© 2022 IIETA. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
In this paper, the amount of excess weight resulting from the design of a mathematical model composed of composite materials will be calculated and compared with a mathematical model of an armored steel structure. Five different models were designed, one of which is made of steel, the other part is made of composite materials, and a section of steel and composite materials, and then tested for resistance to stresses and compared the weight of each structure with that of the steel component by taking the maximum stress as a basic criterion for weight comparison. The results showed that the best model was the second model fiberglass, where the percentage of weight loss was compared to the steel model (73.77%), in addition to the wall thickness (62 mm) and the wall thickness of the steel model with which the comparison was (60 mm), but the displacement is (7. 24 mm), and in the steel model it is (1.827 mm). The best model compared to steel in terms of resistance to maximum stress, less displacement and less weight was the model consisting of steel with carbon fiber and its thickness was (47 layers& 57 mm, 2 layer & 10 mm steel and 45 layer & 45 mm carbon fiber), and the percentage of weight loss compared to the first mathematical model (60.96%). The results of this research may be a key to obtaining alternative materials for traditional materials in the manufacture of armored hulls, aircraft and ships, and it has a lower weight.
armored, carbon fiber, fiberglass, bulk materials, composite materials, epoxy
Composite materials are described with high strength, stiffness, and low density as contrasted with bulk materials, permitting the weight reduction in the Vehicle's parts, and can oppose a high ballistic force because of their high strength to weight proportion [1]. Composite armor layer ordinarily made out of various material layers that comprise of fiber overlays, rubbers, ceramics, metal, and so on. The design factors of composite armor are most frequently limited to the material determination, layer thickness and layer request [2]. Among the regular composite materials are fiber strengthened polymer, and ceramic, they are not just described with stiffness and high strength to weight proportion properties, yet besides offers different properties, for example, flexural strength; high sturdiness; high hardness; firmness; damping property; thermal dependability; and protection from wear; corrosion; fire; and impact as well as low density. These wide scopes of features were enabled the composite materials to find r applications in automobile, construction, mechanical, aviation, marine, biomedical, and presentday defensive layer [3]. Composite material performance is dominating relies upon the assembling strategies and their constituent components, subsequently, fiber functional properties as well as assembling procedures that have been applied to design and manufacturing the composite material are significant needs to be studied to figure out their optimization qualities for the necessary application [3]. The design strategy complexity nature of sunbased vehicle fiber strengthened composite structure was examined, and repaid by fitting their mechanical attributes and optimizing the overall load of the vehicle [4]. The normal fiber with glass half breeds was embraced to improve the mechanical properties over utilizing regular fiber alone [5]. A reinforced vehicle configuration was read for characterizing the prerequisites relying upon to perform the various task execution, the structural stages for various courses of action, a protection dangers determination for various pieces of the fuselage, just as execution test. The ballistic assessment relying upon the weakness capacities was concentrated by nonincluding insurance for an individual. It was indicated that conservative arrangement which empowers personal transfers and conveying the joined overwhelming weapons or a crucial reasonable was conceivable by the adaptability of the design [6]. An exploratory and numerical methodology was investigated for deciding the productivity of the ballistic defensive layer framework that has been made from ceramic and metal against a 40.7gram steel shot. It was inferred that the simulation technique applied right now was a good design tool and valuable for optimizing lightweight armor that has been made from ceramic and metal [7]. The advanced design process was proposed for a composite armor, dependent on testing and simulation. It was demonstrated that the crossbreed material design that has been utilized for the ceramic layer gave an extra design variable besides, size, thickness, and materials. It has likewise appeared through physical and virtual prototyping that the performance of the improved ballistic could be accomplished through the procedure of the design [2]. Characterization and recognition of the ballistic harm of ground vehicle armor panels produced