Impact Load Characteristic and Regulation Mechanism of Metal/polyurethane Waveform Generator Composite Projectile

doi:10.12382/bgxb.2022.0944

Abstract

Abstract:

Using projectile impact to simulate blast/shock loading is an effective laboratory-scale loading method which has attracted great attention. The quasi-static compressive loading-unloading experiments of PWGs with different geometric sizesaremade to investigate the impact load characteristics of metal/polyurethane waveform generator (PWG) composite projectile and the regulation effect of PWG on the load. The basic mechanical properties of PWG, including the qualitative relationship among the stiffness, energy dissipation ratio and the geometric size of PWG, are analyzed. Direct impact tests of metal/PWG composite projectiles with different PWG configurations are performed. Based on direct impact test results, the impact process of metal/PWG composite projectile is systematically analyzed, and the quantitative relationships among the characteristic parameters of impact load, the impact velocity and the PWG geometric size are established, respectively. The regulation effect of PWG stiffness on impact load is explored by the motion equation of single degree of freedom system for projectile direct impact test and the dynamic model of PWG. The results show that the static stiffness coefficient and energy dissipation ratio increase with the increase in diameter, but decrease with the thickness. The results show that the static stiffness coefficient of PWG increases with the diameter, but decreases with the increase in thickness. Compared with PWG diameter, the thickness shows more significant influence on the energy dissipation. The impact load characteristic parameters are significantly correlated with the product of diameter and thickness(D×H) of PWG. With the increase in D×H, the peak pressure decreases exponentially, and the duration and peak specific impulse increase nonlinearly in 2-order and 3-order, respectively. With the increase in the impact velocity, the peak pressure increases nonlinearly in 3-order, the peak specific impulse increases linearly, and the pulse duration decreases nonlinearly in 2-order. In addition, the influence of PWG diameter on impact load is mainly realized by regulating the linear static stiffness coefficient α. The larger the PWG diameter is,the larger the α is, the smaller the peak load is, the greater the impulse is, and the more similar the load shape to half-sinusoid. The influence of PWG thickness on impact load is mainly realized by regulating the nonlinear static stiffness coefficient γ. The smaller the PWG thickness is, the larger the peak load is, the smaller the impulseis, and the more obvious the shape of ‘peak and thin waist’ is.

Key words: polyurethane waveform generator, metal/PWG composite projectile, simulated blast/impact loading, load regulation

CLC Number:

O347

YANG Guanxia, WU Haijun, TIAN Ze, DONG Heng, HUANG Fenglei. Impact Load Characteristic and Regulation Mechanism of Metal/polyurethane Waveform Generator Composite Projectile[J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2024, 45(5): 1648-1662.

Figures/Tables 31

Fig.1 Schematic diagram of UCSD blast simulator[10]

Fig.2 Schematic diagram of impact module and related components

Fig.3 PWG specimens of different geometric sizes

Fig.4 Quasi-static compressive loading-unloading test of PWG

Fig.5 Metal/PWG composite projectile

Fig.6 Schematic diagram of direct impact test

Table 1 Direct impact test setup

Fig.7 Typicalload-displacement curves of quasi-static compressive loading-unloading test

Table 2 Energy dissipation ratioes of PWGs with different diameters(H=25mm)

D/ mm	l/H=0.5			l/H=0.6
D/ mm	E'/ (kN·mm)	E/ (kN·mm)	δ	E'/ (kN·mm)	E/ (kN·mm)	δ
32.5	1.805	9.343	0.192	3.005	14.806	0.202
39.0	2.43	12.718	0.190	3.967	20.033	0.197
48.0	3.801	19.414	0.195	6.384	30.757	0.207
58.0	5.795	29.009	0.200	9.594	45.436	0.211

Table 3 Energy dissipation ratioes of PWGs with different thicknesses(D=58mm)

H/ mm	l/H=0.5			l/H=0.6
H/ mm	E'/ (kN·mm)	E/ (kN·mm)	δ	E'/ (kN·mm)	E/ (kN·mm)	δ
12	4.475	15.811	0.283	7.818	25.223	0.310
25	6.024	29.231	0.206	9.70	45.78	0.212
37	8.886	44.55	0.199	14.318	70.367	0.203
50	10.81	61.906	0.175	20.476	101.53	0.202

Fig.8 Energy dissipation ratioes of PWGs with different geometric sizes

Fig.9 Typical quasi-static compressive loading-displacement curve of PWG(D=48mm,H=25mm)

Table 4 Static stiffness coefficients of PWGs with different diameters (H=25mm)

D/mm	α/(N·m^-1)	β/(N·m^-1)	γ
32.5	84252.85	509.78	317.51
39.0	122304.79	624.97	327.94
48.0	182625.69	830.15	336.02
58.0	266202.53	962.92	342.00

Table 5 Static stiffness coefficients of PWGs with different thicknesses (D=58mm)

H/mm	α/(N·m^-1)	β/(N·m^-1)	γ
12	841657.06	1873.84	863.06
25	266202.53	962.92	342.00
37	180856.78	955.47	218.39
50	125933.70	757.91	155.27

Fig.10 Static stiffness coefficients of PWGs with different geometric sizes

Fig.11 Typical pressure-timecurve of metal/PWG composite projectile(D=48mm,H=25mm)

Fig.12 Strain contours of PWG at the initial impact stage (D=48mm,H=25mm)

Fig.13 Schematic diagram ofcomposite projectile impact

Fig.14 Impact process of composite projectile

Fig.15 Effect of impact velocity on impact load characteristic

Table 6 Test results at different impact velocities (D=48mm,H=25mm)

v₀/(m·s^-1)	p_max/MPa	T/ms	I_max/(kPa·s)
7.51	3.39	5.795	8.659
9.66	6.14	4.154	10.697
14.56	13.19	2.560	14.995
18.82	29.40	1.705	18.560
21.40	43.15	1.215	21.093

Fig.16 Changing trend of load characteristic parameters with impact velocity

Fig.17 Effect of PWG diameters on impact load characteristic(H=25mm)

Table 7 Test results for different PWG diameters (H=25mm)

D/mm	p_max/MPa	T/ms	I_max/(kPa·s)	l/H
32.5	20.24	1.95	14.41	0.842
39.0	15.97	2.01	14.46	0.818
48.0	13.19	2.56	14.99	0.782

Fig.18 Effect of PWG thickness on impact load characteristic(D=48mm)

Table 8 Test results for different PWG thicknesses (D=48mm)

H/mm	p_max/MPa	T/ms	I_max/(kPa·s)	l/H
12	25.55	1.23	13.49	0.801
25	13.19	2.56	14.99	0.782
37	9.45	3.37	15.31	0.738
50	6.98	6.36	16.38	0.717
58	6.35	7.23	17.91	0.703

Table 9 Correlation coefficientsamong typical geometric factors and load characteristic parameters

特征参数	几何因子
特征参数	D	H	DH	D²H	DH²
p_max	-0.425	-0.890	-0.910	-0.907	-0.812
T	0.381	0.977	0.983	0.972	0.987
I_max	0.348	0.981	0.981	0.966	0.977

Fig.19 Changing trend of load characteristic parameters with DH

Fig.20 Effect of linear static stiffness coefficient α on impact load (β=830.15,γ=336.02)

Fig.21 Effect of nonlinear static stiffness coefficient β on impact load (α=182625.69,γ=336.02)

Fig.22 Effect of nonlinear static stiffness coefficient γ on impact load (α=182625.69,β=830.15)

