventional and functionally graded (FG) polymeric matrix composites reinforced with continuous glass fibers. The small punch test (SPT) and a pin-on-disc device were used in the present work to examine the mechanical and wear behavior, respectively. The hand lay-up technique was used in the present investigation to manufacture the conventional and FG composites. Various wooden looms with different nailed spacing were employed to manufacture the FG composites. According to test type, the FG composite is composed of four and ten layers, with a different glass fiber volume of fraction (Vf%) for each layer. In addition, the finite element simulation based on Hashin’s failure criterion and cohesive zone modeling was used to show the progressive failure and give more explanation regarding the flexural behavior of such composites. The present results indicate that the wear rate of an FG composite could be affected by many factors, including the disk speed, applied load, the composite layers number, and average glass fiber volume fraction. On the other hand, the arrangement of layers in the composite materials by variation of Vf% for each layer can improve the wear rate and value of the ultimate load before the fracture of the composite material when subjected to SPT. The experimental and numerical results for all SPT specimens showed that the fracture of the SPT specimens began beneath the punch tip and grew along the fiber direction. The ultimate flexural capacity of FG composites increased by 30% compared with the conventional composites.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Recently, polymer composite materials have been used in manufacturing and many industrial applications. The low cost, the ease of maintenance, and the improved strength are the main reasons for their selection. Despite these advantages, some serious disadvantages are presented, such as delamination due to heavy work or extreme thermal loads [1]. Functionally graded materials (FGMs) were introduced as an advanced method to overcome this drawback. FGMs can be described as a distinct approach to obtaining the best features at the lowest cost and specific desired [2]. The material properties of FGMs vary through the graded direction of a structure [3]. FGM is a novel production method used in the medical, aerospace, and industrial fields for applications such as wear-resistant coatings, cutting tools, and biomedical devices [4,5,6]. FGMs can enhance product properties better than conventional composite materials. Single-fiber reinforced FGMs exhibit more outstanding properties than conventional hybrid composites [7]. Properties like hardness, wear resistance, toughness, specific strength, modulus of elasticity, and weight can be improved by using FGM [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. FGMs are not limited to polymers, as it also has applications in ceramics and metallic materials, especially tribology applications [16].
Investigations have concluded that speed, sliding and sliding time, applied load, thermal conditions, radial distance, and reinforcement type are the most influential parameters in the tribological behavior of wear abrasives [16]. Loads of 28 N, 45 N, 63 N, and 80 N were applied to abrasives tests conducted by Radhika et al. The effect of increasing the loads was investigated [17]. The specimen surface was worn out with fewer surface cuts and ploughings under the lowest load condition. The silica sand produced mild abrasions with a slightly higher load and more surface cuttings. The entrance zone contained crushed sand particles that produced a tribo-system, accompanied by vibration by increasing the load, creating deep grooves and severe cutting wear. A combination of erosive wear, grooving, and abrasion with severe wear materials appeared when using the highest selected loads. The previous study was not limited to investigating only the effect of load, as speed was also investigated. Speeds of 50 r/min, 100 r/min, 150 r/min, and 200 r/min were chosen in the study to investigate the wear rate behavior [17]. The results showed an inverse relationship between the speed and abrasive wear rates. The time of contact between the silica sand and the specimen decreased when increasing the speed rate, leading to a decreasing wear rate [17,18]. Gautam et al. used an FGM containing vinyl ester resin as a matrix material and its respective hardener, reinforced with E-milled glass fiber and graphite, in their research [19]. Results showed an increase in wear rate per unit load related to the increase in the normal load and sliding distance.
A comparison between the homogeneously distributed fiber composites and FGMs fiber composite was conducted by Gangil et al. [20]. The results showed the superiority of the FGM fiber composite over the homogenously distributed fiber composites. Additionally, increasing the fiber volume fraction enhanced the mechanical properties compared to the homogeneous composite [21]. When using FGM reinforced with chopped carbon fibers, the results showed that the significant effect factors used in the wear test were the medium of the abrasives and the fiber fraction. In contrast, the lowest effect was seen in the normal load [22]. Another comparison between the homogenous fiber distribution and the FGM was conducted. A fixed Kevlar® fiber (5 wt.%) with varying bagasse fiber (0, 5, 10, and 15 wt.%) was used to reinforce vinyl ester composites for homogeneous and FGMs. Four variables were used to evaluate the sliding test behavior (fiber content, normal load, sliding distance, and sliding velocity). The results concluded that the largest factor affecting this test was the normal load for the two composites. This conclusion is opposite to the previous study’s conclusion, the reason for which might be explained by different reinforcements.
A study using a composite of unidirectional oriented E-glass fiber-reinforced epoxy was conducted using the pin-on-ring technique to investigate the friction and wear properties. The results reflect that increasing sliding under clean or wet conditions improves the friction coefficient and wear rate [23,24]. The ball-on-disk technique was used to study the tribological properties of FGM reinforced by carbon nanotubes (CNT), which demonstrated increasing coefficients of friction and support abrasion resistance with adding CNT [25].
Small punch testing (SPT) is considered one of the best techniques to obtain a material’s mechanical properties. The design of the SPT is based on the idea of subjecting a thin test sheet to a combination of both bending and stretching. The test setup consists of a die with upper and lower parts to fix the position of the specimen and a punch with a spherical tip to penetrate the specimen under constant speed. Recently, SPT has been widely used to estimate the mechanical properties of metallic and nonmetallic materials, especially when there is no excess of materials [26,27,28,29,30].
M Atta et al. [31] used the 3D finite element simulation to predict the flexural strength of conventional and FGM based on Hashin’s failure criterion. Hirshikesh et al. provided a view into the crack growth resistance of FGMs [32]. They benchmark their predictions with results from alternative numerical methodologies. The results prove the capability of their model in the areas of predicting crack initiation from arbitrary nucleation sites, capturing crack deflection without remeshing, and modeling unstable crack propagation in an implicit framework. Abd-Elhady et al. [33] used a Hashin damage model to predict the damage failure of a pinned joint in quasi-isotropic laminates. The effect of a bonded polymeric composite patch on reducing the crack tip driving forces of a cracked metallic element under cyclic loading was simulated numerically by Abd-Elhady [34,35].
FGMs present a good choice when focusing on lighter weight and a higher strength in advanced composite materials when compared to conventional composites. The basic idea of the present FGM study is to propose a potential alternative to the standard “glass skin/PVC foam core” sandwiches, which are widely used in the transport industry [31]. The main objective of the present work is to improve the mechanical and tribological behaviors of polymeric composites reinforced with continuous glass fibers by using the FGM technique. The mechanical and tribological behaviors are determined using a small punch test and pin-on-disc device. For further understanding, the finite element (FE) simulation based on Hashin’s failure criterion and cohesive zone modeling (CZM) is adopted. The present work is considered a continuation of the author’s previous work [31] to obtain a complete analysis for functionally graded unidirectional glass fiber-reinforced epoxy composites material. The novelty of the present work lies in adopting SPT to compare the flexural strength of FG with conventional composites. The effect of FG patterns on the wear resistance of polymeric fibrous composites represents the originality of this research.

