Ballistic Testing of Motorsport Windshields

Patalak, John; Gideon, Thomas

doi:10.4271/2013-01-0801

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both the experimental and the validated numerical results obtained in the activities described in this work indicate that monolithic and laminated polycarbonate panels may exhibit different failure modes, though the penetration threshold velocity was quite similar in both types of test conditions considered. However, the results obtained by Patalack and Gideon at NASCAR ® [ 16 ] showed an improved impact resistance of LPC. These differences can be explained by considering the different test conditions, which were based on a cylindrical projectile impacted on a curved windshield in [ 16 ].…”

Section: Numerical Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the results obtained by Patalack and Gideon at NASCAR ® [ 16 ] showed an improved impact resistance of LPC. These differences can be explained by considering the different test conditions, which were based on a cylindrical projectile impacted on a curved windshield in [ 16 ]. Actually, the improved impact resistance of the LPC could be related to the energy absorbed in the damage mechanisms of the PU interlayer.…”

Section: Numerical Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, Stecconi et al [ 15 ] addressed the issue of the reliability and statistical dispersion of the ballistic limit. In 2013, Patalak and Gideon from NASCAR ® (National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, LLC (Daytona Beach, FL, USA)) demonstrated the increased impact resistance of laminated polycarbonate with respect to the monolithic one during a campaign of experimental impact testing on motorsport windshields [ 16 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Impact Response of Monolithic and Laminated Polycarbonate Panels: An Experimental and Numerical Investigation

Ghavanini,

Caporale,

Astori

et al. 2023

Polymers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to investigate the impact resistance of monolithic and laminated polycarbonate plates for windshields in motorsport applications through a coupled experimental–numerical study. Both low- and high-velocity impact tests were performed by using a drop tower and a gas gun, respectively, considering a sharp-edged projectile impacting on flat panels. The response of the polycarbonate plates was evaluated in terms of the failure mode, perforation velocity threshold, and energy absorption mechanism. The experiments allowed for the assessment and the generalization of a 3D finite element modeling approach originally developed for supersonic application based on different state-of-the-art constitutive theories, including temperature-dependent and rate-dependent von Mises plasticity coupled with ductile damage, Mie–Grüneisen equation of state, and temperature variation due to energy dissipation under adiabatic assumptions. The approach was completed with a cohesive zone model for a laminate plate and studies were performed to highlight the relevancy of different aspects of material characterization. The tests and numerical analyses performed at different velocity ranges highlight the importance of viscoplastic behavior in a polycarbonate windshield. The numerical approach showed its capability to model the different failure modes for monolithic and laminated panels and capture the perforation velocity thresholds with appreciable accuracy, which were actually found to be quite similar for the two types of panels in the test conditions considered. A numerical investigation suggests that the development of delaminations could lead to the improved energy absorption of laminated polycarbonate. To further assess the numerical model, it was used to successfully predict the penetration threshold velocity of a polycarbonate windshield subjected to a gas gun impact test.

show abstract

Section: Numerical Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Numerical Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%