coatings

Article
Case Study of Chosen Sandwich-Structured
Composite Materials for Means of Transport
Pavel Koštial 1 , Zora Koštialová Jančíková 1 , Ivan Ružiak 2, * and Milada Gajtanska 2
1 Faculty of Materials Science and Technology, VŠB–Technical University of Ostrava, 17. listopadu 15/2172,
708 33 Ostrava-Poruba, Czech Republic; pavel.kostial@vsb.cz (P.K.); zora.jancikova@vsb.cz (Z.K.J.)
2 Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology, Technical University in Zvolen, T. G. Masaryka 24,
960 01 Zvolen, Slovak Republic; gajtanska@tuzvo.sk
* Correspondence: ruziak@tuzvo.sk; Tel.: +421-45-5206470




Received: 25 June 2020; Accepted: 27 July 2020; Published: 31 July 2020


Abstract: Modern means of transport increasingly utilize sandwich constructions. Among other things,
the reasons for such state of affairs include the reduced weight of means of transport, and through
this, better fuel economy as well as price. This work is dedicated to a systematic experimental study
of the influence of various materials and sandwich designs on their mechanical properties. In the
framework of experiments, sandwich-structured composites were exposed to two types of stressing:
static as well as impact stressing. The testing of prepared samples was performed according to ASTM
C-393 Standard, dealing specifically with the bending behavior of sandwich composite constructions
and impact testing under the scope of ISO 6603-2 Standard test. In this article we deal with static and
impact testing of the eight types of core materials, two types of coatings, two types of surface finishes,
and two types of resins with a special emphasis on their use in constructions of some exterior or
interior components of transport means.

Keywords: sandwiches; mechanical properties; polymers; honeycomb; prepregs; transport means

1. Introduction
Because of their specific properties, sandwich constructions are widely used in the industry of
transport means, particularly because of the reduced weight of such products. It stands to reason
that their first applications appeared in the aircraft industry. Favorable properties accelerated their
further development, and now there are unlimited quantities of such materials available on the
market. The incessant development of new materials leads to gradual reductions in their prices,
which makes sandwich constructions affordable in other transport applications (mainly in ship-building
and railway branches), mainly because of another advantage—specific rigidity. This is rather
advantageously exploited in large-area products, i.e., for various cladding purposes (either interior or
exterior, ceiling panels, bulkheads, floor panels, etc.). If composite shaping properties for coating of
sandwich constructions are used, then the sandwich material may represent even the product design.
Typical representatives of purely design applications are front sections of railway units, where shaped
polymer foams are used as a core in combinations with composite polyester–glass coatings.
However, one of the main disadvantages of these constructions is their price. This is caused not
only by the high prices of input materials, but also by demanding manufacturing processes.
The influence of fiber length and fiber orientation on damping and stiffness of polymer composite
materials is in details described in [1]. The utilization of special aluminium foams in sandwich
structures is described in [2]. The impact behavior of honeycomb structures is described in [3].
Ecofriendly materials for sandwich structures were studied from an acoustical point of view in [4,5].

Coatings 2020, 10, 750; doi:10.3390/coatings10080750 www.mdpi.com/journal/coatings

