Scholarlink

Abstract <p>In this article, comparative analysis is performed for the bird strike resistance of an aluminum panel of thickness 2 mm and a composite lamella of thickness 11.2 mm (quasi-isotropic package [45/0/90/–45/–45/90/0/45]) under a strike of a bird of mass 1.78 kg at a speed of 142 m/s. It has been established experimentally that the metal panel withstands the strike without punching, demonstrating plastic deformation, while the composite lamellar has been punched completely in spite of the fact that its thickness is more than five times larger. The rated stiffness equivalent was 3.2 mm; however, even the increase of thickness to 11.2 mm, the composite did not ensure a comparable impact resistance. The developed VUMAT user procedure for describing the progressive destruction of the woven composite demonstrated the high validation precision: the average error as compared to ASTM D3039/D3410 tests was 5% on the average. Analysis of the energy absorption revealed that composite lamellas absorbed a much smaller fraction of the impact kinetic energy as compared to metal analogs of the same thickness. The results of the tests demonstrate the impossibility of the direct replacement of aluminum flaps by composite lamellas with equivalent stiffness without a revision of designing criteria for dynamic loads.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Modeling of a High-Speed Bird Strike against Metal and Composite Panels

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月20日

查看全文
  • A. V. Babaytsev,
  • A. A. Bolshikh,
  • T. M. Kudelya,
  • D. D. Gribtsov

摘要

Abstract

In this article, comparative analysis is performed for the bird strike resistance of an aluminum panel of thickness 2 mm and a composite lamella of thickness 11.2 mm (quasi-isotropic package [45/0/90/–45/–45/90/0/45]) under a strike of a bird of mass 1.78 kg at a speed of 142 m/s. It has been established experimentally that the metal panel withstands the strike without punching, demonstrating plastic deformation, while the composite lamellar has been punched completely in spite of the fact that its thickness is more than five times larger. The rated stiffness equivalent was 3.2 mm; however, even the increase of thickness to 11.2 mm, the composite did not ensure a comparable impact resistance. The developed VUMAT user procedure for describing the progressive destruction of the woven composite demonstrated the high validation precision: the average error as compared to ASTM D3039/D3410 tests was 5% on the average. Analysis of the energy absorption revealed that composite lamellas absorbed a much smaller fraction of the impact kinetic energy as compared to metal analogs of the same thickness. The results of the tests demonstrate the impossibility of the direct replacement of aluminum flaps by composite lamellas with equivalent stiffness without a revision of designing criteria for dynamic loads.