List of Figures
Fig. 4.1
Hybrid composite fiberglass samples A (3-layer CSM),
B (3-layer WR) and C (CSM, WR, CSM) with various
percentage of aluminum phosphate (0, 5, 10wt%)
(a) Image of Tensile specimen after testing; (b)
Image of Flexural specimen after testing; (c) Tensile
and Flexural strength; (d) Tensile and Flexural Modulus . . . . . .
35
Fig. 4.2
Hybrid composite fiberglass samples A (3 layers CSM),
B (3 layers WR) and C (CSM, WR, CSM) with various
percentage of aluminum phosphate (0, 5, 10%) (a) Image
of impact specimen after testing; (b) Impact and Brinell
hardness testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
Fig. 4.3
Hybrid composite fiberglass with various percentage
of aluminum phosphate (0, 5, 10%) in samples A (3-layer
CSM), B (3-layer WR) and C (CSM, WR, CSM) (a)
Image of vertical burning sample; Vertical burning at (b)
10 s, (b) 20 s and (c) 30 s vertical burning test . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
Fig. 5.1
Correlation theoretical framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
Fig. 5.2
Correlation Coefficient Guideline: (Montgomery &
Runger, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
Fig. 6.1
UFSW setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
Fig. 6.2
UFSW plate setup on Milko 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
Fig. 6.3
Milling machine and tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
Fig. 6.4
Tilt angle and weld direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
Fig. 6.5
Specimen No. 1—1600 RPM and 16 mm/min (backward) . . . .
56
Fig. 6.6
Specimen No. 2—1600 RPM and 16 mm/min (forward) . . . . . .
57
Fig. 6.7
Specimen No. 3—910 RPM and 16 mm/min (backward) . . . . .
57
Fig. 6.8
Specimen No. 4—910 RPM and 16 mm/min (forward) . . . . . . .
57
Fig. 8.1
The EEZ geographical coverage in NOSCP [DOE, 2014] . . . . .
68
Fig. 8.2
Theoretical framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
Fig. 9.1
Flat bottom hull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80
Fig. 9.2
Deep V hull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
Fig. 9.3
Round bottom hull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
xxiii
Fig. 4.1
Hybrid composite fiberglass samples A (3-layer CSM),
B (3-layer WR) and C (CSM, WR, CSM) with various
percentage of aluminum phosphate (0, 5, 10wt%)
(a) Image of Tensile specimen after testing; (b)
Image of Flexural specimen after testing; (c) Tensile
and Flexural strength; (d) Tensile and Flexural Modulus . . . . . .
35
Fig. 4.2
Hybrid composite fiberglass samples A (3 layers CSM),
B (3 layers WR) and C (CSM, WR, CSM) with various
percentage of aluminum phosphate (0, 5, 10%) (a) Image
of impact specimen after testing; (b) Impact and Brinell
hardness testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
Fig. 4.3
Hybrid composite fiberglass with various percentage
of aluminum phosphate (0, 5, 10%) in samples A (3-layer
CSM), B (3-layer WR) and C (CSM, WR, CSM) (a)
Image of vertical burning sample; Vertical burning at (b)
10 s, (b) 20 s and (c) 30 s vertical burning test . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
Fig. 5.1
Correlation theoretical framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
Fig. 5.2
Correlation Coefficient Guideline: (Montgomery &
Runger, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
Fig. 6.1
UFSW setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
Fig. 6.2
UFSW plate setup on Milko 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
Fig. 6.3
Milling machine and tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
Fig. 6.4
Tilt angle and weld direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
Fig. 6.5
Specimen No. 1—1600 RPM and 16 mm/min (backward) . . . .
56
Fig. 6.6
Specimen No. 2—1600 RPM and 16 mm/min (forward) . . . . . .
57
Fig. 6.7
Specimen No. 3—910 RPM and 16 mm/min (backward) . . . . .
57
Fig. 6.8
Specimen No. 4—910 RPM and 16 mm/min (forward) . . . . . . .
57
Fig. 8.1
The EEZ geographical coverage in NOSCP [DOE, 2014] . . . . .
68
Fig. 8.2
Theoretical framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
Fig. 9.1
Flat bottom hull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80
Fig. 9.2
Deep V hull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
Fig. 9.3
Round bottom hull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
xxiii