Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct
Department of Aeronautical and Vehicle Engineering, KTH, Teknikringen 8, Stockholm 100 44, Sweden
Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB1 1PZ, UK
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Available online 22 May 2012
Keywords:
Corrugated cores
Sandwich structures
Blast protection
Inertial stabilisation
a b s t r a c t
The dynamic compressive response of corrugated carbon-bre reinforced epoxy sandwich cores has been
investigated using a Kolsky-bar set-up. Compression at quasi-static rates up to v0 = 200 ms1 have been
tested on three different slenderness ratios of strut. High speed photography was used to capture the failure mechanisms and relate these to the measured axial compressive stress. Experiments show signicant
strength enhancement as the loading rate increases. Although material rate sensitivity accounts for some
of this, it has been shown that the majority of the strength enhancement is due to inertial stabilisation of
the core members. Inertial strength enhancement rises non-linearly with impact velocity. The largest
gains are associated with a shift to buckle modes composed of 23 half sine waves. The loading rates
tested within this study are similar to those that are expected when a sandwich core is compressed
due to a blast event.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The dynamic response of protective sandwich structures subject to blast loading has gained much interest in recent years due
to the benets that can be achieved over monolithic plates from
uidstructure interaction (FSI) effects [1,2]. The superior performance of sandwich structures is derived from the reduced inertia
of the front face of the sandwich with respect to its monolithic
equivalent. The core enables an effective decoupling of the masses
of the front and rear faces of the sandwich such that the blast wave
transmits a lower impulse into the structure. [1] describe 3 stages
of deformation as shown in Fig. 1. In stage I, an incident exponentially decaying pressure pulse hits the structure and imparts an impulse to it. The FSI effect arises because the duration of the primary
shock wave is substantially shorter than the response time of the
sandwich structure. The loaded front face sheet will accelerate
and attain an initial velocity, v0, whilst the core and the back face
will remain stationary. During stage II, the core material is deformed (preferably crushed) by the advancing face sheet and thus
the front face sheet is decelerated by the core while the core and
the back face sheet are accelerated. The inertia of the front face
sheet is typically substantial and the imposed velocity to the core
remains high for overall core deformations of 30% or more [2]. At
the end of this stage, the core and the face sheets attain a uniform
velocity. Stage III of the sandwich response then comprises of dissipation of the remaining kinetic energy by a combination of beam
bending and longitudinal stretching.
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bpr23@cam.ac.uk (B.P. Russell).
0263-8223/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.04.034
3301
Fig. 1. The three decoupled stages of dynamic beam deformation subject to a blast loading.
increased. As loading rate is increased further, there is an interaction of inertial stabilisation against buckling and axial plastic wave
effects. This coupled phenomenon has been termed bucklewaves
and was analysed by [10].
1.1. Light-weight composites
Composite materials such as long bre reinforced polymers
have specic strengths several times that of steels, enabling the
construction of ultra-light-weight sandwich structures. Sandwich
structures composed from such materials provide increased potential for blast resistant structures. The core will behave in one of two
ways. At low impulse levels or cores with a high crush strength will
behave as a monolithic beam, and so none of the benets of the
sandwich structure FSI effects proposed by [1] will apply. However,
the core will be substantially lighter than the equivalent strength
steel structure, so some of the FSI effects originating from the lower mass of a composite construction will be of relevance and there
will be a reduction in the transmitted impulse according to the
Taylor analysis. At high impulse levels or with cores having a low
crush strength, sandwiches can achieve further benets through
the FSI effect in stage I by virtue of low mass, and through stages
II and III by increasing the strength of struts and webs for the same
mass.
To date, little research has been done on composite prismatic
sandwich cores. The quasi-static response of monolithic and hierarchical composite corrugations was investigated by Kazemahvazi
and Zenkert [11,12], The monolithic corrugations generally failed
through elastic buckling at low relative densities and compressive
material failure at high relative densities. The corrugated monolithic cores showed superior compressive and shear performance
at intermediate and high densities while the hierarchical cores
showed highest performance at low densities. Russell et al.