using composite material were performed by a computed tomography imaging approach of an ultrasonic guided wave. A guided wave of incredible potential has appeared for the location and mapping of the damage that has been happening in composite panels [8]. An experimental and numerical investigation of armor produced using the composite system for ballistic protection was introduced. The composite system was fabricated from Al_{2}O_{3} ceramic mounted on the hitting face and backed with high strength steel. The system demonstrated a higher degree level of ballistic performance, which could overcome a 7.62*54 armorpenetrating projectile [9]. The mechanical properties including (impact, hardness, and tensile) of an epoxy lattice composite material strengthened with a particle of TiO_{2} and a short irregular glass fiber of (3% wt, 6% wt, and 9% wt) weight portion were considered. The outcomes uncovered improvement in mechanical properties with an increase in the division weight rate [10]. Hexagonal honeycomb cores of a sandwich panel produced from a glass fiber strengthened polymer was made by an adhesion method. Three methods twisting trial of the panels with three sorts of glue (thermosetting resin, plastic steel epoxy, and polyominoamide biphenylA resin) were accomplished to examine the bending stress. It was concluded that the honeycomb sandwich panel stress with all the three adhesives was more than that for Kalisahak28 lightweight undercarriage [11]. Carbon and glass fiber strengthened composite were mechanically tried for tensile (at different temperatures and strain rates), impact and flexural (at different strain rate). The carbon fiber strengthened polymer test results demonstrated a superior tensile, impact, and flexural properties than that of glass fiber strengthened polymer [12]. Interlayer and interlayer mixture composite were explored for compressive and tensile properties. The results demonstrated that better tensile strength was recorded than compressive strength. The results also uncovered that strength and modulus were increased with an increase in the substance of carbon fiber, and the compressive values were marginally changed [13]. The multiscale investigation law of ceramic composite was determined based on periodically boundary displacement conditions, and a dynamic model has been created by utilizing the constitutive law of the adjusted MohrCoulomb. The stressstrain results revealed that the agent volume component mechanical properties were influenced by the volume portion and microstructure arrangement [14].
In this research, the amount of excess weight produced from the design of mathematics models composed of composite materials will be calculated and compared to a mathematic model for an armored body made of steel. This is due to the importance of weight in armored vehicles, as it affects all components of the armored vehicle when designing the engine, transmissions, tires ... and others, as well as its effect on the speed of the armor.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2. Materials and model analysis, section 3. Results and discussion, section 4. Conclusions, acknowledgment, and references.
A fivedimensional finite element model was constructed to simulate the influence test in ANSYS 15.0, Figure 1 shown in the models. The impact force was comparable to the impact force of a projectile on an armored structure and was projected in the middle of the designed models and its value was (120 KN).
Figure 1. Solid shell geometry
Numerical simulations are performed based on the lab conditions used in the practical test of impact testing where we consider the shape and geometry of the sampling process and boundary conditions. We will focus on two main aspects of this procedure. Modeling and calculating the failure voltage. Simulations were performed using ANSYS (15.0) constructors.
Five models are designed from different materials to compare the deformations and stresses that affect them. The models selected are steel, carbon fiber, Sshaped fiberglass, carbon fiber with steel, and fiberglass with steel models. Symbols for the fiberglass and carbon fiber model were chosen as shown in Figure 2.
Five mathematical models were designed, the first model is made of steel, the second model is made of carbon fiber, the third model is made of glass fiber, and the fourth model is made of carbon fiber and steel. The fifth model is made of fiberglass and iron.
Table 1 appears the specifications for the materials used in the model structures, Table 2 shows the elastic properties of carbon and fiberglass, and Table 3 shows the specifications used for drawing test samples and the symbols for materials used in all tests.
Figure 2. Codes of models
Table 1. The mechanical and thermal specifications of the materials used [1518]
Model 
Materials 
Density, ρ, Kg/m^{3} 
Thermal Conductivity, W/m. k 
Modulus of elasticity, E, GPa 
Passion ratio 
Height, (cm) 
Width, w, (cm) 
Thickness, t, (cm) 