2. Experimental Works

This section deals with the hand lay-up manufacturing technique and the instruments and equipment used in measuring the mechanical and tribological behavior of the FGM. The hand lay-up manufacturing technique was used to prepare the conventional and functionally graded composite materials using unidirectional glass fiber/epoxy. Furthermore, the small punch test and a pin-on-disc device were used to examine the mechanical and wear behavior of the FGM, respectively. However, two primary specimen shapes have been manufactured according to the wear and small punch tests (SPT).

2.1. Material Preparation and Mechanical Properties

The constituent materials of conventional and functionally graded composite material are epoxy, hardener, and fiberglass. The mechanical properties of the materials used are listed in Table 1. Figure 1 shows the steps of manufacturing conventional and functionally graded composite materials using wooden looms with nailed spacing. Nine sets of looms were selected and arranged vertically to make either four or ten layers of parallel fiberglass strings, as shown in Figure 1. The difference between layers is the loom nailing space which directly influences the glass fiber volume of fraction for each layer, Vf, to compose the FGM, as shown in Table 2. The specimens were named according to the glass fiber volume fraction for each layer, Vf, used in the manufacturing. The glass fiber volume of fractions for each layer, Vf; the values are graded experimentally using ignition loss testing conducted based on ASTM D 3171-15 [36]. The volume fractions, generated due to different nail spacings for different groups, which are to be used either in wear or SPT tests, are listed in Table 2. All SPT specimens were formed using four layers of FGM to fulfill the dimensions of the testing space of the SPT setup.

2.2. Sample and Tests Characterization

2.2.1. Wear Tests

Tribological experiments are conducted according to ASTM F732 standards [37] to determine conventional and functionally graded composite materials’ wear behavior using a pin-on-disk machine, as shown in Figure 2. In the wear tests, each sample was fixed on a pin and then sited on a new bare-wood sandpaper disk with a grit size of 220 for each test, at a fixed distance from the disk center. In the wear test, the disk used as the abrasive counter-face was rotated at three speeds, 0.39, 0.79, and 1.5 m/s, for one minute in order to check the effect of the variable speed on the composite material wear. Likewise, two forces were applied to the specimens, namely 30 N and 50 N. The square specimen was used in the wear test with a length of 18 mm, and an average thickness of 8 mm. The relative wear rate percentage was measured in terms of the wear weight loss, based on the method reported by Czichos et al. [38]
Five assemblies of looms were designated for the wear test, namely, M1, M2, M3, M4, and M5, as shown in Table 2, where the average glass fiber volume fractions, Vfa. M2 and M3, are composed of ten layers with varying glass fiber volume fractions for each layer, in order to understand the tribological behavior of the FGM. Furthermore, two conventional composite materials formed by ten layers, M1 and M4, with a uniform glass fiber volume of fraction for each layer, were assigned to be compared with the FGM specimens. Lastly, the M5 specimen made of conventional composite materials was formed by four layers and had an average glass fiber volume of fraction of M4 and was used to study the effect of layers number on the tribological behavior of composite materials.

2.2.2. Small Punch Tests (SPT)

The small punch (SP) technique for testing small specimens has received much interest since its introduction in the 1980s in fusion and fission programs for structural alloys, mainly in the U.S. and Japan. The SP test is a displacement-controlled testing process, i.e., the punch is pushed with a constant velocity of the crosshead through the specimen, and the force required to keep the punch moving is measured as a function of punch displacement (at the punch tip) or specimen deflection u (measured on the lower side of the specimen, opposite the contact point between the punch and the specimen) [39]. In Figure 3, a photo shows the SP set and a schematic drawing representing the punching test.
Four sets of looms were designated experimentally for the SPT process, namely, M6, M7, M8, and M9, as shown in Table 2, each with a different average glass fiber volume fraction, Vfa. M6 and M8 were conventional composite layers assigned as references, while M7 and M9 were assigned for FGM samples. Therefore, the total number of layers used in the SPT specimen is four layers in each specimen, as shown in Table 2. The geometry of the SPT specimen is 20 mm in diameter, with an average thickness is 3.9 mm.