Coatings 2020, 10, 750 2 of 19

In [6–13], the authors present further sandwich structures. The results of diagnostic methods suitable
for sandwiches and their components are described in [14–24].
Of course not only weight and rigidity are the major prerogatives of sandwich constructions.
Their further advantages consist not only in combinations with other materials, thermal insulation,
and noise attenuation properties, but also in their fire resistance, which plays a significant role in the
whole transport branch.
The work of Kamiński [25] solves the problem of multiscale homogenization of n-component
composites with semi-elliptical random interface defects.
A series of self-matting waterborne polyurethanes were successfully prepared by introducing
hydrophilic units into both soft and hard segments. By employing a polycaprolactone polyol
containing carboxylate groups within the polymer chains to provide hydrophilicity directly, the matting
performance of the studied films was greatly improved in [26].
The authors of [27] consider field theory formulation for directed polymers and interfaces in the
presence of quenched disorder.
The fabrication of a sandwich-structured specimen with different material combinations using
conventional thermoplastics such as polylactic acid, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, and high impact
polystyrene through the filament-based extrusion process can demonstrate an improvement in its
properties [28]. Among these materials, this paper aims to assess the best material sandwich-structured
arrangement design, to enhance the mechanical properties of a part and to compare the results with
the homogeneous materials selected.
Sound absorbing composites with stratified structures, including double-layer and sandwich
structures, were studied through the combination of nitrile butadiene rubber and polyurethane foam.
The thermal properties of the materials studied in this paper can be found in [29]. Other authors have
studied the thermal and acoustical properties of wood wool-based materials [30], which together with
PU foam/NBR rubber composites are also used as thermal and acoustical insulations.
An artificial neural network was used to investigate the influence of the core density and
number of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer layers on the mechanical properties. The results showed an
improvement of specific strength and elastic modulus with increasing number of carbon fiber-reinforced
polymers [31]. The thermal properties of the materials studied in this paper can be found in [32].
In this work, a wide range of experiments concerning the selected mechanical properties of specific
sandwich materials with a special emphasis on their use in constructions of some exterior or interior
components of transport means is presented. In order to meet this goal, material tailoring was used
as an alternative way in the sandwich design. Eight types of core materials, two types of coatings,
two types of surface finishes, and two types of resins were experimentally tested.

2. Materials and Methods

As the basic material for coating, glass-phenolic prepreg, PH840-300-42 type, was selected. It is
used mostly in aviation and railroad industries for interior applications.
For coat hybrid types, epoxy-aramid, IMP 530 type was used. Typical properties of the used these
prepregs are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Coating material characteristics.

Reinforcement Matrix Content Tg Bending Strength Bending Modulus

Marking Matrix Type
Type (%) (◦ C) (MPa) (GPa)
glass/fabric
PH840-300-42 phenolic 42 >80 450 22
sateen/280 g·m−2
aramid/fabric
IMP 530 epoxy 42 120 148/170 35–40
linen/200 g·m−2
Coatings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21

Coatings 2020, 10, 750 3 of 19

An aramid paper honeycomb, Nomex® type T 722 (Schűtz, Selters, Germany), was selected as
the core material. Nomex paper honeycombs have low specific densities, and high thermal stability
and fire resistance
An aramid honeycomb, Nomex® type T 722 (Schűtz, Selters, Germany), was selected as the
[24].
paper
Another material
core material. used as
Nomex paper the core material
honeycombs have lowwasspecific
PET (polyethylene
densities, and terephthalate)
high thermalfoam supplied
stability and
under the AIREX
fire resistance [24]. T90-100 trademark (AlcanAirexcomposites, Sins, Switzerland). This is a
polyethylene terephthalate
Another material closed-cell
used as the core foam featuring
material was PETa good fatigue life,
(polyethylene very good thermal
terephthalate) stability
foam supplied
and resistance
under the AIREX against
T90-100chemicals,
trademark and the foam is also recyclable.
(AlcanAirexcomposites, Sins, Switzerland). This is a polyethylene
The lastclosed-cell
terephthalate type of core
foam material
featuring is an ECM-type
a good fatigue life,aluminium honeycomb
very good thermal (Eurocomposites,
stability and resistance
Echternach,
against Luxembourg).
chemicals, The specific
and the foam properties of the individual core materials are shown in Table
is also recyclable.
2. The last type of core material is an ECM-type aluminium honeycomb (Eurocomposites, Echternach,
As regards
Luxembourg). Thethespecific
honeycomb hexagonal
properties structure (Figure
of the individual 1), its mechanical
core materials are shown inproperties
Table 2. are not
equalAsinregards
all the the
directions.
honeycomb Therefore,
hexagonalthestructure
following markings
(Figure 1), itsofmechanical
honeycomb (HC) dimensions
properties were
are not equal in
introduced.
all the directions. Therefore, the following markings of honeycomb (HC) dimensions were introduced.

