International Journal of Impact Engineering 77 (2015) 134e146

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Impact Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijimpeng

Blast resistance of stiffened sandwich panels with aluminum

cenosphere syntactic foam
Manmohan Dass Goel a, *, Vasant A. Matsagar b, Anil K. Gupta a
a
b

CSIR-Advanced Materials and Processes Research Institute (AMPRI), Council of Scientic and Industrial Research (CSIR), Bhopal 462 064, India
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi, New Delhi 110 016, India

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 11 December 2013
Received in revised form
10 November 2014
Accepted 17 November 2014
Available online 26 November 2014

The present investigation examines the response of the aluminum cenosphere syntactic foam core
stiffened and unstiffened structures subjected to blast load. The blast is applied using blast load equations available in LS-DYNA by dening the charge and standoff distance to analyze the structures under a
particular blast load. The dynamic response of the sandwich structures is studied in terms of quantitative
assessment, which mainly focuses on the peak central point displacement of the back-sheet (opposite to
the explosion) of the sandwich structures. The analysis is carried out with an objective of understanding
the effects of the foam thickness, strain rate, and the stiffener congurations on the response of sandwich
structure to the blast load. The results obtained indicate that the provision of the stiffeners and foam core
considerably improves the blast resistance as compared to both, the unstiffened panels with foam core
and without using syntactic foam core.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Blast
Dynamic response
Metal foam
Sandwich structure
Steel
Stiffeners

1. Introduction
Recent terrorist attacks on government, commercial, private and
strategically important buildings all around the world have
highlighted concerns about their safety and performance against
blast induced loadings. As terrorism is becoming more prevalent
throughout the world, blast resistant structures are required to
protect the personnel and the facilities from the particular blast
induced loading for which these structures are designed. Blast
resistant structures are primarily constructed of pre-cast and
cast-in-place concrete or steel frames with the use of sandwich
structures more recently. In the past, polymeric foams, honeycombs
and metallic foams have been developed and used as the core of
sandwich structures for application in blast resistant construction.
Use of sandwich structures with weak and light core has gained
momentum due to their high energy absorption, lightweight and
high specic stiffness. Hence, understanding the behavior of blast
loaded sandwich structures is essential for successful protection of
the personnel and the facilities with the developments of new
metallic foams. Further, a detailed investigation into the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mdgoel@rediffmail.com (M.D. Goel), matsagar@civil.iitd.ac.in
(V.A. Matsagar), akg51us@yahoo.co.in (A.K. Gupta).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2014.11.017
0734-743X/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

deformation behavior of sandwich structures under blast load

facilitates in designing these structures with enhanced energy
absorption and improved blast resistance. There exist several
experimental and numerical studies on the behavior of sandwich
structures [1e13]. These studies mainly focused on dynamic
behavior of different face- and back-sheets and core materials under
varying blast intensities. Dharmesena et al. and Cui et al. independently studied the response of metallic lattice sandwich structures
to impulsive loading using small scale explosive test and presented
the deformation mechanism [14,15]. Hasan et al. studied the inuence of varying core density on the blast resistance of cross linked
PVC cores and aluminium alloy skins sandwich panels using a ballistic pendulum and concluded that damage within the sandwich
panels becomes more severe as the density of the foam core is
increased. They also used FE models and successfully predicted the
deformed shapes of the panels after the blast experiments [16]. In
year 2013, Langdon et al. reported an experimental and numerical
investigation of sandwich panels with PVC foam cores and glass bre
reinforced vinyl ester face sheets under localized blast loading and
proposed that composite only panels perform better than the
sandwich panels with PVC foam core [17]. Shock tube tests and nite
element analyses of corrugated steel plates were recently investigated recently by Zhang et al. [18]. They presented the energy
absorbance and impulse transmittance capability of different parts
of the structure [18]. Lately, Li et al. studied the dynamic response of

M.D. Goel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 77 (2015) 134e146

Fig. 1. Compressive stress-strain behavior of the ACSF at different strain rates for
RD 0.722.

corrugated sandwich panels under blast loading and deformation

modes of panel along with the energy absorption capabilities [19].
Jing et al. recently carried out experimental investigation of cylindrical metallic foam sandwiched shell structures subjected to blast
and studied the deformation modes along with the arrangement of
different core layers for effectiveness in blast mitigation [20]. In yet
lu proposed nonanother recent investigation, Balkan and Mecitog
uniform pressure function for theoretical investigation of sandwich structures based on experimental investigation of panels under
blast loading [21]. Recently, Qin et al. proposed the analytical model
for yield criterion of a sandwich beam with soft core by a straight
line [22]. In another very recent investigation by Wang et al. FE
method is adopted to verify theoretical models for steel-concretesteel sandwich panels under blast loading [23]. They also presented DIF in relation to strain rates which can be included in SDOF
and Lagrange equation of the model [23].