3. Finite Element Model for the SP Test

Modeling the SPT test was used to confirm the test results. This allows additional studies for more specimen configurations to study the advantages of the FGMs over the conventional composite materials. Four additional specimens, labeled M10, M11, M12, and M13 were used as a parametric study, as shown in Table 3. Whereas M10 and M11 have a constant average Vfa = 30% with variation in Vf of the layers in comparison to its mechanical properties with that of M8, while M10 and M11 have a constant average Vfa = 20% with variation in Vf of the layers when comparing its mechanical properties with that of M6. To model the failure of the four layers of epoxy composite reinforced with E-glass through the SPT, 3D FE analysis was utilized. The specimen was constructed with four layers, with the appropriate Vf for each layer. The layers were bonded to each other using an adhesive layer. The failure through the current simulation is based on the Hashin damage criterion and CZM by using ABAQUS/Standard codes [40] to predict the failure due to fiber breakage, matrix cracking, and delamination in composite layers. The Hashin damage criterion was used to predict the mode of intra-laminar damage based on Hashin’s theory [41,42], which considers four different failure modes: fiber tension, fiber compression, matrix tension, and matrix compression. Otherwise, CZM is used to simulate the cohesion between the layers. A thin adhesive layer of epoxy was formed. CZM is based on the traction separation law. The traction separation law assumes initial linear elastic behavior followed by a linear damage evolution. The maximum nominal stress criterion, which is determined by the adhesive material properties such as modulus of elasticity (E) and shear modulus (G), has been adopted to determine the damage initiation.
The elastic constants and Hashin’s damage model strength data of the different layers, according to their Vf%, are shown in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively, extracted analytically as was described in refs. [31,43]. CZM was used to simulate the adhesive layers. The CZM relies on the traction separation law with elastic ratios E/Enn, G1/Ess, and G2/Ett calculated with equations (1 to 3) [40,44] with nominal stress 61 MPa.
E/Enn = K1 = (E × α)/t
G1/Ess = K2 = (G12 × α)/t
G2/Ett = K3 = (G13 × α)/t
where E is the epoxy’s modulus of elasticity, G is the Shear modulus of epoxy, α is a constant = 50, and t = cohesive layer thickness. For more details, refer to Sec-1: Mechanical properties of glass fiber-epoxy lamina; Sec-2: Hashin Model Constants; Sec-3: Hashin Damage Criteria; Computer Code: Computer Code.inp (see Supplementary Materials) [31,40,43,45].
Contact between the composite and cohesive layers was assumed to be tie contact (perfect bonding). Meanwhile contact between the outer composite layers of the test specimen with a punch, the upper die, and the lower die was made using a master–slave algorithm (surface-to-surface contact type) in ABAQUS [40]. The specimen’s outer surfaces were considered to be slave surfaces. The contact between the metallic parts and the composite layers was simulated as penalty friction with a friction coefficient of 0.3 [46,47]. Both parts of the die were set to have no degrees of freedom. The punch had only one degree of freedom in the z-axis, as shown in Figure 4. The center planes of the specimen had five degrees of freedom (the YZ plane was constrained in the x-direction, while the XZ plane was constrained in the y-direction), as seen in Figure 4.
The current modeling analysis simulated the die (two parts) and the punch with linear brick elements (eight nodes, C3D8R elements). The composite specimen layers were represented by 8-node quadrilateral continuum shell elements (SC8R), which is compatible with Hashin’s damage model. An 8-node three-dimensional cohesive element (COH3D8) was used to model the cohesive layers. Figure 5 shows the mesh of the different elements of the finite element model. The mesh element size of the composite layers was taken as 0.7 mm [31]. Figure 6 shows the effect of the cohesive elements’ size in the model results. The figure shows that the most suitable element size for the cohesive layer was five times its thickness, t.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Wear Results

The sliding wear test produced abrasive wear on the sample’s surface. Furthermore, it can be seen that the maximum wear rate is observed for M1, which has zero fiber, an average glass fiber volume of fraction, Vfa. The variation of the wear rate of the FGM at the various speeds is shown in Figure 7. It is clearly seen that the wear rate increases when increasing the disk speed, as shown in Figure 7. This phenomenon is caused by the deteriorating adhesion between the fibers and matrix. On the other hand, the wear rate of composite materials decreases with increasing fiber fractions. This phenomenon is attributed to various factors, including the presence of glass fibers, which can strengthen the matrix and reduce the load on the surface.
On the other hand, the wear rate decreases when increasing the Vfa. Simultaneously, the arrangement of the layers of FGM based on the Vf of each layer affects the wear rate, as shown in Figure 7. In other words, specimen M3 has a lower wear rate than M4, although they have the same Vfa. However, the M2 specimen (which has a Vfa of 31%) has a higher wear rate than the M3 specimen (which has Vfa of 22%). Figure 8 clearly describes the effect of average glass fiber volume of fraction (Vfa) on the wear rate of FGM. From Figure 8, it seems that the wear rate of FGM composite materials decreases when increasing the value of Vfa to achieve a minimum value at Vfa = 22%, but then it increases. The wear rate increases when the increase in the volume fraction of fibers is higher than 22%. It is believed that the presence of worn glass fibers on the surface, which act like three-body wear on the contact area to the composites, decreases their ability to resist abrasive wear. Furthermore, from Figure 7 and Figure 8, it can be concluded that the FGM technique can improve the wear rate, but this improvement decreases when increasing the disk speed.
The disk speed and applied load are the main factors in the wear test, which affect the wear resistance of composite material, as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 9. Figure 9 shows the wear rate of the FGM specimen for varying applied loads. From Figure 9, it was concluded that the wear rate increases with the applied load; this agrees with [48]. Figure 10 illustrates the effect of the number of composite layers on wear rate by using M4 and M5 specimens, which have ten and four layers, respectively. The wear resistance of composite material improves when the number of FGM specimen layers is increased. In other words, the wear rate increases when decreasing the number of the composite layers, as shown in Figure 10; this is because of the increase in the contact area of wear that results from increasing the number of layers of FGM specimens.
Figure 11 shows optical micrographs acquired on the surface of prepared specimens before and after the wear test under a normal load of 30 N and at a sliding speed of 0.39 m/s. Figure 11b is the neat epoxy’s optical image, revealing severe wear on the worn surface. After the wear test of the neat epoxy, a deep grove-like scratch formed, and large chunks of the epoxy matrix were damaged and then they peeled off. The worn surfaces of FGM composites specimens (M2 and M3) and the conventional composite specimens (M4 and M5) are shown in Figure 11c–j. It is noticed that under the same wear test conditions (load and sliding velocity), the FGMs were subjected to mild wear, which is in good agreement with the wear results displayed in Figure 7. As shown in Figure 11c–j, the wear scars are relatively shallow and the peeling of the epoxy on the worn surface is effectively suppressed. The microscopic investigation also reveals that the wear performance of epoxy composites is greatly affected by the number of composite layers and the distribution of fibers inside the epoxy matrix. The ten-layer composite shows a better wear characteristic than the four-layer composite.
The wear performance of the neat epoxy and FGM composites are influenced by the normal load and sliding velocity as indicated by microscopic images shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13. Figure 12 and Figure 13 show worn surface variation at various sliding velocities and under different normal loads, respectively. For both neat epoxy and composite specimens, the roughness of the worn surface increases with the increase of the sliding velocity. In addition, with the increase of the sliding velocity, the heat generated, and the surface fatigue at the contact surface may diminish the strength of the specimen, resulting in a rougher surface.

