materials

Article
Energy Absorption Characteristics of Composite Material with
Fiber–Foam Metal Sandwich Structure Subjected to
Gas Explosion
Baoyong Zhang, Jin Tao *, Jiarui Cui, Yiyu Zhang, Yajun Wang, Yingxin Zhang, Yonghui Han and Man Sun

Department of Safety Engineering, Heilongjiang University of Science and Technology, Harbin 150022, China;
[email protected] (B.Z.); [email protected] (J.C.); [email protected] (Y.Z.);
[email protected] (Y.W.); [email protected] (Y.Z.); [email protected] (Y.H.);
[email protected] (M.S.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-339-451-5557

Abstract: Based on the previous research on the energy absorption of foam metal materials with
different structures, a composite blast-resistant energy-absorbing material with a flexible core layer
was designed. The material is composed of three different fiber materials (carbon fiber, aramid fiber,
and glass fiber) as the core layer and foamed iron–nickel metal as the front and rear panels. The energy
absorption characteristics were tested using a self-built gas explosion tube network experimental
platform, and the energy absorption effects of different combinations of blast-resistant materials
were analyzed. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the performance of blast-resistant materials
designed with flexible fiber core layers. The experimental results show that the composite structure
blast-resistant material with a flexible core layer has higher energy absorption performance. The
work performed in this paper shows that the use of flexible core layer materials has great research
potential and engineering research value for improving energy absorption performance, reducing the
mass of blast-resistant materials, and reducing production costs. It also provides thoughts for the
research of biomimetic energy-absorbing materials.

Keywords: gas explosion; core layer; foamed metal; explosion-proof capability; composite
Citation: Zhang, B.; Tao, J.; Cui, J.;
Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Han,
Y.; Sun, M. Energy Absorption
Characteristics of Composite Material 1. Introduction
with Fiber–Foam Metal Sandwich
Gas and other dangerous gas explosions are common hazards in industrial and mining
Structure Subjected to Gas Explosion.
Materials 2024, 17, 1596. https://
enterprises. The key to rescue and relief is to reduce casualties after the explosion. Currently,
doi.org/10.3390/ma17071596
explosion suppression methods can be broadly divided into gas explosion suppression,
liquid explosion suppression, and solid explosion suppression [1].
Academic Editor: Eddie Koenders Gas explosion suppression mainly employs experimental and numerical simulation
Received: 5 February 2024 methods from a macroscopic point of view to study the role of a single or complex gas
Revised: 9 March 2024 explosion suppression system. The research objects are mainly inert gases, N2 , CO2 , and
Accepted: 26 March 2024 other gases. Liquid explosion suppression generally involves the addition of aqueous
Published: 31 March 2024 media by changing the spray molecular volume, additives, and charge of fine water mist on
the gas explosion pressure and flame propagation velocity inhibition effect. In their research
on solid explosion suppression, many scholars have found that porous materials have
unique physical and mechanical properties and excellent energy absorption performance.
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
They have carried out extensive research, and these materials have been widely used in the
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
field of engineering protection.
This article is an open access article
Foam metal is one of the research hotspots of scholars due to its advantages of low
distributed under the terms and
density, large specific surface area, and high thermal conductivity. Zhuang et al. [2]
conditions of the Creative Commons
conducted an experimental study on the suppression effect of different porous materials
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
on the explosion of combustible gases. The results showed that the thickness and pore
4.0/).
size changes in the composite porous material have a great influence on the explosion

Materials 2024, 17, 1596. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17071596 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2024, 17, 1596 2 of 14

pressure and explosion intensity. Varun et al. [3] conducted a numerical simulation of
three samples with different porosities (30%, 60%, and 80%) uniformly compressed in the
uniaxial (Z-axis) direction to study the influence of porosity on the mechanical properties
of open-pore Voronoi foam. Wang Yajun et al. [4] found through their personally designed
experimental device that when the volume density of foam metal is higher, its explosion-
proof performance is better, but adding a certain amount of coal dust to the explosion
device will reduce the explosion-proof performance of foam metal. Wei Chunrong et al. [5]
used a self-designed and processed square explosion experimental pipeline with a cross
section of 30 cm × 30 cm to compare the explosion-proof effects of metal wire mesh, foam
ceramics, and foam iron–nickel metal with different parameters. Yu Minggao et al. [6]
studied the influence law of the synergistic effect of ultra-fine water mist and foam metal
on explosion overpressure and found that changing the parameters, such as material
porosity, can improve the explosion-proof effect of the experiment. Zhang Baoyong et al. [7]
conducted an experimental study on the energy absorption performance of explosion-proof
materials with a sawtooth structure and analyzed the influence of surface structure on
energy absorption performance.
In addition to researching foam metal as a barrier material, scholars have also in-
creasingly focused their attention on multilayer sandwich structures [8–17]. Tarlochan,
F. [18] discussed the use of sandwich structures in energy absorption applications and
found that sandwich structures are a good choice for energy absorbers. It is suggested
that the way forward is to design sandwich structures by using a combination of “artificial
intelligence/data mining and topology optimisation.” Many scholars have used sandwich
structures designed with foamed metal in order to obtain higher energy absorption per-
formance [3,19–31]. Zunjarrao, K. [32] reviewed current research on innovative sandwich
structures, including integral woven corrugated cores, honeycomb cores, foam cores, and
3D printed core structures, and highlighted their versatility. Mao [33] used theoretical and
numerical methods to study the attenuation of shock waves generated by gas explosions
by an energy absorption device composed of aluminum foam and steel plates. The results
showed that the multilayer composite structure has a good ability to reduce explosion load
and attenuate air shock wave overpressure. The foam aluminum layer has the ability to
attenuate explosion pressure before compression, and the attenuation ability decreases after
the foam aluminum is completely compressed. Zhang et al. [34] studied and numerically
analyzed the "effective" compressive strength and the dynamic response of corrugated
sandwich panels with unfilled and foam-filled sinusoidal corrugated cores. The dynamic
response of fully supported sandwich panels with unfilled and foam-filled sinusoidal
corrugated cores under impact loading was analyzed using the finite element method.
Chen et al. [35] carried out a study of the explosion protection properties of a composite
structural barrier material with polymer interlayers using the LS-DYNA software and
calibrated numerical models to simulate the explosion resistance and energy absorption
capacity of the composite material under long-distance explosive loading conditions. Zhou
et al. [36] predicted the compressive strength and dynamic response of a corrugated sand-
wich panel consisting of a panel and a metal foam core in close proximity to explosions. An
energy-based method was proposed to predict the depth and scope of deformation in the
outer panel, providing insights for the design and sizing of the core layer material. Langdon
et al. [37] classified the energy absorption properties and applications of fiber-reinforced
polymer composites and studied the multilayered (including the sandwich structure) and
mixed composite metal structure materials. The numerical predictions were compared
and analyzed with experimental data. In order to improve the protective performance of
aluminum foam sandwich composites against blast shock wave and fragmentation pene-
tration, Zhou et al. [38] studied the damage modes and mechanisms of the structure using
the “blast + fragmentation” intrusion experiments. The effects of core material combination
and blast distance on protective performance were also discussed and verified by the LS-
DYNA numerical simulation. Santosa et al. [39] investigated the blast resistance and barrier
performance of metal foam sandwich panels with different thicknesses, materials, and bulk
Materials 2024, 17, 1596 3 of 14

densities by changing the impact distance between the blast load and the foam sandwich
panels. Guo et al. [40] designed a metal foam-filled sandwich cylinder (MFSC) and found
that adjusting the thickness of the foam based on the impact distance of the foam sandwich
panels had no significant effect on the barrier performance by means of experiments and
finite element calculations. In contrast, a finite element calculation found that adjusting the
ratio of foam thickness to tube wall thickness can improve the load-carrying capacity and
energy-absorption capacity of the energy-absorbing structure.
Inspired by the ancient Chinese philosophical idea of “combining hardness and soft-
ness” and the “sandwich” core structure, and based on the previous experimental study on
the energy absorption characteristics of different explosion-proof surface materials, a com-
posite explosion-proof and energy-absorbing material with foam metal as the upper and
lower panels and fiber material as the core layer was designed. The explosion overpressure,
flame propagation speed, flame temperature, and other characteristic parameters of the
front and rear ends of the composite material after being subjected to a methane–air mixture
gas explosion were collected and analyzed. The research results are expected to provide
an experimental and analytical basis for the application of fiber–foam metal sandwich
structure composite materials in the fields of gas explosion isolation and energy absorption.

