4.7 Article

The structural response of clamped sandwich beams subjected to impact loading

期刊

COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
卷 93, 期 4, 页码 1300-1308

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.05.011

关键词

Impact loading; Sandwich beams; Experimental investigation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [90716005, 10802055, 10972153]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shanxi Province [2007021005]
  3. Program for the Homecomings Foundation
  4. Top Young Academic Leaders of Higher Learning Institutions of Shanxi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The structural response of dynamically loaded monolithic and sandwich beams made of aluminum skins with different cores is determined by loading the end-clamped beams at mid-span with metal foam projectiles. The sandwich beams comprise aluminum honeycomb cores and closed-cell aluminum foam cores. Laser displacement transducer was used to measure the permanent transverse deflection of the back face mid-point of the beams. The resistance to shock loading is evaluated by the permanent deflection at the mid-span of the beams for a fixed magnitude of applied impulse and mass of beam. It is found that sandwich beams with two kind cores under impact loading can fail in different modes. Experimental results show the sandwich beams with aluminum honeycomb cores present mainly large global deformation, while the foam core sandwich beams tend to local deformation and failure, but all the sandwich beams had a higher shock resistance, then the monolithic beam. For each type of beams, the dependence of transverse deflection upon the magnitude of the applied impulse is measured. Moreover, the effects of face thickness and core thickness on the failure and deformation modes were discussed. Results indicated that the structural response of sandwich beams is sensitive to applied impulse and structural configuration. The experimental results are of worth to optimum design of cellular metallic sandwich structures. (C) 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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