135

However, hardly any investigation has been reported on the

blast resistance of stiffened sandwich structures except recent
study of Guan et al. [24] wherein they used woven S-glass/epoxy
skins and a crosslinked PVC core and I-section as stiffener. Further,
it is to be noted that in the present investigation, stiffeners are on
opposite face of explosion which has never been reported, except
author's recent work on the response of the stiffened polymer foam
sandwich structures under impulsive loading [25]. Further, to the
best of the knowledge of the authors, although syntactic polymeric
foams are investigated for their blast resistance, no investigations
have yet been reported on the syntactic metallic foams (such as
aluminum cenosphere syntactic foam) for their blast resistance.
In the present investigation, the in-house newly developed
metal foam, i.e. aluminum cenosphere syntactic foam (ACSF) has
been explored as a potential core material in sandwich structures
for blast applications. Performance of the stiffened sandwich panel
with the ACSF as blast resistance structure is presented here. The
blast response of the sandwich foam panel (SFP) and the stiffened
sandwich foam panel (SSFP) is studied using LS-DYNA in order to
assess their effectiveness in the blast response mitigation. Numerical analysis carried out here in aims to study the effect of (a)
stiffener conguration, (b) foam thickness, and (c) strain rate.

2. Foam, sheet material and model geometry

The aluminum cenosphere syntactic foam (ACSF) foams are
developed by assembling micro pores (through the use of microballoons) in the metallic matrix through stir casting technique at
CSIR-Advanced Materials and Processes Research Institute, Bhopal,
India [26]. The properties of the syntactic foam (i.e. cell size, cells
distribution and volume fraction of cells) are inuenced by the
characteristics and the quantity of micro-balloons used for making
the syntactic foam. In these foams, cenospheres (hollow and
spherical in shape) are used as micro-balloons. Cenospheres
contain primarily alumina-silicates (mullite and selliminite) phases
and trace amount of ferro-silicate, quartz, iron oxide, calcium carbonate and unburnt carbon. These substances make cenosphere
chemically inert and stable up to temperature of 1100
C and quite

Fig. 2. Stiffened sandwich panel congurations arranged with increasing weights.

136

M.D. Goel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 77 (2015) 134e146

Table 1
Foam material properties and blast scenario considered.
Type of foam

Foam relative
density

Modulus of
elasticity, E (GPa)

l (MPa)

a2 (MPa)

Plateau stress,
sp (MPa)

Foam strain
rate (/s)

TNT, W (kg)

Standoff distance,
R (m)

Aluminum Cenosphere
Syntactic Foam (ACSF)

0.722

22

411.9
1253
86.31

814.4
731
121

1.26
0.82
1.52

110
168
192

0.001
10
1400

1.5

strong, suitable for use as micro-balloons in metal matrix [26].

Quasi-static compression tests are performed at ambient temperature using BiSS Universal Testing Machine (Model Bi-00-002,
50 kN Load Cell) at Advanced Materials and Processes Research
Institute (AMPRI), Council of Scientic and Industrial Research
(CSIR), Bhopal, India, at a strain rate of 0.001/s. The high strain rate
tests are conducted using a modied split Hopkinson pressure bar
(SHPB) at the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC),
Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, European
Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA), Ispra, Italy. The mechanical behavior of these foam materials has been reported in
details by the authors erstwhile [27]. Fig. 1 shows the compressive
stress-strain curves for the aluminum cenosphere syntactic foam
(ACSF) at different strain rates for a relative density (RD) of 0.722,
which is the ratio of density of foam material to the density of
parent material from which the foam is developed.
The sandwich structures considered are square in shape
(2 m  2 m) with varying thicknesses. The ACSF is sandwiched
between two 10 mm thick steel sheets on either side. The backsheet is stiffened by providing the steel stiffeners of 10 mm thickness and 100 mm width. The total ten stiffener congurations are
considered along with one unstiffened conguration for comparative assessment. These congurations are arranged according to
their increasing weight as shown in Fig. 2. The unstiffened sandwich foam panel (SFP) is designated as P1 and the stiffened sandwich foam panels (SSFPs) are designated as P2 to P11. In order to
investigate the effect of the foam thickness on the blast response of
the stiffened sandwich panels, three foam thicknesses, i.e. 50 mm,
100 mm, and 150 mm are considered.
The face-sheet and stiffened back-sheet are made of mild-steel
[28], considering elasticeplastic and strain hardening with
Young's modulus, E 210 GPa, Poisson's ratio, n 0.3, and density,
r 7800 kg/m3. The static yield stress of the steel material is

300 MPa [28]. The steel face- and back-sheets along with stiffeners
are modeled using elasticeplastic material model, i.e. MAT_024
(MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY) of LS-DYNA. This is an
elasticeplastic material model, and stress-strain behavior can be
adapted by dening the tangent modulus or by dening the curve
of effective plastic stress vs. effective plastic strain which is equivalent to true stress vs. true strain in case of uniaxial stresses [29]. In
numerical simulation, tangent modulus is used to dene the stressstrain behavior. The various input parameters required to be
dened in this material model are computed from the quasi-static
material testing.
The foams are dened using material model i.e. MAT_154
(MAT_DESHPANDE_FLECK_FOAM) developed by Deshpande and
Fleck [30]. In accordance with the Deshpande-Fleck foam model,
the yield stress function (F) of the foam material is dened as,