M1 
Steel 
7800 
50.2 
210 
0.3 
200 
520 
5 

M2 
Carbon fiber 
Carbon, 55% 
1800 
0.17 
230 
0.3 
200 
520 
 
Epoxy, 45% 
1200 
0.23 
3.5 
0.3 

M3 
Fiberglass 
Glass, 55% 
2500 
0.8 
87 
0.2 
200 
520 
 
Epoxy, 45% 
1200 
0.23 
3.5 
0.3 

M4 
Carbon fiber& Steel 
Carbon 55% 
1800 
0.17 
230 
0.3 
200 
520 
 
Epoxy 45% 
1200 
0.23 
3.5 
0.3 
200 
520 
 

Steel 
7800 
50.2 
210 
0.3 
200 
520 
 

M5 
Fiberglass& Steel 
Glass 55% 
2500 
0.8 
87 
0.3 
200 
520 
 
Epoxy 45% 
1200 
0.23 
3.5 
0.2 
200 
520 
 

Steel 
7800 
50.2 
210 
0.3 
200 
520 
 
Table 2. The different stresses of the composite materials used [18]
Material 
E _{ii,} MPa 
G _{ii,} MPa 
$\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\mathrm{ij}}$ 
$\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\mathrm{ji}}$ 
Carbon fiber 
E_{11}=91600 E_{22}=38700 E_{33}=8590 
G_{12}=11540 G_{13}=2750 G_{23}=1070 
µ_{12}=0.26 µ_{ 13}=0.30 µ_{ 23}=0.30 
µ_{21}=0.110 µ_{ 31}=0.028 µ_{ 32}=0.067 
Fiberglass 
E_{11}=26600 E_{22}=23300 E_{33}=10760 
G_{12}=5030 G_{13}=1140 G_{23}=950 
µ_{12}=0.17 µ_{ 13}=0.52 µ_{ 23}=0.53 
µ_{21}=0.150 µ_{ 31}=0.062 µ_{ 32}=0.245 
Table 3. Specifications of codes, models, and type of elements for mathematical models in ANSYS 15.0
No. 
Material 
Code 
Model 
Density, Kg / m^{3} 
Type of Element 
1 
Steel Model  1 
[0] 
Linear, (Isotropic) 
7800 
Solid 187 Geometry, 10 Nods, 3D Modeling 
2 
Carbon fiber Model  2 
[0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90l0l90/ 0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0]s 
Linear (Orthotropic) 
1650 
Shell (3D 4node 181) 
3 
Fiberglass Model  3 
[0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/ 0/90l0l90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0] s 
Linear Orthotropic) 
1814 
Shell (3D 4node 181) 
4 
Carbon fiber& Steel Model  4 
[0/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/ 90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/09/0/90/0/90/0/ 90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0] 
(Orthotropic) 
1650 
Shell, (3D 4node 181) 
(Isotropic) 
7800 
Solid 187, 10 Nods 

