Hindawi Publishing CorporationAdvances in Materials Science and EngineeringVolume 2013, Article ID 947571, 8 pageshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/947571
Research ArticleBlast-Resistant Improvement of Sandwich Armor Structure withAluminum Foam Composite
Shu Yang and Chang Qi
School of Automotive Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Structural Analysis for Industrial Equipment,Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China
Correspondence should be addressed to Chang Qi; [email protected]
Received 30 May 2013; Accepted 26 August 2013
Academic Editor: Bin Zhang
Copyright Β© 2013 S. Yang and C. Qi. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Sandwich armor structures with aluminum foam can be utilized to protect a military vehicle from harmful blast load such asa landmine explosion. In this paper, a system-level dynamic finite element model is developed to simulate the blast event andto evaluate the blast-resistant performance of the sandwich armor structure. It is found that a sandwich armor structure withonly aluminum foam is capable of mitigating crew injuries under a moderate blast load. However, a severe blast load causesforce enhancement and results in much worse crew injury. An isolating layer between the aluminum foam and the vehicle flooris introduced to remediate this drawback. The results show that the blast-resistant capability of the innovative sandwich armorstructure with the isolating layer increases remarkably.
1. Introduction
For ground vehicles, blast loads from landmine explosionsand ballistic loads from a bullet or a missile produce muchdamage to the vehicle structure and result in severe injuriesto crew members. Armor structures are usually employed toprotect a military vehicle and crew from these extreme loads.Metal foam is an ideal choice of sacrificial material for blastprotection due to its low density, a characteristic that is verypreferable for lightweight applications. The porus nature ofthe foam helps in heat dissipation and also provides acousticdamping [1β3]. Besides all these benefits, an undesiredphenomenon observed when using foam material for blastprotection is that, under certain conditions, the peak forcetransmitted to the protected structure can be even higherthan when the foammaterial is not used [4].This unexpectedphenomenon is called βforce enhancementβ and needs to beconsidered in vehicle armor design. As a result, application offoammaterial for blast protection design is still limited at thepresent time.
In this context, to evaluate the blast-resistant perfor-mances of the aluminum foam sandwich armor structure,as well as to explore design countermeasures against forceenhancement, dynamic finite element models are presented
in this paper for simulating the blast process and the dynamicresponses of the sandwich armor, as well as the crew injuries.An isolating layer is introduced to the sandwich armorstructure, which is demonstrated to be effective in mitigatingthe crew injury based on numerical simulation results.
2. Modeling Description
The blast process is both difficult and expensive to test.Moreover, testing of structural damage processes from theblast loads is no easy task either. Numerical techniques,such as the finite element method, are employed for blastprocess simulation as well as for structural damage analyses.In this study, the finite element models were developed fornumerical simulations based on the LS-DYNA platform.Altair HYPERMESH and LS-PREPOSTwere utilized for pre-and post-processing, respectively.
2.1. Vehicle Model. Finite element (FE) model of a typicalmilitary wheeled vehicle has been developed previously,which is ready to be utilized in this research. The geometricinformation in the FE model was based on the CAD data ofthe vehicle obtained from the Internet. Properties of variousmaterials, such as steel, rubber, and glass, in the model were
2 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
ox
y
z
Figure 1: Finite element model of a military vehicle for blastprotection design.
imported from other publicly available FE vehicle models.The FE model consists of 56851 elements with 60204 nodes.
2.2. Underbody Armor Model. In order to protect the crewmembers of a military vehicle at the time when dangerousloads, such as landmine blast load, are exerted on the vehiclebody, it is essential to add an armor structure to the vehiclebody. Underbody armor is a kind of protective structuremainly used against threats from the ground. The armor,which consists of a back aluminum panel and a layer ofaluminum foam, is attached to the vehicle floor for enhancedblast-resistant capabilities of the vehicle.
