Experimental Optimization of Effective Parameters of Sandwich Panels With Aluminum Foam Core Under Low Velocity Impact

Experimental Optimization of Effective Parameters of Sandwich Panels With Aluminum Foam Core Under Low Velocity Impact | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Original Article Experimental Optimization of Effective Parameters of Sandwich Panels With Aluminum Foam Core Under Low Velocity Impact Mohammad Amin Torabizadeh This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-60977/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This paper introduces the application of Taguchi optimization methodology in optimizing the production parameters of aluminum foam sandwich panels (AFSP) with different skin layer under low velocity impact loading. The core material of AFSP is A356 aluminum foam reinforced with SiC particles produced using the CaCO3 foaming agent with 20, 30 and 40 mm thickness. The skin layer of plates are made of glass / epoxy with quasi-isotropic and cross-ply layout as well as pure aluminum layer. For the impact test, drop weight impact device used. Three types of spherical, parabolic and cone impactor used. The impact parameters that are chosen to be evaluated in this study are skin layer layout, impactor shape and core thickness of AFSP. While, the response factors to be measured are specific absorbed energy (SAE), maximum displacement (MD) and maximum impact force (MIF). Taguchi method used to check the effect of the production parameters on the response factors by creating orthogonal array (OA). The result from this study shows that the application of the Taguchi method can determine the best combination of production parameters. These results can provide the optimal impact response that are the largest SAE, smallest MD and smallest value of MIF. For the best SAE and MIF, A1–B1–C1 (cross-ply/conical/40 mm core) found. Meanwhile, the optimized combination of levels for all the three production factors from the analysis that provides the lowest MD found to be A3–B2–C1 (pure Aluminum/spherical/40 mm core). Mechanical Engineering Low Velocity Impact Composite Sandwich Sheet Aluminum Foam Drop weight Taguchi method Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 1. Introduction In recent decades, the use of AFSPs in the aerospace, automotive, renewable energy and civil engineering industries has expanded due to its unique mechanical properties. The behavior of these materials against impact loads is one of the biggest concerns in this regard. Impact loads can result from falling objects, causing significant internal damage and reducing the residual strength of the composite plates. On the other hand, many researchers are interested in reducing the weight of the structure, creating holes filled with air or inert gases inside the background material and producing a porous material known as "foam". Many metals and alloys, such as aluminum, steel, copper, nickel, lead, zinc, magnesium, and titanium, have the ability to foam through various manufacturing processes. The use of aluminum metal as a foam backing material, due to its lightweight and low melting point and due to its high rigidity, good corrosion resistance, high strength to weight ratio, excellent energy absorption capacity, recyclability as well as the ability to produce relatively homogeneous and isotropic cellular structures has attracted much attention in recent years [2-1]. The cellular structure of the metal foam, especially the aluminum foam, allows them to absorb a great deal of kinetic energy from the collision before it destroys the structure, and thus in cases where resistance against impact or penetration required, these materials act as energy absorbers. These properties have made aluminum foam used in the applications mentioned. Aluminum foam is also used as the core material in sandwich structures with different procedures under different loading such as impact. Farahat and Ahmadi [1] have analyzed the behavior of aluminum foam under the impact of experimental loads while developing a low velocity drop weight device. In their results, they reported the behavior of aluminum foam including three steps, linear, Plato and fracture and increase in absorbed energy in these three steps, respectively. They also recommended A356 / SiC foam cell material to design appropriate energy absorbers. Qajar and Rasaf [2] investigated the effect of the impactor shape and the ambient temperature on the behavior of glass / epoxy composite plates under the impact of a drop weight. Their findings indicate that the maximum impact velocity decreases and the displacement increases as the ambient temperature increases, and that by decreasing the bending curvature, the impact time reduced, the maximum impact force is increased and the amount of surface damage reduced. Kameniro et al. [3] have investigated the effect of thickness and layout on the compressive strength after impact on composite plates. The results showed a decrease in the level of degradation by increasing the amount of energy absorbed. The thicker plates also had higher post-impact space resistance due to their increased flexural stiffness. They found that plates with non-orthogonal layout had better loading performance. Cheng et al. [4] investigated the behavior of sandwich composite plates with aluminum foam core under quasi-static influence and observed the behavior of samples in three stages of elastic, yield and failure. As the epoxy resin layer increased, the amount of energy absorbed increased. Croppi et al. [5] predict the behavior of sandwich composite plates with an aluminum foam core under impact load. They compared their experimental results using the analytical model. In their results, they cited the separation of aluminum from the core as the main cause of sample degradation. In addition, the amount of energy absorbed by the specimens depends on the mechanical properties of the foam core of the sandwich plates. Long et al. [6] characterized the degradation process of foam core sandwich composite plates under low velocity impact load using a finite element model. They have investigated the effects of impact energy, foam density and porosity on the porous layer. They found that the type of sample degradation influenced by the amount of penetrating impact. As before the penetration of the separation, plates occurred according to the composite laws and after the penetration of the degradation zone observed cyclic. Liu et al. [7] have studied the behavior of sandwich composite plates with an aluminum foam core and a metal composite surface. As the foam thickness increased, the energy absorption also increased. There was also a significant increase in the energy absorption by increasing the thickness of the composite layer. They also observed good agreement between the experimental results and the finite element model using the software. Liu and Zhang [8] also investigated the behavior of composite plates in the aluminum foam core under the influence of high-speed impact. They have evaluated the validity of their experimental results using finite element model and studied the effect of impactor shape and angle of impact. Their results showed an increase in the absorbed energy due to the increase in the thickness of the supernatant. In this case, the separation of the supernatant observed at the upper surface of the specimen, and especially around the impact site. They also reported an increase in the thickness of the aluminum foam core due to the non-separation of the top surface layer of the foam core. Kara et al. [9] investigated the flexural behavior of sandwich structures with aluminum foam core of different thicknesses. They found that sandwich composite plates were a good choice for the design of energy absorbers, and their performance was proportional to the increase in foam thickness and the type of fibers applied to the samples. Wang et al. [10] studied the behavior of sandwich plates under moderate velocity load using the experimental method. They observed that the material used in the core plays an important role in the deformation, the amount of energy absorbed, the mechanism of degradation, and the rate of impact on the plate. They identified polypropylene honeycomb cores as the optimal choice for post-traumatic deformity. Han and Chow [11] investigated the behavior of sandwich composite plates with an aluminum foam core and a metallic surface by comparing the experimental results of the drop weight test. Their results showed that with the impact energy of 50 J, only the top surface of the plate was degraded, with the energy of 70 J in addition to the destruction of the top effect of the bumping penetration, and ultimately with the impact of 100 J of the bumping effect. Very good agreement between experimental and numerical results reported. Rajanish et al. [12] have investigated and analyzed sandwich composite plates with a foam core and a crisp metal surface. They compared the results of collision force, absorbed energy, and shape of the degradation in two ways that showed good agreement. Based on previous studies, little has been done to examine the effect of impactor type, skin layer layout and the core thickness on impact response of AFSPs. Since the geometry of the bump may change depending on the type of application, In order to fully understand the behavior of AFSP against impact loads, their response to other impactor shapes must be studied. In addition, as noted in previous studies, the skin layer layout plays an important role in this type of loading and consideration should be given to the effect of the type of skin layer of sandwich plate. Therefore, this study investigates the effect of impactor type, core thickness and skin layer layout of AFSP under impact loads. Also by using Taguchi optimization methodology, optimized production factors derived for the best response of SAE [1] , MD and MIF. For this purpose, Three types of conical, parabolic and spherical impactor shapes as well as three types of aluminum, cross-ply and quasi-isotropic composite coatings are used. Also specimens made in three different core thickness (20, 30 and 40 mm). Footnote: [1] The specific absorbed energy is obtained by dividing the absorbed energy by the sample weight (Jul/gr) 2. Materials, Method Of Production And Manufacture Of Samples In this study, the cast aluminum A356 with the chemical composition listed in Table 1 selected as the base metal. SiC particles with a purity of 98 wt% and an average particle size of 11 μm were prepared as the reinforcing phase which plays a stabilizing or viscosifying role in the foam production process. Table 1. Chemical composition of cast aluminum alloy A356 Si Mg Fe Cu Ti Zn Mn Composition 6.81 0.35 0.19 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.01 Weight percent Heating of SiC particles performed for one hour at 951 ° C and then for 2 hours at 651 ° C to remove contaminants and adsorbed gases resulting in improved wettability of SiC particles by aluminum melt. Calcium carbonate powder with purity of 99.5 wt% and average size of 5 μm was used as foaming agent. The powder also heated to 211 ° C for 2 hours to remove moisture and surface contamination and to increase the wettability properties and consequently better distribution of these particles in the aluminum melt. In order to produce the foam product, a composite ingot of aluminum foil with a certain amount of SiC particles first produced and cast by eddy molding at a temperature between 711 and 651 ° C. The ingot then stirred at 651 ° C and re-melt at 1411 rpm. At this stage, 1% by weight of magnesium added to the melt and then stirred for a minute by adding the calcium carbonate powder. After a few minutes and after producing CO2, the foam released from the furnace and cooled in ambient air. 3% by weight of calcium carbonate powder and 11% by volume of SiC particles used at this stage to produce the products. Figure 1 shows a sample of aluminum foam made by the above method. Glass fibers as a unidirectional fabric used to make the composite skin layer with different layout. Each layer has a thickness of 0.2 mm and a mass of 200 g / m 2 . These types of fibers currently considered for various applications in industry. Epoxy resin ML503 and Hardener HA11 also used in the domestic industry. The mechanical properties of the composite plates along with the resin used presented in Table 2. In this study, the hand layup method used to prepare composite plates and the surface thickness of all skin layers considered 2 mm. The dimensions of the specimens are 120 mm × 120 mm. these dimensions selected based on the fixing device used. Figure 2 shows an example of an AFSP with a pure aluminum skin layer. Geometric dimensions and weight of specimens listed in Table 3. Table 2. : Mechanical Properties of unidirectional composite layer [13] Value Mechanical properties 19.94 Longitudinal tensile modulus (GPa) 5.830 Transverse tensile modulus (GPa) 2.110 Shear modulus (GPa) 700.11 Longitudinal tensile strength (MPa) 570.37 Longitudinal compressive strength (MPa) 69.85 Transverse tensile strength (MPa) 122.12 Transverse compressive strength (MPa) 68.89 Shear strength (MPa) Table 3: Weight of specimens (gr) with different skins and core thickness Core thickness (mm) Skin layer 20 30 40 