2. Experimental
2.1. Materials
The experimental materials included foamed metal ferronickel, carbon fiber, aramid
fiber, and glass fiber. The foam iron–nickel metal was produced by Jilin Zhuoer Metal
Material Preparation Company (Jilin City, China). Pore density was 30, bulk density was
0.4–0.5 g/cm3 , tensile strength was not less than 50 MPa, and compressive strength was
not less than 250 kPa.
The fiber materials were all made of tough fiber fabrics from Zhongfu Fiber Textile
Preparation Co., Ltd. (Suqian City, China) The fabric density was 1000 D, and the single-
layer thickness was 1 mm. Five layers of each of the three materials, carbon fiber, aramid
fiber, and glass fiber, were selected, and the core thickness was 5 mm.

2.2. Equipment
As shown in Figure 1, the experimental system consists of six main parts in turn:
the gas distribution system, ignition system, explosion chamber, explosion diffusion line,
material gripper, and data acquisition system [41]. The end of the explosion chamber
and the diffusion line are equipped with a PTFE film with a thickness of 0.3 mm and
a breaking pressure of 90 kPa, and the edge of the gripper is sealed by a rubber ring,
which is used to ensure the hermeticity inside the chamber. The main equipment of the
gas distribution system is a vacuum pump. Under normal temperature and pressure
conditions, the vacuum pump extracts part of the air from the explosion chamber to form
a relative negative pressure state in the chamber. The required combustible gas is filled
into the explosion chamber in this state. According to the experimental requirements, a
certain volume of pure methane gas is charged to make it a mixed gas with an explosion
concentration of 9.5%. An electric spark generator with an ignition voltage of 220 V and an
ignition energy of 440 J is installed at the front end of the explosion chamber. The ignition
electrode is responsible for remote charging and ignition by the terminal ignition system.
The back end of the explosion chamber is sealed by a circular steel plate with a diameter
of 300 mm and a thickness of 40 mm, and there is a hole of 118 mm in the center of the
circular steel plate to connect with the diffusion line at the back end. The inner diameter
of the diffusion pipe is 118 mm. It is spliced together from three hollow steel pipes with a
single pipe length of 2200 mm. The total length of the explosion diffusion pipe is 6600 mm.
 No. 6 flame sensors and pressure sensors and is 0.15 m away from the No. 5 sensors. The
data acquisition system used is the TST6300 data acquisition system from Chengdu
Tester Company. The data acquisition objects are flame propagation speed, explosion
overpressure, and flame temperature. The data sampling frequency is 100 kHz. The
Materials 2024, 17, 1596 acquisition method is internal triggering. The recording time starts from the trigger
4 of 14
ignition, and the entire recording process is less than 2 s.

Figure 1. Experimental system.

Figure 1. Experimental system.
2.3. Experimental Steps and Program
Flame sensors and pressure sensors, numbered 1–6, and temperature sensors, num-
This experiment uses the explosion tube network device shown in Figure 1 to test
bered 1–3, are installed at different locations in the experimental pipeline. The pressure
the explosion-resistant performance of materials with different blast-facing structures by
sensor, flame sensor, and temperature sensor are all provided by Chengdu Tester Company
means of a gas explosion. The specific experimental process is as follows: First, clean the
(Chengdu, China), of which the pressure sensor model is CT100T, with a sensor range of
explosion chamber and explosion pipe network, seal the connection between the
0~2 MPa; the flame sensor model is CKG100, with a response spectrum of 450 nm~980 nm;
explosion chamber and the explosion-proof film holder with a 0.3 mm thick film, and seal
the temperature sensor model is C2 fast-response thermocouple, with a sensor range of
the edge ◦ C;ofand
the holder with a sealing ring around the explosion-proof film holder.
0~2500 the response time of all three sensors is less than 100 µs. Foam metal is
Subsequently, the explosion chamber with a length of 1600 mm and a diameter of 300
installed in the material gripper, which is located between the No. 5 and No. 6 flame sensors
mm is filled with a certain volume of methane gas, so that the interior of the chamber is
and pressure sensors and is 0.15 m away from the No. 5 sensors. The data acquisition
filled with a methane–air gas mixture with a volume fraction of 9.50% for the explosion
system used is the TST6300 data acquisition system from Chengdu Tester Company. The
experiment.
data During
acquisition the whole
objects experiment,
are flame the data
propagation acquisition
speed, explosionsystem collects data
overpressure, and from
flame
different sensors at each measuring point for comparison, so as to observe the changing
temperature. The data sampling frequency is 100 kHz. The acquisition method is internal
patterns ofThe
triggering. therecording
impeded time
change in from
starts flamethetemperature propagation,
trigger ignition, the change
and the entire in
recording
explosion overpressure before and after the material, and the flame propagation in the
process is less than 2 s.
pipeline as an indicator to judge the explosion-resistant performance of the material.
The experimental
2.3. Experimental conditions
Steps and Programare shown in Table 1. The front and rear panels of the
explosion-proof material are both foam iron–nickel metal. The front panel is
This experiment uses the explosion tube network device shown in Figure 1 to test
surface-modified according to the experimental design requirements. Before the
the explosion-resistant performance of materials with different blast-facing structures by
means of a gas explosion. The specific experimental process is as follows: First, clean the
explosion chamber and explosion pipe network, seal the connection between the explosion
chamber and the explosion-proof film holder with a 0.3 mm thick film, and seal the edge of
the holder with a sealing ring around the explosion-proof film holder. Subsequently, the
explosion chamber with a length of 1600 mm and a diameter of 300 mm is filled with a
certain volume of methane gas, so that the interior of the chamber is filled with a methane–
air gas mixture with a volume fraction of 9.50% for the explosion experiment. During the
whole experiment, the data acquisition system collects data from different sensors at each
measuring point for comparison, so as to observe the changing patterns of the impeded
change in flame temperature propagation, the change in explosion overpressure before and
after the material, and the flame propagation in the pipeline as an indicator to judge the
explosion-resistant performance of the material.
The experimental conditions are shown in Table 1. The front and rear panels of the
explosion-proof material are both foam iron–nickel metal. The front panel is surface-
modified according to the experimental design requirements. Before the experiment, the
wire cutting method is used to prepare the explosion-facing surface into a sawtooth wave
with a thickness of 5 mm and an angle of 30◦ . The fiber core layer is divided into three
Materials 2024, 17, 1596 5 of 14

working conditions: carbon fiber, aramid fiber, and glass fiber. In order to improve the data
comparison effect of each working condition, experiment 1 is set as the control experiment.
The thickness of the front panel is 15 mm, and no fiber material is added in the middle. The
material parameters of other experiments are based on Table 1. In addition, in order to test
the stability of the experimental platform, an empty pipe experiment without explosion-
proof material is added.