F se  sy

(1)

where, sy is the yield stress of the foam material, and se is the

equivalent stress dened as, s2e s2VM a2 s2m =1 a=32 . In this
expression, sVM is the von-Mises stress and sm is the mean stress.
The shape of yield surface is controlled by the shape parameter, a.
The yield stress is governed by the model presented by Hanssen
et al. [31] as,

sy sp l

"
#
e
1
a2 ln
eD
1  e=eD b

(2)

where, e is engineering strain, sp is the plateau stress, l, a2 and b

are material parameters, and eD is the foam densication strain
expressed in terms of density of the foam (rf) to density of the
parent material (r0) as,

Fig. 3. Experimental arrangement of plate under explosive test [38].

Fig. 4. Validation of FE simulation with experimental result of DSTO plate.

M.D. Goel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 77 (2015) 134e146

 
r
eD ln f
r0

(3)

In this investigation, strain rate is considered using the strain

rate dependent stress-strain curves as obtained from the experimental evaluation of foam material. These curves are tted to

137

Deshpande- Fleck foam model to compute the constitutive model

parameters. A MATLAB nonlinear curve t program is developed to
compute the different parameters of the above foam model for
varying strain rates and these parameters are used to investigate
strain rate effects [32]. Table 1 shows various mechanical properties
obtained using the MATLAB nonlinear curve t program for the
foam used in the present investigation.

3. Finite element models and blast loading

Finite element (FE) models of the panels are developed using
Box_Solid feature and the stiffeners are created by extruding nodes
along the vertical direction, i.e. direction perpendicular to the backsheet and assigning the surface to these to create geometry of the
back-sheets [33]. The foam is modeled as solid element, whereas
front- and back-sheets in conjunction with stiffeners are modeled
using shell elements [33]. In each model, a three-dimensional part
with Box_Solid feature is used to dene the foam core. Stiffeners
are created by adding an extruded node feature available in ALTAIRHYPERMESH which implies perfect connection without any additional constraint. Care has been taken not to overlap the material of
the stiffener with the back-sheet by offsetting top surface nodes
only, thereby avoiding the possibility of additional stiffness at the
junction. Thus, in real fabrication, back-sheet with stiffeners is
created by removing material from a thick blank, which is different
from a plate with extra stiffeners added typically by welding material onto the plate. It is a single part and meshed in one part only,
thus implying a single part without any weld or joint/interface
between the plate and stiffener. The interfaces between different
layers of the sandwich panel are considered to be perfectly bonded.
This assumption is derived based on the practical possibility of
face- and back-sheets formed integrally with aluminum foam
producing sandwiches without the usual delamination susceptibilities. Moreover, it has been found that integrally formed metal
foam core sandwich panels may also have thermal and acoustic
advantages over the conventional sandwich panel structure. Geometry of plates and stiffeners are modeled using Belytschko-Tsay
shell elements available in the LS-DYNA element library, whereas
eight-node solid elements with full integration scheme are used
with hourglass control to model the geometry of the foam core. The
sandwich panel is constrained on all edges by restraining all degrees of freedom simulating clamped boundary condition.

Fig. 5. (a) Numerical model of aluminum foam sandwich in LS-DYNA, (b) Comparison
of central point displacement time history, and (c) validation using numerical and
experimental results of Karagiozova et al [11].

Fig. 6. Peak pressure, P(t) from CONWEP model in LS-DYNA.

138

M.D. Goel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 77 (2015) 134e146

Fig. 7. Central point displacement time histories of SFP-ACSF (P1) and SSFP-ACSF (P2eP11) panels for RD 0.722 and strain rate 0.001/s.

3.1. Simplied blast loading model

The blast load can be applied using Load_Blast boundary conditions available in LS-DYNA. This boundary condition is implemented by Randors-Pehrson and Bannister [34] based on the
empirical blast loading functions developed by Kingery and Bulmash [35]. Also, these functions were implemented in the US Army
Technical Manual CONWEP code [36]. The blast load is generated by
using the LOAD_BLAST_ENHANCED function available in LS-DYNA
[26,29], which further takes into account the reection of blast
from the surface of panels. This function is used to dene the
loading on the front-sheet of the sandwich panel duly taking in to
account the enhancement of pressure due to reection of waves.
The dynamic blast pressure, P(t) on the face-sheet is determined

based on the input amount of Trinitrotoluene (TNT), the stand off

distance, and angle of incidence, q. The time dependent blast
pressure is computed using the following equation [29],



Pt Pr cos2 q Pi 1 cos2 q  2 cosq

(4)

where, Pr and Pi are the reected and incident pressures, respectively.