[13,14] investigated the square honeycomb topology manufactured from Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP). They concluded that signicant specic strengths could be achieved over
their metallic equivalents. A follow on study looked at the dynamic
performance of fully composite sandwiches with honeycomb cores
[15]. Russell et al. [16] also looked at the dynamic strengthening
effect in corrugated cores manufactured from glass-bre composite. They showed that these cores showed a dramatic strengthening effect, nearly a factor of 5, with increasing strain rate.
In this paper the dynamic out-of-plane compressive strength of
monolithic carbon-bre/epoxy corrugated cores is investigated
through direct impact Kolsky bar experiments. A simple unit cell
of the core comprising 2 struts is used in the present study. It is
3302
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2. The sensitivity of (a) the transmitted impulse Itrans and (b) the front face velocity v0 to the areal density of the front face. Two different face sheet materials are located
on the plots for two different shock media. The analysis assumes a 1 kg TNT charge placed 1 m away from the structure.
Compare the values for air: v0 = 240 ms1 and 50 ms1 for the CFRP
and steel respectively, giving a difference of 190 ms1. For the
water blast this difference is only 30 ms1. Thus from a blast mitigation perspective, the use of composites in the hull of a naval vessel can have signicant benets for reducing the transmitted
impulse. Whereas employing steel for elements of the superstructure results in benets from the lowering of the front face velocity.
Of course, other considerations such as the position of the centre of
gravity of a ship need to be balanced with blast protection.
This analysis clearly sets forth the motivation for the present
study, and provides an indication for the relevant values of v0 from
which to assess a composite core.
2. Materials and experimental set up
2.1. Fabrication procedure
Inclined struts fabricated from carbon-bre/epoxy unidirectional material were manufactured as follows (see Fig. 3). Unidirectional pre-preg of bre type T700 embedded in an epoxy SE 84LV
(manufactured by Gurit) were laid up and cured to give three
thicknesses t = 0.5, 1 and 2 mm, see Table 1. The sheets were milled
into rectangles of height H = 35 mm and with W = 60 mm ensuring
a high degree of parallelism (60 lm). Face sheets were made from
2024 Aluminium Alloy. Inclined groves were cut into the face
sheets in order to give an accurate and repeatable angle of inclination of x = 70. Metal shim was used to pack the excess space between the composite strut and the slot, and an epoxy adhesive
(Araldite 2015) was used to x the assembly. A scaffold was used
(a)
Table 1
Geometry of the corrugated unit cells.
Core type
t/l
t (mm)
h (mm)
q (kg m3)
Slender
Intermediate
Stubby
0.015
0.030
0.060
0.52
1.04
2.08
33
33
33
70
70
70
83
166
333
(b)
(c)
3303
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
Fig. 6. (a) The stress-time history of the parent material at a number of different impact velocities, v0; (b) peak strength normalised by the quasi-static failure strength rpk/rf
as a function of the strain rate e_ .
3304
(a)
(b)
Fig. 7. (a) Stressstrain response of the three corrugated core congurations at quasi-static loading rate; (b) stress-time history of the corrugated core with t/l = 0.03 material
at a number of different impact velocities, v0.
equilibrium if there are sufcient longitudinal elastic wave reections (typically 10) before the failure strain is reached by the imposed displacement. The time to equilibrium is given as teq = Nl/c
and time to failure as tfail = efl/v0. Thus by equating these times
we can derive a critical velocity v 0 below which we can be condent that our specimens are in equilibrium: v 0 ef c=10. Substituting values, ef = 0.5%, c = 12,000 ms1 we obtain a value
v 0 6 ms1 .