Table 1. Design parameters of external explosive surface tests.

Number of Body Density Serrated Thickness Material Thickness

Fiber Type Foamed Metal
Test (g/cm3 ) (mm) (mm)
1 — foamed ferronickel 0.5 5 15 + 0 + 10
2 carbon foamed ferronickel 0.5 5 10 + 5 + 10
3 aramid foamed ferronickel 0.5 5 10 + 5 + 10
4 glass foamed ferronickel 0.5 5 10 + 5 + 10

The experiment is mainly conducted using the three aspects of the research data—the
explosion overpressure, flame propagation speed, and flame temperature—as well as a
comparative evaluation of different experimental materials on the explosion overpressure
and other parameters of inhibition. The explosion overpressure, flame propagation, speed,
and flame temperature-related formulas [41] are shown in (1)–(5):

V = dp/dt =( pmax − pi )/∆t =∆p/∆t (1)

where V is the rate of decline in overpressure, in MPa/s; Pmax is the front end of the test
material maximum explosion overpressure, in MPa; Pi is the back end of the test material
maximum explosion overpressure, in MPa; ∆p is the test material before and after the two
ends of the explosion pressure difference, in MPa; and ∆t is the sensor detection signal time
difference, in seconds.
ζ =( pmax − pi )/pmax (2)
where Pmax is the experimental material in the front channel of the maximum overpressure,
in MPa; Pi is the explosion conditions of the experimental material at the back end of the
maximum explosion overpressure, in MPa; and ζ is the overpressure attenuation rate, that
is, the material of the maximum overpressure reduction control ability.
The blocking effect of the experimental material on the flame propagation velocity can
be compared with the flame propagation velocity decay rate as follows:

µ =∆ν/νmax (3)

where µ is the foam metal before and after the flame propagation velocity attenuation rate,
in m/s; ∆ν is the foam metal before and after the difference in velocity propagation, in m/s;
and νmax is the foam metal during the explosion before the end of the maximum value of
velocity, in m/s.
The damping effect of the experimental materials on the flame temperature can be
compared with the flame temperature decay rate as follows:

η =( Tf,max − Ti,max )/Tf,max (4)

where Tmax is the maximum temperature at the front end of the experimental material, in
◦ C; T is the maximum temperature at the back end of the experimental material, in ◦ C; and
i
η is the flame temperature attenuation rate, i.e., the material’s abatement control ability for
the maximum temperature.
Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15
Materials 2024, 17, 1596 6 of 14

The overall protection effect of the experimental materials can be compared with the
explosion quenching
The overall parameters
protection effectas
offollows:
the experimental materials can be compared with the
explosion quenching parameters as follows:
θ = TP
(5)
θ = TP T is the flame temperature, in °C; and (5)
where 𝜃 is the quenching parameter, in MPa·°C; P
is the explosion overpressure, in MPa.
where θ is the quenching parameter, in MPa·◦ C; T is the flame temperature, in ◦ C; and P is
3.the explosion
Results and overpressure,
Discussion in MPa.
3.1. Comparative
3. Results Study of the Blast Overpressure Barrier Effect
and Discussion
3.1. Comparative Study
Figure 2 shows theof explosion
the Blast Overpressure Barrier Effectdata before and after different
overpressure–distance
experiments.
Figure 2The
showsmaximum explosion
the explosion overpressure of experiments
overpressure–distance data before 1 and
to 4 after
is reduced to
different
0.105 MPa, 0.067
experiments. TheMPa, 0.069 MPa,
maximum and 0.034
explosion MPa, respectively,
overpressure after passing
of experiments 1 to 4 isthrough
reducedthe to
explosion-proof material. The sensor value is significantly reduced
0.105 MPa, 0.067 MPa, 0.069 MPa, and 0.034 MPa, respectively, after passing through the after the
explosion-proof
explosion-proof material,
material. and The it can be
sensor clearly
value seen from reduced
is significantly the experimental data that
after the explosion-
experiments 2 to
proof material, and4 ithave
can be a clearly
better seen
pressure
from drop effect underdata
the experimental thethat
same gas explosion
experiments 2 to 4
overpressure propagation
have a better pressure dropconditions
effect under[41]
the and
sameare
gasbetter thanoverpressure
explosion the single foam metal
propagation
structure explosion-proof
conditions [41] and are bettermaterial.
than the single foam metal structure explosion-proof material.

1.0

Blank Experiment
Experiment 1
0.8
Explosion overpressure (MPa)

Experiment 2
Experiment 3
Experiment 4
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Sensor number

Explosiveoverpressure–distance
Figure2.2.Explosive
Figure overpressure–distancedata.
data.

At
At the
the same time,time,thetheoverpressure
overpressureattenuation
attenuation results
results of the
of the three
three fiberfiber material
material core
core explosion-proof
explosion-proof materials
materials havehavelargelarge differences:
differences: the overpressure
the overpressure attenuation
attenuation rate ofrate
the
of the carbon
carbon fiber–foam
fiber–foam metal explosion-proof
metal explosion-proof material material to gas explosion
to gas explosion overpressure
overpressure is
is 85.27%,
85.27%,
and theand the explosion
explosion overpressure
overpressure before before
and afterandthe
after the material
material is reduced
is reduced by 0.388by 0.388
MPa.
The overpressure
MPa. The overpressure attenuation rate of aramid
attenuation rate offiber–foam metal explosion-proof
aramid fiber–foam material to
metal explosion-proof
gas explosion
material to gasoverpressure is 84.24%, and
explosion overpressure the explosion
is 84.24%, and the overpressure before and after
explosion overpressure the
before
material
and is reduced
after the materialby is 0.369
reduced MPa. by The
0.369overpressure attenuationattenuation
MPa. The overpressure rate of glassrate fiber–foam
of glass
metal explosion-proof
fiber–foam material is 92.01%,
metal explosion-proof materialandisthe explosion
92.01%, and overpressure
the explosionbefore and after
overpressure
the material is reduced by 0.392 MPa. From the perspective of
before and after the material is reduced by 0.392 MPa. From the perspective of the the overpressure attenuation
rate of different
overpressure core layerrate
attenuation explosion-proof materials,
of different core glass fiber has thematerials,
layer explosion-proof best effect, followed
glass fiber
by aramid fiber, and carbon fiber has the lowest effect.
has the best effect, followed by aramid fiber, and carbon fiber has the lowest effect.
The evolution
The evolutionofofexplosion
explosion overpressure
overpressure before and after
before anddifferent composite
after different materials
composite
is shownisinshown
materials Figurein3.Figure
According to the data
3. According to theanalysis in the in
data analysis figure, the explosion
the figure, over-
the explosion
pressure drop rates of experiments 1 to 4 are 11.82 MPa/s, 3.62
overpressure drop rates of experiments 1 to 4 are 11.82 MPa/s, 3.62 MPa/s, 4.11 MPa/s, MPa/s, 4.11 MPa/s, and
2.78 MPa/s, respectively. There are two reasons why the explosion
and 2.78 MPa/s, respectively. There are two reasons why the explosion overpressure drop overpressure drop rates
of experiments
rates of experiments 2 to 42are
to 4smaller than than
are smaller for experiment
for experiment1: (1)1:the(1)maximum
the maximum explosion over-
explosion
overpressure detected by sensor P5 in experiments 2 to 4 is smaller than that of1;
pressure detected by sensor P5 in experiments 2 to 4 is smaller than that of experiment
(2) due to the
experiment 1; addition
(2) due toofthetough fibers,ofthe
addition material
tough hinders
fibers, the propagation
the material hinders the of the explosion
propagation
shock
of wave, prolongs
the explosion shock thewave,timeprolongs
for the explosion
the time for shockthewave to pass
explosion through
shock wavethe toentire
pass
material, and thus plays a role in weakening the penetration ability
through the entire material, and thus plays a role in weakening the penetration ability of the explosion shock
of
wave
the [41]. shock wave [41].
explosion
Materials 2024,
Materials 2024, 17,
17, 1596
x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15
7 of 14