Computation of Pr, Pi, and relevant blast wave parameters based on
scaled distance (Z) is reported in details by Goel et al. [37]. The scaled
distance is calculated as, Z R/W1/3, where R is the standoff distance
in meters and W is the amount of TNT in kilograms. To dene the
loading on the front-sheet, function LOAD_BLAST_SEGMENT is used
wherein, function DATABASE_BINARY_BLSTFOR is used to compute

M.D. Goel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 77 (2015) 134e146

139

Fig. 8. Central point displacement time histories of SFP-ACSF (P1) and SSFP-ACSF (P2eP11) panels for RD 0.722 and strain rate 10/s.

the blast pressure. This function (LOAD_BLAST_SEGMENT) considers

the enhancement of reected wave from the surface and then the
panel is subjected to this enhanced loading, which is a real eld
situation for any structure subjected to blast. In the present analysis,
element density is varied using global seeds of 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1 to
generate ne, medium, and coarse meshes, respectively and
converged results (i.e. mesh with global seed of 0.05) are presented
only [25].
4. Fe model validations using experimental and numerical
results
The developed FE models and approach are validated using two
different established and accepted results from experimental and

numerical research [38,39]. In the rst part, a steel plate experimentally tested in DSTO Australia (Defense Science and Technology
Organization) is used to validate the present numerical model [38].
In the reported investigation [38], results of the acceleration,
pressure loading, and displacement for a xed at steel plate subjected to explosive induced blast load has been presented. A series
of 1200 mm  1200 mm and 5 mm thick mild steel plates were
bolted to a heavy steel frame using 24 high tensile bolts with an
effective exposed size 1000 mm  1000 mm of the plate. To apply
the blast load, a sphere of Pentolite weighing 250 gm was detonated centrally using an exploding bridge wire detonator with
standoff distance varied from 250 mm to 500 mm as shown in Fig. 3
[38]. The result of this experimental test data (only for 500 mm
standoff distance) is used to validate the FE simulation carried out

140

M.D. Goel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 77 (2015) 134e146

Fig. 9. Central point displacement time histories of SFP-ACSF (P1) and SSFP-ACSF (P2eP11) panels for RD 0.722 and strain rate 1400/s.

using LS-DYNA in the present investigation. Fig. 4 shows central

point displacement of the DSTO plate obtained numerically by the
present FE simulation compared with experimental results reported by Boyd [38]. It can be observed that both the results are in
overall agreement. The difference in the blast response is attributed
towards the variation in TNT equivalent of Pentolite, and the higher
mode contribution of plate along with the idealized boundary
conditions used in the present FE simulation. It is to be noted that,
in the experimental investigation carried out by Boyd [38], Pentolite charge was used as explosive and the same is mentioned in his
report without providing the TNT Equivalent. It is to be noted that
there exist wide variation in methodology of expressing TNT
equivalence of any explosive which may be attributed the reason of
discrepancy. Authors in their investigation tried with several TNT

Equivalent as given in different literature (it is to be noted that

there exist wide variation in methodology of expressing TNT
equivalence of any explosive) and the most closed values are reported. Still, the discrepancy is about 30% as observed. Nevertheless, behavior of the panel is similar to experimental results hence,
the results are reported. For improved condence in the FE
modeling, second validation is also carried out using results reported by Gama et al. [39] for the sandwich foam panels. In their
study,
they
considered
a
sandwich
construction
of
610 mm  610 mm in size and aerial density of 48.8 kg/m2 with all
the edges clamped. The blast load is applied by 1 kg TNT at a
standoff distance of 610 mm. They analyzed different architectures
of sandwich conguration keeping aerial density the same. Herein,
for the validation purpose, aluminum foam sandwich conguration

M.D. Goel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 77 (2015) 134e146

141

Fig. 10. Central point displacement time histories of SFP-ACSF (P1) and SSFP-ACSF (P2eP11) panels for RD 0.722 and strain rate 1400*/s.

is considered with front face-sheet, core, and bottom face-sheet

having aerial density of 12.2, 24.4, and 12.2, respectively, i.e. a total aerial density of 48.8 [39]. Fig. 5(a) and (b) show the numerical
model and comparison of present FE simulation results. It can be
observed that both the results are in exact agreement, hence duly
validating the FE simulation.
Still in order to be more condent about the numerical investigation and to avoid any interpretation misunderstanding, third
validation study is carried out wherein the FE approach used in
present investigation is validated using methodology and results
reported by Karagiozova et al. [11]. They presented experimental
and numerical results for exible sandwich panels subjected to
impulsive loading caused by blast and compared the responses of
two types of sandwich panels. The rst sandwich panel had a core

of polyurethane foam with steel sheets at the top and bottom,

whereas the second panel had an aluminum honeycomb core with
steel sheets at top and bottom. The panels were circular in shape
with polyurethane foam cores sandwiched between steel sheets
and were tested using a blast pendulum. To validate the present FE
approach, a sandwich circular panel with a diameter of 106 mm is
modeled in LSDYNA. A sandwich panel with a 26 mm thickness of
polyurethane core having a density of 32 kg/m3 is considered
sandwiched between top and bottom sheets made of mild steel and
are 1.6 mm thick. A four-node quadrilateral shell element with
hourglass control is used to model the geometry of the sheets. Eight
node brick elements with reduced integration and hourglass control are used to model the geometry of the foam core with the same
material properties, loading, and boundary conditions as reported

