4.7 Article

A numerical simulation of the blast impact of square metallic sandwich panels

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPACT ENGINEERING
Volume 36, Issue 5, Pages 687-699

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2008.12.004

Keywords

Sandwich panel; Honeycomb; Blast loading; FE model; Large plastic deformation

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) through a Discovery Grant
  2. China National Science Funding [10572100, 90716005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents details and brief results of an experimental investigation on the response of square metallic sandwich panels with a cellular core under blast loading. Based on the experiments, corresponding finite element simulations have been undertaken using the LS-DYNA software. Detailed description of the models and simulation results is presented. In the simulation work, the loading process of explosive and response of the sandwich panels have been investigated. The blast loading process includes both the explosion procedure of the charge and the interaction with the panel. The structural responses of sandwich panels are studied in terms of two aspects: (1) deformation/failure patterns of the specimens; and (2) quantitative assessment, which mainly focuses on the permanent centre point deflection of the back face of the panels. In addition, a parametric study has been carried out to examine the contribution of plastic stretching and bending on the deformation history of the sandwich panels, as well as the effect of boundary conditions. A good agreement has been obtained between the numerical and experimental results, and thus the proposed FE model can be considered as a valuable tool in assessing and understanding the deformation/failure mechanism and predicting the dynamic response of square metallic sandwich structures subjected to blast loading. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available