2006
DOI: 10.1177/1099636206064824
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Low Energy Impact Damage Modes in Aluminum Foam and Polymer Foam Sandwich Structures

Abstract: The energy absorption of an aluminum foam sandwich structure and a conventional polymer foam sandwich structure is similar for impacts ranging from 5 to 25 J. The polymer foam-based samples exhibit localized damage in the form of skin fracture and core crushing, but with negligible permanent out-of-plane deformation. In contrast, the aluminum foam-based samples show little fracture but exhibit extensive out-of-plane deformation radiating from the impact point. This deformation suggests that the impact damage c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

3
18
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
3
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These tomographic images allow a better understanding of their failure mode, which is characterized by the progressive crushing of the foam cells with a more uniform distribution of the impacted load. The post-impact investigation of the specimens confirms the results of the tests conducted by Compston et al [12]; the AFS specimens experienced extensive ductile fracture with large out-of-plane displacement compared to the predominantly elastic behavior of the polymeric sandwiches; as a consequence the impact damage can be often detectable by a simple visual inspection of the sandwich structures. Moreover, the AFS structures are relatively intact compared to the more catastrophic and localized fracture of the polymeric sandwiches, so they exhibit a better post-impact damage tolerance and mechanical properties [7,8,12].…”
supporting
confidence: 71%
“…These tomographic images allow a better understanding of their failure mode, which is characterized by the progressive crushing of the foam cells with a more uniform distribution of the impacted load. The post-impact investigation of the specimens confirms the results of the tests conducted by Compston et al [12]; the AFS specimens experienced extensive ductile fracture with large out-of-plane displacement compared to the predominantly elastic behavior of the polymeric sandwiches; as a consequence the impact damage can be often detectable by a simple visual inspection of the sandwich structures. Moreover, the AFS structures are relatively intact compared to the more catastrophic and localized fracture of the polymeric sandwiches, so they exhibit a better post-impact damage tolerance and mechanical properties [7,8,12].…”
supporting
confidence: 71%
“…Hazizan et al [6] carried out low velocity impact tests in order to investigate the response of sandwiches, made of aluminium honeycomb core and glass fibre reinforced/epoxy skins. Compston et al [7] compared the low velocity impact behaviour of aluminium foam and polymeric foam sandwiches and different damage modes were observed: the polymeric foam sandwiches exhibited localized damage (skin fracture and core crushing) with negligible permanent out-of plane strain, whereas the aluminium foam sandwiches experienced little fracture with extensive permanent out-of plane strain. Moreover the post impact characterization tests showed that the aluminium foam specimens exhibited lower strain, suggesting a better damage tolerance respect to the polymeric foam sandwiches.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Numerical simulation study has been conducted with LS-DYNA software based on the tests, and the simulation results agree well with the experiments. Compston et al [13] have investigated the low energy impact damage modes in aluminum foam sandwich panel with a double pendulum impact tester and three-dimensional laser scanning system. Crupi et al [14] have studied the lowvelocity impact behavior of aluminum foam sandwich panels, and the experimental results were compared to the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) foam sandwiches.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%