278 393 455 Cross-ply 301 425 476 Quasi-isotropic 388 479 578 Pure Aluminum 3. Drop Weight Test Machine One of the most important factors affecting the impact phenomenon is the initial energy of the projectile. In this study, a low velocity impact performed by a drop-weight device. This may be due to the collapse of the working tool during maintenance on the composite structure. For this purpose, a test machine manufactured by Iran Sayesh Company used. The projectile mounted on a track with very low friction that can fall freely. In this study, the manufacturer recommended to ignore low friction rates on the rails and equipment. The overall mass of the impactor and its accessories (load cell, bearings, etc.) is 7 kg, which can fall to a height of 1 meter above the target. The load cell capacity is 10 kN and with a data frequency of 25 kHz. The mass and height of the projectile can varied, so different kinetic energies can applied. In this experiment, for all specimens, the impactor and accessories changed to 17 kg by increasing the weight of 10 kg and falling from the height of 70 cm on the target sample. Figure a-3 shows the overview of the device used. As shown in Fig. 3, square specimens placed on a special stand and then reinforced by a hollow square clamp with four screws. All four edges of the specimen clamp to 10 mm wide and are free 100 × 100 mm wide. The impactor falls exactly at the midpoint of the sample free space. (Figure b-3) All tests performed according to ASTM D7136 [14]. To prevent reoccurring impacts on the specimen, a pneumatic jack is used which acts quickly after the first impact and stops the impactor to prevent secondary impacts. (Figure c-3) 4. Impactor Shape, Skin Layer Layout And Core Thickness As previously mentioned, this study investigates the effect of the impactor shape, skin layer layout and core thickness of plates. Since spherical impactor is the most common type, this geometric shape of impactor used in most studies. As explained earlier, the geometrical shape of the impactor can be very effective in the parameters of impact load assessment. Therefore, in this study, three types of conical, parabolic and spherical pickers are used. All three impactor with a diameter of 13 mm and a penetration height of 60 mm are made of hardened CK45 steel. Figure 4 shows these three types of impactor. In addition, in the leading study, the effect of the type of skin layer of AFSPs also examined. In the evaluation of other previous studies, most of the sandwich plates studied with metal or simple composite surfaces and less attention paid to the effect of composite layout of skin layer. Therefore, in this study, in addition to fabricating specimens with aluminum, orthogonal and quasi-isotropic composite surfaces evaluated. Figure 5 shows a sample composite plate screen. In this study, the effect of زore thickness on sandwich plate behavior evaluated. For this purpose, the specimens made with three core thicknesses of 20, 30, and 40 mm. 5. Experiments And Taguchi Approach Design of experiments (DOE) is one of the most powerful techniques to improve quality and increase productivity. In this way, through some experiments, conscious changes made to the system to examine their impact on the performance characteristics of system response to them. The design of experiments is the systematic manipulation of a number of variables in which the effects of these manipulations evaluated and from which conclusions are drawn, the results implemented. In the late 1940s, Dr. Taguchi introduced new statistical concepts and later proved to be valuable tools for quality control and improvement. Since then, many Japanese artisans have used this technique to improve products and process quality. The Taguchi method is quite different from the conventional methods of testing. Taguchi's methodology focuses on designing experiments and performing a limited number of experiments, while in the conventional methods all possible combination should be tested. Orthogonal arrays (OA) used in this method dramatically reduces the number of tests required by identifying a set of robust strategies in designing the experiments and analyzing the results. To consider the three control factors considered in this study, a standard Taguchi-based design, L27, which shown in Table 1 is used. This basic design uses three control elements; each of them has three levels. In addition, this design is capable of examining the interaction between the factors. From the standard design (Table 4), nine experimental runs need to conduct with the combination of levels for each control factor (A–C). Table 4: The basic Taguchi L 9 orthogonal array Control factors and levels Run C B A 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 3 2 1 2 4 3 2 2 5 1 3 2 6 3 1 3 7 1 2 3 8 2 3 3 9 In this study, three major factors that have more effects on the behavior of the plates considered: skin layer layout, impactor shape and core thickness. Three levels for each factor were selected (shown in Table 5) as factor levels. Table 5: Parameters, codes, and level values used in Taguchi method Levels Code Factors 3 2 1 Cross-ply Quasi-isotropic Pure Aluminum A Skin layer Spherical Parabolic Conical B Impactor shape 40 30 20 C Core thickness (mm) Table 6 shows the results of experimental tests of response factors based on the Taguchi method selected parameters from Table 4. Table 6: Modified orthogonal array using basic Taguchi Specific Absorbed Energy (J/gr) Max. Impact force (KN) Max. Displacement (mm) Control factors and levels Run C B A 0.181 7.51 5.67 1 1 1 1 0.178 8.84 3.83 2 2 1 2 0.258 8.54 3.98 3 3 1 3 0.153 8.67 3.54 2 1 2 4 0.221 8.41 4.78 3 2 2 5 0.146 8.01 5.12 1 3 2 6 0.148 8.22 4.34 3 1 3 7 0.102 7.78 6.32 1 2 3 8 0.103 8.99 3.62 2 3 3 9 5.1. Signal-to-noise ratio analysis Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR or S/N) is a measure used in engineering that compares the level of a desired signal to the level of background noise . SNR defined as the ratio of signal power to the noise power, often expressed in decibels . The larger-the-better (LB), the smaller- the- better (SB), and the nominal-the-better (NB) are the three types used to analyze the S/N ratio. The average effects of the factors were calculated and shown in Tables 7. This table include comparing the relative value of the effects based on the delta statistics, which called ranks that is the difference between the lowest and the highest averages for the factor chosen. Core thickness appears as the first effective factor for SAE and impactor shape is as the first one for MD and MIF. The Taguchi analysis of SAE value versus skin layer, impactor shape and core thickness reveals that delta statistics of the core thickness is 2.58, that of impactor shape is 1.16 and skin layer layout is 0.63. This shows that the most significant factor for SAE of AFSP is core thickness, followed by impactor shape and the skin layer layout is the least factor. In case of MD of AFSP, the delta statistics of the impactor shape is 3.81, skin layer layout has a value of 1.31, while that of core thickness is 0.39. This means that the most principle factor for MD of the AFSP is impactor shape, followed by skin layer layout and core thickness. For the MIF, the delta statistics of the impactor shape is 1.12, that of the skin layer layout is 0.4, while that of core thickness is 0.09, this implies that the most important factor here is impactor shape, followed by skin layer layout and the least factor here is core thickness. Table 7. Taguchi analysis: SEA, MD and MIF versus different factors, Table for S/N ratios Response variable Specific Absorbed Energy (LB) Max. Displacement (SB) Max. Impact Force (SB) Factors A B C A B C A B C 1 36.62 36.88 37.46 -12.93 -15.09 -12.92 -18.19 -17.80 -18.36 2 36.29 35.72 36.56 -13.76 -11.28 -12.92 -18.41 -18.92 -18.44 3 35.98 36.28 34.88 -12.45 -12.78 -13.31 -18.59 -18.47 -18.40 Delta 0.63 1.16 2.58 1.31 3.81 0.39 0.40 1.12 0.09 Rank 3 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 5.2. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a collection of statistical models and their associated estimation procedures used to analyze the differences among group means in a sample . ANOVA developed by statistician and evolutionary biologist Ronald Fisher . The ANOVA based on the law of total variance , where the observed variance in a particular variable partitioned into components attributable to different sources of variation. In its simplest form, ANOVA provides a statistical test of whether two or more population means are equal, and therefore generalizes the t-test beyond two means. In this study, statistical significance of the impact load parameters affecting the SAE, MD and MIF investigated by ANOVA. The influence of core thickness, skin layer layout and impactor shape on the total variance of the results undertaken for a level of significance of .5%, i.e. for a level of confidence of 99.5%. The ANOVA table also contains the F- values and the percent distribution. By comparing the F-values with the values in the table, one can understand the importance of the factors. If the F-value obtained from a parameter is greater than the calculated value, that particular parameter has a significant effect on the response variable. The main effects of the variables considered for the raw data and the SNR data plotted. Response parameter curves used to investigate the parametric effects on response characteristics. Analysis of variance of raw data and SNR data performed to identify important variables and quantify their effects on response characteristics. The most cost-effective values (optimal settings) of the production variables in terms of mean response characteristics created by analyzing the response curves in Figures 6-8 and Tables 8-10. Table 8. ANOVA for means for SAE Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P R-Sq R-Sq (Adj) Core thickness 2 561.572 561.572 280.876 620.66 0.002 99.9 % 99.5 % Skin layout 2 34.050 34.050 17.025 37.62 0.026 Impactor shape 2 115.092 115.092 57.546 127.16 0.008 Residual error 2 0.905 0.905 0.453 Total 8 711.799 Table 9. ANOVA for means for MD Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P R-Sq R-Sq (Adj) Core thickness 2 0.1480 0.1480 0.07401 0.142 0.413 98.6 % 94.5 % Skin layout 2 0.8388 0.8388 0.41941 0.805 0.110 Impactor shape 2 6.4247 6.4247 3.21234 61.68 0.016 Residual error 2 0.1042 0.1042 0.05208 Total 8 7.5157 Table 10. ANOVA for means for MIF Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P R-Sq R-Sq (Adj) Core thickness 2 0.00667 0.00667 0.003333 1.56 0.390 99.8 % 99.1 % Skin layout 2 0.21740 0.21740 0.108700 50.95 0.019 Impactor shape 2 1.72287 1.72287 0.861433 403.80 0.002 Residual error 2 0.00427 0.00427 0.002133 Total 8 1.95120 5.3. Estimation of optimum response characteristics Specific absorbed energy The larger-the-better characteristic used to determine the largest SAE that would be the ideal situation for this study. Meanwhile, the larger SNR projected as the best response given in plate manufacturing which would be the ideal situation. Fig. 6 shows the graphs used to determinate the optimal values of parameters from this experimental test. In this Figure, the factor of skin layer layout of the plate (A) at level 1 (cross-ply) shows the best result. In addition, the best results for impactor shape (B) observed at the level 1 (conical). Meanwhile, the core thickness of the plate (C) gives the best results at the level 1 (40 mm). There are no conflicts to determine the optimal skin layer layout, impactor shape and the core thickness of the plate and the criteria of the largest response and highest SNR followed. Therefore, the optimal combination of levels for all three factors of production provides the best SAE found to be A1-B1-C1. Maximum displacement In this response factor, the-smaller-the-better characteristic used and the smallest MD value would be the ideal situation The SB characteristic used to determine the smallest MD that would be the ideal situation for this study. Fig. 7 shows the graphs used to determinate the optimal values of parameters from this experimental test. In this Figure, the factor of skin layer layout of the plate (A) at level 3 (pure Aluminum) shows the best result. In addition, the best results for impactor shape (B) observed at the level 2 (spherical). Meanwhile, the core thickness of the plate (C) gives the best results at the level 1 (40 mm). Therefore, the optimal combination of levels for all three factors of production provides the best MD found to be A3-B2-C1. Maximum impact force In the last response factor, the-smaller-the-better characteristic used and the smallest MIF value would be the ideal situation The SB characteristic used to determine the smallest MIF that would be the ideal situation for this study. Fig. 8 shows the graphs used to determinate the optimal values of parameters from this experimental test. In this Figure, all the control factors (A, B and C) at the level 1 provides the best results (cross-ply, conical and 40 mm respectively). Therefore, the optimal combination of levels for all three factors of production provides the best MIF found to be A1-B1-C1. In order to validate the results obtained from the Taguchi method, three validation tests performed for each response characteristics (SAE, MD and MIF) at optimal levels of the production variables. The results given in Table 11. Results show good agreement between actual data from experimental tests and those predicted by current model. So optimal values of production parameters predicted in Table 11 are valid. Table 11. Predicted response values and results of actual values Performance responses Optimal combination of parameters Predicted response values Actual values from experimental tests Specific Absorbed Energy (J/gr) A 1 B 1 C 1 81.99 82.40 Max. Displacement (mm) A 3 B 2 C 1 3.24 3.62 Max. Impact Force (KN) A 1 B 1 C 1 7.53 7.51 Figure 9 illustrates sandwich samples with different procedures tested using spherical impactor. Since the analysis of specimen damage and its mechanism of destruction is not the subject of this article, it is merely a case report. As can be seen, the spherical impactor have entered the plate with aluminum and quasi-isotropic surfaces from the top but stopped in the foam core of the plate while for cross-ply skin layer, impactor passes through the bottom plate. In addition, the surface damage of the sample with a quasi-isotropic skin layer is greater than the surface damage of the sample with cross-ply skin. This phenomenon is due to the higher impact force in this case. The separation of skin layer saw in the cross-ply sample, which not observed in the quasi-isotropic case. Also in the evaluation of impact depth, in this case, the maximum penetration belongs to the plate with cross-ply skin layer and the lowest one is to the plate with pure aluminum surface. 6. Conclusions In this study, the effect of impactor type, core thickness and skin layer layout of AFSP under impact loads investigated. In addition, by using Taguchi optimization methodology with a basic L 9 OA, optimized production factors (skin layer layout, core thickness and impactor shape) derived for the best response of SAE, MD and MIF. It proved that the Taguchi parameter design is an efficient way to determine the optimal combination of production parameters for the largest SAE and lowest MIF and MD. Additionally following comments highlighted: The most important factor for best SAE of AFSP is core thickness, followed by impactor shape and the skin layer layout. These parameters for MD and MIF of the AFSP is impactor shape, followed by skin layer layout and core thickness. The optimized combination of levels for all the three production factors from the analysis that provides the best SAE, MD and MIF are A1–B1–C1, A3–B2–C1 and A1–B1–C1 respectively. The spherical impactor have entered the plate with pure aluminum and quasi-isotropic surfaces from the top but stopped in the foam core of the plate while for cross-ply skin layer, impactor passes through the bottom plate The surface damage of the sample with a quasi-isotropic skin layer is greater than the surface damage of the sample with cross-ply skin. This phenomenon is due to the higher impact force in this case. Maximum penetration of impactor belongs to the plate with cross-ply skin layer and the lowest one is to the plate with pure aluminum surface. 7. List Of Abbreviations Abbreviation Explanation AFSP aluminum foam sandwich panels SAE specific absorbed energy MD maximum displacement MIF maximum impact for OA orthogonal array DOE Design of experiments SNR Signal-to-noise ratio LB larger-the-better SB smaller- the- better NB nominal-the-better ANOVA Analysis of variance P Percentage of participation MS Mean squares SS sum of squares DF degree of freedom F Ratio of variance 8. Declarations Funding ( Not applicable) Code availability ( Not applicable) Conflicts of interest: There is no conflicts of interest to disclose. Availability of data and material All data, models, and materials generated or used during the study appear in the submitted article. References Farahat H. (2016) design and instrumentation of low velocity drop-weight impact testing machine for estimation of energy absorption capacity in aluminum based composite foam, Modarres Mechanical Engineering, 16(7): 219-228. Ghajar A.R. (2014) effect of impactor shape and temperature on the behavior of Eglass/epoxy composite laminates, Modarres Mechanical Engineering, 14(10): 1-8. Caminero MA, García I, Rodríguez, GP, (2018) Experimental study of the influence of thickness and ply-stacking sequence on the compression after impact strength of carbon fibre reinforced epoxy laminates, Polymer Testing, 66: 360-370. Wang H, Ramakrishnan KR, Shankar, K, (2016) Experimental study of the medium velocity impact response of sandwich panels with different cores, Materials & Design, 99: 68-82. Long S, Yao X, Wang H, Zhang X, (2018) Failure analysis and modeling of foam sandwich laminates under impact loading, Composite Structures, 197: 10-20. Emre AH, Kadir K, Karakuzu S, Demir M, Aykul H, (2015) Flexural Performance of the Sandwich Structures Having Aluminum Foam Core with Different Thicknesses World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 9(5): 596-601. Liu C, Zhang XY, Ye L, (2017) High velocity impact responses of sandwich panels with metal fibre laminate skins and aluminium foam core, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 100: 139-153. Liu C, Zhang YX, Li J (2017) Impact responses of sandwich panels with fibre metal laminate skins and aluminium foam core, Composite Structures, 182: 183-190. Crupi V, Kara E, Epasto G, Guglielmino E, Aykul H (2015) Prediction model for the impact response of glass fibre reinforced aluminium foam sandwiches, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 77: 97-107. Cheng SL, Zhao XY, Xin YJ, Du SY, Li HJ (2015) Quasi-static localized indentation tests on integrated sandwich panel of aluminum foam and epoxy resin, Composite Structures, 129: 157-164. Han MS, Cho JU (2014), Impact damage behavior of sandwich composite with aluminum foam core, Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc., 24: 42-46. Rajaneesh A, Sridhar I, Rajendran S (2012) Impact modeling of foam cored sandwich plates with ductile or brittle faceplates, Composite Structures 94: 1745–1754. Torabizadeh MA, Shokrieh MM, Fereidoon A (2011) Dynamic failure behavior of glass/epoxy composites under low temperature using Charpy impact test method, Indian Journal of Engineering & Materials Sciences, 18: 211–220. ASTM D7136, Standard Test Method for Measuring the Damage Resistance of a Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite to a Drop-Weight Impact Event. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-60977","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Original Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":1594666,"identity":"6a72a902-57fb-4bc9-b64e-9ecd6fa412f3","order_by":0,"name":"Mohammad Amin Torabizadeh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Applied Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mohammad","middleName":"Amin","lastName":"Torabizadeh","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2020-08-17 11:31:55","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-60977/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-60977/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":2028538,"identity":"387a05c5-ca81-4838-bda7-30fcc7fbef9a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2020-08-21 16:51:28","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":109136,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Sample of aluminum foam manufactured","description":"","filename":"Fig1.JPG","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-60977/v1/Fig1.JPG"},{"id":2028539,"identity":"8c74f668-8a48-4135-abe3-03cdd0c842a1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2020-08-21 16:51:28","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":60631,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Sandwich Aluminum Composite Plate (a) Front View (b) Side View","description":"","filename":"Fig2.JPG","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-60977/v1/Fig2.JPG"},{"id":2028540,"identity":"b2c16ba1-203e-4669-bea7-d5dbdc61b566","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2020-08-21 16:51:28","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":90742,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Drop weight machine (a) Overall scheme of the device (b) Moment of impact on the specimen (c) Pneumatic jack equipment for secondary impact prevention","description":"","filename":"Fig3.JPG","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-60977/v1/Fig3.JPG"},{"id":2028541,"identity":"968f96a9-b3e0-45ca-a8bc-9c08087aa544","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2020-08-21 16:51:28","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":45988,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Three impactor shapes used (a) conical (b) parabolic (c) spherical","description":"","filename":"Fig4.JPG","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-60977/v1/Fig4.JPG"},{"id":2028542,"identity":"df1a4124-7062-4ee2-9cd3-d1a202dc17f4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2020-08-21 16:51:28","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":48807,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"sandwich composite plate with quasi-isotropic surface","description":"","filename":"Fig5.JPG","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-60977/v1/Fig5.JPG"},{"id":2028543,"identity":"f5499881-3e95-4681-aa01-b21dce83f0be","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2020-08-21 16:51:28","extension":"jpg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":67527,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"SEA means and SNR effects for each production factors","description":"","filename":"Fig6.JPG","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-60977/v1/Fig6.JPG"},{"id":2028544,"identity":"3d047470-887a-4e83-a05d-1863dae17044","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2020-08-21 16:51:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":66787,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"MD means and SNR effects for each production factors","description":"","filename":"Fig7.JPG","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-60977/v1/Fig7.JPG"},{"id":2028545,"identity":"af398747-fc57-4493-96c1-c1e8b874cda6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2020-08-21 16:51:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":64199,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"MIF means and SNR effects for each production factors","description":"","filename":"Fig8.JPG","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-60977/v1/Fig8.JPG"},{"id":2028546,"identity":"6bc98dab-2654-44fb-a25b-65590e17fa16","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2020-08-21 16:51:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":61373,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Front and back view of specimens after drop weight test with spherical impactor ","description":"","filename":"Fig9.JPG","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-60977/v1/Fig9.JPG"},{"id":13584431,"identity":"06e36f58-3111-4255-b35c-a8e47e475e4d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-09-17 04:39:28","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1121833,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-60977/v1/f6a394ab-5fc3-4949-acbc-c96defab1923.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eExperimental Optimization of Effective Parameters of Sandwich Panels With Aluminum Foam Core Under Low Velocity Impact\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn recent decades, the use of AFSPs in the aerospace, automotive, renewable energy and civil engineering industries has expanded due to its unique mechanical properties. The behavior of these materials against impact loads is one of the biggest concerns in this regard. Impact loads can result from falling objects, causing significant internal damage and reducing the residual strength of the composite plates. On the other hand, many researchers are interested in reducing the weight of the structure, creating holes filled with air or inert gases inside the background material and producing a porous material known as \"foam\". Many metals and alloys, such as aluminum, steel, copper, nickel, lead, zinc, magnesium, and titanium, have the ability to foam through various manufacturing processes. The use of aluminum metal as a foam backing material, due to its lightweight and low melting point and due to its high rigidity, good corrosion resistance, high strength to weight ratio, excellent energy absorption capacity, recyclability as well as the ability to produce relatively homogeneous and isotropic cellular structures has attracted much attention in recent years [2-1]. The cellular structure of the metal foam, especially the aluminum foam, allows them to absorb a great deal of kinetic energy from the collision before it destroys the structure, and thus in cases where resistance against impact or penetration required, these materials act as energy absorbers. These properties have made aluminum foam used in the applications mentioned. Aluminum foam is also used as the core material in sandwich structures with different procedures under different loading such as impact.