The back facesheet of the two types of sandwich panel ismade of aluminum alloy AA6061-T4 with mechanical prop-erties: mass density π = 2700 kg/m3, Youngβs modulus πΈ =
69GPa, Poissonβs ratio V = 0.28, initial yield strength ππ¦
=
110.3MPa, and ultimate strength ππ’
= 213MPa. To takestrain hardening effects into account, the energy equivalentplateau stress can be calculated as [5]
π = βππ¦ππ’
1 + π, (1)
where π is the strain hardening exponent of the material,π = 0.2, and the plateau stress for AA6061-T4 adoptedhere is 139.9MPa. Figure 1 shows the typical engineer-ing stress-strain curves for the aluminum alloy AA6061-T4. The sheets are represented by material model 24(βMAT PIECEWISE LINEAR PLASTIC) provided by LS-DYNA [6]. Since the aluminum is insensitive to the strain ratedependency, here the strain rate dependency is neglected [7].
The yield criterion Ξ of aluminum foam is given as follows[8]:
Ξ = οΏ½οΏ½ β ππ¦β€ 0. (2)
Here, ππ¦is the yield stress and οΏ½οΏ½ is the equivalent stress
which is defined as
οΏ½οΏ½2=
π2
V + π 2π2
π
1 + (π /3)2, (3)
where πV is the von Mises effective stress defined as
πV = β3
2πdev : πdev, (4)
o
xy
z
Vehicle floor
Al foam
Al panel
Figure 2: FE model of underbody armor plate for blast protection.
where πdev is the deviatoric stress tensors and π
πis the
hydrostatic stress tensors.The yield stressπ
π¦can be expressedwith the plateau stress
ππ, the shape parameter of yield surface π , the equivalent
strain π, the compaction strain ππ, and the hardening param-
eters π 2, πΎ, and π½:
ππ¦= ππ+ πΎ
π
ππ
+ π 2ln(
1
1 β (π/ππ)π½) ,
π 2=
9
2
(1 β 2ππ)
(1 + ππ),
0 β€ π 2β€
9
2.
(5)
The equivalent and compaction strain π, ππis given as
π2= (1 + (
π
3)
2
) [π2
π+
1
π 2π2
π] ,
ππ= β
9 + π 2
3π 2ln(
ππ
ππ0
) ,
(6)
where ππand ππ0
and the density of aluminum foam and thedensity of the base material.
FE model of the underbody armor structure is shown inFigure 2. Both the aluminum panel and the aluminum foamare modeled by reduced one-point integration brick element.The nodes of different components are tied together alongthe material interface. The aluminum foam material [9] inuse has the following material properties: π
π= 300 kg/cm3,
πΈ = 1500MPa, ππ = 0.05, π = 2.1, πΎ = 6.10, ππ
= 2.2,π 2= 38.1MPa, π½ = 3.1, π
π= 4.41MPa, and πcr = 0.1.
Material model MODIFIED CRUSHABLE FOAM ofLS-DYNA was used to represent the material behavior of thealuminum foam. This model includes the strain rate effectof the foam material under high speed impact loads. ThePIECEWISE LINEAR PLASTICITY card is used for model-ing of both the front panel and the vehicle floor. Strain rateeffect of aluminum is accounted by using the Cowper andSymonds model [10].
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 3
Figure 3: A rigid body dummy model representing a crew memberin a blast event simulation.
2.3. Crew Model. Crash dummy models are usually includedin tests and simulations to predict occupant responses underdifferent crash loads; these responses will be used to guide thecrashworthiness design. Various dummy models for vehiclecrashworthiness design have been developed, from verycomplicated FEmodels with thousands of degrees of freedom(DOF) to much simpler rigid body models. Figure 3 showsthe 50th percentile male GEBOD dummy model; the modelis comprised of fifteen rigid bodies that represent the lowertorso, middle torso, upper torso, neck, head, upper arms,forearms, and hands, and upper legs, lower legs, and feet ofthe dummy. The revolutions of the dummy are representedby spring elements with viscous damps. The dummy weighs76 kg, and the model has 1745 finite elements.
