Experimental investigation on response mechanism and impact resistance of glass fiber reinforced polymer X‐type foldcore sandwich panel subjected to low‐velocity impact experiments
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, a new type of foldcore sandwich panel (tentatively called X‐type foldcore sandwich panel) is proposed by combining the X‐type corrugated sandwich panel and the Miura‐ori sandwich panel. The experimental specimens are prepared by using a glass fiber‐reinforced polymer. To systematically reveal the low‐velocity response mechanism and impact resistance of sandwich panels, a hemispherical impactor is used to impact panels. The effects of impact energy, impact position, diameter of tup, and impact mass on low‐velocity impact performance of X‐type foldcore sandwich panels are considered. The damage morphology, response process, and failure mechanism are analyzed under different working conditions. The results show that under the impact of 75 and 125 J, the impact resistance of the node is better than that of the base. Under 200 J impact, the impact resistance of the base is better than that of the node. Compared with the traditional foldcore sandwich panel, the new configuration reduces the impact resistance difference between two positions (node and base). Highlights A new foldcore sandwich panel is proposed. The impact effect of energy, mass, position, and tup diameter is investigated. Damage morphology, response process, and impact resistance are analyzed. The new structure reduces differences in impact resistance.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Cellular and Composite Structures · Structural Analysis of Composite Materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
College of Aeronautical Engineering Civil Aviation University of China Tianjin PR China
Funding
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities · Civil Aviation University of China
References (31)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.jcomc.2020.10000410.1016/j.jcomc.2020.100004 ↗
2. 10.1177/002199832199073410.1177/0021998321990734 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.10530210.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105302 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.01.02710.1016/j.compositesb.2018.01.027 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.11157610.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111576 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.06.08810.1016/j.istruc.2021.06.088 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.tws.2014.05.00110.1016/j.tws.2014.05.001 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.11660610.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116606 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.tws.2017.02.02110.1016/j.tws.2017.02.021 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.02.00110.1016/j.compstruct.2014.02.001 ↗
11. 10.1007/s10338‐023‐00396‐x10.1007/s10338‐023‐00396‐x ↗
12. 10.1088/1757‐899x/248/1/01203310.1088/1757‐899x/248/1/012033 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2019.02.01910.1016/j.compscitech.2019.02.019 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.11703310.1016/j.compstruct.2023.117033 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.tws.2022.10900710.1016/j.tws.2022.109007 ↗
16. 10.1007/s10443‐022‐10020‐910.1007/s10443‐022‐10020‐9 ↗
17. 10.1080/15376494.2023.221523010.1080/15376494.2023.2215230 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.tws.2022.10910610.1016/j.tws.2022.109106 ↗
19. 10.1007/s43452‐023‐00709‐410.1007/s43452‐023‐00709‐4 ↗
20. 10.1080/15376494.2021.194144810.1080/15376494.2021.1941448 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2022.10764910.1016/j.ijmecsci.2022.107649 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.tws.2020.10715710.1016/j.tws.2020.107157 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.09.00910.1016/j.compstruct.2016.09.009 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.tws.2019.10638710.1016/j.tws.2019.106387 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.tws.2021.10759510.1016/j.tws.2021.107595 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.tws.2021.10838910.1016/j.tws.2021.108389 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2012.12.02410.1016/j.oceaneng.2012.12.024 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.tws.2018.07.04210.1016/j.tws.2018.07.042 ↗
29. 10.3390/jcs707027210.3390/jcs7070272 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2007.01.01410.1016/j.compstruct.2007.01.014 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.matdes.2016.03.04810.1016/j.matdes.2016.03.048 ↗