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFarahat and Ahmadi [1] have analyzed the behavior of aluminum foam under the impact of experimental loads while developing a low velocity drop weight device. In their results, they reported the behavior of aluminum foam including three steps, linear, Plato and fracture and increase in absorbed energy in these three steps, respectively. They also recommended A356 / SiC foam cell material to design appropriate energy absorbers. Qajar and Rasaf [2] investigated the effect of the impactor shape and the ambient temperature on the behavior of glass / epoxy composite plates under the impact of a drop weight. Their findings indicate that the maximum impact velocity decreases and the displacement increases as the ambient temperature increases, and that by decreasing the bending curvature, the impact time reduced, the maximum impact force is increased and the amount of surface damage reduced. Kameniro et al. [3] have investigated the effect of thickness and layout on the compressive strength after impact on composite plates. The results showed a decrease in the level of degradation by increasing the amount of energy absorbed. The thicker plates also had higher post-impact space resistance due to their increased flexural stiffness. They found that plates with non-orthogonal layout had better loading performance. Cheng et al. [4] investigated the behavior of sandwich composite plates with aluminum foam core under quasi-static influence and observed the behavior of samples in three stages of elastic, yield and failure. As the epoxy resin layer increased, the amount of energy absorbed increased. Croppi et al. [5] predict the behavior of sandwich composite plates with an aluminum foam core under impact load. They compared their experimental results using the analytical model. In their results, they cited the separation of aluminum from the core as the main cause of sample degradation. In addition, the amount of energy absorbed by the specimens depends on the mechanical properties of the foam core of the sandwich plates. Long et al. [6] characterized the degradation process of foam core sandwich composite plates under low velocity impact load using a finite element model. They have investigated the effects of impact energy, foam density and porosity on the porous layer. They found that the type of sample degradation influenced by the amount of penetrating impact. As before the penetration of the separation, plates occurred according to the composite laws and after the penetration of the degradation zone observed cyclic. Liu et al. [7] have studied the behavior of sandwich composite plates with an aluminum foam core and a metal composite surface. As the foam thickness increased, the energy absorption also increased. There was also a significant increase in the energy absorption by increasing the thickness of the composite layer. They also observed good agreement between the experimental results and the finite element model using the software. Liu and Zhang [8] also investigated the behavior of composite plates in the aluminum foam core under the influence of high-speed impact. They have evaluated the validity of their experimental results using finite element model and studied the effect of impactor shape and angle of impact. Their results showed an increase in the absorbed energy due to the increase in the thickness of the supernatant. In this case, the separation of the supernatant observed at the upper surface of the specimen, and especially around the impact site. They also reported an increase in the thickness of the aluminum foam core due to the non-separation of the top surface layer of the foam core. Kara et al. [9] investigated the flexural behavior of sandwich structures with aluminum foam core of different thicknesses. They found that sandwich composite plates were a good choice for the design of energy absorbers, and their performance was proportional to the increase in foam thickness and the type of fibers applied to the samples. Wang et al. [10] studied the behavior of sandwich plates under moderate velocity load using the experimental method. They observed that the material used in the core plays an important role in the deformation, the amount of energy absorbed, the mechanism of degradation, and the rate of impact on the plate. They identified polypropylene honeycomb cores as the optimal choice for post-traumatic deformity. Han and Chow [11] investigated the behavior of sandwich composite plates with an aluminum foam core and a metallic surface by comparing the experimental results of the drop weight test. Their results showed that with the impact energy of 50 J, only the top surface of the plate was degraded, with the energy of 70 J in addition to the destruction of the top effect of the bumping penetration, and ultimately with the impact of 100 J of the bumping effect. Very good agreement between experimental and numerical results reported. Rajanish et al. [12] have investigated and analyzed sandwich composite plates with a foam core and a crisp metal surface. They compared the results of collision force, absorbed energy, and shape of the degradation in two ways that showed good agreement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on previous studies, little has been done to examine the effect of impactor type, skin layer layout and the core thickness on impact response of AFSPs. Since the geometry of the bump may change depending on the type of application, In order to fully understand the behavior of AFSP against impact loads, their response to other impactor shapes must be studied. In addition, as noted in previous studies, the skin layer layout plays an important role in this type of loading and consideration should be given to the effect of the type of skin layer of sandwich plate. Therefore, this study investigates the effect of impactor type, core thickness and skin layer layout of AFSP under impact loads. Also by using Taguchi optimization methodology, optimized production factors derived for the best response of SAE\u003ca href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\"\u003e[1]\u003c/a\u003e, MD and MIF. For this purpose, Three types of conical, parabolic and spherical impactor shapes as well as three types of aluminum, cross-ply and quasi-isotropic composite coatings are used. Also specimens made in three different core thickness (20, 30 and 40 mm).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFootnote:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\"\u003e[1]\u003c/a\u003e The specific absorbed energy is obtained by dividing the absorbed energy by the sample weight (Jul/gr)\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Materials, Method Of Production And Manufacture Of Samples","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, the cast aluminum A356 with the chemical composition listed in Table 1 selected as the base metal. SiC particles with a purity of 98 wt% and an average particle size of 11 \u0026mu;m were prepared as the reinforcing phase which plays a stabilizing or viscosifying role in the foam production process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"602\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1. \u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChemical composition of cast aluminum alloy A356\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"602\"\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSi\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMg\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"45\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFe\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCu\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTi\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZn\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMn\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"126\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComposition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6.81\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"45\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"126\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWeight percent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eHeating of SiC particles performed for one hour at 951 \u0026deg; C and then for 2 hours at 651 \u0026deg; C to remove contaminants and adsorbed gases resulting in improved wettability of SiC particles by aluminum melt. Calcium carbonate powder with purity of 99.5 wt% and average size of 5 \u0026mu;m was used as foaming agent. The powder also heated to 211 \u0026deg; C for 2 hours to remove moisture and surface contamination and to increase the wettability properties and consequently better distribution of these particles in the aluminum melt. In order to produce the foam product, a composite ingot of aluminum foil with a certain amount of SiC particles first produced and cast by eddy molding at a temperature between 711 and 651 \u0026deg; C. The ingot then stirred at 651 \u0026deg; C and re-melt at 1411 rpm. At this stage, 1% by weight of magnesium added to the melt and then stirred for a minute by adding the calcium carbonate powder. After a few minutes and after producing CO2, the foam released from the furnace and cooled in ambient air. 3% by weight of calcium carbonate powder and 11% by volume of SiC particles used at this stage to produce the products. Figure 1 shows a sample of aluminum foam made by the above method.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlass fibers as a unidirectional fabric used to make the composite skin layer with different layout. Each layer has a thickness of 0.2 mm and a mass of 200 g / m \u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. These types of fibers currently considered for various applications in industry. Epoxy resin ML503 and Hardener HA11 also used in the domestic industry. The mechanical properties of the composite plates along with the resin used presented in Table 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this study, the hand layup method used to prepare composite plates and the surface thickness of all skin layers considered 2 mm. The dimensions of the specimens are 120 mm \u0026times; 120 mm. these dimensions selected based on the fixing device used. Figure 2 shows an example of an AFSP with a pure aluminum skin layer. Geometric dimensions and weight of specimens listed in Table 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"623\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2. \u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e: Mechanical Properties of \u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eunidirectional \u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ecomposite layer [13]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"623\"\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr style=\"height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 70px; height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eValue\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 340px; height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMechanical properties\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr style=\"height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 70px; height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e19.94\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 340px; height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal tensile modulus (GPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr style=\"height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 70px; height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.830\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 340px; height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTransverse tensile modulus (GPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr style=\"height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 70px; height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.110\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 340px; height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShear modulus (GPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr style=\"height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 70px; height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e700.11\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 340px; height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal tensile strength (MPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr style=\"height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 70px; height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e570.37\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 340px; height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal compressive strength (MPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr style=\"height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 70px; height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e69.85\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 340px; height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTransverse tensile strength (MPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr style=\"height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 70px; height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e122.12\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 