At present, specifically developed and validated humansurrogate models suitable for assessing occupant response ina vehicle subject to mine strike are not available. Horst et al.[11] used the standard Hybrid III crash test dummy to studythe lower leg injuries occurring in antitank mine strikes.Williams et al. [12] studied crew member responses in a lightarmored vehicle (LAV) subjected to amine blast load by usingthe GEBOD rigid body dummy model incorporated in LS-DYNA. Due to the computational efficiency of this dummymodel, a total of six GEBOD dummies were put at differentpositions in the LAV for the simulation. In this work, theGEBOD dummy model shown in Figure 3 is employed forblast protection design because of its low computational costand an acceptable error level.
The equation of occupant-seat model can be formulatedas [13]
Mz + Cz + Kz = Fπ+ Fπ, (7)
where z = {π§π , π§1, π§2, π§3, π§4}π is the displacement vector, M,
K, and C are the mass matrix, the stiffness matrix, and thedamping matrix, respectively and F
πand F
πare given as F
π=
{ππ π§0, 0, 0, 0, 0}
π and Fπ= {ππ οΏ½οΏ½0, 0, 0, 0, 0}
π. Here, ππ and ππ are
Landmine
ox
y
z
Figure 4: Simulation model of a crewed military vehicle under alandmine blast.
the stiffness and the damping coefficient of the suspension.π0is the displacement of the suspension base and can be
obtained from the integral of οΏ½οΏ½0.
2.4. Blast Load Simulation Model. To simulate the blast loadfrom an explosive device, such as a landmine, one of theempirical models for blast pressure prediction was utilized.This empirical model is based on the CONWEP air blastfunction developed by Kingery and Bulmash [14]. Thismodel, which has been implemented as the βLOAD BLASTloading card in LS-DYNA, can predict the blast overpressureunder certain conditions: the free air detonation of a sphericalcharge and the surface detonation of a hemispherical charge;the surface detonation approximates the conditions of amine blast. The model takes into consideration the angle ofincidence of the blast, π, the incident pressure, πin, and thereflected pressure, πref. The predicted time-dependant blastoverpressure is expressed as
π (π‘) = πref cos2π + πin (1 + cos2π β 2 cos π) , (8)
with πin and πref given by
πin = ππ0(1 β
π‘
π‘0
) πβππ‘/π‘0 ,
πref = ππ0
(1 βπ‘
π‘0
) πβππ‘/π‘0 ,
(9)
where ππ0and π
π0are the peak incident overpressure and
the peak reflected overpressure, respectively, π‘0is the positive
phase duration time, and π and π are decay coefficients.By selecting appropriate values for π and π, various decaycharacteristics can be indicated.
The solution methodology of wave propagation for thefront and back facesheet of the composite sandwich struc-tures is given by Hoo Fatt and Surabhi [15].
In this paper, the elastic wave speed in the foam ππis
represented as
ππ= β
πΈ
ππ
, (10)
4 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
(a)
Fringe levels1.687e + 09
1.518e + 09
1.350e + 09
1.181e + 09
1.012e + 09
8.435e + 08
6.748e + 08
5.061e + 08
3.374e + 08
1.687e + 08
5.252e + 03
Contours of effective stress (v-m)Max ipt. value
= 5252.22, at elem. number 58529Min
Max = 1.68698e + 09, at elem. number 55847
(b)
xy
z
o
xy
z
o
Vector of total velocity= 0.0942307, at node number 391= 6.06069, at node number 939
6.061e + 00
5.464e + 00
4.867e + 00
4.271e + 00
3.674e + 00
3.077e + 00
2.481e + 00
1.884e + 00
1.288e + 00
6.909e β 01
9.423e β 02
Fringe levelsMin
Max
(c)
Figure 5: Simulations results. (a) Vehicle deformation. (b) Deformation and effective stress distribution of seat mounts. (c) Resultant velocityof crew.
while the plastic wave speed ππis
ππ= β
πΈπ
ππ
, (11)
where πΈ is the elastic modulus and πΈπis the elastic-plastic
tangent modulus.
