PSI - Issue 83

Kemal Arslan et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 83 (2026) 218–228

226

Steel tube

MF1-M

MF2-M

Steel Tube

MF1-M MF2-M

400

350

300

250

100 150 200 250 300 350 400

200

150

100 Contact Force (kN)

50

0

0 50

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Displacement (mm)

0

4

8

12

16

20

Fig. 9. The force-displacement curves and final deformation states of the structures for the impact energy of 16.2 kJ.

Steel tube MF2-M

t = 0

t = 0.9 ms

t = 1.8 ms

t = 2.7 ms

t = 3.9 ms

t = 4.8 ms

t = 6.0 ms

t = 7.2 ms

t = 8.1 ms

t = 16.3 ms

Fig. 10. Comparative sequential deformation images of the steel tube and the MF2-M for the impact energy of 16.2 kJ.

Fig. 11 shows the performance indicators of the structures for both impact energies. The PCF of the structures is discussed in detail in the evaluation of the force-displacement curves, and the other two indicators are MCF and CFE. CFE is the ratio of MCF to PCF and shows how efficiently a structure absorbs energy during deformation. A CFE of 1 (100%) indicates ideal and uniform energy absorption. The MF structures exhibit more efficient energy absorption than the steel tube with higher MCF and CFE. As the impact energy increases, the MCF of the structures increases, except for the steel tube, while the CFE decreases. The decrease in the MCF for the steel tube is due to excessive deformation at the higher impact energy. The MCF values of the MF structures are close to each other at both impact energies, differing by less than 5%, while the CFE of the MF1-M is higher than that of the MF2-M for both impact energies. However, the decrease in the CFE of the MF1-M (from 0.8754 to 0.6881) is greater than that for the MF2-M (from 0.6983 to 0.6173) with increasing impact energy. Therefore, it can be indicated that the MF2