340px; height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTransverse compressive strength (MPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr style=\"height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 70px; height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e68.89\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 340px; height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShear strength (MPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eTable 3: Weight of specimens (gr) with different skins and core thickness\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr style=\"height: 35px;\"\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"height: 35px;\" width=\"623\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr style=\"height: 209px;\"\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"height: 209px;\" width=\"623\"\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"3\" width=\"208\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCore thickness (mm)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"142\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSkin layer\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e20\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e30\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e40\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e278\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e393\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e455\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"142\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCross-ply\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e301\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e425\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e476\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"142\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuasi-isotropic\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e388\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e479\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e578\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"142\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePure Aluminum\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"3. Drop Weight Test Machine","content":"\u003cp\u003eOne of the most important factors affecting the impact phenomenon is the initial energy of the projectile. In this study, a low velocity impact performed by a drop-weight device. This may be due to the collapse of the working tool during maintenance on the composite structure. For this purpose, a test machine manufactured by Iran Sayesh Company used. The projectile mounted on a track with very low friction that can fall freely. In this study, the manufacturer recommended to ignore low friction rates on the rails and equipment. The overall mass of the impactor and its accessories (load cell, bearings, etc.) is 7 kg, which can fall to a height of 1 meter above the target. The load cell capacity is 10 kN and with a data frequency of 25 kHz. The mass and height of the projectile can varied, so different kinetic energies can applied. In this experiment, for all specimens, the impactor and accessories changed to 17 kg by increasing the weight of 10 kg and falling from the height of 70 cm on the target sample. Figure a-3 shows the overview of the device used. As shown in Fig. 3, square specimens placed on a special stand and then reinforced by a hollow square clamp with four screws. All four edges of the specimen clamp to 10 mm wide and are free 100 \u0026times; 100 mm wide. The impactor falls exactly at the midpoint of the sample free space. (Figure b-3) All tests performed according to ASTM D7136 [14]. To prevent reoccurring impacts on the specimen, a pneumatic jack is used which acts quickly after the first impact and stops the impactor to prevent secondary impacts. (Figure c-3)\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Impactor Shape, Skin Layer Layout And Core Thickness","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs previously mentioned, this study investigates the effect of the impactor shape, skin layer layout and core thickness of plates. Since spherical impactor is the most common type, this geometric shape of impactor used in most studies. As explained earlier, the geometrical shape of the impactor can be very effective in the parameters of impact load assessment. Therefore, in this study, three types of conical, parabolic and spherical pickers are used. All three impactor with a diameter of 13 mm and a penetration height of 60 mm are made of hardened CK45 steel. Figure 4 shows these three types of impactor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, in the leading study, the effect of the type of skin layer of AFSPs also examined. In the evaluation of other previous studies, most of the sandwich plates studied with metal or simple composite surfaces and less attention paid to the effect of composite layout of skin layer. Therefore, in this study, in addition to fabricating specimens with aluminum, orthogonal and quasi-isotropic composite surfaces evaluated. Figure 5 shows a sample composite plate screen. In this study, the effect of زore thickness on sandwich plate behavior evaluated. For this purpose, the specimens made with three core thicknesses of 20, 30, and 40 mm.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Experiments And Taguchi Approach","content":"\u003cp\u003eDesign of experiments (DOE) is one of the most powerful techniques to improve quality and increase productivity. In this way, through some experiments, conscious changes made to the system to examine their impact on the performance characteristics of system response to them. The design of experiments is the systematic manipulation of a number of variables in which the effects of these manipulations evaluated and from which conclusions are drawn, the results implemented. In the late 1940s, Dr. Taguchi introduced new statistical concepts and later proved to be valuable tools for quality control and improvement. Since then, many Japanese artisans have used this technique to improve products and process quality. \u003cbr /\u003e The Taguchi method is quite different from the conventional methods of testing. Taguchi's methodology focuses on designing experiments and performing a limited number of experiments, while in the conventional methods all possible combination should be tested. Orthogonal arrays (OA) used in this method dramatically reduces the number of tests required by identifying a set of robust strategies in designing the experiments and analyzing the results. To consider the three control factors considered in this study, a standard Taguchi-based design, L27, which shown in Table 1 is used. This basic design uses three control elements; each of them has three levels. In addition, this design is capable of examining the interaction between the factors. From the standard design (Table 4), nine experimental runs need to conduct with the combination of levels for each control factor (A\u0026ndash;C).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr style=\"height: 86px;\"\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"height: 86px;\" width=\"623\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4: The basic Taguchi L\u003csub\u003e9\u003c/sub\u003e orthogonal array\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr style=\"height: 455px;\"\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"height: 455px;\" width=\"623\"\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"3\" width=\"180\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eControl factors and levels\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"19\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRun\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"19\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"19\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"19\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"19\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"19\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"19\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"19\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"19\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"19\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"19\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this study, three major factors that have more effects on the behavior of the plates considered: skin layer layout, impactor shape and core thickness. Three levels for each factor were selected (shown in Table 5) as factor levels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"623\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5: Parameters, codes, and level values used in Taguchi method\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"5\" width=\"302\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLevels\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"15\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"73\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCode\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"17\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"151\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"101\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"101\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"101\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"80\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCross-ply\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"109\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuasi-isotropic\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePure Aluminum\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"15\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"73\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"17\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"151\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSkin layer\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"80\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpherical\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"109\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParabolic\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConical\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"15\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"73\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"17\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"151\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImpactor shape\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"80\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"109\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"15\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"73\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"17\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"151\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCore thickness (mm)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"80\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"21\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"88\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"101\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"73\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"151\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eTable 6 shows the results of experimental tests of response factors based on the Taguchi method selected parameters from Table 4.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"623\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 6: Modified orthogonal array using basic Taguchi\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"623\"\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpecific Absorbed Energy (J/gr)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"85\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMax. Impact force (KN)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"118\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMax.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDisplacement (mm)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"3\" width=\"146\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eControl factors and levels\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"18\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"58\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRun\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"18\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.181\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"85\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7.51\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"118\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.67\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"18\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"58\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.178\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"85\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8.84\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"118\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.83\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"18\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"58\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.258\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"85\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8.54\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"118\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.98\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"18\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"58\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.153\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"85\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8.67\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"118\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.54\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"18\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"58\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.221\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"85\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8.41\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"118\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.78\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"18\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"58\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.146\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"85\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8.01\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"118\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.12\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"18\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"58\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.148\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"85\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8.22\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"118\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.34\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"18\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"58\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.102\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"85\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7.78\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"118\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6.32\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"18\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"58\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.103\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"85\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8.99\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"118\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.62\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"18\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"58\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/br\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.1. Signal-to-noise ratio analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSignal-to-noise ratio (SNR or S/N) is a measure used in \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_engineering\"\u003eengineering\u003c/a\u003e that compares the level of a desired \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(electrical_engineering)\"\u003esignal\u003c/a\u003e to the level of background \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_(signal_processing)\"\u003enoise\u003c/a\u003e. SNR defined as the ratio of signal power to the noise power, often expressed in \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel\"\u003edecibels\u003c/a\u003e. The larger-the-better (LB), the smaller- the- better (SB), and the nominal-the-better (NB) are the three types used to analyze the S/N ratio.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe average effects of the factors were calculated and shown in Tables 7. This table include comparing the relative value of the effects based on the delta statistics, which called ranks that is the difference between the lowest and the highest averages for the factor chosen. Core thickness appears as the first effective factor for SAE and impactor shape is as the first one for MD and MIF. The Taguchi analysis of SAE value versus skin layer, impactor shape and core thickness reveals that delta statistics of the core thickness is 2.58, that of impactor shape is 1.16 and skin layer layout is 0.63. This shows that the most significant factor for SAE of AFSP is core thickness, followed by impactor shape and the skin layer layout is the least factor. In case of MD of AFSP, the delta statistics of the impactor shape is 3.81, skin layer layout has a value of 1.31, while that of core thickness is 0.39. This means that the most principle factor for MD of the AFSP is impactor shape, followed by skin layer layout and core thickness. For the MIF, the delta statistics of the impactor shape is 1.12, that of the skin layer layout is 0.4, while that of core thickness is 0.09, this implies that the most important factor here is impactor shape, followed by skin layer layout and the least factor here is core thickness.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"623\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 7. Taguchi analysis: SEA, MD and MIF versus different factors, Table for S/N ratios\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"623\"\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"75\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResponse variable\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"18\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"3\" width=\"159\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpecific Absorbed Energy (LB)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"17\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"3\" width=\"165\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMax. Displacement (SB)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"15\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"3\" width=\"161\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMax. Impact Force (SB)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"75\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"18\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"54\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"17\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"59\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"15\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"55\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"75\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"18\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e36.62\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e36.88\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"54\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e37.46\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"17\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-12.93\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-15.09\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"59\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-12.92\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"15\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"55\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-18.19\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-17.80\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-18.36\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"75\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"18\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e36.29\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e35.72\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"54\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e36.56\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"17\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-13.76\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-11.28\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"59\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-12.92\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"15\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"55\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-18.41\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-18.92\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-18.44\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"75\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"18\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e35.98\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e36.28\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"54\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e34.88\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"17\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-12.45\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-12.78\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"59\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-13.31\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"15\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"55\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-18.59\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-18.47\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-18.40\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"75\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDelta\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"18\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.63\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.16\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"54\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.58\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"17\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.31\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.81\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"59\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.39\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"15\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"55\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.40\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.12\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"75\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRank\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"18\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"54\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"17\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"59\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"15\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"55\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"53\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/br\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.2. Analysis of variance (ANOVA)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of variance (ANOVA) is a collection of \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_model\"\u003estatistical models\u003c/a\u003e and their associated estimation procedures used to analyze the differences among group means in a \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_(statistics)\"\u003esample\u003c/a\u003e. ANOVA developed by \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistician\"\u003estatistician\u003c/a\u003e and \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biology\"\u003eevolutionary biologist\u003c/a\u003e \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher\"\u003eRonald Fisher\u003c/a\u003e. The ANOVA based on the \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_total_variance\"\u003elaw of total variance\u003c/a\u003e, where the observed \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance\"\u003evariance\u003c/a\u003e in a particular variable partitioned into components attributable to different sources of variation. In its simplest form, ANOVA provides a \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_test\"\u003estatistical test\u003c/a\u003e of whether two or more population \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean\"\u003emeans\u003c/a\u003e are equal, and therefore generalizes the \u003ca href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student%27s_t-test#Independent_two-sample_t-test\"\u003et-test\u003c/a\u003e beyond two means. In this study, statistical significance of the impact load parameters affecting the SAE, MD and MIF investigated by ANOVA. The influence of core thickness, skin layer layout and impactor shape on the total variance of the results undertaken for a level of significance of .5%, i.e. for a level of confidence of 99.5%. The ANOVA table also contains the F- values and the percent distribution. By comparing the F-values with the values in the table, one can understand the importance of the factors. If the F-value obtained from a parameter is greater than the calculated value, that particular parameter has a significant effect on the response variable. The main effects of the variables considered for the raw data and the SNR data plotted. Response parameter curves used to investigate the parametric effects on response characteristics. Analysis of variance of raw data and SNR data performed to identify important variables and quantify their effects on response characteristics. The most cost-effective values (optimal settings) of the production variables in terms of mean response characteristics created by analyzing the response curves in Figures 6-8 and Tables 8-10.