Experimental and numerical study of foam filled corrugated core steel sandwich structures subjected to blast loading
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract The influence of foam infill on the blast resistivity of corrugated steel core sandwich panels was investigated experimentally using a shock tube facility and high speed photography and numerically through Finite Element Methods (FEM). After verifying the finite element model, numerical studies were conducted to investigate the effect of face sheet thickness (1, 3 and 5 mm), corrugated sheet thickness (0.2 mm, 0.6 mm and 1 mm), and boundary conditions (Simple Supported and Encastre Supported on the back sides) on blast performance. Experimental and FEM results were found to be in good agreement with R2 values greater than 0.95. The greatest impact on blast performance came from the addition of foam infill, which reduced both the back-face deflections and front-face deflections by more than 50% at 3 ms after blast loading at a weight expense of only 2.3%. However, increasing face sheet thickness and corrugated sheet thickness decreased the benefit obtained from foam filling in the sandwich structure. Foam infill benefits were more prominent for Simple Supported edge case than Encastre Supported edge case.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Cellular and Composite Structures · Wood Treatment and Properties · Material Properties and Processing
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (44)
Show source-provided references
1. Review of blast and impact of metallic and sandwich structures10.56748/ejse.681 ↗
2. Gibson · 1997
3. Close-range blast loading of aluminum foam panels10.1016/S0734-743X(01)00155-5 ↗
4. Response of metallic pyramidal lattice core sandwich panels to high intensity impulsive loading in air10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2010.10.002 ↗
5. Dynamic compression of metallic sandwich structures during planar impulsive loading in water10.1016/j.euromechsol.2009.05.003 ↗
6. Compressive response of multilayered pyramidal lattices during underwater shock loading10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.06.009 ↗
7. The resistance of clamped sandwich beams to shock loading10.1115/1.1629109 ↗
8. A comparative study of impulse-resistant metal sandwich plates10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2003.08.007 ↗
9. Large inelastic response of unbonded metallic foam and honeycomb core sandwich panels to blast loading10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.03.002 ↗
10. The response of sandwich structures with composite face sheets and polymer foam cores to air-blast loading: preliminary experiments10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.11.023 ↗
11. Performance of metallic honeycomb-core sandwich beams under shock loading10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2005.06.079 ↗
12. Structural performance of near-optimal sandwich panels with corrugated cores10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2005.06.073 ↗
13. Finite element analysis of the dynamic response of clamped sandwich beams subject to shock loading10.1016/j.euromechsol.2003.09.002 ↗
14. Dynamic response of metallic lattice sandwich structures to impulsive loading10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2011.11.004 ↗
15. Multifunctionality of cellular metal systems10.1016/S0079-6425(98)00004-8 ↗
16. Behaviour of sandwich panels subjected to intense air blast – Part 1: experiments10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.04.009 ↗
17. Preliminary assessment of sandwich plates subject to blast loads10.1016/S0020-7403(03)00108-5 ↗
18. Underwater blast loading of sandwich beams: regimes of behaviour10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2009.04.012 ↗
19. The impulsive response of sandwich beams: analytical and numerical investigation of regimes of behaviour10.1016/j.jmps.2006.07.001 ↗
20. Behaviour of sandwich panels subject to intense air blasts – Part 2: numerical simulation10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.04.010 ↗
21. Metal sandwich plates with polymer foam filled cores10.2140/jomms.2006.1.97 ↗
22. Blast performance of marine foam core sandwich composites at extreme temperatures10.1007/s11340-012-9610-8 ↗
23. An experimental and numerical study of blast induced shock wave mitigation in sandwich structures10.1016/j.apacoust.2012.05.011 ↗
24. An experimental investigation of shock wave propagation in periodically layered composites10.1016/S0022-5096(02)00100-X ↗
25. Homae T, Wakabayashi K, Matsumura T, Nakayama Y. Reduction of explosion damage using sand or water layer. In: Proceedings of the conference of the American Physical Society topical group on shock compression of condensed matter (AIP Conf. Proc. 955), 24–29 June, 2007, Waikoloa. p. 1289–92.10.1063/1.2832958 ↗
26. Effect of face sheet thickness on dynamic response of composite sandwich plates to underwater impulsive loading10.1007/s11340-011-9538-4 ↗
27. Performance of functionally graded sandwich composite beams under shock wave loading10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.12.006 ↗
28. Blast resistance of sandwich-walled hollow cylinders with graded metallic foam cores10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.02.029 ↗
29. The blast resistance of sandwich composites with stepwise graded cores10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2009.06.004 ↗
30. The response of metallic sandwich panels to water blast10.1115/1.2178837 ↗
31. The resistance of metallic plates to localized impulse10.1016/j.jmps.2007.10.010 ↗
32. Characterization and modeling of compression behavior of syntactic foam-filled honeycombs10.1177/0731684410369023 ↗
33. Polymer-filled honeycombs to achieve a structural material with appreciable damping10.1177/1045389X12439636 ↗
34. Experiment assessment of the ballistic response of composite pyramidal lattice truss structures10.1016/j.compositesb.2007.02.029 ↗
35. Improving honeycomb-core sandwich structures for impact resistance
36. Properties of new polyimide foams and polyimide foam filled honeycomb composites10.1002/mawe.200390076 ↗
37. Impact damage of partially foam-filled co-injected honeycomb core sandwich composites10.1177/002199803029724 ↗
38. Low velocity impact response of resin infusion molded foam filled honeycomb sandwich composites10.1177/073168449801700904 ↗
39. Dynamic thermo-mechanical response of Hastelloy X to shock wave loading
40. Effect of plate curvature on blast response of aluminum panels10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2012.02.004 ↗
41. Abaqus Analysis user manual, vol. III (Materials). Providence, RI: Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp; 2010.
42. Schever L. Optional strain-rate forms for the Johnson Cook constitutive model and the role of the parameter epsilon 0. In: 6th European LsDyna User’ Conference, 1 October, 2007, Frankenthal. p. 1–14.
43. Blast mitigation in a sandwich composite using graded core and polyurea interlayer10.1007/s11340-011-9517-9 ↗
44. A modified Johnson–Cook constitutive model for Mg–Gd–Y alloy extended to a wide range of temperatures10.1016/j.commatsci.2010.07.018 ↗