1.0 1.0
Pressure sensor 5, pmax= 0.627MPa Pressure sensor 5, pmax= 0.420MPa
Pressure sensor 6, pmax= 0.105MPa Pressure sensor 6, pmax= 0.041MPa
0.8 0.8
Explosion overpressure (MPa)

Explosion overpressure (MPa)

0.627
0.6 0.6

0.421
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
0.106
0.041

0.0 0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (ms) Time (ms)

（a） （b）

1.0 1.0
Pressure sensor 5, pmax= 0.416MPa Pressure sensor 5, pmax= 0.446MPa
Pressure sensor 6, pmax= 0.058MPa Pressure sensor 6, pmax= 0.032MPa
0.8 0.8
Explosion overpressure (MPa)

Explosion overpressure (MPa)

0.6 0.6

0.446
0.416
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.058
0.032
0.0 0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (ms) Time (ms)

（c） （d）

Figure 3.3. Different

Differentcomposite
compositematerial
material overpressure
overpressure change
change rulerule with
with time.time. (a) Without
(a) Without a corea layer.
core
layer.
(b) (b) Carbon
Carbon fiber
fiber core core (c)
layer. layer. (c) Aramid
Aramid fiber
fiber core core(d)
layer. layer. (d)fiber
Glass Glass fiber
core core layer.
layer.
Through analysis, it was concluded that when the explosion shock wave propagates
Through analysis, it was concluded that when the explosion shock wave propagates
inside the foam metal, due to the porous structure characteristics of the foam metal itself,
inside the foam metal, due to the porous structure characteristics of the foam metal itself,
the shock wave overpressure can be divided into several small parts when it passes
the shock wave overpressure can be divided into several small parts when it passes through
through
the foam the
metalfoam metal and
material, material, and the
the pressure canpressure cantransmitted
be quickly be quickly and transmitted
absorbed,and re-
absorbed, reducing the propagation speed of the shock wave and
ducing the propagation speed of the shock wave and achieving the effect of blockingachieving the effecttheof
blocking the propagation of the explosion overpressure [41]. This experiment
propagation of the explosion overpressure [41]. This experiment increases the explosion- increases
the explosion-proof
proof performance ofperformance
foam metal underof foam metal under
explosion explosionby
overpressure overpressure
adding fiberby adding
materials
fiber materials
inside the foaminside
metalthe foam
so as metal so
to further as to further
weaken weakenshock.
the explosion the explosion
When theshock. When
explosion
the explosion overpressure hits the fiber material, due to the fact that the
overpressure hits the fiber material, due to the fact that the fiber material is a flexiblefiber material is
a flexible material with better deformation ability, the fiber material will deform
material with better deformation ability, the fiber material will deform and play a buffering and play
a buffering
role role in
in the process of the
being process
subjectedof being subjected shock,
to the explosion to the further
explosion shock, the
protecting further
rear
protecting the rear material from the stress it bears, improving the
material from the stress it bears, improving the overall energy absorption characteristics overall energyof
absorption
the material,characteristics of the material,
and further reducing and further
the explosion shockreducing theof
at the rear explosion shockUnder
the material. at the
rearpremise
the of the material.
of the sameUnderfoamthemetal
premise of the
as rigid same foam
support and themetal
sameas surface
rigid support and
porosity, the
glass
same surface porosity, glass fiber has higher fiber density, better anti-deformation
fiber has higher fiber density, better anti-deformation ability, and absorbs more shock wave ability,
and absorbs more
overpressure shock
released by wave overpressure released by gas explosions.
gas explosions.

3.2. Comparative Study of the Flame Propagation Blocking Blocking Effect

Effect
The relationship
relationshipbetween
between flame propagation
flame speed
propagation and propagation
speed distance
and propagation is shown
distance is
in Figure 4. In experiments 1 to 4, the speeds detected by the sensors
shown in Figure 4. In experiments 1 to 4, the speeds detected by the sensors at the rear ofat the rear of the
explosion-proof
the explosion-proof material are 65.28
material are m/s,
65.28 57.32
m/s, m/s,
57.32 52.18
m/s, m/s,
52.18and 33.48
m/s, andm/s, respec-
33.48 m/s,
tively. After calculation,
respectively. the flamethe
After calculation, propagation speed decreases
flame propagation speed by 216.27 m/s,
decreases 164.17 m/s,
by 216.27 m/s,
151.09
164.17 m/s, and 160.30
m/s, 151.09 m/s,m/s, respectively.
and 160.30 The results show
m/s, respectively. that adding
The results showathat
fiberadding
material core
a fiber
layer to the
material foam
core iron–nickel
layer to the foampanel can absorbpanel
iron–nickel and suppress
can absorbthe further propagation
and suppress of the
the further
flame, thereby of
propagation achieving the purpose
the flame, thereby of improving
achievingthetheexplosion-proof
purpose of effect. The reason
improving the
for this is that when the flame passes through the fibers inside the
explosion-proof effect. The reason for this is that when the flame passes through foam metal, a “channel”
the
that is inside
fibers smallerthe andfoam
denser thanathe
metal, original that
“channel” foamismetal is formed.
smaller and denserWhenthan
the flame flows
the original
Materials 2024,
Materials 2024, 17,
17, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 88 of
of 15
15

Materials 2024, 17, 1596 8 of 14

foam metal is formed. When the flame flows in the denser “channel,” the oxygen supply
of
inthe
the flame
denseris“channel,”
further blocked, achieving
the oxygen theofpurpose
supply the flameof ismore easily
further isolating
blocked, the flame
achieving the
propagation [41,42]. Similar to the experimental results of explosion overpressure
purpose of more easily isolating the flame propagation [41,42]. Similar to the experimental
suppression, glass fiber
results of explosion core layersuppression,
overpressure material has glass
the best
fiberflame propagation
core layer materialsuppression
has the best
flame propagation suppression effect.
effect.

300
300 Blank Experiment
Blank Experiment
Experiment 11
Experiment
Experiment 22
Experiment
250
250 Experiment 33
Experiment
Experiment 44
Experiment
(m/s)
velocity(m/s)

200
200
Flamevelocity

150
150
Flame

100
100

50
50

00

11 22 33 44 55 66
Sensor number
Sensor number

Flamespeed–distance
Figure4.4.Flame
Figure speed–distancedata.
data.

Figure shows aa graph

Figure55 shows graph of
ofthe
theflame
flamepropagation
propagation velocity
velocity suppression
suppression effect
effect data.
data. The
The flame propagation velocity detected at the rear end of the flame retardant
flame propagation velocity detected at the rear end of the flame retardant material was material
was reduced
reduced forconditions,
for all all conditions,
withwith the attenuation
the attenuation rate rate ranging
ranging fromfrom 74.12%
74.12% to 89.60%.
to 89.60%.

300
300
Maximum flame
Maximum flame velocity
velocity
Flame speed
Flame speed decay
decay rate
rate
(m/s)
velocity(m/s)

225
225 221.486
221.486
(%)
rate(%)

203.275
203.275
192.852
flamevelocity

192.852
decayrate

174.091
174.091
speeddecay

150
150
Maximumflame

Flame speed
Maximum

89.6
89.6
Flame

75 74.13
74.13 74.12
74.12 74.33
74.33
75

00
Experiment 11
Experiment Experiment 22
Experiment Experiment 33
Experiment Experiment 44
Experiment

Flamevelocity
Figure5.5.Flame
Figure velocitysuppression
suppressioneffect
effectdata.
data.

