Laminated Glass Plates Subjected to High-Velocity Projectile Impact and Their Residual Post-Impact Performance
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Specimen Description
2.2. Experimental Testing of Undamaged Specimens
2.3. Analytical Method
2.4. Numerical Simulations
2.5. Impact Testing and Residual Strength
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Undamaged Specimens
3.2. Projectile Impact Testing
4. Conclusions
- The EET analytical method was sufficiently accurate to predict the deflection and midspan strains. However, the relative differences compared to the experiments rose with the increasing number of layers. Deflections were higher by up to 8.7% and strains up to 16.8% in the center of the span.
- The presented numerical simulations could accurately predict the experimental results, including the strains and stresses with an error of up to 10%.
- All of the multilayer specimens were able to withstand the ballistic loading. The front plate was always damaged with a front crater. However, the back plate was not always damaged, regardless of layer count. Only in one case were more than just the front and back plates damaged.
- The residual post-impact bending performance was similar to that of the undamaged specimens, depending on the ballistic damage. The front damage played a negligible role. The back-plate damage needed to be extensive to influence the subsequent performance.
- Quasi-static cracks were always initiated from the edge of the specimen. The quality of the edges seemed to be more important than ballistic damage. In some cases, ballistic cracks reaching the edge of the specimen did not need to be the location of initiation of quasi-static cracking, in which case, the achieved strength was comparable to that of the undamaged specimens.
- In summary, the study showed that the ballistic damage did not significantly lower the post-crack bending performance. A structural element composed of laminated glass would be able to perform its function even after such an extreme loading event.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- Li, D.; Zhang, H.; Lei, X.; Wei, D.; Li, D. Three-stage breakage model for laminated glass plate under low-velocity impact. Ceram. Int. 2022, in press. [CrossRef]
- Jafaraghaei, Y.; Yu, T.; Bui, T.Q. Peridynamics simulation of impact failure in glass plates. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 2022, 121, 103424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersson, L.; Kozłowski, M.; Persson, P.; Austrell, P.E.; Persson, K. Reduced order modeling of soft-body impact on glass panels. Eng. Struct. 2022, 256, 113988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kozłowski, M. Experimental and numerical assessment of structural behaviour of glass balustrade subjected to soft body impact. Compos. Struct. 2019, 229, 111380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, H.; Mahajan, P. Analytical modeling of low velocity large mass impact on composite plate including damage evolution. Compos. Struct. 2016, 149, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Peng, Y.; Chen, X.; Wang, K. The crack propagation and dynamic impact responses of tempered laminated glass used in high-speed trains. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2022, 134, 106024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.; Wang, D.; Zang, M.; Chen, S. Development of an intrinsic solid-shell cohesive zone model for impact fracture of windshield laminated glass. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2022, 163, 104187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Liu, H.; Maharaj, C.; Zheng, M.; Mohagheghian, I.; Zhang, G.; Yan, Y.; Dear, J.P. Impact response of laminated glass with varying interlayer materials. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2020, 139, 103505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, L.; Xu, Y.; Huang, D.; Wang, L. Influences of temperature and impacting velocity on dynamic failure of laminated glass: Insights from peridynamic simulations. Compos. Struct. 2021, 259, 113472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, B.; Guo, X.; Liu, Y.; Lang, L.; Tan, S. Study of glass laminate configurations on ballistic resistance of novel lightweight sapphire transparent laminated structures. Int. J. Lightweight Mater. Manuf. 2021, 4, 397–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shim, G.I.; Kim, S.H.; Eom, H.W.; Ahn, D.L.; Park, J.K.; Choi, S.Y. Improvement in ballistic impact resistance of a transparent bulletproof material laminated with strengthened soda-lime silicate glass. Compos. Part B Eng. 2015, 77, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biolzi, L.; Simoncelli, M. Overall response of 2-ply laminated glass plates under out-of-plane loading. Eng. Struct. 2022, 256, 113967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, C.; Yang, J.; Wang, X.; Azim, I. Experimental investigation into the post-breakage performance of pre-cracked laminated glass plates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 224, 996–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ravimony, R.; Joseph, A.; Mangal, L. Investigations on the flexural performance of laminated glass. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 491, 012023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riddell-Smith, L.; Cunningham, L.; Mandal, P. Experimental study of 3-ply laminated glass beams subject to in-plane loads. Structures 2021, 33, 3984–3998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, X.; Liu, G.; Liu, Q.; Bennison, S. The flexural performance of laminated glass beams under elevated temperature. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2014, 52, 1225–4568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohagheghian, I.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, J.; Yu, L.; Guo, X.; Yan, Y.; Charalambides, M.; Dear, J. Deformation and damage mechanisms of laminated glass windows subjected to high velocity soft impact. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2017, 109, 46–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, G.; Ma, W.; Peng, Y.; Wang, S.; Yao, S.; Peng, S. Experimental study on laminated glass responses of high-speed trains subject to windblown sand particles loading. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 300, 124332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osnes, K.; Holmen, J.K.; Grue, T.; Børvik, T. Experimental tests and numerical simulations of ballistic impact on laminated glass. EPJ Web Conf. 2021, 250, 02022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zemanová, A.; Hála, P.; Konrád, P.; Janda, T.; Hlůžek, R. The influence of interlayer properties on the response of laminated glass to low-velocity hard-object impact. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2022, 159, 104036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janda, T.; Schmidt, J.; Hála, P.; Konrád, P.; Zemanová, A.; Sovják, R.; Zeman, J.; Šejnoha, M. Reduced order models of elastic glass plate under low velocity impact. Comput. Struct. 2021, 244, 106430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EN 1288-3:2000; Glass in Building—Determination of the Bending Strength of Glass—Part 3: Test with Specimen Supported at Two Points (Four Point Bending). European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2000.
