Comparative performance of composite sandwich panels and non-composite panels under blast loading

Matsagar, Vasant

doi:10.1617/s11527-015-0523-8

Cited by 46 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Solid materials may initially respond elastically, but under highly dynamic loadings, they may reach stress states that exceed their yield stress and deform plastically. In this study, a porous-crushable foam strength model (Goel et al, 2012;Bryson, 2009;Matsagar, 2016) was used for the foam material. This model provides a simple approach to simulate the crushing characteristics of foam materials under impact loading conditions (non-cyclic loading).…”

Section: Materials Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance assessment of rigid polyurethane foam core sandwich panels under blast loading

Andami

2019

International Journal of Protective Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performance of rigid polyurethane foams, as an energy absorbent core of sandwich panels covered with two exterior steel sheets, was investigated numerically through finite element methods. After verifying the finite element model, numerical studies were conducted to investigate the role of thickness and density of the foam layer in the response behavior of sandwich panels under blast loads. A set of cylindrical polyurethane foam specimens were manufactured at five different nominal densities, 90, 140, 175, 220, and 250 kg/m3, and their stress–strain curves were evaluated using uniaxial compression tests. The test data were then employed to define characteristics of the polyurethane foams in the finite element model. Based on the results of finite element analysis runs, the optimum density of the foam layer was determined by assessing two response parameters including the peak pressure transmitted to the back face of the foam layer and the maximum deflection of sandwich panel. These response parameters were found to be affected differently by variations in the density of the foam layer within the panel. An increase in the thickness of the foam layer, to a certain extent, was found to be beneficial to the mitigation capability of sandwich panel.

show abstract

Section: Materials Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance assessment of rigid polyurethane foam core sandwich panels under blast loading

Andami

2019

International Journal of Protective Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Strain rate–dependent stress–strain response of (a) PC (M30), (b) SFRC (3% fiber), (c) polyurethane, (d) dytherm, (e) cenosphere aluminum alloy syntactic foam (90 μm), and (f) cenosphere aluminum alloy syntactic foam (200 μm) (Chakraborty et al, 2014; Matsagar, 2016). …”

Section: Fe Modeling and Materials Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 3% steel fiber volume exhibits higher strength compared to 0% and 6%. The strain rate–dependent stress–strain relation for SFRC with 3% fiber is shown in Figure 3(b) (Matsagar, 2016). The physical and mechanical properties of SFRC (3% fiber) used in the present study are density, ρ = 2880 kg/m 3 , modulus of elasticity, E = 34.6 GPa, Poisson’s ratio, υ = 0.2, dilation angle, ψ = 36°, compressive yield strength, σ c,y = 14 MPa, and tensile yield strength, σ t,y = 4 MPa.…”

Section: Fe Modeling and Materials Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many scientists and researchers have conducted experimental and numerical investigations to assess the intensity of damage on the surrounding tunnel lining materials and geological materials due to blast loading (Chakraborty et al, 2014; Chille et al, 1998; Choi et al, 2006; Dvorak and Suvorov, 2006; Feldgun et al, 2008; Goel et al, 2013; Gui and Chien, 2006; Joachim and Lundermann, 1994; Karinski et al, 2009; Liu, 2009, 2011; Lu et al, 2005; Ma et al, 1998; Matsagar, 2016; Mohan et al, 2005; Shen et al, 2011; Wen et al, 1998; Wu et al, 1998, 2004; Yang et al, 2010). Joachim and Lundermann (1994) conducted parametric studies on the effect of air blast propagation inside underground ammunition storage facilities U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was observed from the study that the sandwich foam lining with dytherm and polyurethane showed considerably better blast resistance properties than other lining materials. Matsagar (2016) performed comparative assessment of composite sandwich panels and non-composite panels under different stiffening conditions. It was seen that the steel fiber–reinforced concrete (SFRC) lining material and sandwich panel of cenosphere aluminum syntactic foam core showed high blast response reduction capabilities as compared to steel plate, plain concrete (PC), and reinforced concrete slabs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Vulnerability analysis of tunnel linings under blast loading

