4.7 Article

Shock enhancement of cellular structures under impact loading: Part II analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE MECHANICS AND PHYSICS OF SOLIDS
Volume 55, Issue 12, Pages 2672-2686

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmps.2007.04.004

Keywords

shock wave; foam; cellular materials; impact; numerical simulation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Numerical simulations of two distinct testing configurations using a Hopkinson bar (pressure bar behind/ahead of the shock front) are performed with an explicit finite element code. It allows us to confirm the observed test data such as velocity and force time histories at the measurement surface. A comparison of the simulated local strain fields during shock front propagation with those measured by image correlation provides an additional proof of the validity of such simulations. Very simple rate insensitive phenomenological constitutive model are used in such simulations. It shows that the shock effect is captured numerically with a basic densification feature. It means that strength enhancement due to shock should not be integrated in the constitutive model of foam-like materials used in industrial FE codes. In order to separate shock enhancement from entire strength enhancement, an improvement of an existing model with easily identifiable parameters for shock enhancement prediction is proposed. For a quick estimate of the shock enhancement level, a simple power law densification model is proposed instead of the classical RPPL model proposed by Reid and co-workers [Tan et al., 2005. Dynamic compressive strength properties of alurrimium foams. Part I-experimental data and observations. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 53, 2174-2205]. It is aimed at eliminating the parameter identification uncertainty of the RPPL model. Such an improved model is easily identifiable and gives a good prediction of the shock enhancement level. (c) 2007 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