Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:29:25.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The perforation resistance of sandwich structures subjected to low velocity projectile impact loading

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

J. Zhou ,
Z. W. Guan  and
W. J. Cantwell
J. Zhou
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Z. W. Guan*
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
W. J. Cantwell
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Khalifa University of Science, Technology and Research (KUSTAR), Abu Dhabi, UAE
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents the findings of a study to investigate the impact perforation resistance of sandwich structures. The dynamic response of sandwich panels based on PVC foam cores has been evaluated by determining the energy to perforate the panels. The impact response of the sandwich structures was predicted using the finite element analysis package Abaqus/Explicit. The validated FE models were also used to investigate the effect of oblique loading and to study the impact response of sandwich panels subjected to a pressure differential equivalent to flying at an altitude of 10,000m.

Low velocity impact testing has shown that the energy to perforate the sandwich panels is dependent on the properties of the core. It has been shown that increasing the density of the crosslinked PVC foams by a factor of two yielded a 600% increase in the perforation resistance of the sandwich structures. At higher densities, the crosslinked foam sandwich structures offered a superior perforation resistance to the linear PVC structures. The numerical analysis accurately predicted the perforation energies of the sandwich panels, as well as the prevailing failure mechanisms following impact. Finally, it has been shown that sandwich panels impacted at high altitude offer a similar perforation resistance to those tested at sea level.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 116 , Issue 1186 , December 2012 , pp. 1247 - 1262
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Le, D.D. Evaluation of lightweight material concepts for aircraft turbine engine rotor failure protection, July 1997, Federal Aviation Administration Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-96/110.Google Scholar
2. Shockey, D.A., Giovanola, J.H., Simons, J.W., Erlich, D.C., Klopp, R.W. and Skaggs, S.R. Advanced armor technology: application potential for engine fragment barriers for commercial aircraft, September 1997, Federal Aviation Administration Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-97/53.Google Scholar
3. Emmerling, W. Third FAA Workshop on Uncontained Engine Debris Characterization, Mitigation and Modeling, 28-30 October 1997, San Diego, CA, USA.Google Scholar
4. Olmi, F. and Nascimento, K.D. Small debris impact simulation using MSC/DYTRAN, 1999 MSC Worldwide Aerospace Conference Proceedings, Vol 1.Google Scholar
5. Rouse, M, Ambur, D.M., Bodine, J. and Dopker, B. Evaluation of a composite sandwich fuselage side panel with damage and subjected to internal pressure, NASA Technical Memorandum 110309.Google Scholar
6. Knight, N.F., Jaunky, N., Lawson, R.E. and Ambur, D.R. Penetration simulation for uncontained engine debris impact on fuselage-like panels using LS-DYNA, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 2000, 36, pp 99–133.Google Scholar
7. Meo, M., Morris, A.J., Vignjevic, R. and Marengo, G. Numerical simulations of low-velocity impact on an aircraft sandwich panel, Composite Structures, 2003, 62, pp 353–360.Google Scholar
8. Lee, L.J., Huang, K.Y. and Fann, Y.J. Dynamic responses of composite sandwich plate impacted by a rigid ball, J Composite Materials, 1993, 27, pp 1238.Google Scholar
9. Yang, M and Qiao, P. Higher-order impact modeling of sandwich structures with flexible core, Int J Solids and Structures, 2005, 42, pp 5460–5490.Google Scholar
10. Palazotto, E.J. and Gummadi, L.N.B. Finite element analysis of low-velocity impact on composite sandwich plates, Composite Structures, 2000, 49, pp 209–227.Google Scholar
11. Aktay, L., Johnson, A.F. and Kroplin, B.-H. Numerical modelling of honeycomb crush behaviour, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2008, 75, pp 2616–2630.Google Scholar
12. Lin, C. and Hoo Fatt, M.S. Perforation of sandwich panels with honeycomb cores by hemispherical nose projectiles, J Sandwich Structures and Materials, 2005, 7, (2), pp 133–172.Google Scholar
13. Buitrago, B.L., Santiuste, C., Sánchez-Sáez, S., Barbero, E. and Navarro, C. Modelling of composite sandwich structures with honeycomb core subjected to high-velocity impact, Composite Structures, 2010, 92, pp 2090–2096.Google Scholar
14. Abrate, S. Localized impact on sandwich structures with laminated facings, Applied Mechanics Review, 1997, 50, pp 69–82.Google Scholar
15. Chai, G.B. and Zhu, S. A review of low-velocity impact on sandwich structures, Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part L: J Materials Design and Applications, 2011, 225, pp 207–230.Google Scholar
16. Mines, R.A.W., Worrall, C.M. and Gibson, A.G. Low velocity perforation behaviour of polymer composite sandwich panels, Int J of Impact Engineering, 1998, 21, pp 855–879.Google Scholar
17. Reyes, V.G. and Cantwell, W.J. The high velocity impact response of composite and FML-reinforced sandwich structures, Composites Sci and Tech, 2004, 64, pp 35–54.Google Scholar
18. Zhou, G. and Hill, M. Investigation of parameters governing the damage and energy absorption characteristics of honeycomb sandwich panels, J Sandwich Structures and Materials, 2007, 9, pp 309–342.Google Scholar
19. Deshpande, V.S. and Fleck, N.A. Multi-axial yield behavior of polymer foams, Acta Mater, 2001, 49, pp 1859–1866.Google Scholar
20. ABAQUS, Theory Manual, Version 6.7, 2008, Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Pawtucket.Google Scholar
21. Zhou, J., Hassan, M.Z., Guan, Z.W. and Cantwell, W.J. The low velocity impact response of foam-based sandwich panels, Composites Sci and Tech, 2012, 72, pp 1781–1790.Google Scholar
22. Hashin, Z. and Rotem, A. A fatigue failure criterion for fiber reinforced materials, J Composite Materials, 1973, 7, p 448.Google Scholar
23. Fan, J., Guan, Z.W. and Cantwel, W.J. Numerical modelling of perforation failure in fibre metal laminates subjected to low velocity impact loading, Composite Structures, 2011, 93, pp 2430–2436.Google Scholar
24. ABAQUS/Explicit, User’s Manual, Version 6.7, 2008, Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Pawtucket.Google Scholar
25. Wen, H.M, Reddy, T.Y., Reid, S.R. and Soden, P.D. Indentation, penetration and perforation of composite laminates and sandwich panels under quasi-static and projectile loading, Key Engineering Materials, 1998, 141-143, p 501.Google Scholar