Figure 1. Honeycomb
Figure1. Honeycomb design.
design.
Table 2. Material characteristics of core materials.
Table 2. Material characteristics of core materials.
Shear Strength Shear Modulus
Cell Size Density Shear Strength Shear Modulus
Marking Material Type L/W-Direction L/W-Direction
(mm) Cell Size(kg·m
Density
−3 )
(MPa) (MPa)
Marking Material Type L/W-Direction L/W-Direction
(mm) (kg·m−3)
C2-3,2-32 Nomex® T 722 3.2 32 (MPa)
0.6/0.42 (MPa)
17/25
C2-3,2-48 Nomex ® T 722 3.2 48 1.2/0.7 36/24
C2-3,2-32 Nomex ® T 722 3.2 32 0.6/0.42 17/25
C2-3,2-64 Nomex® T 722 3.2 64 1.6/1.95 50/35
C2-3,2-48
C2-3,2-80
Nomex® T 722
Nomex® T 722 3.2
3.2 80
48 1.2/0.7
1.75/1.0
36/24
56/32
C2-3,2-64
C2-4,8-64 Nomex ® T 722
Nomex ® T 722
4.8 3.2 80 64 1.6/1.95
1.6/0.85 50/35
50/27
C2-3,2-80 Al alloy
Nomex® T 722 3.2
ECM-4,8-77 4.8 77 80 1.75/1.0
2.25/1.52 56/32
456/265
5003 (AlMnCu)
C2-4,8-64 Nomex® T 722 4.8 80 1.6/0.85 50/27
AIREX T90-100 PET - 100 0.8 20
Al alloy
ECM-4,8-77 4.8 77 2.25/1.52 456/265
5003 (AlMnCu)
SurfacesT90-100
AIREX of sandwich constructions
PET were- covered by
100two types of0.8
paint systems used
20for interior
applications in the rolling stock branch. Low-pressure wet painting was use as the coating process.
The following surface
Surfaces of finishes
sandwich were used.were covered by two types of paint systems used for interior
constructions
applications in the rolling stock branch. Low-pressure wet painting was use as the coating process.
• Surface finish No. 1: Filler: Nuvovern Primer: acrylic–polyurethane-based anticorrosion coating
The following surface finishes were used.
with phosphate pigments (Mäder Läcke, Killwangen, Switzerland) Topcoat: Nuvovern ACR
Surface finish No. 1:
Emaillack-two-component polyurethane coating (Mäder Läcke, Killwangen, Switzerland)
•Filler:
Surface finish No. 2: Filler: H/S FillingPrimer 463-5A
Nuvovern Primer: acrylic–polyurethane-based (Mankiewicz,
anticorrosion Hamburg,
coating Germany)pigments
with phosphate Topcoat:
Texture
(Mäder Paint
Läcke, 476-21 (Mankiewicz,
Killwangen, Switzerland) Hamburg, Germany)
Topcoat: Nuvovern ACR Emaillack-two-component polyurethane coating (Mäder Läcke,
In the diagrams and illustrations, the surface finishes are marked as SF1, SF2, or, as the case may
Killwangen, Switzerland)
be, without SF. The types of tested sample constructions are shown in Figure 2.
Surface finish No. 2:
Filler: H/S FillingPrimer 463-5A (Mankiewicz, Hamburg, Germany)
Topcoat: Texture Paint 476-21 (Mankiewicz, Hamburg, Germany)
Coatings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 21