tf 150 mm

0.01578
0.00383
0.00311
0.01331
0.01509
0.00394
0.02092
0.00627
0.00311
0.01412
0.00325

tf 100 mm

0.02240
0.00652
0.00392
0.01981
0.01714
0.00555
0.02179
0.01035
0.00403
0.01884
0.00786

tf 50 mm
tf 150 mm

0.01547
0.00372
0.00302
0.01327
0.01495
0.00384
0.02084
0.00616
0.00306
0.01391
0.00319
0.01914
0.00460
0.00356
0.01543
0.01179
0.00478
0.02011
0.00765
0.00358
0.01690
0.00371

tf 100 mm
tf 50 mm

0.02224
0.00790
0.00395
0.01964
0.01682
0.00559
0.02163
0.01021
0.00394
0.01861
0.00813
0.01547
0.00372
0.00302
0.01327
0.01495
0.00384
0.02084
0.00725
0.00306
0.01391
0.00319

tf 150 mm
tf 150 mm

0.02224
0.00793
0.00395
0.01964
0.01682
0.00559
0.02163
0.01021
0.00394
0.01867
0.00813
0.01547
0.00372
0.00302
0.01327
0.01495
0.00384
0.02084
0.00614
0.00306
0.01391
0.00307
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11

tf 100 mm

0.02224
0.00793
0.00395
0.01964
0.01682
0.00559
0.02163
0.01021
0.00394
0.01867
0.00813

0.01914
0.00460
0.00356
0.01543
0.01179
0.00478
0.02011
0.00765
0.00358
0.01690
0.00371

tf 50 mm
tf 100 mm

0.01914
0.00460
0.00356
0.01543
0.01179
0.00478
0.02011
0.00765
0.00358
0.01690
0.00358

tf 50 mm

ACSF, RD 0.722, strain rate 1400/s

ACSF, RD 0.722, strain rate 10/s
ACSF, RD 0.722, strain rate 0.001/s

Stiffened sandwich foam Panel (SSFP)

Peak central point displacement (m)

Plate/panels
nomenclature

Table 2
Peak central point displacements of SFP-ACSF (P1) and SSFP-ACSF (P2eP11) with different thicknesses and stiffener congurations.

0.01933
0.00468
0.00365
0.01577
0.01210
0.00488
0.02024
0.00790
0.00369
0.01710
0.00372

M.D. Goel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 77 (2015) 134e146

ACSF, RD 0.722, strain rate 1400*/s

142

by Karagiozova et al. [11] for validation purposes. The results in

terms of central point displacement for the front and back sheets
under three impulses are computed based on the present FE
approach. Fig. 5(c) of the revised manuscript shows comparison of
results computed using the present FE approach and those reported by Karagiozova et al. [11] based on the experiments and
numerical simulations. It is observed that the results computed
using the present FE approach are in good agreement with those
reported by Karagiozova et al. [11], thereby validating the present
FE approach.
5. Results and discussion
Numerical analysis carried out in the present investigation
aims to study the effect of (a) stiffener conguration, (b) foam
thickness (tf), and (c) strain rate. The central point displacement of
the stiffened sandwich foam panel (SSFP, i.e. P2 to P11) is compared
with the sandwich foam panel (SFP, i.e. P1) designated as base
model (referenced as 100% weight). It is to be noted that the
displacement is recorded at the center of the back-sheet in all
cases with respect to time, and absolute peak values are presented
wherever applicable. Blast load generated due to the explosion of
1 kg of TNT at standoff distance (R) of 1.5 m is considered and the
peak pressure time history resulting due to this combination of
TNT and standoff distance is shown in Fig. 6 (Eq. (4)).
Figs. 7e10 show the central point displacement time histories
of the SSFP-ACSF (P2eP11) panels for three thicknesses of foam
core (i.e. 50, 100, and 150 mm), with 1.5 m standoff distance for
foam relative density (RD) of 0.722 subjected to the blast loading
under varying strain rates. The results presented for strain rate
1400*/s are obtained by considering the strain rate effects in the
foam as well as in the front- and back-sheets; whereas, in rest of
the other investigations strain rate effects are considered only in
the foam but not in the front- and back-sheets. This variation
helps in investigating the effect of considering strain rate properties for both the materials on blast response of the sandwich
panels with aluminum cenosphere syntactic foam. The strain rate
for front- and back-sheets is considered 100/s [17] whereas foam
core has strain rate of 1400/s. This is considered due to restriction
of material properties available at same strain rates.
Comparison of peak central point displacements of the sandwich foam panels with different strain rates for 150 mm thick
foam core shows that the panel, P3, irrespective of strain rates
results in lowest peak central point displacement (i.e. 3.02 mm)
for the same level of blast loading (Table 2). However, consideration of strain rate in the foam core and front- and back-sheets
results in a peak central point displacement of 3.11 mm for this
thickness of foam core. Thus, strain rate considered herein results
in enhancement of peak central point displacement implying the
importance of this numerical investigation. This may be attributed
to the different mechanical behavior of material used as the frontand back-sheets and core. From Table 2, it can be observed that at
this density of foam, strain rate effects are meager. Moreover, increase in foam thickness results in considerable reduction of peak
central point displacement for all the panel congurations. This
may be attributed to the fact that higher foam thickness available
in these congurations result in lower impulse transfer to the
back-sheet. It can further be noted that the introduction of foam
results in higher response reduction and consideration of only
foam strain rate is insignicant.
Further, in order to compare the dynamic response of SFP-ACSF
(P1) and SSFP-ACSF (P2 - P11) panels subjected to the blast load,
and to understand the effects of the stiffener congurations, foam
thicknesses (tf), and strain rates, peak central point displacement
are presented in Table 2. The ACSF panels, P1 to P11 are analyzed

