The Blast Response of Sandwich Composites With a Functionally Graded Core and Polyurea Interlayer
In the present study, the dynamic behavior of two types of sandwich composites made of E-Glass Vinyl-Ester (EVE) face sheets and Corecell TM A-series foam with a polyurea interlayer was studied using a shock tube apparatus. The materials, as well as the core layer arrangements, were identical, with the only difference arising in the location of the polyurea interlayer. The foam core itself was layered based on monotonically increasing the wave impedance of the core layers, with the lowest wave impedance facing the shock loading. For configuration 1, the polyurea interlayer was placed behind the front face sheet, in front of the foam core, while in configuration 2 it was placed behind the foam core, in front of the back face sheet. A high-speed side-view camera system along with a high-speed back-view Digital Image Correlation (DIC) system was utilized to capture the real time deformation process as well as mechanisms of failure. Post mortem analysis was also carried out to evaluate the overall blast performance of these two configurations. The results indicated that applying polyurea behind the foam core and in front of the back face sheet will reduce the back face deflection, particle velocity, and in-plane strain, thus improving the overall blast performance and maintaining structural integrity.
KeywordsDigital Image Correlation Face Sheet Blast Resistance Core Layer Foam Core
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 6.Wang, E. Gardner, N. and Shukla, A., The blast resistance of sandwich composites with stepwise graded cores. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 46, 3492-3502, 2009.Google Scholar
- 9.Fatt, M.S. Hoo, Ouyang, X., Dinan, R.J., Blast response of walls retrofitted with elastomer coatings. Structural Materials, 15, 129-138, 2004.Google Scholar
- 11.Tekalur, S. A., Shukla, A., and Shivakumar, K. Blast resistance of polyurea based layered compositeGoogle Scholar
- 12.materials. Composite Structures, 84, 271-281, 2008.Google Scholar