“…Figures show the full‐field results for the back face‐sheet of both configurations, respectively. Figure shows the full‐field out‐of‐plane deflection (W) during the initial fluid–structure interaction ( t is less than or equal to ~250 µs, see ) with an emphasis on the shape of the loading, as indicated by the localized areas of larger deflection. For the Non‐CSR toughened sandwich composites, as shown in Figure (a), by approximately t = 100 µs, the loading can be observed as a circular region in the centre of the back face‐sheet.…”
High‐pressure shock performance of sandwich composites consisting of nano‐scale core‐shell rubber (CSR) toughened E‐glass Vinyl‐Ester face‐sheets and CorecellTM A500 (Gurit (USA) Inc., Bristol, Rhode Island, USA) foam was studied using a shock tube apparatus. The core material and thickness, as well as overall specimen dimensions, were held constant, with the only difference arising in the resin system used during the infusion. The non‐core‐shell rubber toughened resin system (Non‐CSR) consisted of a vinyl‐ester resin only, while the CSR toughened resin consisted of the same vinyl‐ester resin, but with Kane Ace MX 153 CSR particles added to the vinyl‐ester resin system. Prior to the shock tube experiments, the quasi‐static and dynamic constitutive behaviour of the face‐sheets (tensile/compressive) and foam (compressive) was evaluated. During the shock tube testing, a high‐speed photography system coupled with the optical technique of digital image correlation was utilized to capture the real‐time deformation process, as well as mechanisms of failure in the sandwich composites. Post‐mortem analysis was also carried out to evaluate the overall shock performance of these configurations. Results indicated that adding CSR particles to sandwich composites aids in dispersing the initial shock wave loading, thus reducing the overall deflection, strain, and velocity and improving the overall blast resistance of the structure.
“…Figures show the full‐field results for the back face‐sheet of both configurations, respectively. Figure shows the full‐field out‐of‐plane deflection (W) during the initial fluid–structure interaction ( t is less than or equal to ~250 µs, see ) with an emphasis on the shape of the loading, as indicated by the localized areas of larger deflection. For the Non‐CSR toughened sandwich composites, as shown in Figure (a), by approximately t = 100 µs, the loading can be observed as a circular region in the centre of the back face‐sheet.…”
High‐pressure shock performance of sandwich composites consisting of nano‐scale core‐shell rubber (CSR) toughened E‐glass Vinyl‐Ester face‐sheets and CorecellTM A500 (Gurit (USA) Inc., Bristol, Rhode Island, USA) foam was studied using a shock tube apparatus. The core material and thickness, as well as overall specimen dimensions, were held constant, with the only difference arising in the resin system used during the infusion. The non‐core‐shell rubber toughened resin system (Non‐CSR) consisted of a vinyl‐ester resin only, while the CSR toughened resin consisted of the same vinyl‐ester resin, but with Kane Ace MX 153 CSR particles added to the vinyl‐ester resin system. Prior to the shock tube experiments, the quasi‐static and dynamic constitutive behaviour of the face‐sheets (tensile/compressive) and foam (compressive) was evaluated. During the shock tube testing, a high‐speed photography system coupled with the optical technique of digital image correlation was utilized to capture the real‐time deformation process, as well as mechanisms of failure in the sandwich composites. Post‐mortem analysis was also carried out to evaluate the overall shock performance of these configurations. Results indicated that adding CSR particles to sandwich composites aids in dispersing the initial shock wave loading, thus reducing the overall deflection, strain, and velocity and improving the overall blast resistance of the structure.
“…Further, the model was applied to a sandwich composite structure with varying core areal mass density. 21 Figure 1 shows the comparison of results from the model with experiments.…”
Section: Analytical and Numerical Modelingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further, the model was applied to a sandwich composite structure with varying core areal mass density. 21 Figure 1 shows the comparison of results from the model with experiments.Figure 1.The comparison of theoretical and experimental reflected pressure profiles. 21 …”
Section: Analytical and Numerical Modelingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…21 Figure 1 shows the comparison of results from the model with experiments.Figure 1.The comparison of theoretical and experimental reflected pressure profiles. 21 …”
Section: Analytical and Numerical Modelingmentioning
Naval structures owing to their operational conditions get exposed to extreme loadings and environments. Along with blasts generated through explosion events, enclosed naval structures are also vulnerable to structural dynamic instability, leading to implosion and catastrophic failure. This review explores state of the art in research work carried out to understand the deformation and damage mechanism of naval sandwich structures both on the surface and deep-sea environments. A brief overview of the current understanding regarding the response of sandwich structures to air shock, underwater shock, and implosion owing to dynamic instability is provided. The effect of environmental conditions on the dynamic response of these structures is also discussed. The article further discusses various mitigation techniques proposed to improve the blast and implosion mitigation of sandwich structures and points out the current research gaps existing in the common understanding.
“…In the current paper, the authors describe an application of piezoelectric composites MFC to control operation of a GFB, that makes a reference to the works [11,12,13]. Worth highlighting here is that various composite (multi-material) structures are widely used in multiphysics applications to take an advantage of their useful active and passive capabilities (functions): e.g., withstanding the blast and impact loading [19,20,21], control vibrational and damping properties [22] and performing load identification via characterization of the electrical properties [23].…”
Section: Introduction -Gas Foil Bearings and Smart Gas Foil Bearingsmentioning
Essential parts of rotating machineries are supporting nodes, i.e., bearing systems. They assure required rotational degrees of freedom and feature desired load carrying capacity. Following the specificity of a technical solution considered, various types of bearings may be taken into account to effectively address the requirements regarding the speed and load. Specifically, gas foil bearings (GFB) are used in high-speed and lightlyloaded rotating machineries, e.g., auxiliary power units. In fact, they can operate up to several hundreds of thousands rpm, also for a wide temperature range. The current work reports an application of piezoelectric composites to control operation of a GFB. The authors present the developed bearing's prototype installation which is equipped with a specialized multifunctional structural component that advantageously allows to both characterize GFB's operational parameters and modify them. The experimental results confirm the usability of the proposed activelycontrolled configuration of a GFB.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