Hence, the resistive foam stress acting on the front facesh-eet (vehicle floor) about elastic wave propagation π
ππis
πππ
= ππππ(2V1πβ V1) , (12)
while the correponding stress about elastic-plastic wavepropagation π
πππis
ππππ
= (1 βππ
ππ
)ππ¦+ ππππV1max + π
πππ(V1max β V
1) , (13)
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 5
0 1 2 3 40
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Time (ms)
Baseline (no armor)Armored
Resu
ltant
seat
mou
nt fo
rce (
kN)
(a)
0 1 2 3 40
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Time (ms)
Baseline (no armor)Armored
Resu
ltant
pelv
is ac
cele
ratio
n (m
/s2)
(b)
Figure 6: Comparison of blast-resistant capabilities of various designs with 2 kg TNT equivalent. (a) Seat mounts forces. (b) Crew pelvisacceleration.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Time (ms)
Baseline (no armor)Armored (foam only)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Resu
ltant
seat
mou
nt fo
rce (
kN)
(a)
Time (ms)
Baseline (no armor)Armored (foam only)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.00
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Resu
ltant
pelv
is ac
cele
ratio
n (m
/s2)
(b)
Figure 7: Comparison of blast-resistant capabilities of various designs with 4 kg TNT equivalent. (a) Seat mounts forces. (b) Crew pelvisacceleration.
where V1is the particle velocity in the foam nearest to the
vehicle floor, and it can be represented with the incident wavevelocities V
1πand the reflected wave velocities V
1πas
V1= V1π+ V1π. (14)
The resistive foam stress acting on the back facesheet (Alpanel, as shown in Figure 2) about elastic wave propagationπππis given as
πππ
= ππππ(2V2πβ V2) . (15)
And the resistive foam stress acting on the back facesheetabout elastic-plastic wave propagation π
πππcan be expressed
as
ππππ
= (1 βππ
ππ
)ππ¦+
ππ
ππ
πππππmax β (π
ππππmax β πππππ
)
+ ππππV2πmax β π
πππ(V2πmax β V
2π)
β ππππV2max + π
πππ(V2max β V
2) ,
(16)
where V2and V2πare the particle and incident wave velocities
in the foam nearest to the Al panel, V2max and V
2πmax are
6 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
the maximum particle and incident wave velocities, and πππππ
and πππππmax are the incident andmaximum incident stresses,
respectively.The model uses the following inputs to calculate the
pressure: equivalent mass of TNT; coordinates of the pointof explosion; and the delay time between when the LS-DYNA solution starts and the instant of explosion.Themodeldoes not account for shadowing by the intervening objectsor the effects of confinement. In this work, the CONWEPempirical model is adopted for blast load prediction by virtueof its computational efficiency and acceptable accuracy. TheβLOAD BLAST card in LS-DYNA is utilized to apply blastloads to the frontal panel of the structure, with the optionISURF set to 1 to represent a hemispherical charge situatedon the surface.
3. Simulation, Numerical Results, andDiscussion
Consider a general case when a landmine is denoted directlyunder the left seat mount, at a distance of 0.4m belowthe vehicle floor (Figure 4). Two typical cases are simulatedwith explosive force equivalent to 2 kg and 4 kg of TNT,respectively.The purpose of these simulations is to predict thecrew injuries under such accidents and to evaluate theblast-resistant capabilities of the vehicle underbody armorstructure. The force transmitted to the seat mounts and theresultant acceleration of the crew memberβs pelvic under theblast load are the two major indices for the evaluation.
3.1. Blast Load Alleviation Effect. Figure 5 is the simulationresults under the blast load with charge TNT equivalent of2 kg.The vehicle body structure deforms under the blast loadpressure, as shown in Figure 5(a).The transmitted load causesthe passenger seat to deform as illustrated in Figure 5(b).Thecrew body is accelerated due to the momentum transferredfrom the seat cushion as shown in Figure 5(c).
Compared with the baseline design without the under-body armor, the armored vehicle has a much reduced seatmount force, as shown in Figure 6(a), due to the blast energyabsorption of the aluminum foam through plastic deforma-tion.The crewβs resultant pelvis acceleration is thus verymuchreduced in the armored design than in the original design, asshown in Figure 6(b).
According to the simulation results, the aluminum foamsandwich underbody armor is effective in protecting the crewmember of amilitary vehicle in case the blast load is not abovecertain level.
