4.6 Article

Numerical study of blast mitigation performance of folded structure with foam infill

期刊

STRUCTURES
卷 20, 期 -, 页码 581-593

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2019.06.012

关键词

Foam filled; Folded structure; Sacrificial cladding; Energy absorption

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DE160101116]
  2. Australian Research Council [DE160101116] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Blast mitigation capacity of sacrificial cladding with foam filled open-top Truncated Square Pyramid (TSP) is investigated in this study. Quasi-static crushing tests of the TSP foldcore with two different shapes of rigid Polyurethane (PU) foam as infill are carried out. Numerical model of the crushing test is then constructed and validated using the test data. The calibrated models are then used to evaluate blast mitigation performance of sacrificial cladding with the proposed structures as core. Structural response and blast mitigation performance of two proposed foam filled TSP foldcores are compared with the case without foam infill under various blast scenarios. Peak load transmitted to the cladding protected structure during blast loading is set as primary criterion to evaluate the cladding performance, other parameters such as centre displacement and energy absorption are also selected as criteria. Due to the foam-wall interaction effect, foam filled TSP foldcore shows an effect of 1 + 1 > 2 under quasi-static crushing. The proposed TSP foldcore with shaped foam infill has superior quasi-static crushing resistance than the summation of stand-alone TSP foldcore and PU foam infill. When subjected to low intensity blast loading, shaped foam filled TSP foldcore shows similar blast mitigation performance to the case without foam infill in terms of the peak transmitted force. However, under high intensity blast loading, the initial peak transmitted force to the protected structure can be greatly reduced by cladding with foam infilled TSP foldcore.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据