4.2. SPT Results

4.2.1. Experimental Results

Figure 14 shows the load–displacement curve of the FGM specimen, which was described in Table 2 with differing Vf and Vfa under SPT. As is well known from the force-deflection curve recorded during a SP test, the force increases by increasing the deflection and then drops when the specimen fails. Likewise, the present conventional composite specimens (M6 and M8) and the FGM specimens (M7 and M9) show behavior similar to the public SP test, as shown in Figure 14. Furthermore, from Figure 14, it can be observed that the maximum applied load (ultimate load before failure), Fm, improves by increasing the value Vfa of the conventional specimen, as shown in M6 and M8. Regarding specimen M7, which varies in Vf for each layer and has Vfa of 23.75%, the ultimate load is higher than the conventional specimen M8, which has Vfa of 30%. This means that varying the arrangement of layers in the composite materials by varying the glass fiber volume of fraction, Vf, for each layer can result in an improvement of the maximum applied load (ultimate load) of the composite material subjected to SPT. In other words, when the distribution of the bundles was according to the FGM, i.e., small bilateral spaces on the surface and larger spaces in the core (a higher Vf in the specimen surface than in the core), the measured parameters in the SPT were improved. Accompanying the specimen, M9 has higher values of the applied load. From Figure 14, it can be seen that FGM samples have more resistance before the complete fracture of the samples because the presence of the glass fibers with varying distribution helps increase the resistance to failure during the testing.

4.2.2. Numerical Results

Modeling Verification

The current numerical results have been compared with experimental results to confirm the current FE model results. Table 6 shows the four specimens’ experimental and numerical maximum loads and their error percentages. The error percentages of the maximum load were less than 10% for all specimens. Figure 15 shows the load–deflection curve of both numerical and experimental values of M6 and M9. The figure also shows that both the experimental and numerical tracing had the same behavior. It is clear that Hashin’s failure criterion can predict the damage behavior of composites during the post-peak phase. For more details, see the supplementary materials.
The numerical and experimental final failure of conventional and FGM specimens subjected to SPT can be observed in Figure 16 and Figure 17, respectively. In the present work, Hashin’s failure criteria associated with CZM were implemented to predict the fiber and matrix damage due to tensile or compression stress and delamination between the layers, as shown in Figure 16 and Figure 17 for conventional and FGM specimens. The experimental and numerical results for all specimens showed that the fracture of the specimen was parallel to the fiber direction, as shown in Figure 16c and Figure 17c. Figure 16 shows the failure of the layer opposite the punch tip, while Figure 16b shows the failure in the layer in contact with the die for the conventional composite specimen, M6. Figure 16c shows the scanning of the fracture edge for specimens M6 and M8, which showed the unbroken long fibers. The other traditional specimen, M8, had the same behavior. Figure 17a shows the failure of the layer opposite the punch tip, while Figure 17b shows the failure in the layer in contact with the die for the FGM composite specimen M9. Figure 17c shows the scanning of the fracture edge for specimens M7 and M9, which showed the unbroken long fibers. The other FGM specimen, M7, had the same result.
From Figure 16 and Figure 17, it can be concluded that the final damage of the conventional and FGM specimens began along and beneath the punch tip and grew along the direction of the fiber; after that, the specimen broke into two pieces. Therefore, the fiber orientation is the main factor that can affect the shape of the final damage of the composite material under SPT. The cross-ply or the woven composite material may improve the resistance to fracturing.
Therefore, the verification of the present FE model, which was illustrated in Table 5 and Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17, proves that the present numerical results can be accepted.

The Parametric Study

As described in the experimental section, the FGM technique can improve the flexural strength of conventional composite specimens measured from SPT. However, it needs further investigation. Therefore, four additional specimens with varying Vf for each layer were used, as described in Table 3. Figure 18a,b illustrate the comparison of the conventional composite configuration and the FGM specimen for Vfa = 20% and 30% subjected to SPT, respectively. Figure 18a shows that the specimen with a higher Vf for the outer layer, M12, has a maximum applied load greater than that of the conventional specimen, M6, and higher than the specimen with a higher Vf of the inner layer, M13. In addition, the specimen that has a higher Vf in the outer layer has the maximum applied load, as shown in Figure 18b. From Figure 14 and Figure 18, it can be concluded that the Vf% of the outer layers and the average volume fraction of the specimens are major factors in improving their strength, as is confirmed with the results obtained in refs. [31,49].
Figure 19 shows a comparison between the failure profiles of the three specimens M8, M10, and M11, with their load deflection curves shown in Figure 18b. The figure shows that all the three specimens have the same failure shape, while the specimen that has the largest load value, M11, has a higher percentage of damaged elements on the outer layers. From the figure it can be concluded that the main reason for the specimen failure was the matrix compression failure in the upper layer, against the tip layer, and the matrix tension failure in the lower layer, against the die layer. These two failures coincided with the x-axis, which is the direction in which the fibers are oriented.