In the diagrams and illustrations, the surface finishes are marked as SF1, SF2, or, as the case may
Coatings 2020, 10, 750 4 of 19
be, without SF. The types of tested sample constructions are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Constructions of basic samples. A: Honeycomb C2-3.2-64 is coated with two layers
od PH340-300-42 coatings on Figure
both 2.sides;
Constructions of basic C2-3.2-64
B: Honeycomb samples. is coated with three layers
od PH340-300-42 coatings on both sides; C: Honeycomb C2-3.2-64 is coated with four layers od
Methods
PH340-300-42 coatings on both sides.
Eight types of core materials, two types of coatings, two types of surface finishes, and two types
Methods
of resins were experimentally tested by 3pt bending test according to ASTM C-393 standard and
impact tested
Eight typesaccording to ISO 6603-2
of core materials, Standard
two types test. The
of coatings, twotests were
types provided
of surface by fiveand
finishes, samples
two typesof the
of
same construction and of the same materials and bending strength σ , bending
resins were experimentally tested by 3pt bending test according to ASTM C-393 standard and impact
FM modulus E were
computed from the
tested according stress-strain
to ISO diagram.
6603-2 Standard From
test. The5tests
values
were ofprovided
this mechanical properties
by five samples we same
of the have
computed
construction the
andmean value
of the same and standard
materials anddeviation (which are
bending strength σfMplotted in Figures)
, bending modulususing E were the ZWICK
computed
1456
fromtest
the equipment
stress-strain (ZwickRoell,
diagram. From Brno,5Czech
valuesRepublic). In the second
of this mechanical step thewe
properties materials were impact
have computed the
tested according
mean value to ISO 6603-2
and standard norm
deviation and maximal
(which force
are plotted Fmax obtained
in Figure 4, Figureat5,30Figure
J and6,60Figure
J impact energy
7, Figure 8,
were
Figure measured.
9, Figure The 5 values11,
10, Figure forFigure
each material were
12, Figure 13,subsequently
Figure 14, Figureprocessed by descriptive
15, Figure statistics
17 and Figure 18)
parameters
using the ZWICKnamely1456 mean value
test and standard
equipment deviation
(ZwickRoell, which
Brno, Czechare Republic).
also plottedIninthe thesecond
Figuresstep
19, the
20,
21. From these
materials were two
impact statistical parameters,
tested according to we
ISOhave computed
6603-2 norm and the coefficient
maximal of Fvariation,
force max obtained which forJ
at 30
all measuring samples and all measured properties was lower than 15%, which
and 60 J impact energy were measured. The 5 values for each material were subsequently processed by is an acceptable level
of error. Thestatistics
descriptive figures show statistically
parameters namelysignificant differences;
mean value therefore,
and standard ANOVA
deviation whichtestsare
results are not
also plotted
shown in this19,
in the Figure study.
Figure The shape
20 and of the
Figure 21.samples was two
From these adapted to the
statistical requirements
parameters, of thecomputed
we have relevant
standard.
the coefficient of variation, which for all measuring samples and all measured properties was lower
than 15%, which is an acceptable level of error. The figures show statistically significant differences;
Paper objectives
therefore, ANOVA tests results are not shown in this study. The shape of the samples was adapted to
the requirements
The objectives ofof
the
therelevant
paper wasstandard.
to find whether the sandwich-structured coated composites can
be used
Paper as parts in constructions of some exterior or interior components of transport means.
objectives
Therefore chosen sandwich-structured coated composites were mechanically tested and bending
The objectives
strength, of the paper
specific bending was(ratio
strength to find whether strength
of bending the sandwich-structured coated
to density), bending composites
modulus and
specific bending modulus (ratio of bending modulus to density) at static testing under ASTMmeans.
can be used as parts in constructions of some exterior or interior components of transport C-393
Therefore chosen
framework sandwich-structured
and impact testing at 30 J andcoated composites
60 J impact werecomputed
energy with mechanically
meantested
valuesand bending
of maximal
strength, specific
obtained bending strength
force. Computation (ratio bending
of specific of bending strength
strength andto specific
density),bending
bendingmodulus
modulusisand specific
crucial for
bending modulus (ratio of bending modulus to density) at static testing under ASTM
the application of materials in the means of transport because of lowering price and better fuelC-393 framework
and impact testing at 30 J and 60 J impact energy with computed mean values of maximal obtained
economy.
force. Computation of specific bending strength and specific bending modulus is crucial for the
application of materials
A comparison in thebalance
of mass means ofof transport
sandwichbecause of lowering
constructions price andmaterials
to alternative better fuelofeconomy.
various
A comparison
thicknesses is shownofinmass
Figurebalance
3. of sandwich constructions to alternative materials of various
thicknesses is shown in Figure 3.
While the sandwich panels were produced by the Vacuum Bag Technology, curing of sandwich
constructions was carried out in the LAC, type SV11900/25 cure oven, using the basic curing mode of 3 h
at 130 ◦ C. In order to provide the ideal impregnation conditions for coating and the creation of bonds
between the honeycomb and the coat (i.e., the capillary lift of resin along the cell walls), the whole
rise-up time to this temperature took 60 min. A detailed flow chart of the curing process is shown in
Figure 4. In order to prevent excessive resin losses in the construction during the impregnation process,
the Wrighlon 3900 separation film (30 µm thick, total perforation per area of 0.14%, Airtech International,
Coatings 2020, 10, 750 5 of 19