3.2. Blast Load Enhancement Effect. In case the blast loadintensity increases to a certain level (in the example problem,a TNT equivalent of 4 kg) when the aluminum foam in thearmor is fully compacted, the so-called force enhancementphenomenonwill occur. Figure 6 shows that the resultant seatmount force (Figure 7(a)) and the resultant pelvis accelera-tion (Figure 7(b)) are even higher in the armored vehicle thanin the baseline design.
y
Vehicle floor
Al foam
Al panel
o
xy
z Seat mount
Figure 8: An innovative sandwich armor structure for blast-resistant.
Vehicle floor
Al panel
Contact width Contact widthAl foam
Isolating layer
Design I Design II
Figure 9: Design variations of sandwich armor structure withisolating layer.
4. Isolating Structure Design to EliminateForce Enhancement
It is found that the mass density and stiffness mismatchesbetween the metallic foam and the protected structure atthe interface cause an βabruptβ momentum transfer, at themoment of foam densification. This is the physical cause offorce enhancement.
In reality, a vehicle floor is designed for load bearingpurposes; the mass density and stiffness of the floor materialare usually not design variables for blast protection. To avoidpossible force enhancement when the metal foam enablesblast mitigation, alternative solutions are required. Introduc-ing an isolating structure layer between the main structureand the aluminum foam results in an innovative sandwicharmor structure as shown in Figure 8.
Figure 9 depicts the cross-sections of two different designconfigurations of the sandwich armor structure with isolatinglayer. The added weight of the isolating layer is the same forboth Design I and Design II. Note that the isolating layer hasless contact width (area) with the aluminum foam in DesignII than in Design I.
The transmitted seat mount forces in different designsare compared in Figure 10; force enhancement occurs whenthe foam layer was fully compacted under the blast load;Design I eliminates the peak force transmitted to the seatmount, while Design II, which has less contact area betweenthe isolating structure layer and the aluminum foam than
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 7
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Time (ms)
Baseline (no armor)Armored (foam only)
Armored (Design I)Armored (Design II)
Resu
ltant
seat
mou
nt fo
rce (
kN)
Figure 10: Comparison of seat mount forces in various designs.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0Time (ms)
Resu
ltant
pelv
is ac
cele
ratio
n (m
/s2)
Baseline (no armor)Armored (foam only)Armored (Design II)
Figure 11: Innovative sandwich armor reduces crew injury.
Design I, reduces the force level even more. These resultswere further verified by examining the crewβs pelvis accel-erations as illustrated in Figure 11; with the introduction ofthe isolating layer in the sandwich armor structure and bydecreasing the contact area between the isolating layer andthe foam, the crewβs pelvis acceleration caused by the forceenhancement with the foam material under a blast load wasgreatly reduced. The crewβs vulnerability to pelvic injury waseffectively mitigated.
It is worth noting that the current work is a qualitativestudy of the proposed sandwich armor structure to show agood design strategy against force enhancement; a detailedstudy with design optimization is believed to give a morethorough and robust picture of the configurations of the blast-resistant armor structure including metal foams.
5. Conclusions
A system-level finite element model is developed whichincludes the blast load, the military vehicle body, the sand-wich armor, and the crew. Structure damages and crewinjuries under a landmine explosion event are successfullypredicted through numerical simulations using the devel-oped model. The blast-resistant performances of the alu-minum sandwich armor are evaluated based on the trans-mitted seat mount force and the resultant crew pelvicacceleration. It was found that a sandwich structure withonly aluminum foam is effective in mitigating a moderateblast load. An isolating layer between the aluminum foamand the protected structure is effective in preventing forceenhancement of foam material under severe blast loading.This innovative sandwich armor structure could be furtherdesigned for improved blast-resistant performances.
Acknowledgments
This work is funded by National Natural Science Foundationof China (nos. 50905024 and 51105053), Liaoning ProvincialNatural Science Foundation of China (no. 20102026), theResearch Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Educa-tion of China (nos. 20090041120032 and 20110041120022),and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Uni-versities (DUT13Lk47).