5. Conclusions

This study evaluates the mechanical and tribological behavior of conventional and FG polymeric composites reinforced with continuous glass fibers. The main findings are summarized as follows:
  • The wear resistance of the composites increases by increasing the average fiber volume fraction up to 22%. An increase in the number of layers helps improve the wear resistance of composite materials.
  • The existence of worn glass fibers on the surface acts like three-body wear on the contact area and decreases the composite’s ability to resist abrasive wear.
  • SPT results showed that the ultimate load of FG composites increased by 30% compared with the conventional composites.
  • The Vf % of the outer layers and the average volume fraction of SPT specimens are the major factors in improving their flexural strength.
  • The final damage of the polymeric composites reinforced with continuous glass fibers specimens under SPT starts beneath the punch tip and grows in the direction of the fiber, after which the specimen is broken into two pieces.
  • The results were confirmed by modeling the SPT test. This allows additional studies for more specimen configurations to study the advantages of the FGM over conventional composite materials.
  • A comparison of standard sandwich structures and FGM patterns, in particular, the pull-out strength of the inserts embedded in them, will be of interest for study in future work.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/polym14102057/s1, Sec-1: Mechanical properties of glass fiber-epoxy lamina; Sec-2: Hashin Model Constants; Sec-3: Hashin Damage Criteria; Computer Code: Computer Code.inp.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.E.-D.S., A.A.-E., A.A.-S. and M.A.; methodology, W.A., Y.J., S.A., S.M. and M.A.; formal analysis Y.J., S.A., S.M., A.A.-S. and M.A.; investigation, W.A., Y.J., S.A., S.M., H.E.-D.S., A.A.-S. and M.A.; data curation, S.A. and M.A.; writing—original draft preparation, W.A., Y.J., S.A., S.M., M.A. and A.A.-S.; writing—review and editing, A.A.-S., H.E.-D.S., A.A.-E., W.A. and M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All the data required are reported in this manuscript and supplementary materials.