The
Theflame
flamepropagation
propagationspeed speedattenuation
attenuationraterateofofthe
theexplosion-proof
explosion-proofmaterial
materialbefore
before
andafter
and afterexperiment
experiment44isis89.60%,
89.60%,the themaximum
maximumflame flamepropagation
propagationspeed speedisis174.091
174.091 m/s,
m/s,
and it has
and has thethebest blocking
best blocking effect on the
effect on explosion flame propagation.
the explosion flame propagation.The flame Thepropaga-
flame
tion speed attenuation
propagation rates of experiments
speed attenuation 1 to 3 are similar,
rates of experiments at similar,
1 to 3 are 74.13%, 74.12%,
at 74.13%, and74.12%,
74.33%,
and 74.33%, respectively.
respectively. The maximumThe maximum
flame flame
propagation propagation
speeds are 221.486 speeds
m/s, are 221.486
203.275 m/s,m/s,
and
192.852m/s,
203.275 m/s,andrespectively.
192.852 m/s, Therespectively.
maximum flame The propagation
maximum flame speeds of experiments
propagation speeds 2 to
of4
are all lower 2than
experiments to for
4 areexperiment
all lower1 to different
than degrees, which
for experiment 1 toindicates
differentthat the protection
degrees, which
effects ofthat
indicates experiments 2 to 4 effects
the protection are all better than experiment
of experiments 2 to 4 are1 under the than
all better impact of flame. 1
experiment
underFigure 6 shows
the impact the flame propagation effect diagram at the end of the explosion
of flame.
pipeline.
Figure It can be seen
6 shows thefrom
flame thepropagation
pictures of experiment 4 that
effect diagram atonly part of the
the end the smoke
explosionand
gas are diffused from the end of the pipeline, and there is no situation
pipeline. It can be seen from the pictures of experiment 4 that only part of the smoke and where the material
or flame
gas rushesfrom
are diffused out ofthetheendend of the
of the explosion
pipeline, and pipeline.
there is noThe experimental
situation where the effect is the
material
or flame rushes out of the end of the explosion pipeline. The experimental effect is theof
best. In experiment 3, only a large amount of smoke was sprayed out under the premise
ensuring
best. the integrity
In experiment of the
3, only experimental
a large amount of material.
smoke was Thesprayed
experimental effectthe
out under is better.
premise In
experiment
of ensuring the 2, aintegrity
small amountof theofexperimental
carbon fiber material.
material was Thesprayed out of effect
experimental the pipeline along
is better. In
with smoke,2,and
experiment the integrity
a small amount of of the core fiber
carbon material was not
material wasguaranteed.
sprayed outThe of experimental
the pipeline
along with smoke, and the integrity of the core material was not guaranteed.results
effect is the worst. By comparing the explosion overpressure and flame propagation The
of each working
experimental condition
effect and combining
is the worst. the analysis
By comparing of the actual
the explosion effect at theand
overpressure endflame
of the
experimental pipeline, it is once again demonstrated that adding tough fiber materials to
Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15
Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15

Materials 2024, 17, 1596 9 of 14

propagation results of each working condition and combining the analysis of the actual
propagation results of each working condition and combining the analysis of the actual
effect at the end of the experimental pipeline, it is once again demonstrated that adding
effect at the end of the experimental pipeline, it is once again demonstrated that adding
tough fiber materials to foam metal can effectively improve the overall explosion-proof
tough fiber materials
foam metal to foam
can effectively metalthe
improve can effectively
overall improve the
explosion-proof overall explosion-proof
performance of the material
performance of the material compared to single foam metal experiments.
performance
compared to of the material
single compared
foam metal to single foam metal experiments.
experiments.

Figure 6. Fire propagation effect diagram at the end of the explosion pipe network.
Figure
Figure6.6.Fire
Firepropagation
propagationeffect
effectdiagram
diagramat
atthe
theend
endof
ofthe
theexplosion
explosion pipe
pipe network.
network.
3.3.
3.3.Comparative
ComparativeStudy
Studyof the
theFlame
FlameTemperature
TemperatureBarrier
BarrierEffect
3.3. Comparative Study ofofthe Flame Temperature Barrier Effect
Effect
Figure 7 shows
Figure 7 shows the flame temperature–distance data data before anddifferent
after different
Figure showsthethe flame temperature–distance
flame temperature–distance before and after
data before explosion-
and after different
explosion-proof
proof materials. materials.
As can be As can
seen be
from seen
the from
figure, the
the figure,
overall the
trend overall
of trend
flame of flame
temperature
explosion-proof materials. As can be seen from the figure, the overall trend of flame
temperature
propagation propagation
is similar to that is similar to that
of explosion of explosion
overpressure andoverpressure
flame propagationand flame
speed.
temperature propagation is similar to that of explosion overpressure and flame
propagation
After addingspeed. After
flexible fiber adding
materialsflexible
to the fiber
foam materials
metal to the foam
material, the metal material,effect
explosion-proof the
propagation speed. After adding flexible fiber materials to the foam metal material, the
explosion-proof
is better than effect
that of aissingle
better foam
than that
metal ofmaterial.
a single foam
Glass metal
fiber material.
has the Glass
best fiber
effect onhas
the
explosion-proof effect is better than that of a single foam metal material. Glass fiber has
the best effect on material
explosion-proof the explosion-proof
with a fiber material
core layer, with a fiberby
followed core layer,fiber,
aramid followed by aramid
and carbon fiber
the best effect on the explosion-proof material with a fiber core layer, followed by aramid
fiber, andworst
has the carbon fiber
effect onhas thethe worst effect on
explosion-proof the explosion-proof material.
material.
fiber, and carbon fiber has the worst effect on the explosion-proof material.

1600
1600
(℃)

1200
(℃)

1200
temperature
temperature

800
800
Flame
Flame

Blank experiment
Blank experiment
Experiment 1
400 Experiment21
Experiment
400 Experiment 32
Experiment
Experiment43
Experiment
Experiment 4
0
0 1 2 3
1 Sensor number
2 3
Sensor number

Figure 7. Flame temperature–distance data.