Chaudhary

Mishra

Chakraborty

et al. 2018

International Journal of Protective Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study, a comparative assessment on the performance of conventional and advanced tunnel lining materials subjected to blast loading is done using a three-dimensional non-linear finite element analysis procedure. The conventional tunnel lining materials analyzed herein are plain concrete, steel, reinforced cement concrete, and steel fiber-reinforced concrete. The advanced tunnel lining materials analyzed herein are dytherm, polyurethane, and aluminum syntactic foam sandwich panels with steel-foam-steel composites. The pressure generated by 10 kg Trinitrotoluene (TNT) is applied to each element on the inner wall of the tunnel which has an effect equal to the scaled distance Z = 1.16 m/kg 1/3. Analyses are conducted by varying the thickness of lining materials for a tunnel built in rock domain. The response of the tunnel lining materials, for example, deformation, stresses, and strains generated at different interfaces, is compared with each other to assess the best suitable material for the present blast scenario discussed herein. It is observed from the simulations that the reinforced cement concrete and steel-aluminum syntactic foam (90 µm)-steel are found to be the suitable tunnel lining materials for the present blasting scenario described herein. Moreover, a set of probabilistic analysis is also performed for the suitable tunnel lining materials decided through deterministic analyses using Monte Carlo simulations. The results obtained are normal random distribution curves depicting the extent of deformation in lining materials. A probability failure curve is also proposed for the suitable lining materials.

show abstract

Study on steel fiber synergistically reinforced cellular concrete explosion‐proof effect in an underwater near‐field environment

Cao,

Qiu,

Huang

et al. 2023

Structural Concrete

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on the static and dynamic test results of steel fiber synergistically reinforced cellular concrete (SFSRCC) under a complex stress state, the yield surface equation and strain rate effect are modified to construct a modified Holmquist–Johnson–Cook (HJC) model suitable for the dynamic compression behavior characteristics of SFSRCC, and the modified HJC model is verified. At the same time, a finite width SFSRCC protective layer–roller compacted concrete (RCC) slab–water–explosive multimedia coupling model is established to explore the influence of setting different thicknesses of the SFSRCC protective layer (0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 m) on the explosion‐proof performance and effect of the RCC slab structure. The results show that the heavy stress–strain curves and dynamic failure modes of the SFSRCC under different strain rates are in good agreement with the experimental results. The maximum errors of peak stress and peak strain between the simulation results and the experimental results are 1.04% and 6.6%, respectively, which confirms the validity of the HJC correction model and the accuracy of the simulation results. After setting different thicknesses of the protective layer, the RCC slab blast crater depth is reduced by 56.7%, 80%, and 93.3% compared with that at 0.18 m without a protective layer program, and almost no damage to the back explosion surface occurs. The failure volume ratio of the protected RCC slab structure gradually decreases from 38.53% to 3.24% with increasing protective layer thickness, and the protected RCC slab shows only slight damage after setting the protective layer. When the thickness of the protective layer is 0.3 m, the damage of the protected RCC slab structure is distributed in the surface area, which has little effect on the structural safety. These results show that the additional SFSRCC protective layer under the condition of underwater near‐field explosion can significantly reduce the damage degree of the slab structure and improve the explosion‐proof performance of the protected RCC slab structure. This research offers a theoretical reference for the explosion‐proof material selection and design of hydraulic structures and explosion‐proof application of SFSRCC under the action of underwater explosion impact loads.

show abstract

Comparative performance of composite sandwich panels and non-composite panels under blast loading

Cited by 46 publications

References 37 publications

Performance assessment of rigid polyurethane foam core sandwich panels under blast loading

Performance assessment of rigid polyurethane foam core sandwich panels under blast loading

Vulnerability analysis of tunnel linings under blast loading

Study on steel fiber synergistically reinforced cellular concrete explosion‐proof effect in an underwater near‐field environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About