Acknowledgments

W.H. Alhazmi specially thanks the financial support provided by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR) at Jazan University, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rengasamy, N.; Rajkumar, M.; Kumaran, S.S. An analysis of mechanical properties and optimization of EDM process parameters of Al 4032 alloy reinforced with Zrb2 and Tib2 in-situ composites. J. Alloy. Compd. 2016, 662, 325–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Minoo, N.; Shirvanimoghaddam, K. Functionally graded materials: A review of fabrication and properties. Appl. Mater. Today 2016, 5, 223–245. [Google Scholar]
  3. Jha, D.K.; Kant, T.; Singh, R.K. A critical review of recent research on functionally graded plates. Compos. Struct. 2013, 96, 833–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gangil, B.; Patnaik, A.; Kumar, A. Mechanical and wear behavior of vinyl ester-carbon/cement by-pass dust particulate filled homogeneous and their functionally graded composites. Sci. Eng. Compos. Mater. 2012, 20, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pindera, M.; Aboudi, J.; Arnold, S.; Jones, W. Use of composites in multiphased and functionally graded materials. Compos. Engng. 1997, 4, 1–145. [Google Scholar]
  6. Uemura, S. The Activities of FGM on New Application. Mater. Sci. Forum. 2003, 423–425, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Singh, S.B.; Chawla, H.; Ranjitha, B. Hybrid effect of functionally graded hybrid composites of glass–carbon fibers. Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 2018, 26, 1195–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Radhika, N.; Raghu, R. Characterization of mechanical properties and three-body abrasive wear of functionally graded aluminum LM25/titanium carbide metal matrix composite. Mater. Und Werkst. 2017, 48, 882–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jayakumar, E.; Jacob, J.C.; Rajan, T.P.D.; Joseph, M.A.; Pai, B.C. Processing and Characterization of Functionally Graded Aluminum (A319)—SiCp Metallic Composites by Centrifugal Casting Technique. Met. Mater. Trans. A 2016, 47, 4306–4315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Babu, K.V.; Jappes, J.W.; Rajan, T.; Uthayakumar, M. Dry sliding wear studies on SiC reinforced functionally graded aluminium matrix composites. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part L J. Mater. Des. Appl. 2014, 230, 182–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kunimine, T.; Shibuya, M.; Sato, H.; Watanabe, Y. Fabrication of copper/diamond functionally graded materials for grinding wheels by centrifugal sintered-casting. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2015, 217, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Coomar, N.; Kadoli, R. Comparative analysis of steady state heat transfer in a TBC and functionally graded air cooled gas turbine blade. Sadhana 2010, 35, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Maciejewski, G.; Mroz, Z. Optimization of functionally gradient materials in valve design under cyclic thermal and mechanical loading. Comput. Assist. Methods Eng. Sci. 2013, 20, 99–112. [Google Scholar]
  14. Lee, W.Y.; Stinton, D.P.; Berndt, C.C.; Erdogan, F.; Lee, Y.-D.; Mutasim, Z. Concept of Functionally Graded Materials for Advanced Thermal Barrier Coating Applications. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 1996, 79, 3003–3012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Schwarzer, E.; Holtzhausen, S.; Scheithauer, U.; Ortmann, C.; Oberbach, T.; Moritz, T.; Michaelis, A. Process development for additive manufacturing of functionally graded alumina toughened zirconia components intended for medical implant application. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2019, 39, 522–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jojith, R.; Sam, M.; Radhika, N. Recent advances in tribological behavior of functionally graded composites: A review. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2021, 25, 100999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Radhika, N.; Raghu, R. Development of functionally graded aluminium composites using centrifugal casting and influence of reinforcements on mechanical and wear properties. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2016, 26, 905–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Agarwal, G.; Patnaik, A.; Sharma, R.K. Parametric optimization of three-body abrasive wear behavior of bidirectional and short kevlar fiber reinforced epoxy composites. Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 2012, 2, 1148–1167. [Google Scholar]
  19. Singh, T.; Gangil, B.; Singh, B.; Verma, S.; Biswas, D.; Fekete, G. Natural-synthetic fiber reinforced homogeneous and functionally graded vinyl ester composites: Effect of bagasse-Kevlar hybridization on wear behavior. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2019, 8, 5961–5971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gangil, B.; Patnaik, A.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, M. Investigations on mechanical and sliding wear behaviour of short fibre-reinforced vinylester-based homogenous and their functionally graded composites. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part L J. Mater. Des. Appl. 2012, 226, 300–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Singh, A.K. Siddhartha Mechanical and thermo-mechanical peculiarity of functionally graded materials-based glass fiber-filled polybutylene terephthalate composites. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2018, 37, 410–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gautam, V.; Kumar, A.; Sharma, A.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, D. Tribological behaviour of hybrid reinforced vinyl ester based functionally graded materials. Mater. Today: Proc. 2021, 44, 4682–4688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. El-Tayeb, N.; Gadelrab, R. Friction and wear properties of E-glass fiber reinforced epoxy composites under different sliding contact conditions. Wear 1996, 192, 112–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tsukamoto, H. Tribological Characterization of Carbon Nanotube/Aluminum Functionally Graded Materials Fabricated by Centrifugal Slurry Methods. J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rong, M.Z.; Zhang, M.Q.; Liu, Y.; Yang, G.C.; Zeng, H.M. The effect of fiber treatment on the mechanical properties of unidirectional sisal-reinforced epoxy composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2001, 61, 1437–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Moreno, M.F. Application of small punch testing on the mechanical and microstructural characterizations of P91 steel at room temperature. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 2016, 142, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Krizik, P.; Balog, M.; Nagy, S. Small punch testing of heat resistant ultrafine-grained Al composites stabilized by nano-metric Al2O3 (HITEMAL©) in a broad temperature range. J. Alloy. Compd. 