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"623\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 8. ANOVA for means for SAE\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"623\"\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"124\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"39\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSeq SS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdj SS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdj MS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR-Sq\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR-Sq (Adj)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"124\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCore thickness\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"39\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e561.572\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e561.572\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e280.876\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e620.66\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e99.9 %\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e99.5 %\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"124\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSkin layout\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"39\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e34.050\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e34.050\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e17.025\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e37.62\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.026\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"124\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImpactor shape\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"39\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e115.092\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e115.092\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e57.546\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e127.16\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"124\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResidual error\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"39\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.905\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.905\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.453\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"124\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"39\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e711.799\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"623\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 9. ANOVA for means for MD\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"623\"\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"127\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"36\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSeq SS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdj SS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdj MS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR-Sq\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"68\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR-Sq (Adj)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"127\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCore thickness\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"36\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.1480\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.1480\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.07401\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.142\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.413\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e98.6 %\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"68\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e94.5 %\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"127\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSkin layout\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"36\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.8388\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.8388\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.41941\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.805\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.110\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"68\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"127\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImpactor shape\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"36\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6.4247\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6.4247\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.21234\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e61.68\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.016\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"68\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"127\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResidual error\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"36\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.1042\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.1042\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.05208\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"68\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"127\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"36\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7.5157\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"68\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"623\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 10. ANOVA for means for MIF\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"623\"\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"40\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSeq SS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdj SS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdj MS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR-Sq\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"68\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR-Sq (Adj)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCore thickness\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"40\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00667\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00667\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.003333\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.56\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.390\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e99.8 %\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"68\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e99.1 %\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSkin layout\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"40\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.21740\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.21740\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.108700\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e50.95\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.019\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"68\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImpactor shape\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"40\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.72287\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.72287\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.861433\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e403.80\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"68\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResidual error\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"40\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00427\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00427\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.002133\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"68\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"40\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.95120\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"66\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"57\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"68\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/br\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.3. Estimation of optimum response characteristics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSpecific absorbed energy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe larger-the-better characteristic used to determine the largest SAE that would be the ideal situation for this study. Meanwhile, the larger SNR projected as the best response given in plate manufacturing which would be the ideal situation. Fig. 6 shows the graphs used to determinate the optimal values of parameters from this experimental test. In this Figure, the factor of skin layer layout of the plate (A) at level 1 (cross-ply) shows the best result. In addition, the best results for impactor shape (B) observed at the level 1 (conical). Meanwhile, the core thickness of the plate (C) gives the best results at the level 1 (40 mm). There are no conflicts to determine the optimal skin layer layout, impactor shape and the core thickness of the plate and the criteria of the largest response and highest SNR followed. Therefore, the optimal combination of levels for all three factors of production provides the best SAE found to be A1-B1-C1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMaximum displacement\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this response factor, the-smaller-the-better characteristic used and the smallest MD value would be the ideal situation The SB characteristic used to determine the smallest MD that would be the ideal situation for this study. Fig. 7 shows the graphs used to determinate the optimal values of parameters from this experimental test. In this Figure, the factor of skin layer layout of the plate (A) at level 3 (pure Aluminum) shows the best result. In addition, the best results for impactor shape (B) observed at the level 2 (spherical). Meanwhile, the core thickness of the plate (C) gives the best results at the level 1 (40 mm). Therefore, the optimal combination of levels for all three factors of production provides the best MD found to be A3-B2-C1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMaximum impact force\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the last response factor, the-smaller-the-better characteristic used and the smallest MIF value would be the ideal situation The SB characteristic used to determine the smallest MIF that would be the ideal situation for this study. Fig. 8 shows the graphs used to determinate the optimal values of parameters from this experimental test. In this Figure, all the control factors (A, B and C) at the level 1 provides the best results (cross-ply, conical and 40 mm respectively). Therefore, the optimal combination of levels for all three factors of production provides the best MIF found to be A1-B1-C1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn order to validate the results obtained from the Taguchi method, three validation tests performed for each response characteristics (SAE, MD and MIF) at optimal levels of the production variables. The results given in Table 11. Results show good agreement between actual data from experimental tests and those predicted by current model. So optimal values of production parameters predicted in Table 11 are valid.