M.D. Goel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 77 (2015) 134e146

143

Fig. 11. Internal energies for SFP-ACSF (P1) and SSFP-ACSF (P2eP11) panels, RD 0.722, foam strain rate 0.001/s.

for three thicknesses of the foam core (i.e. tf 50, 100, and 150 mm)
with the considered strain rates for foam, face- and back-sheets. It
is observed that the peak central point displacement is signicantly
affected by the stiffener conguration as compared to the variation
in the strain rate. When the strain rate effects are considered for
both the sandwich materials, i.e. face- and back-sheet and the foam
materials, it results in enhancement of peak central point
displacement in comparison with the other combinations considered in the present investigation. The lowest central point
displacement is observed to be 3.02 mm for P3 conguration irrespective of strain rates considered herein for the ACSF cores. The
peak central point displacements of all the combinations of ACSF
thickness and strain rates are reported in Table 2. From the table, it
can be observed that the introduction of the foam results in higher
response reduction except for the panel with circular stiffener (P7)

for all the strain rates of the foam with 100 mm and 150 mm
thicknesses of the foam considered herein.
Further, it is also observed that the central point displacement
decreases with the increase in the foam thickness for the ACSF
foams. With the introduction of the stiffeners, the central point
displacement decreases signicantly in all the congurations as
compared to the SFP only (i.e. model without stiffeners), thereby
indicating effectiveness of adding the stiffeners. Moreover, it can be
noted that for achieving higher response reduction, the provided
stiffener should pass through the region experiencing higher
deection and reach the panel boundaries with all other parameters kept the same.
Further, it is also observed for the SSFP that it is not only the
stiffener congurations that govern the response but also the type
and thickness of the foam does signicantly affect the response

144

M.D. Goel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 77 (2015) 134e146

Fig. 12. Kinetic energies for SFP-ACSF (P1) and SSFP-ACSF (P2eP11) panels, RD 0.722, foam strain rate 0.001/s.

along with the blast loading scenario. Therefore, it is crucial to

choose a proper combination of the foam and stiffeners in such a
way that it results in the highest blast response reduction. Thus,
this study conrms that several numerical simulations indeed help
in selecting the foam and stiffener types through FE modeling
which in turn reduces the experimental work not only in terms of
efforts but also in saving considerable time and resources, particularly under blast loadings.
In order to gain an insight of blast response mitigation, energy
studies for all the panels are carried out. The time histories of energy help in identifying and highlighting the signicant physical
effects caused due to impulsive loading on the structures. The
global energy of FE model has been checked for hourglass energy
and is found to be insignicant indicating the nonexistence of

hourglass effect. The total energy imparted by the applied blast

loading to the sandwich panels is converted to kinetic (K.E.) and
internal (I.E.) energies. The internal energy is either dissipated by
inelastic deformation and damage or stored elastically by the material parts. It is to be noted that foams are experimentally evaluated at three different strain rates i.e. 0.001/s, 10/s and 1400/s in the
present investigation. The internal and kinetic energies of the
sandwich panels are shown in Figs. 11 and 12 for ACSF, respectively
for a foam strain rate of 0.001/s considered in the present investigation. This scenario of foam strain rate is taken considering the
fact that practically it is difcult to conduct the high strain tests of
material and thus there exist the scarcity of such material data for
designers. Hence, considering this limitation, result of foam with
strain rate of 0.001/s is presented. It can be observed that when the

M.D. Goel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 77 (2015) 134e146

145

Fig. 13. Kinetic and internal energies for SSFP-ACSF (P3) panels for front sheet, foam core and back sheet (i.e. stiffened sheet).

panel is at its maximum deection, it possesses maximum internal

energy and minimum kinetic energy. From the plots of the kinetic
energy, it is evident that the second rise in the internal energy
occurs when the panel rebounds from its maximum displacement
and it moves back in the opposite direction. Similar trends are
observed for the other strain rates considered here in this study,
hence not reported for brevity. The total internal energy of the SFP
is higher than that of the SSFP and so is the kinetic energy for the
foam and all the stiffener congurations considered.
Since, it is assumed that the interfaces between different layers
of the sandwich panel are perfectly bonded hence no debonding
analysis is carried out. However, energy plots of individual components i.e. front sheet, foam core and back sheet are reported in
Fig. 13 for panel P3 with 150 mm foam thickness (as this panel
results in lowest peak central point displacement). It is to be noted
that internal energy here includes elastic strain energy and work
done in permanent deformation i.e. plastic deformation. It can be
observed from the plots of individual components that initially
impulse is resisted by the front sheet and it lead to reduction in
imparted kinetic energy due to blast. Then, this reduced impulse is
resisted by the foam core which is exible in its behavior and
absorb it considerably in combination with the back sheet, thus
fullling the function of the foam core in sandwich structure. It is to
be noted that thickness of front sheet is dependent on the energy
absorbing capacity of foam core and back sheet. Similar behavior is
observed for other foam thicknesses however with different values.
6. Conclusions

3.
4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Numerical analysis carried out in the present investigation aims

to study the effect of (a) stiffener conguration, (b) foam thickness
(tf), and (c) strain rate.
1. It is observed that aluminum cenosphere syntactic foam used as
foam core does not show any improvement in responses
reduction by considering the strain rate under blast loading.
2. It is observed that the central point displacement decreases with
the increase in the foam thickness for the foam considered

9.

herein. With the introduction of the stiffeners, the central point

displacement decreases signicantly in all the congurations as
compared to the model without stiffeners, thereby indicating
effectiveness of adding the stiffeners.
Strain rate does not signicantly affect the peak central point
displacements for the foam and sheet material considered.
It is concluded that the introduction of the foam results in
higher response reduction except for panel with circular stiffener for all the strain rates of the foam with 100 mm and
150 mm thicknesses of the foam considered in the present
investigation.
Maximum displacement is observed for the unstiffened panel
conguration and all other conguration has lower peak central
point displacement indicating the effectiveness of combination
of loading and stiffener congurations for the same thicknesses
of the foam core.
It is noted that for achieving higher response reduction, the
provided stiffener should pass through the region experiencing
higher deection and reach the panel boundaries with all other
parameters kept the same.
It is observed that it is not only the stiffener congurations that
govern the response but also the type and thickness of the foam
does signicantly affect the response along with the blast
loading scenario. Therefore, it is important to choose a proper
combination of type and characters of the foam as well as
stiffeners and loading scenario in such a way that it results in the
highest response reduction
It is observed that at the end of the blast load, panels vibrate
freely with increase in the kinetic energy. When the panel is at its
maximum deection, it has maximum internal energy and minimum kinetic energy. It is observed that the second rise in the
internal energy occurs when the panel rebounds from its
maximum displacement and it moves back in the opposite
direction.
The total internal energy of the unstiffened sandwich foam
panel is higher than that of the stiffened sandwich foam panel
and so is the kinetic energy for both the types of the foams and
all the stiffener congurations considered.

146

M.D. Goel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 77 (2015) 134e146

References
[1] Guruprasad S, Mukherjee A. Layered sacricial claddings under blast loading
Part-I analytical studies. Int J Imp Eng 2000;24(9):957e73.
[2] Guruprasad S, Mukherjee A. Layered sacricial claddings under blast loading
Part-II experimental studies. Int J Imp Eng 2000;24(9):975e84.
[3] Hanssen AG, Enstock L, Langseth M. Close-range blast loading of aluminum
foam panels. Int J Imp Eng 2002;27(6):593e618.
[4] Qiu X, Deshpande VS, Fleck NA. Finite element analysis of the dynamic
response of clamped sandwich beams subject to shock loading. Eur J Mech-A/
Solids 2003;22(6):801e14.
[5] Xue Z, Hutchinson JW. Preliminary assessment of sandwich plates subject to
blast loads. Int J Mech Sci 2003;45(4):687e705.
[6] Bahei-El-Din YA, Dvorak GJ, Fredricksen OJ. A blast-tolerant sandwich plate
design with a polyuria interlayer. Int J Sol Str 2006;43(25e26):7644e58.
[7] Radford DD, McShane GJ, Deshpande VS, Fleck NA. The response of clamped
sandwich plates with metallic foam cores to simulated blast loading. Int J Sol
Str 2006;43(7e8):2243e59.
[8] Sriram R, Vaidya UK, Kim J-E. Blast impact response of aluminum foam
sandwich composites. J Mat Sci 2006;41(13):4023e39.
[9] Nemat-Nasser S, Kang WJ, McGee JD, Guo W-G, Isaacs JB. Experimental
investigation of energy-absorption characteristics of components of sandwich
structures. Int J Imp Eng 2007;34(6):1119e46.
[10] Tekalur SA, Shukla A, Shivakumar K. Blast resistance of polyurea based layered
composite materials. Comp Str 2008;84(3):271e81.
[11] Karagiozova D, Nurick GN, Langdon GS, Chung Kim Yuen S, Chi Y, Bartle S.
Response of exible sandwich-type panels to blast loading. Comp Sci Tech
2009;69(6):754e63.
[12] Zhu F, Zhao L, Lu G, Gad E. A numerical simulation of the blast impact of
square metallic sandwich panels. Int J Imp Eng 2009;36(5):687e99.
[13] Langdon GS, Nurick GN, Yahya MY, Cantwell WJ. The response of honeycomb
core sandwich panels with aluminum and composite face sheets to blast
loading. J San Str Mat 2010;12(6):733e54.
[14] Dharmasena KP, Wadley Haydn NG, Williams K, Xue Z, Hutchinson JW.
Response of metallic pyramidal lattice core sandwich panels to high intensity
impulsive loading in air. Int J Imp Eng 2011;38(5):275e89.
[15] Cui X, Zhao L, Wang Z, Zhao H, Fang D. Dynamic response of metallic lattice
sandwich structures to impulsive loading. Int J Imp Eng 2012;43:1e5.
[16] Hassan MZ, Guan ZW, Cantwell WJ, Langdon GS, Nurick GN. The inuence of
core density on the blast resistance of foam-based sandwich structures. Int J
Imp Eng 2012;50:9e16.
[17] Langdon GS, Karagiozova D, von Klemperer CJ, Nurick GN, Ozinsky A,
Pickering EG. The air-blast response of sandwich panels with composite face
sheets and polymer foam cores: experiments and predictions. Int J Imp Eng
2013;54:64e82.
[18] Zhang L, Hebert R, Wright JT, Shukla A, Kim Jeong-Ho. Dynamic response of
corrugated sandwich steel plates with graded cores. Int J Imp Eng 2014;65:185e94.
[19] Li X, Wang Z, Zhu F, Wu G, Zhao L. Response of aluminium corrugated
sandwich panels under air blast loadings: experiment and numerical simulation. Int J Imp Eng 2014;65:79e88.