Figure 7. Flame temperature–distance data.
Figure 7. Flame temperature–distance data.
Thetemperature
The temperature values
values detected
detectedatatthe therear of the
rear explosion-proof
of the explosion-proof materials in exper-
materials in
The1 temperature values detected
◦ C, 69.578 at the ◦rear
◦ C, 85.770 of 44.875
the explosion-proof
◦ C, respectively.materials in
experiments 1 to 4 are 96.112 °C, 69.578 °C, 85.770 °C, and 44.875 °C, respectively.flame
iments to 4 are 96.112 C, and The The
experiments
temperature 1 to 4 are 96.112
drop amplitudes °C, 69.578
are 1094.928 °C,◦ 85.770 °C,
C, 1141.572 and
◦ 44.875
C, 1219.490 °C,
◦ respectively. The◦
flame temperature drop amplitudes are 1094.928 °C, 1141.572 °C, C, and 1232.695
1219.490 °C, andC,
flame temperature
respectively. The drop amplitudes
temperature are 1094.928
attenuation rates are °C, 1141.572
91.93%, 94.26%, °C,93.43%,
1219.490 and°C, and
96.49%,
1232.695 °C, respectively. The temperature attenuation rates are 91.93%, 94.26%, 93.43%,
1232.695 °C, respectively.
respectively. can be seenThe temperature attenuation rates are 91.93%, 94.26%, 93.43%,
and 96.49%, Itrespectively. from
It can the be
experimental
seen fromresults of flame
the experimental temperature
results attenuation
of flame
and
and 96.49%,
temperature respectively.
change It
that can
the be seen
explosion-proof from the experimental
materials composed results
of three ofdifferent
flame
temperature attenuation and temperature change that the explosion-proof materials
temperature
fiber core layerattenuation
materials and
are still temperature
slightly change
bettermaterials that the
than the single explosion-proof
foam metal material materials
in terms
composed of three different fiber core layer are still slightly better than the
composed
of flame of three different
temperature suppression,fiber and
corethelayer materials results
experimental are stillofslightly
the glass better
fiber thanlayer
core the
single foam metal material in terms of flame temperature suppression, and the
single foam metal
are still the best. material in terms of flame temperature suppression, and the
experimental results of the glass fiber core layer are still the best.
experimental
Figure 88results
shows of the glass fiber core layer are stillparameters
the best. of different explosion-
Figure showsthethecomparison
comparison of theofextinction
the extinction parameters of different
proofFigure 8 shows
surfaces. the comparison
The extinction parameterof the rear
at the extinction parameters ofmaterial
of the explosion-proof different in
explosion-proof surfaces. The extinction parameter at the rear of the explosion-proof
explosion-proof
experiment 4 is 1.53 MPa·◦The
surfaces. C, and extinction parameter ateffect
the explosion-proof the isrear
theof theThe
best. explosion-proof
extinction pa-
rameters at the rear of the explosion-proof materials in experiments 1 to 3 are 10.09 MPa·◦ C,
4.66 MPa·◦ C, and 7.63 MPa·◦ C, respectively. The values of the extinction parameters
Materials 2024,
Materials 2024, 17,
17, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 10 of
10 of 15
15

Materials 2024, 17, 1596 material in

material in experiment
experiment 44 is is 1.53
1.53 MPa·°C,
MPa·°C, andand the
the explosion-proof
explosion-proof effect effect is
is the
the best.
best. The
10 The
of 14
extinction parameters at the rear of the explosion-proof materials in experiments 1 to 33
extinction parameters at the rear of the explosion-proof materials in experiments 1 to
are 10.09
are 10.09 MPa·°C,
MPa·°C, 4.66 4.66 MPa·°C,
MPa·°C, and and 7.63
7.63 MPa·°C,
MPa·°C, respectively.
respectively. The The values
values of of thethe
extinction
extinction parameters
parameters before
before and
and after
after the
the materials
◦
materials are
are 755.75
755.75
before and after the materials are 755.75 MPa· C, 546.41 MPa· C, 564.07 MPa· C, and MPa·°C,
◦
MPa·°C, 546.41
546.41 MPa·°C,
◦
MPa·°C,
564.07 MPa·°C,
564.07
542.72 MPa·°C,
MPa·◦ C,and and 542.72 MPa·°C,
542.72
respectively. MPa·°C, respectively.
Whenrespectively.
the extinction When
When the extinction
the
parameter extinction parameter
is lowerparameter
than 390 MPa is lower
is lower
·◦ C,
than
than
people 390
390andMPa·°C,
MPa·°C,
equipment people
people and
areand equipment
equipment
within the relativeare within
are safety
withinlimit,the relative
the relative safety
and thesafety limit,
lower limit, and
and the
the extinction the
lower
lower the extinction
the extinction
parameter, parameter,
the betterparameter, the better
the better
the protection the
effect.the protection
protection
Data effect.
analysiseffect.
showsDataData analysis
thatanalysis
experiment shows
shows 1 hasthat
thata
experiment
experiment
larger 11 has
extinction hasparameter
aa larger
larger extinction
extinction parameter
parameter
drop because drop because
drop because the
the explosion-proof the explosion-proof
explosion-proof
material has a larger material
material
initial
has aa larger
has
explosionlarger initial explosion
initial
overpressure explosion overpressure
value atoverpressure value
the front end,valuewhichatatleads
the front
the front
to end, which
end,
an increase which
in the leads
leads to an
to
extinction an
increase
increase
parameter. in the
in the extinction
Theextinction parameter.
extinctionparameter.
parameterThe The extinction
extinction
values parameter
parameter
at the rear values at
values at in
of the materials the rear
theexperiments of
rear of the the
2materials
to 4 arein
materials in experiments
lower 22 to
to 44 are
than in experiment
experiments are lower
lower than in
1, indicating
than in experiment
experiment
that this core 1, indicating
1, indicating
layer design thatcan
that thismore
this core
core
layer
layer design
effectively
design can
reduce more effectively
the damage
can more reduce
to the
effectively the
protected
reduce damage to
target caused
the damage the protected
by explosion
to the protected target
target caused
shock,
caused flame,by
by
explosion
and shock, flame,
temperature.
explosion shock, flame, andand temperature.
temperature.

800
800
746.782
746.782 Thefront
The frontof
ofthe
thematerial
material
Theback
The backof
ofthe
thematerial
material
(MPa·℃)
parameters(MPa·℃)

600
600 569.792
542.988 569.792
542.988
508.683
508.683
Quenchingparameters

400
400
Quenching

200
200

10.092
10.092 2.852 4.975 1.436
2.852 4.975 1.436
00
Experiments11
Experiments Experiments22
Experiments Experiments33
Experiments Experiments44
Experiments

Figure 8.
Figure Extinction parameter
8. Extinction parameter data
data at
at the
the front and rear
front and
and rear of
rear of the
of the material.
the material.
material.

3.4. Analysis
3.4. Analysis of of the
the Effect
Effect ofof Different Composite Materials
Different Composite Materials to to Prevent
Prevent thethe Explosion
Explosion
Experimental studies
Experimental studieshave
studies havefound
have found
found thatthat
that adding
adding
adding different
different
different typestypes of fiber
of fiber
types of fiber materials
materials to foam
materials to
to
foam metals
metals
foam metals can effectively
can effectively
can effectively improve
improveimprovethe overall theexplosion-proof
the overall explosion-proof
overall explosion-proof
performance performance of the
of the experimen-
performance of the
experimental
tal materials.
materials. materials.
experimental Figure 9 shows Figurea99schematic
Figure shows aa schematic
shows schematic
diagram of diagram of aa fiber–foam
a fiber–foam
diagram of fiber–foam
metal coremetalmetal core
structure
core
structure
structure composite
compositecomposite
material. When material. When
the explosion
material. When the the explosion
shock wave and
explosion shock
shock flamewave
wave impactand
andthe flame
flame impact
explosion-proof
impact thethe
explosion-proof
surface of the foam
explosion-proof surface
metal,
surface ofthe
of theexplosion
the foam metal,
foam metal, the
andthe explosion
flame impactand
explosion and flame
willflame
penetrateimpact
impact will
thewill penetrate
interior along
penetrate
the interior
the interior
sawtooth along
of the
along theexplosion-proof
the sawtooth of
sawtooth of the
the explosion-proof
explosion-proof
surface. surface.shock
The explosion
surface. The explosion
The explosion
wave and shock
flame
shock wave
are
wave
and flame
highly
and flame are highly
highlyin
concentrated
are concentrated
this area and
concentrated incause
in this area
this area and cause
deformation,
and causeenergy
deformation,
reflection,
deformation, energy
energy reflection,
and reflection,
scattering
at
and
andthe wall surface
scattering
scattering at when
at the
the wallentering
wall surface the
surface when
when foam metal, the
entering
entering thereby
the foamachieving
foam metal, thereby
metal, the effect
thereby of making
achieving
achieving the
the
the material
effect of makingexplosion-proof.
the material Adding different
explosion-proof. types
Adding of fiber
differentmaterials
effect of making the material explosion-proof. Adding different types of fiber materials as types as
of the
fiber core layer
materials in
as
the material
core layer
the core can
layer in form
in the a “channel”
the material
material can that
can form is smaller
form aa “channel” and
“channel” that denser
that is than
is smaller the
smaller and original
and denser foam
denser than metal
than the
the
fine pores,
original
original which
foam
foam metal
metalincreases
fine pores,
fine the propagation
pores, which increases
which path,
increases further
the
the inhibitspath,
propagation
propagation the occurrence
path, of chemi-
further inhibits
further inhibits the
the
cal reactions,
occurrence
occurrence ofand
of buffersreactions,
chemical
chemical the foam metal
reactions, while the
and buffers
and buffers thedeformation
the foam metal
foam metalmakeswhile the
while theexperimental
the deformation
deformation
material
makes the
makes theabsorb more energy
experimental
experimental holistically,
material
material absorb thereby
absorb achieving
more energy
more energy the purpose
holistically,
holistically, thereby
thereby of improving
achieving the
achieving the
explosion-proof
purpose of effect.
improving the explosion-proof
purpose of improving the explosion-proof effect. effect.