5 
Fiberglass & Steel Model  5 
[0/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/ 90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0/90/0]s 
(Orthotropic) 
1814 
Shell, (3D 4node 181) 
(Isotropic) 
7800 
Solid 187, 10 Nods 
Table 4. Results of simulation test first model
NO. 
Type of test 
Displacement (DMX), mm 
Maximum value (SMN), MPa 
Minimum value (SMX), MPa 
1 
$\delta_{x}$ 
1.827 
 144 
136 
2 
$\delta_{y}$ 
1.827 
 151 
145 
3 
$\delta_{z}$ 
1.827 
 39.6 
28.5 
4 
$\tau_{x y}$ 
1.827 
 10.4 
10.4 
5 
$\tau_{y z}$ 
1.827 
5.4 
6.37 
6 
$\tau_{x Z}$ 
1.827 
 4.88 
5.6 
7 
First Principal Stress 
1.827 
 39.4 
145 
8 
Second Principal Stress 
1.827 
 144 
136 
9 
Third Principal Stress 
1.827 
152 
28.4 
10 
Stress Intensity 
1.827 
0.004 
147 
11 
Von Mises Stress 
1.827 
0.003 
143 
Table 5. Results of simulation test second model
NO. 
Type of test 
Displacement (DMX), mm 
Maximum value (SMN), MPa 
Minimum value (SMX), MPa 
1 
$\delta_{x}$ 
7.24 
 114 
115 
2 
$\delta_{y}$ 
7.24 
 109 
110 
3 
$\delta_{z}$ 
7.24 
0 
0 
4 
$\tau_{x y}$ 
7.24 
 55 
55.8 
5 
$\tau_{y z}$ 
7.24 
1.42 
1.42 
6 
$\tau_{x Z}$ 
7.24 
 93.3 
93.1 
7 
First Principal Stress 
7.24 
0 
143 
8 
Second Principal Stress 
7.24 
 46.5 
46.6 
9 
Third Principal Stress 
7.24 
0 
142 
10 
Stress Intensity 
7.24 
0.001 
143 
11 
Von Mises Stress 
7.24 
0.001 
136 
The first model was designed consisting of steel, and a section was taken on the side of the armored body, which was with dimensions (520 * 200 * 50 mm) and its weight was calculated to compare it with the weight of other models consisting of other materials, and the model was installed from all sides and a load of (150 KN) was placed in the middle of this model to know the amount of deformation and stresses Influencing the armored structure.
Table 4 and Figure 3 show the results of these tests using the ANSYS 15.0 program.
The second mathematical model, consisting of carbon fibers, was built with the same width and height as the first model, but the thickness was changed by changing the number of layers until an equal intensity stre ss was obtained as in the first model consisting of steel, and after multiple tests by changing the thickness of the walls, the required thickness was obtained, which was (62 mm ) and the number of its layers (62) and after that the weight of the designed structure, which is made of carbon fiber, was calculated (1063.92 Kg). Table 5 and Figure 4 show the results of these tests using the ANSYS 15.0 program.
The third mathematical model, consisting of fiber glass, was built with the same width and height as the first model, but the thickness was changed by changing the number of layers until an equal intensity stress was obtained as in the first model consisting of steel, and after multiple tests by changing the thickness of the walls, the required thickness was obtained, which was (56 mm ) and the number of its layers (56) and after that the weight of the designed structure, which is made of fiber glass, was calculated (1056.47Kg). Table 6 and Figure 5 show the results of these tests using the ANSYS 15.0 program.
Figure 3. Results of the simulation test of the first model
The fourth mathematical model, consisting of Steel and Carbon fiber, was built with the same width and height as the first model, but the thickness was changed by changing the number of layers until an equal intensity stress was obtained as in the first model consisting of steel, and after multiple tests by changing the thickness of the walls, the required thickness was obtained, which was (55 mm ) and the number of its layers (47) and after that the weight of the designed structure, which is made of fiber glass, was calculated (1583.4Kg). Table 7 and Figure 6 show the results of these tests using the ANSYS 15.0 program.
Figure 4. Results of the simulation test of the second model
Figure 5. Results of the simulation test of the third model
Table 6. Results of simulation test third model
NO. 
Type of test 
Displacement (DMX), mm 
Maximum value (SMN), MPa 
Minimum value (SMX), MPa 
1 
$\delta_{\mathrm{x}}$ 
18.869 
 120 
121 
2 
$\delta_{\mathrm{y}}$ 
18.869 
 128 
128 
3 
$\delta_{\mathrm{z}}$ 
