This investigation reveals energy absorption properties in composite cushion layers, indicating design potential for impact protection.
Engineering structures often face safety risks under impact or explosion loading, making the design of lightweight and efficient cushioning systems crucial. This study investigates the dynamic response and energy-dissipation characteristics of Expanded Polystyrene (EPS), Expanded Polyethylene (EPE), and soil–foam composite cushion layers under impact loading, using a Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) testing apparatus. The tests include pure foam layers (lengths ranging from 40 to 300 mm) and a soil–foam composite layer with a total length of 60 mm (soil/foam ratio 1:1 to 1:3), subjected to impact velocities of 9.9–15.4 m/s. The results show that the stress wave propagation velocity of EPE is 149.6 m/s, lower than that of EPS at 249.3 m/s. At higher velocities, the attenuation coefficient for the 40 mm EPE sample reaches as low as 0.22, while EPS is 0.31. Furthermore, the maximum energy absorption coefficient of EPE exceeds 98%, with better stability at high impact velocities. In composite cushion layers, both soil and foam collaborate in energy absorption, but an increased proportion of soil leads to a decrease in energy absorption efficiency and attenuation capacity. Under equivalent ratios, the soil–EPE combination performs better than the soil–EPS combination. By constructing a comprehensive evaluation system based on three indices: stress wave attenuation coefficient, energy absorption coefficient, and energy absorption density, this study quantifies the impact resistance performance of different cushioning layers, providing theoretical and parametric support for material selection in engineering design.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gao et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: