journal article·2025-10-10

One‐dimensional theoretical analysis of polymethacrylimide foam sandwich structures subjected to underwater explosion impact using a dynamic shock wave model

Peilin Zhu, Jili Rong, Rui Liu, Shenglong Wang

Polymer Composites· Volume 46· Issue S3
Publisher page

Abstract

Abstract Polymethacrylimide (PMI) foam, recognized for its excellent energy‐absorbing properties, demonstrates significant stress enhancement under dynamic compression. Accurately describing the behavior of PMI foam under dynamic impact is essential to predicting the dynamic response of PMI foam sandwich structures subjected to underwater explosion impact. The dynamic‐rigid‐plastic hardening (D‐R‐PH) shock wave model effectively characterizes the stress–strain relationship of foam materials under dynamic impact. A three‐dimensional (3D) mesoscale finite element (FE) model of PMI foam with four different densities was constructed using the Voronoi model. Simulations of PMI foam impacting a rigid wall at a specific initial velocity revealed the relationship between plastic shock wave velocity and impact velocity, enabling determination of parameters for the D‐R‐PH model. Using this model, a one‐dimensional theoretical framework incorporating cavitation effects was developed for PMI foam sandwich structures subjected to underwater explosion impact. FE simulations validated the model and comparisons with other shock wave models indicated that shock wave models based on quasi‐static compression data overestimated the panel motion behavior of PMI foam sandwich structures, as the stress enhancement phenomenon under dynamic compression was neglected. Parameter analysis revealed that, while core density and shock wave intensity significantly influenced impact resistance, the effects of panel thickness was relatively minor. Highlights A 3D mesoscale FE model for PMI foam based on the Voronoi model was developed. D‐R‐PH shock wave model parameters for PMI foam were obtained. A 1D underwater explosion FSI model was built based on D‐R‐PH. The dynamic response of PMI foam sandwich under underwater blast was investigated.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Structural Response to Dynamic Loads · Cellular and Composite Structures · Fluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

School of Aerospace Engineering Beijing Institute of Technology Beijing China

References (54)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.marstruc.2022.10330810.1016/j.marstruc.2022.103308 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.tws.2022.11020310.1016/j.tws.2022.110203 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.matdes.2020.10912010.1016/j.matdes.2020.109120 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2023.10460910.1016/j.ijimpeng.2023.104609 ↗
5. 10.1177/1099636222112796710.1177/10996362221127967 ↗
6. Assessment of dynamic response of armor grade steel plates and FMLs under air‐blast loads
7. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11353010.1016/j.compstruct.2020.113530 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.dt.2025.02.01110.1016/j.dt.2025.02.011 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2021.10703310.1016/j.ijmecsci.2021.107033 ↗
10. 10.1177/1099636224124299610.1177/10996362241242996 ↗
11. 10.1017/CBO978113987832610.1017/CBO9781139878326 ↗
12. 10.1002/app.1969.07013110610.1002/app.1969.070131106 ↗
13. 10.1016/S0020‐7403(01)00091‐110.1016/S0020‐7403(01)00091‐1 ↗
14. 10.1002/pen.2004110.1002/pen.20041 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2006.06.01210.1016/j.ijimpeng.2006.06.012 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.10.00610.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.10.006 ↗
17. 10.1016/S0734-743X(97)00016-X10.1016/S0734-743X(97)00016-X ↗
18. 10.1016/S0263‐8223(03)00039‐410.1016/S0263‐8223(03)00039‐4 ↗
19. 10.1016/S0734-743X(03)00066-610.1016/S0734-743X(03)00066-6 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2009.03.01110.1016/j.ijimpeng.2009.03.011 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2011.09.00910.1016/j.ijimpeng.2011.09.009 ↗
22. 10.1007/s10409-013-0024-310.1007/s10409-013-0024-3 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.jmps.2014.07.01310.1016/j.jmps.2014.07.013 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.mechmat.2016.07.00110.1016/j.mechmat.2016.07.001 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.09.01310.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.09.013 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2020.10361110.1016/j.ijimpeng.2020.103611 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.euromechsol.2023.10521210.1016/j.euromechsol.2023.105212 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.11595410.1016/j.engstruct.2023.115954 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.tws.2020.10708510.1016/j.tws.2020.107085 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.10763010.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107630 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2020.10833910.1016/j.compscitech.2020.108339 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2023.10776510.1016/j.mtcomm.2023.107765 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.10436610.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.104366 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.tws.2024.11240510.1016/j.tws.2024.112405 ↗
35. 10.1142/S021945542550186X10.1142/S021945542550186X ↗
36. 10.1080/15376494.2023.224361410.1080/15376494.2023.2243614 ↗
37. Design and analysis of lightweight stiffened honeycomb metallic sandwich panels under high‐intensity air blast
38. Numerical investigation of air‐blast performance of cross‐filled honeycomb sandwich panel[C]//international conference on offshore mechanics and Arctic engineering
39. Dynamic response comparison of sandwich panels with honeycomb and foam core under blast loads: a quantitative study
40. The pressure and impulse of submarine explosion waves on plates
41. 10.1016/j.jmps.2005.06.00610.1016/j.jmps.2005.06.006 ↗
42. 10.1115/1.217883710.1115/1.2178837 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2007.08.00310.1016/j.ijsolstr.2007.08.003 ↗
44. 10.1115/1.400645810.1115/1.4006458 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2014.03.00210.1016/j.ijimpeng.2014.03.002 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2015.08.01410.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2015.08.014 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2015.10.00210.1016/j.ijimpeng.2015.10.002 ↗
48. 10.1115/1.403492210.1115/1.4034922 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2022.10755710.1016/j.ijmecsci.2022.107557 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2024.10859310.1016/j.polymertesting.2024.108593 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.ijplas.2020.10273010.1016/j.ijplas.2020.102730 ↗
52. 10.1063/1.306617610.1063/1.3066176 ↗
53. 10.1103/PhysRev.63.17210.1103/PhysRev.63.172 ↗
54. 10.1002/pc.2920510.1002/pc.29205 ↗