18.869 
0 
0 
4 
$\tau_{x y}$ 
18.869 
 31.8 
32.2 
5 
$\tau_{y z}$ 
18.869 
 55.7 
55.2 
6 
$\tau_{\mathrm{XZ}}$ 
18.869 
 51.1 
51.1 
7 
First Principal Stress 
18.869 
0 
147 
8 
Second Principal Stress 
18.869 
 92.5 
92.3 
9 
Third Principal Stress 
18.869 
 147 
0 
10 
Stress Intensity 
18.869 
0.0004 
147 
11 
Von Mises Stress 
18.869 
0.0004 
128 
Table 7. Results of simulation test fourth model
NO. 
Type of test 
Displacement (DMX), mm 
Maximum value (SMN), MPa 
Minimum value (SMX), MPa 
1 
$\delta_{\mathrm{x}}$ 
3.909 
 130 
130 
2 
$\delta_{\mathrm{y}}$ 
3.909 
 147 
147 
3 
$\delta_{\mathrm{z}}$ 
3.909 
0 
0 
4 
$\tau_{x y}$ 
3.909 
 16.9 
16.9 
5 
$\tau_{y z}$ 
3.909 
 27.5 
27.6 
6 
$\tau_{\mathrm{XZ}}$ 
3.909 
 24.9 
24.8 
7 
First Principal Stress 
3.909 
0 
147 
8 
Second Principal Stress 
3.909 
 130 
130 
9 
Third Principal Stress 
3.909 
0 
147 
10 
Stress Intensity 
3.909 
 0.005 
147 
11 
Von Mises Stress 
3.909 
0.005 
139 
The fifth mathematical model, consisting of Steel and Fiberglass, was built with the same width and height as the first model, but the thickness was changed by changing the number of layers until an equal intensity stress was obtained as in the first model consisting of steel, and after multiple tests by changing the thickness of the walls, the required thickness was obtained, which was (60 mm ) and the number of its layers (52) and after that the weight of the designed structure, which is made of fiber glass, was calculated (1754Kg). Table 8 and Figure 7 show the results of these tests using the ANSYS 15.0 program.
Table 9 shows the results of the five models' tests using a program ANSYS 15.0. The table shows the weight difference between the five models, and the percentage of decrease in weight compared to the weight of the steel frame.
The results in Table 9 show the following:
When comparing the second model, which is made of carbon fiber, with the first model, which is made of steel, we note that the percentage of weight loss was (73.77%), which is the highest reduction rate, but the thickness of the structure was composed of (62 layers) and (62 mm), and the displacement was (7.24) while the displacement in steel was (1.827). In the third model, which is made of carbon fiber, the percentage of weight loss in relation to the weight in the first model, which is made of steel, was (73.45), and the number of layers was (56) and the thickness of the frame (56 mm), and the displacement was very high as it reached (18.896 mm), which is the highest displacement in the five mathematic models. In the fourth model, consisting of two layers of steel and the thickness of each layer (5 mm) and (45) a layer and thickness (45 mm) of carbon fiber, the percentage of decrease in weight compared to the weight of the first model was (60.96%), and the displacement was very appropriate, reaching (3.909 mm). In the fifth model, which consisted of an outer layer and an inner layer of steel, and between the two layers (50) layers of fiberglass, the percentage of weight loss compared to the weight of the first model was (56.76), and the displacement was (3.792).
Table 8. Results of simulation test fifth model
NO. 
Type of test 
Displacement (DMX), mm 
Maximum value (SMN), MPa 
Minimum value (SMX), MPa 
1 
$\delta_{\mathrm{x}}$ 
3.792 
 127 
128 
2 
$\delta_{\mathrm{y}}$ 
3.792 
 143 
144 
3 
$\delta_{\mathrm{z}}$ 
3.792 
0 
0 
4 
$\tau_{x y}$ 
3.792 
 16.3 
16 
5 
$\tau_{y z}$ 
3.792 
 37.3 
37.2 
6 
$\tau_{\mathrm{XZ}}$ 
3.792 
 30.3 
30.2 
7 
First Principal Stress 
3.792 
0.004 
145 
8 
Second Principal Stress 
3.792 
 126 
127 
9 
Third Principal Stress 
3.792 
0 
143 
10 
Stress Intensity 
3.792 
0.005 
145 
11 
Von Mises Stress 
3.792 
0.005 
137 
Figure 6. Results of the simulation test of the fourth model
Figure 7. Results of the simulation test of the fifth model
Table 9. The results of the five models' tests using
Model 
Materials 
Density, ρ, (Kg/m^{3}) 
Deformation, (mm) 
Intensity stress, (MPa) 
Von Mises Stress, (MPa) 
Height, (mm) 
Number of layers 
Width, w, (mm) 
Thickness, t, (mm) 
Volume of wall, (m^{3}) 
Weight, (Kg) 
The percentage of weight loss in relation to steel % 