2021, 887, 161332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cheng, Z.; Sun, J.; Tai, P.; Zhang, L.; Wei, Y.; Chang, H.; Thuku, R.; Gichuhi, K.M. Comparative Study between Small Punch Tests and Finite Element Analysis of Miniature Steel Specimens. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2021, 30, 9094–9107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Torres, J.; Gordon, A.P. Mechanics of the small punch test: A review and qualification of additive manufacturing materials. J. Mater. Sci. 2021, 56, 10707–10744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Alhazmi, W.; Jazaa, Y.; Mousa, S.; Abd-Elhady, A.; Sallam, H. Tribological and Mechanical Properties of Epoxy Reinforced by Hybrid Nanoparticles. Lat. Am. J. Solids Struct. 2021, 18, e361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Atta, M.; Abu-Sinna, A.; Mousa, S.; Sallam, H.; Abd-Elhady, A. Flexural behavior of functionally graded polymeric composite beams. J. Ind. Text. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hirshikesh; Natarajan, S.; Annabattula, R.K.; Martínez-Pañeda, E. Phase field modelling of crack propagation in functionally graded materials. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 169, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Abd-Elhady, A.; Mubaraki, M.A.; Sallam, H. Progressive failure prediction of pinned joint in quasi-isotropic laminates used in pipelines. Lat. Am. J. Solids Struct. 2018, 15, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Abd-Elhady, A.; Sallam, H.E.-D.; Mubaraki, M. Failure Analysis of Composite Repaired Pipelines with an Inclined Crack under Static Internal Pressure. Procedia Struct. Integr. 2017, 5, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Abd-Elhady, A.A.; Mousa, S.; Alhazmi, W.H.; Sallam, H.E.M.; Atta, M. Effects of composite patching on cyclic crack tip deformation of cracked pinned metallic joints. J. Adhes. 2020, 97, 1561–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. ASTM International. ASTM D3171-15-Standard Test Methods for Constituent Content of Composite Materials; American Society for Testing and Materials: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  37. ASTM F732-17; Standard Test Method for Wear Testing of Polymeric Materials Used in Total Joint Prostheses. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
  38. Czichos, H.; Becker, S.; Lexow, J. Multilaboratory tribotesting: Results from the Versailles Advanced Materials and Standards programme on wear test methods. Wear 1987, 114, 109–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. ASTM E3205-20; Standard Test Method for Small Punch Testing of Metallic Materials. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2020.
  40. ABAQUS 6.14. Analysis User’s Manual; Dassault Systems: Providence, RI, USA, 2014; Volume 5.
  41. Hashin, Z. Failure Criteria for Unidirectional Fiber Composites. J. Appl. Mech. 1980, 47, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hashin, Z.; Rotem, A. A fatigue failure criterion for fiber reinforced materials. J. Compos. Mater. 1973, 7, 448–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. El-Sagheer, I.; Abd-Elhady, A.A.; Sallam, H.E.-D.M.; Naga, S.A.R. An Assessment of ASTM E1922 for Measuring the Translaminar Fracture Toughness of Laminated Polymer Matrix Composite Materials. Polymers 2021, 13, 3129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mousa, S.; Sallam, H.E.-D.M.; Kim, G.-Y.; Abd-Elhady, A.A. Investigation on integrity assessment tests of WRB metal-polymer-metal composites. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2021, 21, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rafiee, R.; Amini, A. Modeling and experimental evaluation of functional failure pressures in glass fiber reinforced polyester pipes. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2015, 96, 579–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ju, S.-H.; Fan, C.-Y.; Wu, G. Three-dimensional finite elements of steel bolted connections. Eng. Struct. 2004, 26, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kulak, G.; Fisher, J.; Struik, J. Guide to Design Criteria for Bolted and Riveted Joints; American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.: Chicago, IL, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  48. Al-Salihi, H.A.; Mahmood, A.A.; Alalkawi, H.J. Mechanical and wear behavior of AA7075 aluminum matrix composites reinforced by Al2O3 nanoparticles. Nanocomposites 2019, 5, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Selmy, A.I.; El-Baky, M.A.A.; Ghazy, M.R.; Kamel, M. Flexural Fatigue Performance of Glass Fiber/Epoxy Step-Wise Functionally and Non-Functionally Graded Composites of Different Structures. Int. Polym. Process. 2017, 32, 298–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Polymers 14 02057 g001 550
Figure 1. Stages of the manufacturing of the epoxy/fiberglass FGM; (a) loom with unidirectional fiberglass bundles, (b) pouring epoxy over the fiberglass layers, (c) the FGM product, and (d) manufactured wear and SPT specimens.
Figure 1. Stages of the manufacturing of the epoxy/fiberglass FGM; (a) loom with unidirectional fiberglass bundles, (b) pouring epoxy over the fiberglass layers, (c) the FGM product, and (d) manufactured wear and SPT specimens.
Polymers 14 02057 g001
Polymers 14 02057 g002 550
Figure 2. (a) Custom-built tribometer used in this study; (b) diagrammatic sketch of the wear test setup.
Figure 2. (a) Custom-built tribometer used in this study; (b) diagrammatic sketch of the wear test setup.
Polymers 14 02057 g002
Polymers 14 02057 g003 550
Figure 3. Small punch test setup.
Figure 3. Small punch test setup.
Polymers 14 02057 g003
Polymers 14 02057 g004 550
Figure 4. Constrains and assembly of the different elements of the FE model.
Figure 4. Constrains and assembly of the different elements of the FE model.
Polymers 14 02057 g004
Polymers 14 02057 g005 550
Figure 5. Mesh of the different elements of the FE model.
Figure 5. Mesh of the different elements of the FE model.
Polymers 14 02057 g005
Polymers 14 02057 g006 550
Figure 6. The effect of the size of the cohesive layer elements in the FE model results (where t is the thickness of the cohesive layer).
Figure 6. The effect of the size of the cohesive layer elements in the FE model results (where t is the thickness of the cohesive layer).
Polymers 14 02057 g006
Polymers 14 02057 g007 550
Figure 7. The effect of the speed on the wear rate.
Figure 7. The effect of the speed on the wear rate.
Polymers 14 02057 g007
Polymers 14 02057 g008 550
Figure 8. Wear rate as a function of average glass fiber volume of fraction, Vfa.
Figure 8. Wear rate as a function of average glass fiber volume of fraction, Vfa.
Polymers 14 02057 g008
Polymers 14 02057 g009 550
Figure 9. Wear rate as a function of applied load for different FGM specimens.
Figure 9. Wear rate as a function of applied load for different FGM specimens.
Polymers 14 02057 g009
Polymers 14 02057 g010 550
