Structural response of hybrid sandwich panels with

aluminium foam core and thin Aluminium face

sheets under bending loading
Kaveh R.Kabir, TaniaVodenitcharova and Mark Hoffman
School of Materials Science and Engineering, University of New South Wales
Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

Aim

Failure modes and deformation behaviour

Develop a set of design parameters to manufacture aluminium-skinned metal

Deformation behaviour

foam sandwich panels which can resist three-point bending loading

Failed in two different mode

Symmetric deformation

Observed in both thicknesses but only in 100 mm span

9Four hinges, indentation mark and shearing between
supports observed

Why metallic foams?

Characteristics:

Applications:

9Low density
9High energy absorption
9Low thermal conductivity
9High acoustic absorption
9Mechanical damping

9Light-weigh structures
9Energy absorbers
9Sound absorbers
9Heat exchangers
9Multi-functional structures

9Observed in beams with 50 mm span

9Five hinges observed - three on top skin and two on
back face
9Indentation mark observed, specially in thicker panels
9Smaller span length
higher shear force

Skin
9Thin aluminium sheet
9AA 3104- H19
9Thickness 0.32 mm
9Thin aluminium sheet

9Closed cell aluminium foam

(Trade name ALPORAS)
9Density=0.2-0.3 g/cm3
9Relative density= 7-11%
9Pore size= 2.5 mm
9Modulus of elasticity1= 1.1 GPa
9Yield strength1= 1.4-1.6 MPa
9Bending strength1= 2.5-3.1 MPa

Adhesive
9Epoxy adhesive film
(Redux 322)

1 Alporas data sheet

Materials characterization
Vickers hardness test
On cell walls of the foam

Tension test
On dog-bone samples of the skin

Hinges

Asymmetric deformation

Materials
Foam core

Indentation

Indentation
impression

Two plastic hinges in both skins above one support

developed and the foam core shears there; only one hinge
above the other support

Failure load
9Increasing by increasing core
thickness
9Higher in thinner panels and
larger span
9Higher in thicker panels and
smaller span, due to indentatio

Bending Strength
V max

My
( EI ) eq

5max L
bc 2

( 70 GPa
230 MPa

( EI )eq

V y ( skin)

Indentation

Asymmetric deformation

V y ,solid 96 MPa

Hinges

Ef

Sandwich panels

Fully elastic material

One hinge failure mechanism

btd 2
2

Foam panels

Sample preparation and test method

Sample preparation

Test method

9 Cutting foam panels and Al sheet

9 Degreasing and Abrading of foam
core and skins
9Assembling sandwich panels
9Employing hot press machine to
cure the adhesive

9Three-point bending
9Foam only & sandwich
panels
9ASTM C 393-06
950 and 100 mm span lengths
9Foam thickness 6 and 12 mm

9Higher in larger span

9Lower in thicker panel

Dissipated energy
Failure modes and failure load of foam panels

Calculated by the area under load vs. displacement

Foam panels
Deformation behaviour
9Similar deformation behaviour observed in both
thicknesses and span lengths
9 Crack observed in all samples at mid-span; initiated at
the tensile side of the beam and propagated by further
loading

Crack

Sandwich panels
Crack

Failure load
9Increased with panel thickness
9Higher for smaller span length

Calculated up to failure load

Higher for thicker panels
Higher for larger span

Calculated up to 1 mm of crosshead
displacement
Higher for smaller span length
Higher for thicker panels

Conclusions:
. Bending strength, failure load and dissipated energy increased dramatically by laminating foam
panels
. The failure mode depends on span length