Open Access

Air-blast loading is a serious threat to military and civil vehicles, buildings, containers, and cargo. Applications of sandwich-structured composites have attracted increasing interest in modern lightweight design and in the construction of dynamic loading regimes due to their high resistance against blast and ballistic impacts. The functional properties of such composites are determined by the interplay of their face sheet material and the employed core topology. The core topology is the most important parameter affecting the structural behavior of sandwich composites. Therefore, this contribution presents a thorough numerical investigation of different core topologies in sandwich-structured composites subjected to blast loading. Special emphasis is put on prismatic and lattice core topologies displaying auxetic and classical non-auxetic deformation characteristics in order to illustrate the beneficial properties of auxetic core topologies. Their dynamic responses, elastic and plastic deformations, failure mechanisms, and energy absorption capabilities are numerically analyzed and compared. The numerical studies are performed by means of the commercial finite element code ABAQUS/Explicit, including a model for structural failure.

The paper focuses on a study of turbulence decay in flow with streamwise gradient. For the first time, an analytical solution of this problem was obtained based on the k‐ε model of turbulence in one‐dimensional (1D) approximation, as well as on the symmetry properties of the system of differential equations. Lie group technique enabled reducing the problem to a linear differential equation. The analytical solution enabled parametric studies, which are computationally cheap in comparison to CFD based simulations. The lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) in two‐dimensional approximation (2D) was used to validate the analytical results. Large eddy simulation (LES) Smagorinsky approach was used to close the LBM model. Computations revealed that the rate of turbulence decay is significantly different for the cases of positive and negative streamwise pressure gradient. The further comparisons showed that the analytical solution underpredicts the predictions by the numerical methodology, which can be attributed to the simplified problem statement used to derive the closed‐form analytical solution. Comparisons of calculations with experiments revealed that the theoretical models used in the study underpredict the measurements for flows with a positive pressure gradient. Hence it can be concluded that the LBM technique combined with the LES Smagorinsky model requires the further modification.