Figure 10. The effect of the number of layers on the wear rate.
Figure 10. The effect of the number of layers on the wear rate.
Polymers 14 02057 g010
Polymers 14 02057 g011a 550Polymers 14 02057 g011b 550
Figure 11. The optical micrographs of the surface of the sample before and after wear tests: (a,b) M1, (c,d) M2, (e,f) M3, (g,h) M4, and (i,j) M5.
Figure 11. The optical micrographs of the surface of the sample before and after wear tests: (a,b) M1, (c,d) M2, (e,f) M3, (g,h) M4, and (i,j) M5.
Polymers 14 02057 g011aPolymers 14 02057 g011b
Polymers 14 02057 g012 550
Figure 12. The optical micrographs of the worn surfaces of investigated samples under a normal load of 30 N at various sliding velocities for (a) the neat epoxy, M1, (b) M2, (c) M3, (d) M4, and (e) M5.
Figure 12. The optical micrographs of the worn surfaces of investigated samples under a normal load of 30 N at various sliding velocities for (a) the neat epoxy, M1, (b) M2, (c) M3, (d) M4, and (e) M5.
Polymers 14 02057 g012
Polymers 14 02057 g013 550
Figure 13. The optical micrographs of the worn surfaces of investigated samples under various normal loads at a sliding velocity of 0.79 m/s for (a) the neat epoxy, M1, (b) M2, (c) M3, (d) M4, and (e) M5.
Figure 13. The optical micrographs of the worn surfaces of investigated samples under various normal loads at a sliding velocity of 0.79 m/s for (a) the neat epoxy, M1, (b) M2, (c) M3, (d) M4, and (e) M5.
Polymers 14 02057 g013
Polymers 14 02057 g014 550
Figure 14. SPT Load–deflection curve for FGM composite samples with four layers varying in each layer glass fiber volume fraction.
Figure 14. SPT Load–deflection curve for FGM composite samples with four layers varying in each layer glass fiber volume fraction.
Polymers 14 02057 g014
Polymers 14 02057 g015 550
Figure 15. SPT Load–deflection curve for numerical and experimental results for the SPT specimen.
Figure 15. SPT Load–deflection curve for numerical and experimental results for the SPT specimen.
Polymers 14 02057 g015
Polymers 14 02057 g016 550
Figure 16. Failure of experimental and numerical of conventional specimens. (a) Layer opposite punch (M6), (b) Layer opposite punch (M6), (c) Scan of the specimen.
Figure 16. Failure of experimental and numerical of conventional specimens. (a) Layer opposite punch (M6), (b) Layer opposite punch (M6), (c) Scan of the specimen.
Polymers 14 02057 g016
Polymers 14 02057 g017 550
Figure 17. Experimental and numerical failure analysis of FGM specimens. (a) Layer opposite punch (M7), (b) Layer opposite punch (M7), (c) Scan of the specimen.
Figure 17. Experimental and numerical failure analysis of FGM specimens. (a) Layer opposite punch (M7), (b) Layer opposite punch (M7), (c) Scan of the specimen.
Polymers 14 02057 g017
Polymers 14 02057 g018 550
Figure 18. Numerical load–deflection curve of FGMs specimen with: (a) Vfa of 20% and (b) Vfa of 30%.
Figure 18. Numerical load–deflection curve of FGMs specimen with: (a) Vfa of 20% and (b) Vfa of 30%.
Polymers 14 02057 g018
Polymers 14 02057 g019a 550Polymers 14 02057 g019b 550
Figure 19. Comparison between the 30% Vf% ordinary and FGM (specimens M8, M10, and M11) failure elements.
Figure 19. Comparison between the 30% Vf% ordinary and FGM (specimens M8, M10, and M11) failure elements.
Polymers 14 02057 g019aPolymers 14 02057 g019b
Table
Table 1. Mechanical properties of E-glass fiber and epoxy resin.
Table 1. Mechanical properties of E-glass fiber and epoxy resin.
Mechanical PropertiesE-Glass FiberEpoxy
Modulus of elasticity, E, (GPa)72.42–6
Tensile strength (MPa)345035–130
Elongation %1.8–3.21–8.5
Poisson’s ratio, ν,0.220.36
Table
Table 2. The layers’ Vf values for the different specimens with average Vfa.
Table 2. The layers’ Vf values for the different specimens with average Vfa.
TestAverage VfaSymbolLayer Vf (%)
12345678910
Wear0%M10000000000
31%M250502020151520205050
22%M3303017.517.5151517.517.53030
22%M422222222222222222222
22%M522222222------
SPT20%M620202020------
23.75%M73017.517.530------
30%M830303030------
35%M950202050------
Table
Table 3. The layers’ Vf values for the different specimens with average Vfa.
Table 3. The layers’ Vf values for the different specimens with average Vfa.
TestAverage VfaSymbolLayer Vf (%)
1234
SPT30%M1040202040
30%M1150101050
20%M1230101030
20%M1310303010
Table
Table 4. Lamina’s elastic constants for different Vf% values.
Table 4. Lamina’s elastic constants for different Vf% values.
Vf
(%)		Density
(gm/cm3)		Young’s Modulus (GPa)In-Plane Shear Modulus (GPa)Poisson’s Ratio
EXEYEZGXYGXZGYZυxyυxzυyz
501.82538.29368.87888.87883.45213.45213.04320.2770.2770.458
401.6831.32836.89106.89102.76562.76562.30420.2900.2900.495
301.53524.36145.63235.63232.25302.25301.86430.3040.3040.510
201.3917.39284.79224.79221.85571.85571.59080.3180.3180.506
17.51.35415.65044.62594.62591.77001.77001.54030.3220.3220.501
101.24510.42244.19254.19251.53881.53881.42200.33390.33390.4741
Table
Table 5. Hashin’s damage model strength data for various Vf% values.
Table 5. Hashin’s damage model strength data for various Vf% values.
Vf%Longitudinal Tensile Strength
XT (MPa)		Transverse Tensile Strength
YT (MPa)		Longitudinal Compressive Strength
XC (MPa)		Transverse Compressive Strength
YC (MPa)		Longitudinal Shear Strength
SL (MPa)		Transverse Shear Strength
ST (MPa)
501806.412444.8321489.8681111.393365.00055.696
401477.694950.6262488.937197.758465.000048.8792
301148.977456.3602457.530187.366565.00043.6833
20820.259962.7957393.794079.095665.00039.5478
17.5738.080564.6491372.333777.841165.00038.9205
10491.542471.4214292.803472.570065.000036.2850
Table
Table 6. Experimental and numerical maximum applied load (N).
Table 6. Experimental and numerical maximum applied load (N).
Specimen CodeMax. Load, Fm
ExperimentalNumericalError %
M62026.2632201.958.670508
M72929.2862662.27−9.1154
M82852.6612862.40.341386
M93624.0243420.41−5.61845
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alhazmi, W.; Jazaa, Y.; Althahban, S.; Mousa, S.; Abu-Sinna, A.; Abd-Elhady, A.; Sallam, H.E.-D.; Atta, M. Mechanical and Tribological Behavior of Functionally Graded Unidirectional Glass Fiber-Reinforced Epoxy Composites. Polymers 2022, 14, 2057. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/polym14102057

AMA Style

Alhazmi W, Jazaa Y, Althahban S, Mousa S, Abu-Sinna A, Abd-Elhady A, Sallam HE-D, Atta M. Mechanical and Tribological Behavior of Functionally Graded Unidirectional Glass Fiber-Reinforced Epoxy Composites. Polymers. 2022; 14(10):2057. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/polym14102057

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alhazmi, Waleed, Yosef Jazaa, Sultan Althahban, Saeed Mousa, Ahmed Abu-Sinna, Amr Abd-Elhady, Hossam El-Din Sallam, and Mahmoud Atta. 2022. "Mechanical and Tribological Behavior of Functionally Graded Unidirectional Glass Fiber-Reinforced Epoxy Composites" Polymers 14, no. 10: 2057. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/polym14102057

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop