4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

A ballistic limit equation for hypervelocity impacts on composite honeycomb sandwich panel satellite structures

期刊

ADVANCES IN SPACE RESEARCH
卷 41, 期 7, 页码 1152-1166

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2007.02.032

关键词

space debris; hypervelocity impact; composites; CFRP; damage laws; ballistic limit equation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During a recent experimental test campaign performed in the framework of ESA Contract 16721, the ballistic performance of multiple satellite-representative Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic(CFRP)/Aluminium honeycomb sandwich panel structural configurations (GOCE, Radarsat-2, Herschel/Planck, BeppoSax) was investigated using the two-stage light-gas guns at EMI The experimental results were used to develop and validate a new empirical Ballistic Limit Equation (BLE), which was derived from an existing Whipple-shield BLE. This new BLE provided a good level of accuracy in predicting the ballistic performance of stand-alone sandwich panel structures. Additionally, the equation is capable of predicting the ballistic limit of a thin At plate located at a standoff behind the sandwich panel structure. This thin plate is the representative of internal satellite systems, e.g. an At electronic box cover, a wall of a metallic vessel, etc. Good agreement was achieved with both the experimental test campaign results and additional test data from the literature for the vast majority of set-ups investigated. For some experiments, the ballistic limit was conservatively predicted, a result attributed to shortcomings in correctly accounting for the presence of high surface density multi-layer insulation on the outer facesheet. Four existing BLEs commonly applied for application with stand-alone sandwich panels were reviewed using the new impact test data. It was found that a number of these common approaches provided non-conservative predictions for sandwich panels with CFRP facesheets. (C) 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of COSPAR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据