ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Impact Resistance of a Fiber Metal Laminate Skin Bio-Inspired Composite Sandwich Panel with a Rubber and Foam Dual Core.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Low-Velocity Impact Behaviour of Titanium-Based Carbon-Fibre/Epoxy Laminate.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper reports the development of a novel bio-inspired composite sandwich panel (BCSP) with fiber metal laminate (FML) face sheets and a dual core to improve the low-velocity impact behavior based on the woodpecker's head layout as a design template. The dynamic response of BCSP under impact load is simulated and analyzed by ABAQUS/Explicit software and compared with that of the composite sandwich panel (CSP) with a single foam core. The impact behavior of BCSP affected by these parameters, i.e., a different face sheet thickness, rubber core thickness and foam core height, was also reported. The results show that BCSP has superior impact resistance compared to CSP, with a lower damage area and smaller deformation, while carrying a higher impact load. Concurrently, BCSP is not highly restricted to any particular region when dealing with stress distributions. Compared to CSP, the bottom skin maximum stress value of BCSP is significantly reduced by 2.4-6.3 times at all considered impact energy levels. It is also found that the impact efficiency index of BCSP is 4.86 times higher than that of CSP under the same impact energy, indicating that the former can resist the impact load more effectively than the latter in terms of overall performance. Furthermore, the impact resistance of the BCSP improved with the increase in face sheet thickness and rubber core thickness. Additionally, the height of the foam core has a notable effect on the energy absorption, while it does not play a significant role in impact load. From an economic viewpoint, the height of the foam core retrofitted with 20 mm is reasonable. The results acquired from the current investigation can provide certain theoretical reference to the use of the bio-inspired composite sandwich panel in the engineering protection field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.