Figure 9.
Figure 9. Schematic
Schematic diagram
diagram of the fiber–foam
of the fiber–foam metal
metal core
core structure
structure composites.
composites.

In the experiment, the overall explosion-proof effect of adding glass fiber to foam
metal is better than that of other fiber material experiments. The preliminary analysis
Materials 2024, 17, 1596 11 of 14

shows that the fiber density of glass fiber material is higher, so the overall explosion-proof
effect of glass fiber is better.
In order to observe more intuitively the state of the foamed FeNi metal before and
after the passage of the overpressure shockwave and flame, a scanning electron microscope
(SEM) was used to take pictures of the foamed metal before and after the experiments
(Figure 10). The changes in the foamed metal material in the microscopic view can clearly
be distinguished, which will help with future research on energy absorption in foamed
metal. A comparison of the images shows that the surface structure of the foamed metal
received damage and became rougher after the shockwave overpressure and the passage of
Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW
the flame, along with traces of cracking, melting, ablation, and material detachment,12which
of 15
changed the pore structure of the foamed metal. When the surface of the foamed metal was
observed at magnification, the surface changes were evident after the passage of the flame,
presumably as a result of oxidation or other chemical reactions.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 10. Cont.

(e) (f)
Figure 10. Scanning electron microscope images of foamed metal materials at different
Materials 2024, 17, 1596 12 of 14

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure10.10.Scanning
Figure Scanning electron
electron microscope
microscope images images
of foamedofmetal
foamed metal
materials materialsmagnifications.
at different at different
magnifications. (a) Pre-experiment (50×). (b) Post-experiment (50×). (c) Pre-experiment (500×). (d)
(a) Pre-experiment (50×). (b) Post-experiment (50×). (c) Pre-experiment (500×). (d) Post-experiment
Post-experiment (500×). (e) Pre-experiment (2000×). (f) Post-experiment
(500×). (e) Pre-experiment (2000×). (f) Post-experiment (2000×). (2000×).

4.
4. Conclusions
Conclusions
This
This experiment
experiment used
used aa self-designed
self-designed explosion
explosion tube
tube network
network experimental
experimental platform
platform
to study the energy absorption performance of three different fiber core
to study the energy absorption performance of three different fiber core layerlayer blast-resistant
composite materials
blast-resistant on methane–air
composite materials onmixture gas explosions.
methane–air mixtureThe gasenergy absorption
explosions. effect
The energy
of blast-resistant composite materials with flexible fiber core layers is more significant
than that of single foam metal structures. At the same time, the composite material
using glass fiber as the core layer has stronger energy absorption performance than the
composite materials using carbon fiber and aramid fiber and can provide better protection
for the target. In short, by selecting different flexible core layer materials for research, it is
helpful to reduce the production cost and reduce the overall weight of the material while
ensuring that the overall energy absorption performance of the blast-resistant material
is further improved. We believe that our research can not only provide experimental
verification for the improvement of the energy absorption performance of foam metal
structure blast-resistant materials, but also provide experimental solutions and theoretical
analysis for the measurement of energy absorption performance. This study provides
enlightenment for further optimizing the energy absorption performance and application
of foam metal structures.

5. Patents
Patent application for research-related content: a kind of high-efficiency explosion-
proof wall composite energy-absorbing and diffusion-resistant material, No. 202310992747.9.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.T. and B.Z.; Methodology, J.T. and J.C.; Writing—Original
Draft Preparation, J.T. and J.C.; Writing—Review and Editing, Y.Z. (Yiyu Zhang), Y.W., Y.H., M.S. and
Y.Z. (Yingxin Zhang); Supervision, Y.H. and M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was funded by the Heilongjiang Provincial Key R&D Programme Project (No.
GA21C023) and by the Basic Research Operating Costs of Undergraduate Colleges and Universities
in Heilongjiang Province Project (No. 2020-KYYWF-0680).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Materials 2024, 17, 1596 13 of 14