References 25

[1]	闫俊伯, 刘彦, 李亚飞, 等. 不同强度混凝土及钢筋对钢筋混凝土柱抗爆性能的影响[J]. 兵工学报, 2021, 42(3):530-544. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1093.2021.03.009
	YAN J B, LIU Y, LI Y F, et al. Effects of high performance concrete and high strength steel on the blast response of steel reinforced concrete columns[J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2021, 42(3):530-544. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1093.2021.03.009
[2]	霍庆, 王逸平, 刘光昆, 等. 地下拱形结构侧顶爆炸的破坏模式及影响因素[J]. 兵工学报, 2021, 42(增刊1):105-116.
	HUO Q, WANG Y P, LIU G K, et al. Failure mode and influencing factors of underground arched structure subjected to side top blast[J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2021, 42(S1):105-116. (in Chinese)
[3]	RODRÍGUEZ-NIKL T. Experimental simulations of explosive loading on structural components[D]. San Diego, CA, US: University of California, 2006.
[4]	胡朝磊, 孙海亮, 王志鹏, 等. 高速颗粒流冲击下负泊松比力学超材料夹芯梁的动态响应及缓冲吸能机理[J/OL]. 爆炸与冲击.
	HU C L, SUN H L, WANG Z P, et al. Dynamic response and mechanism of mitigation and energy absorptionof sandwich beams with a mechanical metamaterial core of negativePoisson’s ratio subjected to high-velocity impact of granular slug[J]. Explosion and Shock Waves, in Chinese)
[5]	RADFORD D D, DESHPANDE V S, FLECK N A. The use of metal foam projectiles to simulate shock loading on a structure[J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2005, 31(9):1152-1171.
[6]	LI L, HAN B, HE S Y, et al. Shock loading simulation using density-graded metallic foam projectiles[J]. Materials & Design, 2019, 164:107546.
[7]	OESTERLE M G. Blast simulator wall tests experimental methods and mitigation strategies for reinforced[D]. San Diego, CA, US: University of California, 2009.
[8]	孙桂娟, 高伟亮, 刘瑞朝, 等. 爆炸近区荷载模拟试验技术研究进展[J]. 防护工程, 2019, 4(6):66-73.
	SUN G J, GAO W L, LIU R C, et al. Research progress of simulation test technology of load in near-field of explosion[J]. Protection Engineering, 2019, 4(6):66-73. (in Chinese)
[9]	DURANT B. Shock environment characterization: experimental and numerical methods[D]. San Diego, CA, US: University of California, 2013.
[10]	SEIBLE F, HEGEMIER G, WOLFSON J, et al. Protection of our bridge infrastructure against manmade and natural hazards[C]//Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management. London, UK: Taylor & Francis Group, 2006.
[11]	MARCO P, GEORGE S, BERNARD V. Blast simulator project: Performance assessment and preliminary tests[R]. Italy:European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, 2014.
[12]	MARCO P, GEORGE S, ALESSIO C, et al. Blast simulator project: first tests on reinforced concrete beams[R]. Italy:European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, 2015.
[13]	MARCO P, GEORGE S, PIERRE P. E-BLAST simulator: final design, setup improvements and demonstration tests[R]. Publications Office of the European Union, 2016, JRC 104275. 2016. 10.2788/9449210.2788/834511.
[14]	HUSON P, ASARO R J, STEWART L. Non-explosive methods for simulating blast loading of structures with complex geometries[J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2011, 38(7):546-557.
[15]	WHISLER D A. A non-explosive methodology for generating wide area close-in dynamic blast pressure loads on flexible armor panels[D]. San Diego, CA,US: University of California, 2014.
[16]	WOLFSON J C. Blast damage mitigation of steel structures from near- contact charges[D]. San Diego, CA, US: University of California, 2008.
[17]	CHEN A C. Non-explosive simulated blast loading of composite sandwich beams[D]. San Diego, CA, US: University of California, 2010.
[18]	张瑞杰, 张一帆, 张凡, 等. 大变形压缩条件下聚氨酯弹性体的力学性能研究[J]. 水利与建筑工程学报, 2022, 20(2):118-123.
	ZHANG R J, ZHANG Y F, ZHANG F, et al. Mechanical properties of polyurethane elastomers under compression conditions with large deformation[J]. Journal of Water Resources and Architectural, 2022, 20(2):118-123. (in Chinese)
[19]	YANG G X, WU H J, DONG H, et al. Pulse regulation effect and nonlinear dynamic model of polyurethane waveform generators[J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2023, 173(Mar.): 104407.
[20]	WEN J J, LIU C, YAO H, et al. A nonlinear dynamic model and parameters identification method for predicting the shock pulse of rubber waveform generator[J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2018, 120:1-15.
[21]	黄德东, 温晶晶, 邢亮亮, 等. 半正弦波形发生器的非线性动力学模型及模型参数标定方法研究[J]. 西北工业大学学报, 2019, 37(6):1085-1094.
	HUANG D D, WEN J J, XING L L, et al. Study on a nonlinear dynamic model and its parameters determination method for half-Sine programmer[J]. Journal of Northwestern Polytechnical University, 2019, 37(6):1085-1094. (in Chinese)
[22]	毛勇建. 跌落冲击机垫层的硬非线性对半正弦波模拟的影响[J]. 环境技术, 2002(5):5-9.
	MAO Y J. Effects of hard-nonlinear cushion for drop shock machine to simulation of half-sine waveform[J]. Environmental Technology, 2002(5):5-9. (in Chinese)
[23]	IQBAL M Z, ISRAR A. To predict a shock pulse using nonlinear dynamic model of rubber waveform generator[J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2021, 147: 103731.
[24]	李圣童, 汪维, 梁仕发, 等. 长持时爆炸冲击波荷载作用下梁板组合结构的动力响应[J]. 爆炸与冲击, 2022, 42(7):075103.
	LI S T, WANG W, LIANG S F, et al. Dynamic response of beam-slab composite structuresunder long-lasting explosion shock wave load[J]. Explosion and Shock Waves, 2022, 42(7):075103. (in Chinese)
[25]	赵武超, 钱江, 李江远. 柔性冲击下钢筋混凝土柱的动态响应[J]. 兵工学报, 2021, 42(增刊1):117-126.
	ZHAO W C, QIAN J, LI J Y. Dynamic responses of reinforced concrete columns under flexible impact[J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2021, 42(S1):117-126. (in Chinese)