M1 
Steel 
7800 
1.827 
147 
143 
200 
1 
520 
50 
0.52 
4056 
 

M2 
Carbon fiber 
Carbon, 55% 
1650 
7.24 
143 
136 
200 
62 
520 
62 
0.6448 
1063.92 
73.77 
Epoxy, 45% 

M3 
Fiberglass 
Glass, 55% 
1814 
18.896 
147 
128 
200 
56 
520 
56 
0.5824 
1056.47 
73.85 
Epoxy, 45% 

M4 
Carbon fiber & Steel

Carbon, 55% 
1650 
3.909 
147 
139 
200 
45 
520 
45 
0.104 
1583.4 
60.96 
Epoxy, 45% 

Steel 
7800 
 
 
 
200 
2 
520 
10 
0.468 

M5 
Fiberglass & Steel

Glass, 55% 
1814 
3.792 
145 
137 
200 
50 
520 
50 
0.104 
1754 
56.76 
Epoxy, 45% 

Steel 
7800 
 
 
 
200 
2 
520 
10 
0.52 
Composite materials have distinctive properties since their invention in the last century, and there is a lot of research that has studied the improvements of these materials and make them more effective in engineering, technological and industrial applications. There are many types of fiber reinforced materials that are classified as natural and synthetic fibers, as the fibers provide more rigidity and resistance to various stresses. Mathematical models made of composite materials were used in this research, and it was concluded that the use of composite materials in the manufacture of various structures, including the structures of armor, is of great importance in reducing the weight of armor, and it has resistance to different stresses similar to that of steel. It is evident from analyzing the results and making the necessary calculations that the best model is the second model, which is composed of carbon fibers, where the weight of the structure in it reached (1063.92 kg), and the percentage of weight reduction compared to the first model, which was made of steel (73.77%), and the intensity of stress in it (143 MPa) and displacement (7.24), despite from the fact that the lowest weight was in the third model, which is made of fiber class, and its value (1056.47 kg) and the displacement in it was very high, reaching (18.896 mm). From other results, the least number of layers for the armored hull was adopted in the fourth model, which consisted of steel and carbon fiber, as the number reached (47) layer and the percentage of weight reduction compared to the first model was (60.96%) and displacement (3.909 mm).
Knowledge in material and process selection and active part size definition is crucial in the conceptual design of the composite body structure of the future. Since high volume, manufacturing processes for structural composite are under constant development it must be continuously monitored to improve the results from the presented framework, and the following study can be done:
First, finding alternative materials that have a resistance similar to steel, are environmentally friendly, and have a lower weight than steel.
Second, conducting practical and applied tests and comparing them with the obtained theoretical results.
Third, the use of sports models made of other materials as an alternative to steel, for example ceramics, and their comparison with the resistance of steel.
Fourth, studying the resistance of these materials in terms of thermal insulation and sound insulation, as well as their resistance to weather conditions and fires.
This manuscript was supported by Engineering Science Research Program through the Northern Technical University Iraq. (No. 00333 2020).
[1] Xue, L., Tabil, L.G., Panigrahi, S. (2007). Chemical treatments of natural fiber for use in natural fiberreinforced composites: A review. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 15: 2533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1092400600423
[2] Ma, Z.D., Wang, H., Cui, Y.S., Rose, D., Socks, A., Ostberg, D. (2006). Designing an innovative composite armor system for affordable ballistic protection. Proc. of the 25th Army Science Conference and Technology, Orlando, United States, pp. 18.
[3] Rajak, D.K., Pagar, D.D., Menezes, P.L., Linul, E. (2019). Fiberreinforced polymer composite: Manufacturing, properties, and applications. Polymers, 11(10): 1667. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym11101667