Stress-time responses of the intermediate strut t/l = 0.03 show
signicant strength enhancement as the loading rate increases
(see Fig. 7b). Since the struts are subject to a constant velocity
(v0) compression, time ti can be converted to global strain by the
relation e = v0ti/h, where h is the height of strut. Strains at peak
stress range from 2% to 3%, signicantly greater than the quasi-static failure strain of about 0.5%. Fig. 8 presents a matrix of the buckle
modes for combinations of strut aspect ratio t/l and impact velocity
v0. The observed buckle modes are indicated in the top right of
each image. The highest order of buckle is observed for the most
slender strut t/l = 0.015 at the highest velocity v0 = 35 ms1. Moving to the right (increasing the value of t/l) or moving upwards
(reducing v0) show progression to lower modes. The images for
v0 = 26 ms1 are taken at an oblique angle in order to show how
the buckle mode varies through the depth of the strut. In some
cases, notably those at the highest v0 of 35 ms1, fracture is seen.
At these velocities the time between the buckling event and the
fracture event is shorter than the inter-frame time of the high
speed camera, and thus appear together.
4. Discussion
4.1. Dynamic strength enhancement
The dynamic strength enhancement of a strut is dened by the
peak stress rpk measured under impact at a velocity v0, normalised
by the quasi-static strength rf of a strut of the same value of t/l.
Fig. 9a shows the dynamic strength enhancement (rpk/rf), as function of impact velocity v0, for the three values of t/l. First, strength
enhancement is observed for all geometries with the most slender
struts (t/l = 0.015) showing the most pronounced enhancement,
achieving 7 or 8 times the strength of the quasi-static peak stress.
For the most stubby strut where t/l = 0.06, strength enhancement is
much less, achieving a factor of just over 2. The strength enhancement is monotonic although non-linear. For the most slender strut,
there is a large increase in the dynamic strength enhancement at
the low velocity range (high sensitivity). At higher velocities the
3305
Fig. 8. Range of failure mechanisms at different velocities and for different core member aspect ratios.
slope of this enhancement trend reduces signicantly (low sensitivity). The impact velocity at the transition between the sensitive
and insensitive regions is inuenced strongly by the value of t/l:
more slender geometries transition at lower velocities. Transition
velocities of 10 ms1 and 26 ms1 are observed for the most slender (t/l = 0.015) and most stubby (t/l = 0.06) geometries respectively. Referring back to Fig. 8 we see the order of the buckle
modes rises dramatically with increasing velocity. The transition
velocity appears correlate with a buckle mode of 23 half sine
waves.
The loading on the struts within the core is a combination of
axial compression and bending loads. Carbon-bre/epoxy is essentially an elastic brittle material so the assumption of the superposition of stresses is reasonable. To investigate the contributions of
each to the nal failure within the core, it is instructive to plot the
wall stress rw in the struts as a function of impact velocity v0 for
the different values of t/l, and to compare these to the parent material strength (Fig. 9b). The wall stress due to axial compression is
given by
rw
N
rAsinx
Aw
2Aw
where N is the normal force that acts on one core member, r is the
global stress on the core, x is the inclination angle of the core member, A and Aw are the cross-section areas of the entire core and the
strut member respectively. It should be noted that this equation is
only valid for situations where (1) the core strusts are in axial equilibrium (i.e. v0 < 6 ms1) and also (2) for the stresses at the back
face. The stresses at the front face will be signicantly elevated by
inertial and plastic wave propagation effects. In all experiments
only back face stresses were measured. Failure in a strut will occur
when the maximum stress reaches the parent material strength.
Use of Eq. (1) to calculate the axial stress in a core member, necessarily means that any contribution in stress due to bending of the
core member is neglected. Thus the shortfall of the axial wall stress
with respect to the parent material failure stress (see Fig. 9b) must
be attributed to presence of local bending stresses. Consider rst
the most stubby strut: under quasi-static load, the peak axial com-
3306
(a)
(b)
Fig. 9. (a) Dynamic strength enhancement shown by the normalisation of the peak dynamic stress by the quasi-static failure stress, rpk/rf, plotted as function of impact
velocity, v0; (b) the peak wall stress, rwall as function of impact velocity.