References
[1] B. A. Gama, T. A. Bogetti, B. K. Fink et al., βAluminum foamintegral armor: a new dimension in armor design,β CompositeStructures, vol. 52, no. 3-4, pp. 381β395, 2001.
[2] R. Sriram, U. K. Vaidya, and J.-E. Kim, βBlast impact responseof aluminum foam sandwich composites,β Journal of MaterialsScience, vol. 41, no. 13, pp. 4023β4039, 2006.
[3] A. Schenker, I. Anteby, E. Nizri et al., βFoam-protected rein-forced concrete structures under impact: experimental andnumerical studies,β Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 131,no. 8, pp. 1233β1242, 2005.
[4] R. Monti, βNormal shock wave reflection on deformable solidwalls,βMeccanica, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 285β296, 1970.
[5] H.-S. Kim, βNew extruded multi-cell aluminum profile formaximum crash energy absorption andweight efficiency,βThin-Walled Structures, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 311β327, 2002.
[6] X. Zhang and G. D. Cheng, βA comparative study of energyabsorption characteristics of foam-filled and multi-cell squarecolumns,β International Journal of Impact Engineering, vol. 34,no. 11, pp. 1739β1752, 2007.
[7] L. Aktay, B.-H. Kroplin, A. K. Toksoy, and M. Guden, βFiniteelement and coupled finite element/smooth particle hydrody-namics modeling of the quasi-static crushing of empty andfoam-filled single, bitubular and constraint hexagonal- andsquare-packed aluminum tubes,β Materials & Design, vol. 29,no. 5, pp. 952β962, 2008.
[8] V. S. Deshpande and N. A. Fleck, βIsotropic constitutive modelsfor metallic foams,β Journal of the Mechanics and Physics ofSolids, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1253β1283, 2000.
[9] A. G. Hanssen, Y. Girard, L. Olovsson, T. Berstad, and M.Langseth, βA numerical model for bird strike of aluminium
8 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
foam-based sandwich panels,β International Journal of ImpactEngineering, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 1127β1144, 2006.
[10] J. O. Hallquist, LS-DYNA Keyword Userβs Manual, LivermoreSoftware TechnologyCorporation, Livermore, Calif, USA, 2007.
[11] M. V. D. Horst, C. Simms, R. V. Maasdam, and P. Leerdam,βOccupant lower leg injury assessment in landmine detonationsunder a vehicle,β in Proceedings of the IUTAM Symposium onBiomechanics of Impact: from Fundamental Insights to Applica-tions, Dublin, Ireland, 2005.
[12] K. Williams, S. Mclennan, R. Durocher, B. S. Jean, and J.Tremblay, βValidation of a loading model for simulating blastmine effects on armored vehicles,β in Proceedings of the 7thInternational LS-DYNA Users Conference, 2002.
[13] Y. P. Dong and Z. H. Lu, βAnalysis and evaluation of ananti-shock seat with a multi-stage non-linear suspension for atactical vehicle under a blast load,β Proceedings of the Institutionof Mechanical Engineers D, vol. 226, pp. 1037β1048, 2012.
[14] C. N. Kingery and G. Bulmash, βAirblast parameters from TNTspherical air burst and hemispherical surface burst,β Tech. Rep.ARBL-TR-02555, US Army BRL, Aberdeen Proving Ground,Md, USA, 1984.
[15] M. S. Hoo Fatt and H. Surabhi, βBlast resistance and energyabsorption of foam-core cylindrical sandwich shells underexternal blast,β Composite Structures, vol. 94, pp. 3174β3185,2012.
Submit your manuscripts athttp://www.hindawi.com
ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
CorrosionInternational Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Polymer ScienceInternational Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
CeramicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
CompositesJournal of
NanoparticlesJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
International Journal of
Biomaterials
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
NanoscienceJournal of
TextilesHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Journal of
NanotechnologyHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Journal of
CrystallographyJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
CoatingsJournal of
Advances in
Materials Science and EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Smart Materials Research
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
MetallurgyJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
BioMed Research International
MaterialsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Nano
materials
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Journal ofNanomaterials