The performance of sandwich beams with expanded metal sheets as core was studied under transverse impact loading. Relationships between the force and displacement at the mid-span of the sandwich beams were obtained from the experiments. Numerical simulations were carried out using ABAQUS/EXPLICT and the results were thoroughly compared with the experimental results. Then, the influence of the core layer number, cell orientation, size of the cell, and thickness of the substrates was investigated. The results showed that the increase in the core layers up to three times increased the energy absorption (Ea) by 33.88%. Moreover, increasing the thickness by up to three times increased the Ea by 61.33%. It was found that effects of the cell size and cell orientation on the Ea were dependent on each other, governing the low-velocity impact response of the sandwich beams with lattice cores.
GibsonLJAshbyMF.Cellular solids: structure and properties. Vol. 123. 1990, pp. 282–283.
2.
DanielIMGdoutosEEWangK-A, et al.
Failure modes of composite sandwich beams. Int J Damage Mech2002;
11: 309–334.
3.
CrupiV andMontaniniR.Aluminium foam sandwiches collapse modes under static and dynamic three-point bending. Int J Impact Eng2007;
34: 509–521.
4.
DanielIMGdoutosEEAbotJL, et al.
Deformation and failure of composite sandwich structures. J Thermoplast Compos Mater2003;
16: 345–355.
5.
LiQMMaGWYeZQ.An elastic–plastic model on the dynamic response of composite sandwich beams subjected to mass impact. Compos Struct2006;
72: 1–9.
6.
ZhouPBeehEKriescherM, et al.
Experimental comparison of energy absorption characteristics of polyurethane foam-filled magnesium and steel beams in bending. Int J Impact Eng2016;
93: 76–87.
7.
VaidyaSZhangLMaddalaD, et al.
Quasi-static response of sandwich steel beams with corrugated cores. Eng Struct2015;
97: 80–89.
8.
XiangXMLuGWangZH.Quasi-static bending behavior of sandwich beams with thin-walled tubes as core. Int J Mech Sci2015;
103: 55–62.
9.
ApetreNASankarBVAmburDR.Low-velocity impact response of sandwich beams with functionally graded core. Int J Solids Struct2006;
43: 2479–2496.
10.
St-PierreLDeshpandeVSFleckNA.The low velocity impact response of sandwich beams with a corrugated core or a Y-frame core. Int J Mech Sci2015;
91: 71–80.
11.
PedersenCBWDeshpandeVSFleckNA.Compressive response of the Y-shaped sandwich core. Eur J Mech A/Solids2006;
25: 125–141.
12.
HyunSKarlssonAMTorquatoS, et al.
Simulated properties of Kagom?? and tetragonal truss core panels. Int J Solids Struct2003;
40: 6989–6998.
13.
ZhangLHebertRWrightJT, et al.
Dynamic response of corrugated sandwich steel plates with graded cores. Int J Impact Eng2014;
65: 185–194.
14.
HuYLiWAnX, et al.
Fabrication and mechanical behaviors of corrugated lattice truss composite sandwich panels. Compos Sci Technol2016;
125: 114–122.
15.
Smith-LópezDJGraciano-GallegoCAAparicio-CarrilloGN.Energy absorption capacity of expanded metal meshes subjected to tensile loading. Rev Fac Ing Univ Antioquia2015;
77: 48–53.
16.
HatamiH andDamghani NouriM.Experimental and numerical investigation of lattice-walled cylindrical shell under low axial impact velocities. Lat Am J Solids Struct2015;
12: 1950–1971.
17.
GracianoCMartínezG andGutiérrezA.Failure mechanism of expanded metal tubes under axial crushing. Thin-Walled Struct2012;
51: 20–24.
18.
GracianoCMartínezG andSmithD.Experimental investigation on the axial collapse of expanded metal tubes. Thin-Walled Struct2009;
47: 953–961.
19.
SmithDJGracianoCATeixeiraP, et al.
Energy absorption characteristics of coiled expanded metal tubes under axial compression. Lat Am J Solids Struct2016;
13: 2845–2860.
20.
JahromiAG andHatamiH.Energy absorption performance on multilayer expanded metal tubes under axial impact. Thin-Walled Struct2017;
116: 1–11.
21.
ZuhriMLiaoYWangQ, et al.
The energy absorbing properties of bamboo-based structures. J Sandw Struct Mater2017; 19: 1–23.
22.
KooistraGW andWadleyHNG.Lattice truss structures from expanded metal sheet. Mater Des2007;
28: 507–514.
23.
ASTM Standard A568, Standard Specification for Steel, Sheet, Carbon, and High-Strength, Low-Alloy, Hot-Rolled and Cold-Rolled, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2000, pp. 1–27, www.astm.org
24.
ASTM Standard E8/E8M,
Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materials.
West Conshohocken:
ASTM International, 2009, pp. 1–27, www.astm.org
25.
Nouri DamghaniM andMohammadzadeh GonabadiA.Numerical study of energy absorption in aluminum foam sandwich panel structures using drop hammer test. J Sandw Struct Mater2017; 19: 1–6.
26.
TarlochanFSamerFHamoudaAMS, et al.
Design of thin wall structures for energy absorption applications: enhancement of crashworthiness due to axial and oblique impact forces. Thin-Walled Struct2013;
71: 7–17.
27.
SunGPangTXuC, et al.
Energy absorption mechanics for variable thickness thin-walled structures. Thin-Walled Struct2017;
118: 214–228.
28.
AhmadZ andThambiratnamDP.Dynamic computer simulation and energy absorption of foam-filled conical tubes under axial impact loading. Comput Struct2009;
87: 186–197.