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"623\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 11. Predicted response values and results of actual values\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"623\"\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"217\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePerformance responses \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOptimal combination of parameters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePredicted response values\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"142\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eActual values from experimental tests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"217\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpecific Absorbed Energy (J/gr)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA\u003csub\u003e1 \u003c/sub\u003eB\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e C\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e81.99\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"142\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e82.40\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"217\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMax. Displacement (mm)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA\u003csub\u003e3 \u003c/sub\u003eB\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e C\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.24\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"142\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.62\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"217\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMax. Impact Force (KN)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA\u003csub\u003e1 \u003c/sub\u003eB\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e C\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7.53\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"142\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7.51\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/br\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 9 illustrates sandwich samples with different procedures tested using spherical impactor. Since the analysis of specimen damage and its mechanism of destruction is not the subject of this article, it is merely a case report. As can be seen, the spherical impactor have entered the plate with aluminum and quasi-isotropic surfaces from the top but stopped in the foam core of the plate while for cross-ply skin layer, impactor passes through the bottom plate. In addition, the surface damage of the sample with a quasi-isotropic skin layer is greater than the surface damage of the sample with cross-ply skin. This phenomenon is due to the higher impact force in this case. The separation of skin layer saw in the cross-ply sample, which not observed in the quasi-isotropic case. Also in the evaluation of impact depth, in this case, the maximum penetration belongs to the plate with cross-ply skin layer and the lowest one is to the plate with pure aluminum surface.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, the effect of impactor type, core thickness and skin layer layout of AFSP under impact loads investigated. In addition, by using Taguchi optimization methodology with a basic L\u003csub\u003e9\u003c/sub\u003e OA, optimized production factors (skin layer layout, core thickness and impactor shape) derived for the best response of SAE, MD and MIF. It proved that the Taguchi parameter design is an efficient way to determine the optimal combination of production parameters for the largest SAE and lowest MIF and MD. Additionally following comments highlighted:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe most important factor for best SAE of AFSP is core thickness, followed by impactor shape and the skin layer layout. These parameters for MD and MIF of the AFSP is impactor shape, followed by skin layer layout and core thickness.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe optimized combination of levels for all the three production factors from the analysis that provides the best SAE, MD and MIF are A1\u0026ndash;B1\u0026ndash;C1, A3\u0026ndash;B2\u0026ndash;C1 and A1\u0026ndash;B1\u0026ndash;C1 respectively.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe spherical impactor have entered the plate with pure aluminum and quasi-isotropic surfaces from the top but stopped in the foam core of the plate while for cross-ply skin layer, impactor passes through the bottom plate\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe surface damage of the sample with a quasi-isotropic skin layer is greater than the surface damage of the sample with cross-ply skin. This phenomenon is due to the higher impact force in this case.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaximum penetration of impactor belongs to the plate with cross-ply skin layer and the lowest one is to the plate with pure aluminum surface.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"7. List Of Abbreviations","content":"\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAbbreviation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"255\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExplanation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAFSP\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"255\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ealuminum foam sandwich panels\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSAE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"255\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003especific absorbed energy\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"255\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003emaximum displacement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMIF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"255\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003emaximum impact for\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"255\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eorthogonal array\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDOE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"255\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDesign of experiments\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSNR\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"255\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSignal-to-noise ratio\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"255\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003elarger-the-better\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"255\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003esmaller- the- better\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"255\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003enominal-the-better\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eANOVA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"255\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of variance\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"255\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePercentage of participation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMS\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"255\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMean squares\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSS\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"255\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003esum of squares\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"255\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003edegree of freedom\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"123\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd width=\"255\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRatio of variance\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"8. Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding (\u003c/strong\u003eNot applicable)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCode availability (\u003c/strong\u003eNot applicable)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflicts of interest: \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere is no conflicts of interest to disclose.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and material\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data, models, and materials generated or used during the study appear in the submitted article.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFarahat H. (2016) design and instrumentation of low velocity drop-weight impact testing machine for estimation of energy absorption capacity in aluminum based composite foam, Modarres Mechanical Engineering, 16(7): 219-228.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGhajar A.R. (2014) effect of impactor shape and temperature on the behavior of Eglass/epoxy composite laminates, Modarres Mechanical Engineering, 14(10): 1-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCaminero MA, Garc\u0026iacute;a I, Rodr\u0026iacute;guez, GP, (2018) Experimental study of the influence of thickness and ply-stacking sequence on the compression after impact strength of carbon fibre reinforced epoxy laminates, Polymer Testing, 66: 360-370.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang H, Ramakrishnan KR, Shankar, K, (2016) Experimental study of the medium velocity impact response of sandwich panels with different cores, Materials \u0026amp; Design, 99: 68-82.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLong S, Yao X, Wang H, Zhang X, (2018) Failure analysis and modeling of foam sandwich laminates under impact loading, Composite Structures, 197: 10-20.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEmre AH, Kadir K, Karakuzu S, Demir M, Aykul H, (2015) Flexural Performance of the Sandwich Structures Having Aluminum Foam Core with Different Thicknesses World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 9(5): 596-601.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu C, Zhang XY, Ye L, (2017) High velocity impact responses of sandwich panels with metal fibre laminate skins and aluminium foam core, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 100: 139-153.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu C, Zhang YX, Li J (2017) Impact responses of sandwich panels with fibre metal laminate skins and aluminium foam core, Composite Structures, 182: 183-190.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrupi V, Kara E, Epasto G, Guglielmino E, Aykul H (2015) Prediction model for the impact response of glass fibre reinforced aluminium foam sandwiches, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 77: 97-107.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheng SL, Zhao XY, Xin YJ, Du SY, Li HJ (2015) Quasi-static localized indentation tests on integrated sandwich panel of aluminum foam and epoxy resin, Composite Structures, 129: 157-164.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHan MS, Cho JU (2014), Impact damage behavior of sandwich composite with aluminum foam core, Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc., 24: 42-46.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRajaneesh A, Sridhar I, Rajendran S (2012) Impact modeling of foam cored sandwich plates with ductile or brittle faceplates, Composite Structures 94: 1745\u0026ndash;1754.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTorabizadeh MA, Shokrieh MM, Fereidoon A (2011) Dynamic failure behavior of glass/epoxy composites under low temperature using Charpy impact test method, Indian Journal of Engineering \u0026amp; Materials Sciences, 18: 211\u0026ndash;220.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eASTM D7136, Standard Test Method for Measuring the Damage Resistance of a Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite to a Drop-Weight Impact Event.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Low Velocity Impact, Composite Sandwich Sheet, Aluminum Foam, Drop weight, Taguchi method","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-60977/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-60977/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis paper introduces the application of Taguchi optimization methodology in optimizing the production parameters of aluminum foam sandwich panels (AFSP) with different skin layer under low velocity impact loading. The core material of AFSP is A356 aluminum foam reinforced with SiC particles produced using the CaCO3 foaming agent with 20, 30 and 40 mm thickness. The skin layer of plates are made of glass / epoxy with quasi-isotropic and cross-ply layout as well as pure aluminum layer. For the impact test, drop weight impact device used. Three types of spherical, parabolic and cone impactor used. The impact parameters that are chosen to be evaluated in this study are skin layer layout, impactor shape and core thickness of AFSP. While, the response factors to be measured are specific absorbed energy (SAE), maximum displacement (MD) and maximum impact force (MIF). Taguchi method used to check the effect of the production parameters on the response factors by creating orthogonal array (OA). The result from this study shows that the application of the Taguchi method can determine the best combination of production parameters. These results can provide the optimal impact response that are the largest SAE, smallest MD and smallest value of MIF. For the best SAE and MIF, A1–B1–C1 (cross-ply/conical/40 mm core) found. Meanwhile, the optimized combination of levels for all the three production factors from the analysis that provides the lowest MD found to be A3–B2–C1 (pure Aluminum/spherical/40 mm core).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Experimental Optimization of Effective Parameters of Sandwich Panels With Aluminum Foam Core Under Low Velocity Impact","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2020-08-21 16:51:27","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-60977/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"6170be2b-28c9-4244-8dfe-1110420168ea","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 21st, 2020","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":338334,"name":"Mechanical Engineering"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2020-09-07T14:49:48+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2020-08-21 16:51:27","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-60977","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-60977","identity":"rs-60977","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"7rjqhiLT3MXkJMwkYKINL","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}