4.7 Article

Numerical study of low-speed impact response of sandwich panel with tube filled honeycomb core

Journal

COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
Volume 220, Issue -, Pages 736-748

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.04.023

Keywords

Sandwich panel; Filled honeycomb; Interaction; Oblique impact; Finite element analysis

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51875581, 51505502]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2017M620358, 2018T110707]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province [2019JJ50811]
  4. Training Program for Excellent Young Innovators of Changsha, China [kq1802004]
  5. Innovation-Driven Project of Central South University, China [2018CX022]
  6. Australian Research Council [DE160101116]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sandwich panel with Honeycomb Filled with Circular Tubes (HFCT) as core is numerically investigated by using ABAQUS/Explicit in this study. To calibrate the numerical model, the panels equipped with conventional hexagon honeycomb cores are modeled. Good agreement between numerical and experimental results is achieved. The sandwich panels with HFCT are compared with the sandwich panels with Honeycomb and Multitube cores of identical mass subjected to vertical and oblique impacts. The maximum displacement of facesheets, plastic energy absorption, boundary reaction forces and impact load time history are calculated to assess the impact resistant capacity. The panel with HFCT core has smaller rear face-sheet displacement and higher energy absorption capacity as compared to the panels with the Multi-tube and Honeycomb core. Under oblique impact, both HFCT and Multi-tube panels have superior impact resistant capacity than the Honeycomb panel. In addition, the impact resistances of four types of multi-arc tube filled Honeycomb (HFMT) are also analysed. Their performances under vertical and oblique impacts are compared with those of HFCT.

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