Page 20 - Template Tesis UTM v2.0

Figure 3.6 Three-points bending test 81

Figure 3.7 (a) Instron 5982, and (b) Quasi-static sample size 83

Figure 3.8 A typical energy curve for drop-weight impact test when
rebound of the impactor occur [68] 84

Figure 3.9 (a) Instron-Ceast 9350 drop weight, (b) Instrumented
control panel, (c) Data acquisition device, and (d) Low
velocity impact sample size 86

Figure 3.10 SHPB equipment at USTC, China 87

Figure 3.11 Schematic diagram of SHPB 89

Figure 3.12 Lagrangian x–t diagram visualizing wave passage in SHPB
bars [113] 89

Figure 3.13 Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) EVO 50 92

Figure 3.14 (a) Optical microscopy (Carl-Zeiss) AxioCam, and (b) light
source controller 93

Figure 4.1 Tensile stress-strain curves of hybrid composites with SL
and IC sequences 101

Figure 4.2 Comparison on the tensile stress-strain curves between E-
glass/basalt, E-glass and basalt laminates 102

Figure 4.3 Comparison on the tensile stress-strain curves between E-
glass/jute, E-glass and jute laminates 103

Figure 4.4 Comparison on the tensile stress-strain curves between E-
glass/flax, E-glass and flax laminates 104

Figure 4.5 Specific tensile strength and modulus of SL sequence
hybrid composites 105

Figure 4.6 Specific tensile strength and modulus of IC sequence hybrid
composites 106

Figure 4.7 SEM micrographs of tensile fracture; (a) G2/B3/G2, (b)
[G/B]3G, (c) G2/J3/G2, (d) [G/J]3G, (e) G2/F3/G, and (f)
[G/F]3G 108

Figure 4.8 Flexural strength and modulus of hybrid composite
laminates 112

Figure 4.9 Comparison on the flexural strength and modulus between
hybrid and pure composite laminates 114

Figure 4.10 Specific flexural strength and modulus of hybrid
composites 117

xvi