Advertisement

Theory for Small Mass Impact on Sandwich Panels

  • Robin Olsson
Conference paper

Abstract

This paper presents a theory for small mass impact on sandwich panels. Small mass impact response of plates is governed by wave propagation and is observed when the impactor/plate mass ratio is significantly smaller than unity. The present method is limited to impact times where through-the-thickness waves may be neglected so that the response is governed by flexural and shear plate waves. In contrast, large mass impact response is governed by the corresponding static deflection mode and is observed when the impactor/plate mass ratio is larger than unity. The different response types and their dependency on impactor/plate mass ratio for monolithic plates were discussed by Olsson (1993). In the present paper we discuss the specific conditions for small mass impact response of sandwich panels.

Keywords

Sandwich Panel Face Sheet Impact Response Mindlin Plate Flexural Wave 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersson, M. & Nilsson, F. (1995) A perturbation method used for static contact and low velocity impact, Int. J. Impact Engng, 16 (5/6) 759–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chattopadhyay, S. & Saxena, R. (1991) Combined effects of shear deformation and permanent indentation on the impact response of elastic plates, Int. J. Solids & Struct., 27 (13) 1739–1745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davies, P., Choqueuse, D. & Pichon, A. (1994) Influence of the foam core on composite sandwich static and impact response, In Composites Testing and Standardisation, ECCM-CTS2, Woodhead Publishing Ltd, Abington Hall, England, 513–522.Google Scholar
  4. Davies, P., et al. (1995) Impact behaviour of composite sandwich panels, In Impact and Dynamic Fracture of Polymers and Composites, ESIS 19, MEP, London, 341–358.Google Scholar
  5. Hill, R., Storåkers, B. & Zdunek, A.B. (1989) A study on the Brinell hardness test, Proc. Royal Soc. Lond., A423 301–330.ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Koller, M.G. (1986) Elastic impact of spheres on sandwich plates, J. Appl. Math. & Phys. (ZAMP), 37, 256–269.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mittal, R.K. (1987) A simplified analysis of the effect of transverse shear on the response of elastic plates to impact loading, Int. J. Solids & Struct., 23 (8) 1587–1596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Olsson, R. (1992) Impact response of orthotopic composite laminates predicted from a one-parameter differential equation, AIAA 7., 30 (6) 1587–1596.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Olsson, R. (1993) Impact response of composite laminates — a guide to closed form solutions, FFA TN 1992–33, The Aeronautical Research Institute of Sweden, Bromma.Google Scholar
  10. Olsson, R. (1996), Prediction of impact damage in sandwich panels, Proc. Third Int. Conf. on Sandwich Construction, EMAS, Solihull, England, 1996, 659–668.Google Scholar
  11. Olsson, R. & McManus, H.L. (1996) Improved theory for contact indentation of sandwich panels, AIAA J., 34 (6) 1238–1244.ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sneddon, I.N. (1945) The symmetrical vibrations of a thin elastic plate, Proc. Cambridge Phil.Soc, 41 (1), 1945, 27–43.MathSciNetADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Timoshenko, S.P. (1913) Zur Frage nach den Wirkung eines Stoßes auf einen Balken, Z. Math. Phys., 62, 198–209.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robin Olsson
    • 1
  1. 1.The Aeronautical Research Institute of SwedenBrommaSweden

Personalised recommendations