[4] Minak, G., Brugo, T.M., Fragassa, C., Pavlovic, A., de Camargo, F.V., Zavatta, N. (2019). Structural design and manufacturing of a cruiser solar vehicle. Journal of Visualized Experiments. https://doi.org/10.3791/58525
[5] Davoodi, M.M., Sapuan, S.M., Ahmad, D., Ali, A., Khalian, A., Jonoobi, M. (2010). Mechanical properties of hybrid kenaf/glass reinforced epoxy composite for passenger car bumper beam. Materials and Design, 31(10): 49274932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2010.05.021
[6] Alankaya, V. (2015). Success story of armored multitask vehicle design. Journal of Military and Information Science, 3(1): 1723. https://doi.org/10.17858/jmisci.28673
[7] Lee, M., Yoo, Y.H. (2001). Analysis of ceramic/metal armour systems. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 25(9): 819829. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0734743X(01)000252
[8] Prasad, S.M., Balasubramaniam, K., Venkata, K.C. (2004). Structural health monitoring of composite structures using Lamb wave tomography. Smart Materials and Structures, 13(5): N73. https://doi.org/10.1088/09641726/13/5/N01
[9] Chabera, P., Boczkowska, A, Niezgoda, A., Ozieblo, A., Witek, A. (2014). Numerical and experimental study of armour system consisted of ceramic and ceramic elastomer composites. Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Science, Technical Sciences, 62(4): 853859. https://doi.org/10.2478/bpasts20140094
[10] Ali, L.M.A., Ansari, M.N.M., Pua, G., Jawaid, M., Saiful Islam, M. (2015). A review on natural fiber reinforced polymer composite and its applications. International Journal of Polymer Science, 2015(2): 243947. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/243947
[11] Arbintaros, E.S., Datama, H.F., Aviyanto, R.N.W., Prasetya, B., Purwokusumo, U.S.A.B., Aditiawan, B., Aditiawan, P.P., Sangkoyo, P.P., Adi, R.B.S. (2019). The bending stress on GFRP honeycomb sandwich panel structure for chassis lightweight vehicle. 1st South Aceh International Conference on Engineering and Technology, IOP Conf. Series: Material Science and Engineering, 506: 110. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757899X/506/1/012050
[12] Elanchezhian, C., Vijaya Ramnath, B., Hemalatha, J. (2014). Mechanical behavior of glass and carbon fiber reinforced composites at varying strain rates and temperatures. Procedia Materials Science, 6: 14051418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mspro.2014.07.120
[13] Wu, W.L., Wang, Q.T., Li, W. (2018). Comparison of tensile and compressive properties of carbon/glass interlayer and intralayer hybrid composites. Materials, 11(7): 1105. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11071105
[14] Jaini, Z.M., Feng, Y.T., Mokhatar, S.N., Seman, M.A. (2013). Numerical homogenization of protective ceramic composite layers using the hybrid finitediscrete element method. International Journal of Integrated Engineering, 5(2): 1522.
[15] Briccoli Bati, S., Rovero, L., Tonietti, U. (2007). Strengthening masonry arches with composite materials. Journal of Composites for Construction, 11(1): 3341. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)10900268(2007)11:1(33)
[16] Raheem, A.A., Momoh, A.K., Soyingbe, A.A. (2012). Comparative analysis of sand Crete hollow blocks and laterite interlocking blocks as walling elements. International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering & Technology), 3(1): 7988.
[17] Calderón, S., Vargas Carvajal, L.A., Sandoval, C., ArayaLetelier, G. (2020). Behavior of partially grouted concrete masonry walls under quasistatic cyclic lateral loading. Materials, 13(10): 2424. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13102424
[18] Wang, S., Qiu, J.J. (2010). Enhancing thermal conductivity of glass fiber/polymer composites through carbon nanotubes incorporation. Composites Part B Engineering, 41(7): 533536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2010.07.002