The low velocity impact response of foam-based sandwich structures

By Md. Akil Hazizan, Wesley James Cantwell. 2002

250 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Mechanical Engineering, Polymers and Plastics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/06c0be170bb611f8a6a84cffd3e73d27ed048839

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Mechanical Engineering

1. G. Epasto
2. Vincenzo Crupi
3. R. Mines
4. Eugenio Guglielmino
5. Zhongwei Guan
6. Quanjin Ma
7. Y. Shen
8. J. Siregar

In Polymers and Plastics

1. Zhongwei Guan
2. Quanjin Ma
3. R. Mines
4. J. Siregar
5. Wesley James Cantwell
6. M. Rejab
7. Onur Çoban
8. M. Bora

Citations in the corpus

• Comparison of aluminium sandwiches for lightweight ship structures: Honeycomb vs. foam (2013, background): “It was assumed that the target responds quasi-statically during the impact event and that all the initial kinetic energy has been absorbed, so the energy balance for the sandwich structure can be obtained considering that the initial kinetic energy is equal to the energy absorption in bending, shear”
• A review of the recent trends on core structures and impact response of sandwich panels (2021, background): “Several failure modes have been identified under low-velocity impact tests, including face sheet buckling, delamination of face sheet, core indentation/cracking, and debonding between face sheet and core.(58,59) Uzal et al.”
• The Mechanical Properties of Sandwich Structures Based on Metal Lattice Architectures (2010, background): “This trace was similar to those recorded previously on sandwich structures based on polymeric foams [12].”