Fig. 10. Buckling wave lengths for different impact velocities and core member aspect ratios.
pression stress is 40% of the material failure stress, and failure occurs at peak stress (Fig. 7a). At an impact velocity of 26 ms1, the
axial compressive stress equals that of the parent material failure
stress (including strain rate effects) and thus this geometry can be
considered to have been fully stabilised through inertial effects.
Now considering the most slender geometry, under quasi-static
conditions the axial stress reaches only 10% of the parent material
failure stress. However, a load drop is seen in the axial stress prior
to failure (see Fig. 7a), indicating that the maximum local bending
3307
axial equilibrium has not been reached prior to failure will be fully
stabilised.
5. Concluding remarks
Our motivation for this study was concerned with the suitability of carbon-bre/epoxy composite for sandwich core structures
for ship hull design. When a composite sandwich structure is subject to a blast, an impulse is transmitted to the front face sheet of
structure. This impulse sets the face sheet into motion and the face
sheet will compress the core at some velocity (110 ms1 for our
example calculation given). Experimental results have shown that
corrugated composite sandwich cores show signicant inertial rate
sensitivity when loaded at rates similar to those caused by a blast.
Thus these structures have potential to be optimised to minimise
mass for a given initial velocity, by careful selection of the strut
slenderness ratio. Further work is needed to determine the energy
absorbtion characteristics as a function of impact velocity.
This study has elucidated the inuence of the slenderness ratio
t/l and impact velocity v0 on the strengthening of carbon-bre/
epoxy inclined struts from both inertial stabilisation and material
rate effects. The enhancement of the material failure strength
through strain rate strength enhancement is minor, giving at most
an additional 15% at v0 = 35 ms1. Strength enhancements though
inertial stabilisation achieved factors of up to 8 or 9, for the most
slender geometry. These were the largest enhancements observed,
with the more stubby struts achieving factors of 2.5 and 4 for the t/
l = 0.03 and t/l = 0.015 geometries respectively. However, despite
these large strength enhancements, the slender geometry still fell
short of the parent material strength indicating it is subject to signicant bending stresses. Whereas the stubbiest geometry reached
the parent material strength and is thus considered fully stabilised.
Thus the stubbiest geometries are most optimised to resist load for
minimum mass across the entire range of velocities tested.
Higher velocity tests up to 200 ms1 were performed to investigate mechanisms operating in this regime. At 200 ms1 stubbing
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 11. High speed photographs of impact experiments conducted at speeds above 35 ms1. (a) t/l = 0.03,
l = 0.015, v0 = 200 ms1.
v0 = 50 ms1,
v0 = 50 ms1
and (c) t/
3308
of the most slender strut was observed with no discernable buckling. Thus it is expected that the peak axial wall strength measured
at the back face would be very close to the strength of the parent
material.
Acknowledgements
The nancial support for this investigation has been provided
by The Ofce of Naval Research (ONR) through programme ofcer
Dr. Yapa D.S. Rajapakse (Grant No. N0001407-10344).
Consider a sandwich panel with face sheets of thickness tf separated by some thick core c. Suppose that this panel is subjected to
a pressure wave, p, with nearly instantaneous pressure rise to a
peak pressure p0, which then decays exponentially with a time
constant h, as described by the equation
A:1
The magnitude of the pressure wave and its decay time, depends on
the mass and type of explosive material, distance to the structure as
well as the media through which the shock wave is propagated. A
charge of 1 kg TNT produces a peak pressure of approximately
100 MPa in water and 10 MPa in air at a distance of 1 m [20,1]. The
decay times for both pressure waves are in the order of 0.1 ms. The
maximum achievable impulse (for a fully reected pressure wave),
I is given as
1
0
A:2
A:4
v0
Itrans
;
qf t f
A:5
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
which only occurs in the case when the structure is stationary and
rigid, i.e. no deformation occurs. The actual impulse which is transmitted to the face, Itrans, is given by,
Itrans fI;
f ww=w1 ;
where qf and tf are the density and thickness of the face sheet
respectively.
pt p0 et=h :
where,
A:3
[18]
[19]
[20]