[20] Jing L, Wang Z, Shim VPW, Zhao L. An experimental study of the dynamic
response of cylindrical sandwich shells with metallic foam cores subjected to
blast loading. Int J Imp Eng 2014;71:60e72.
lu Z. Nonlinear dynamic behavior of viscoelastic sandwich
[21] Balkan D, Mecitog
composite plates under non-uniform blast load: theory and experiment. Int J
Imp Eng 2014;72:85e104.
[22] Qin Q, Yuan C, Zhang J, Wang TJ. A simplied analytical model for metal
sandwich beam with soft core under impulsive loading over a central patch.
Int J Imp Eng 2014;74:67e82.
[23] Wang Y, Richard Liew JY, Lee SC. Theoretical models for axially restrained
steel-concrete-steel sandwich panels under blast loading. Int J Imp Eng
2014;76:221e31.
[24] Guan ZW, Aktas A, Potluri P, Cantwell WJ, Langdon G, Nurick GN. The blast
resistance of stitched sandwich panels. Int J Imp Eng 2014;65:137e45.
[25] Goel MD, Matsagar VA, Marburg S, Gupta AK. Comparative performance of
stiffened sandwich foam panels under impulsive loading. J Per Con Fac Am Soc
Civ Eng (ASCE) 2012;27(5):540e9.
[26] Mondal DP, Das S, Ramakrishnan N, Uday Bhasker K. Cenosphere lled
aluminum syntactic foam made through stir-casting technique. Comp A App
Sci Man 2009;40(3):279e88.
[27] Goel MD, Peroni M, Solomos G, Mondal DP, Matsagar VA, Gupta AK, et al.
Dynamic compression behavior of cenosphere aluminum alloy syntactic foam.
Mat Des 2012;42:418e23.
[28] Goel MD, Matsagar VA, Gupta AK. Dynamic response of stiffened plates under
air blast. Int J Pro Str 2011;2(1):139e56.
[29] LS-DYNA, theory manual. Livermore, California, U.S.A: Livermore Software
Technology Corporation; 2011.
[30] Deshpande VS, Fleck NA. Isotropic constitutive models for metallic foams.
J Mech Phy Sol 2000;48(6):1253e83.
[31] Hanssen AG, Hopperstad OS, Langseth M, Ilstad H. Validation of constitutive
models applicable to aluminium foams. Int J Mech Sci 2002;44:359e406.
[32] MATLAB, version R 2012a. Natick, Massachusetts, U.S.A: The MathWorks Inc;
2012.
[33] ALTAIR, user manual. U.S.A: Altair Engineering Corporation; 2007.
[34] Randers-Pehrson G, Bannister K. Airblast loading model for DYNA2D and
DYNA3D, ARL-TR-1310. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, U.S.A: Army
Research Laboratory; 1997.
[35] Kingery CN, Bulmash G. Airblast parameters from TNT spherical air burst and
hemispherical surface burst, US Army Armament Research and Development
Center. Technical Report ARBRLTR-02555. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, U.S.A: Ballistics Research Laboratory; 1984.
[36] CONWEP. Conventional weapons effects program, version 2.00. Vicksburg,
Mississippi, U.S.A: US Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station; 1991.
[37] Goel MD, Matsagar VA, Gupta AK, Marburg S. An abridged review of blast
wave parameters. Def Sci J 2012;62(5):300e6.
[38] Boyd SD. Acceleration of a plate subject to explosive blast loading-trial results.
Australia: Defence Science and Technology Organization; 2000. p. 1e12.
[39] Gama BA, Chiravuri VS, Gillespei Jr JW. Modeling blast damage of composite
structures. In: 11th international LS-DYNA users' conference; 2010.