0
Research Papers

Preferentially Filled Foam Core Corrugated Steel Sandwich Structures for Improved Blast Performance

[+] Author and Article Information
Murat Yazici

Automotive Engineering Department,
Engineering Faculty,
Uludag University,
Bursa TR16059, Turkey
e-mail: myazici@uludag.edu.tr

Jefferson Wright

Dynamic Photomechanics Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical Industrial and
System Engineering,
University of Rhode Island,
92 Upper College Road,
Kingston, RI 02881
e-mail: jeffersonwright@gmail.com

Damien Bertin

Dynamic Photomechanics Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical Industrial and
System Engineering,
University of Rhode Island,
92 Upper College Road,
Kingston, RI 02881
e-mail: damien.bertin@gadz.org

Arun Shukla

Fellow ASME
Dynamic Photomechanics Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical Industrial and
System Engineering,
University of Rhode Island,
92 Upper College Road,
Kingston, RI 02881
e-mail: shuklaa@egr.uri.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Applied Mechanics Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF APPLIED MECHANICS. Manuscript received February 17, 2015; final manuscript received March 28, 2015; published online April 30, 2015. Editor: Yonggang Huang.

J. Appl. Mech 82(6), 061005 (Jun 01, 2015) (13 pages) Paper No: JAM-15-1096; doi: 10.1115/1.4030292 History: Received February 17, 2015; Revised March 28, 2015; Online April 30, 2015

The mechanisms by which different morphologies of preferentially foam filled corrugated panels deform under planar blast loading, transmit shock, and absorb energy are investigated experimentally and numerically for the purpose of mitigating back-face deflection (BFD). Six foam filling configurations were fabricated and subjected to shock wave loading generated by a shock tube. Shock tube experimental results obtained from high-speed photography were used to validate the numerical models. The validated numerical model was further used to analyze 24 different core configurations. The experimental and numerical results show that soft/hard arrangements (front to back) are the most effective for blast resistivity as determined by the smallest BFDs. The number of foam filled layers in each specimen affected the amount of front-face deflections (FFDs), but did relatively little to alter BFDs, and results do not support alternating foam filling layers as a valid method to attenuate shock impact.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Corrugated core with interstitial layering arrangment and (b) illustration of six core filling configurations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Typical experimental pressure profile

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

High-speed camera side-view deflection measurement

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

(a) Assembly of sandwich structure as a FE model for F3F4F5 filled corrugated steel core sandwich panel. (b) Pressure distribution on applied surface.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

(a) Blast pressures subjected to specimen in shock tube experiments and (b) specific impulses subjected to shock tube experiments

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Quasi-static and high-strain rate compression properties of the PU foam

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

High-speed images of the foam filled corrugated core sandwich specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Shock tube experimental results depend on filling hierarchy of the sandwich panels: (a) FFA and (b) BFD

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

FEM and experimental empty corrugated steel core sandwich specimen: (a) FFD and (b) BFD

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

FEM and experimental foam filled corrugated steel core sandwich specimen: (a) FFD and (b) BFD

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Categorization of analyzed models by type of configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Front filled panel configurations' deflection over time: (a) FFD and (b) BFD

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Back filled panel configurations' deflection over time: (a) FFD and (b) BFD

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Middle filled panel configurations' deflection over time: (a) FFD and (b) BFD

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Both sides filled panel configurations' deflection over time: (a) FFD and (b) BFD

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Alternately filled panel configurations' deflection over time: (a) FFD and (b) BFD

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Boundary conditions used in FEM simulations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparison of filling hierarchy with respect to equivalent number of filled layers: (a) four filled layers FFD, (b) four filled layers BFD, (c) three filled layers FFD, (d) three filled layers BFD, (e) two filled layers FFD, (f) two filled layers BFD, (g) one filled layer FFD, and (h) one filled layer BFD

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In