4.7 Article

A comparison of the ballistic performance of shear thickening fluids based on particle strength and volume fraction

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2015.06.004

关键词

Shear thickening fluid; Ballistic impact; Residual velocity; Penetration model; Material strength

资金

  1. Hamid Bennadi of Stedfast Ltd.
  2. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  3. Department of National Defence [DNDPJ 385687-09]
  4. NSERC [RGPIN-2014-06295]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ballistic response of suspensions of solid particles (cornstarch, silicon carbide, and silicon dioxide) in a liquid (ethylene glycol) is experimentally investigated. Some of the suspensions are at sufficient volume fraction to exhibit shear-thickening behaviour, while the others are Newtonian or mildly shear-thinning. The response of neat (liquid) ethylene glycol is also studied. Capsules containing the suspensions are impacted with a chisel-nosed fragment-simulating projectiles at velocities between 200 and 700 m/s. The residual projectile velocity upon exit from the capsule is measured via direct videography. The results are analysed using a number of different energy-based and momentum-based penetration models. A momentum-based model that normalizes the effect of the density of the suspension is seen to perform the best in terms of collapsing the results onto a single curve for the liquid and non-shear thickening suspensions. Only shear thickening suspensions with particles having sufficient strength (SiO2 and SiC) show significant deviation from hydrodynamic-dominated response, resulting in significant velocity decrements in the projectile attributable to the shear strength of the suspensions. These shear strength effects diminish as the projectile velocity increases, suggesting that the strength of the solid material in the interparticle contacts is overcome by the impact-generated stresses. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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