- Galuppi, L.; Royer-Carfagni, G. Enhanced Effective Thickness of multi-layered laminated glass. Compos. Part B Eng. 2014, 64, 202–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hána, T.; Janda, T.; Schmidt, J.; Zemanová, A.; Šejnoha, M.; Eliášová, M.; Vokáč, M. Experimental and Numerical Study of Viscoelastic Properties of Polymeric Interlayers Used for Laminated Glass: Determination of Material Parameters. Materials 2019, 12, 2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Biolzi, L.; Cattaneo, S.; Simoncelli, M. Post-failure behavior of 2-ply laminated glass plates with different interlayers. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2022, 268, 108496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EN 572-1:2012+A1:2016; Glass in Building—Basic Soda-Lime Silicate Glass Products—Part 1: Definitions and General Physical and Mechanical Properties. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
- EN 16612:2019; Glass in Building—Determination of the Lateral Load Resistance of Glass Panes by Calculation. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
- Kleuderlein, J.; Ensslen, F.; Schneider, J. Study on edge strength of float glass as a function of edge processing. Stahlbau 2016, 85, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
(s) | (kPa) |
---|---|
1,782,124.2 | |
519,208.7 | |
546,176.8 | |
216,893.2 | |
13,618.3 | |
4988.3 | |
1663.8 | |
587.2 | |
258.0 | |
63.8 | |
168.4 |
Specimen | Force | Deflection | Strain | Stress | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CB | CT | L | S | L | |||
(Layers-#) | (kN) | (mm) | (µm/m) | (MPa) | |||
7-1 | 2.66 | 14.18 | 451.6 | —472.3 | 481.5 | 189.6 | 33.71 |
7-2 | 2.69 | 14.53 | 464.4 | —470.9 | 487.3 | 190.5 | 34.11 |
7-3 | 3.09 | 16.46 | 527.6 | —541.8 | 562.5 | 217.2 | 39.38 |
9-1 | 3.87 | 14.52 | 492.4 | —490.7 | 529.0 | 194.4 | 37.03 |
9-2 | 3.12 | 11.85 | 392.3 | —410.4 | 421.0 | 162.8 | 29.47 |
9-3 | 3.82 | 14.65 | 485.6 | —494.5 | 525.5 | 192.4 | 36.79 |
11-1 | 4.62 | 13.22 | 446.8 | —456.1 | 485.0 | 175.2 | 33.95 |
11-2 | 5.03 | 14.34 | 456.8 | —461.8 | 491.8 | 176.9 | 37.14 |
11-3 | 5.93 | 17.05 | 588.2 | —591.1 | 649.3 | 230.0 | 45.45 |
Layers | Deflection | Strain CB | Strain CT | Strain L | Strain S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(mm/kN) | (µm/mkN) | ||||
Experiment | |||||
7 | 5.36 | 171.1 | −176.1 | 181.5 | 70.8 |
9 | 3.79 | 126.6 | −129.2 | 136.3 | 50.9 |
11 | 2.86 | 98.0 | −99.2 | 106.7 | 38.2 |
Analytical solution | |||||
7 | 5.35 (−0.1) | 191.3 (11.8) | −191.3 (8.7) | 191.3 (5.4) | 95.6 (35.0) |
9 | 3.94 (3.8) | 140.8 (11.2) | −140.8 (9.0) | 140.8 (3.3) | 70.4 (38.3) |
11 | 3.11 (8.7) | 114.5 (16.8) | −114.5 (15.4) | 114.5 (7.3) | 57.3 (49.9) |
Numerical simulation | |||||
7 | 4.95 (−7.7) | 184.8 (8.0) | −184.8 (5.0) | 191.4 (5.5) | 76.2 (7.6) |
9 | 3.59 (−5.2) | 135.3 (6.9) | −135.3 (4.7) | 141.3 (3.6) | 54.1 (6.3) |
11 | 2.86 (−0.1) | 107.6 (9.8) | −107.6 (8.4) | 112.8 (5.7) | 42.1 (9.6) |
Specimen | Peak Force | Impact Damage | Muzzle Velocity |
---|---|---|---|
(Layers-#) | (kN) | (Glass Layers) | (m/s) |
7-1 | 3.65 | First | 325 |
7-2 | 2.76 | First | 323 |
7-3 | 2.69 | First, last | 326 |
7-4 | 2.91 | First | 323 |
9-1 | 3.84 | First | 326 |
9-2 | 3.84 | First, last | 322 |
9-3 | 2.34 | All but second to last | 326 |
9-4 | 3.76 | First, last | 325 |
11-1 | 5.10 | First, last | 323 |
11-2 | 6.31 | First | 325 |
11-3 | 4.94 | First | 326 |
11-4 | 6.06 | First, last | 326 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Konrád, P.; Hála, P.; Schmidt, J.; Zemanová, A.; Sovják, R. Laminated Glass Plates Subjected to High-Velocity Projectile Impact and Their Residual Post-Impact Performance. Materials 2022, 15, 8342. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15238342
Konrád P, Hála P, Schmidt J, Zemanová A, Sovják R. Laminated Glass Plates Subjected to High-Velocity Projectile Impact and Their Residual Post-Impact Performance. Materials. 2022; 15(23):8342. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15238342
Chicago/Turabian StyleKonrád, Petr, Petr Hála, Jaroslav Schmidt, Alena Zemanová, and Radoslav Sovják. 2022. "Laminated Glass Plates Subjected to High-Velocity Projectile Impact and Their Residual Post-Impact Performance" Materials 15, no. 23: 8342. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15238342