References
1. Luo, Z.M.; Su, B.; Wang, T.; Cheng, F.M.; Zhao, J.Y.; Wang, L. Research Progress on Explosion Control Technology and Materials
of Mining Gas. J. Saf. Sci. Technol. 2019, 15, 17–24.
2. Zhuang, C.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, K.; Lu, Y.; Shao, J.; Dou, Z. Explosion Suppression of Porous Materials in A Pipe-Connected
Spherical Vessel. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2020, 65, 104–106. [CrossRef]
3. Sharma, V.; Grujovic, N.; Zivic, F.; Slavkovic, V. Influence of Porosity on the Mechanical Behavior During Uniaxial Compressive
Testing on Voronoi-Based Open-Cell Aluminium Foam. Materials 2019, 12, 1041–1053. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Wang, Y.J.; Jiang, S.G.; Wu, Z.Y.; Shao, H.; Wang, K.; Wang, L. Study on the Inhibition Influence on Gas Explosions by Metal Foam
Based on Its Density and Coal Dust. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2018, 56, 451–457. [CrossRef]
5. Wei, C.R.; Zhang, B.R.; Sun, J.H.; Jiang, T.W.; Shi, Q. Experimental Study on Obstacles Affected to Foam Metal to Inhibit Gas
Explosion. Coal Sci. Technol. 2018, 46, 134–141.
6. Yu, M.G.; Liu, M.R.; Wen, X.P.; Pei, P. Study on Synergistic Inhibition of Gas Explosion by Ultrafine Water Mistporous Materials. J.
China Coal Soc. 2019, 44, 1562–1569.
7. Zhang, B.Y.; Cui, J.R.; Tao, J.; Wang, Y.J.; Qin, Y.F.; Wei, C.R.; Zhang, Y.X. Experimental Study on Barrier Performances of Foamed
Metals with Different Blast Front Structures to Prevent Methane Explosion Propagation. Explos. Shock Waves 2023, 43, 170–180.
8. Mudassir, M.; Tarlochan, F.; Mansour, M.A. Nature-Inspired Cellular Structure Design for Electric Vehicle Battery Compartment:
Application to Crashworthiness. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4532. [CrossRef]
9. Alqwasmi, N.; Tarlochan, F.; Alkhatib, S.E. Study of mild steel sandwich structure energy absorption performance subjected to
localized impulsive loading. Materials 2020, 13, 670. [CrossRef]
10. Alkhatib, S.E.; Tarlochan, F.; Eyvazian, A. Collapse behavior of thin-walled corrugated tapered tubes. Eng. Struct. 2017, 150,
674–692. [CrossRef]
11. Tarlochan, F.; Samer, F. Design of thin wall structures for energy absorption applications: Design for crash injuries mitigation
using magnesium alloy. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 2013, 2, 24–36.
12. Dastjerdi, A.A.; Shahsavari, H.; Eyvazian, A.; Tarlochan, F. Crushing analysis and multi-objective optimization of different length
bi-thin walled cylindrical structures under axial impact loading. Eng. Optim. 2019, 51, 1884–1901. [CrossRef]
13. Gibson, L.J.; Ashby, M.F. Cellular Solids: Structure and Properties; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1999.
14. Arora, H.; Hooper, P.A.; Dear, J.P. The effects of air and underwater blast on composite sandwich panels and tubular laminate
structures. Exp. Mech. 2012, 52, 59–81. [CrossRef]
15. Schiffer, A.; Tagarielli, V.L. Underwater blast loading of water-backed sandwich plates with elastic cores: Theoretical modelling
and simulations. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2017, 102, 62–73. [CrossRef]
16. Hoo Fatt, M.S.; Sirivolu, D. Blast response of double curvature, composite sandwich shallow shells. Eng. Struct. 2015, 100,
696–706. [CrossRef]
17. Rolfe, E.; Quinn, R.; Sancho, A.; Kaboglu, C.; Johnson, A.; Liu, H.; Hooper, P.A.; Dear, J.P.; Arora, H. Blast resilience of composite
sandwich panels with hybrid glass-fibre and carbon-fibre skins. Multiscale Multidiscip. Model. Exp. Des. 2018, 1, 197–210.
[CrossRef]
18. Tarlochan, F. Sandwich Structures for Energy Absorption Applications: A Review. Materials 2021, 14, 4731. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Epasto, G.; Distefano, F.; Gu, L.; Mozafari, H.; Linul, E. Design and optimization of Metallic Foam Shell protective device against
flying ballast impact damage in railway axles. Mater. Des. 2020, 196, 109120. [CrossRef]
20. Dirgantara, T.; Jusuf, A.; Kurniati, E.O.; Gunawan, L.; Putra, I.S. Crashworthiness analysis of foam–filled square column
considering strain rate effect of the foam. Thin-Walled Struct. 2018, 129, 365–380. [CrossRef]
21. Nurick, G.N.; Langdon, G.S.; Chi, Y.; Jacob, N. Behaviour of sandwich panels subjected to intense air blast—Part 1: Experiments.
Compos. Struct. 2009, 91, 433–441. [CrossRef]
22. Karagiozova, D.; Nurick, G.N.; Langdon, G.S. Behaviour of sandwich panels subject to intense air blasts—Part 2: Numerical
simulation. Compos. Struct. 2009, 91, 442–450. [CrossRef]
23. Theobald, M.D.; Langdon, G.S.; Nurick, G.N.; Pillay, S.; Heyns, A.; Merrett, R.P. Large inelastic response of unbonded metallic
foam and honeycomb core sandwich panels to blast loading. Compos. Struct. 2010, 92, 2465–2475. [CrossRef]
24. Buitrago, B.L.; Santiuste, C.; Sánchez-Sáez, S.; Barbero, E.; Navarro, C. Modelling of composite sandwich structures with
honeycomb core subjected to high-velocity impact. Compos. Struct. 2010, 92, 2090–2096. [CrossRef]
25. Roudbeneh, F.H.; Liaghat, G.; Sabouri, H.; Hadavinia, H. High-velocity impact loading in honeycomb sandwich panels reinforced
with polymer foam: A numerical approach study. Iran. Polym. J. 2020, 29, 707–721. [CrossRef]
26. Ha, N.S.; Lu, G.; Xiang, X. Energy absorption of a bio-inspired honeycomb sandwich panel. J. Mater. Sci. 2019, 54, 6286–6300.
[CrossRef]
27. Dharmasena, K.P.; Wadley, H.N.; Williams, K.; Xue, Z.; Hutchinson, J.W. Response of metallic pyramidal lattice core sandwich
panels to high intensity impulsive loading in air. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2011, 38, 275–289. [CrossRef]
28. Beharic, A.; Egui, R.R.; Yang, L. Drop-weight impact characteristics of additively manufactured sandwich structures with different
cellular designs. Mater. Des. 2018, 145, 122–134. [CrossRef]
29. Schenk, M.; Guest, S.D.; McShane, G.J. Novel stacked folded cores for blast-resistant sandwich beams. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2014,
51, 4196–4214. [CrossRef]
Materials 2024, 17, 1596 14 of 14

30. Pydah, A.; Batra, R.C. Crush dynamics and transient deformations of elastic-plastic Miuraori core sandwich plates. Thin-Walled
Struct. 2017, 115, 311–322. [CrossRef]
31. Kilchert, S.; Johnson, A.F.; Voggenreiter, H. Modelling the impact behaviour of sandwich structures with folded composite cores.
Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2014, 57, 16–26. [CrossRef]
32. Zunjarrao, K. A review: Advanced structural and multi-functional sandwich composites with prismatic and foam cores. Polym.
Compos. 2023, pc, 27849.
33. Mao, X.H. Dynamic Response of the Compound Structure of Foam Aluminum Core Composite Sandwich Material to the Shock
Wave of Gas Explosion. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 690–693, 1149–1157. [CrossRef]
34. Zhang, J.; Qin, Q.; Wang, T.J. Compressive Strengths and Dynamic Response of Corrugated Metal Sandwich Plates with Unfilled
and Foam-Filled Sinusoidal Plate Cores. Acta Mech. 2013, 224, 759–775. [CrossRef]
35. Chen, W.; Hao, H.; Chen, S.; Hernandez, F. Performance of Composite Structural Insulated Panel with Metal Skin Subjected to
Blast Loading. Mater. Des. 2015, 84, 194–203. [CrossRef]
36. Zhou, H.; Ma, G.; Li, J.; Zhao, Z. Design of Metal Foam Cladding Subjected to Close-Range Blast. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2015, 29,
04014110. [CrossRef]
37. Langdon, G.S.; Guan, Z.; Cantwell, W.J. Blast Protection for Polymer Composite Materials in Structures Subjected to Air-Blast
Loading. In Comprehensive Composite Materials II; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 332–350.
38. Zhou, N.; Wang, J.; Jiang, D.; Tang, K.; Fang, Y. Study on the Failure Mode of A Sandwich Composite Structure Under the
Combined Actions of Explosion Shock Wave and Fragments. Mater. Des. 2020, 196, 109166. [CrossRef]
39. Santosa, S.P.; Arifurrahman, F.; Izzudin, M.H.; Widagdo, D.; Gunawan, L. Response Analysis of Blast Impact Loading of
Metal-foam Sandwich Panels. Procedia Eng. 2017, 173, 495–502. [CrossRef]
40. Guo, H.; Zhang, J. Expansion of Sandwich Tubes with Metal Foam Core Under Axial Compression. J. Appl. Mech. 2023, 90, 051008.
[CrossRef]
41. Zhang, B.Y.; Tao, J.; Cui, J.R.; Zhang, Y.Y.; Wang, Y.J.; Han, Y.H.; Sun, M. Absorption Characteristics of Methane-Air Mixture
Explosion Energy by Foam Metal with A Corrugated Surface Against Explosion. Explos. Shock Waves 2023, 43, 168–179.
42. Duan, Y.; Long, F.; Huang, J.; Jia, H.; Bu, Y.; Yu, S. Effects of Porous Materials with Different Thickness and Obstacle Layout on
Methane/Hydrogen Mixture Explosion with Low Hydrogen Ratio. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 27237–27249. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.