Huntington Beach, CA, USA) was used. Once the panel was produced in this way, individual test
Coatings 2020,
samples were10, prepared
x FOR PEERfrom
REVIEW
it by water jet cutting to appropriate sizes. 5 of 21

Figure 3. Mass balance of tested constructions. A comparison with other materials used in the sphere
of production of transport means.

While the sandwich panels were produced by the Vacuum Bag Technology, curing of sandwich
constructions was carried out in the LAC, type SV11900/25 cure oven, using the basic curing mode of
3 h at 130 °C. In order to provide the ideal impregnation conditions for coating and the creation of
bonds between the honeycomb and the coat (i.e., the capillary lift of resin along the cell walls), the
whole rise-up time to this temperature took 60 min. A detailed flow chart of the curing process is
shown in Figure 4. In order to prevent excessive resin losses in the construction during the
impregnation process, the Wrighlon 3900 separation film (30 μm thick, total perforation per area of
0.14%, Airtech International, Huntington Beach, CA, USA) was used. Once the panel was produced
A comparison
Figure 3. Mass balance of tested constructions. A comparison with other materials used in the sphere
in this way, individual test samples were prepared from it by water jet cutting to appropriate sizes.
of production of transport means.

While the sandwich panels were produced by the Vacuum Bag Technology, curing of sandwich
constructions was carried out in the LAC, type SV11900/25 cure oven, using the basic curing mode of
3 h at 130 °C. In order to provide the ideal impregnation conditions for coating and the creation of
bonds between the honeycomb and the coat (i.e., the capillary lift of resin along the cell walls), the
whole rise-up time to this temperature took 60 min. A detailed flow chart of the curing process is
shown in Figure 4. In order to prevent excessive resin losses in the construction during the
impregnation process, the Wrighlon 3900 separation film (30 μm thick, total perforation per area of
0.14%, Airtech International, Huntington Beach, CA, USA) was used. Once the panel was produced
in this way, individual test samples were prepared from it by water jet cutting to appropriate sizes.

Figure
Figure 4. Curing cycle
4. Curing cycle 11 in
in the
the sample
sample production.
production.

Sandwich-structured composites were tested in the experimental framework by the following

Sandwich-structured composites were tested in the experimental framework by the following
stress
stress methods.
methods.
•• Static stressing
stressing (three-point
(three-point bending).
bending).
•• stressing (dynamic
Impact stressing (dynamic impact
impact tests).
tests).

3. Results

3.1. Static Testing—Core

3.1. Static Testing—Core Type
Type Influence
Influence
One of the
One of the experiment’s
experiment’s main
main
Figure objectives
4.objectives was
was
Curing cycle toto
1 in monitor
monitor
the the
samplethe influence
influence
production. of of
thethe coat
coat thickness
thickness or, or,
as
as the case may be, number of laminated layers, on their basic mechanical properties.
the case may be, number of laminated layers, on their basic mechanical properties. The bending The bending
strength of the A-construction
Sandwich-structured basic beam
composites wereconsisting of the
tested in the honeycomb
experimental core “coated”
framework by theat following
each side
by two layers
stress methods. of selected prepregs is taken into consideration. By increasing the number of layers in
the construction, both the mechanical and physical properties were changed over an extensive range.
• Static stressing (three-point bending).
In the research first phase, a honeycomb produced from Nomex paper with the core thickness of 8 mm
• Impact stressing (dynamic impact tests).
and unified geometric structure (3.2 mm mesh size) was selected for observing the influence of coating
thickness on the bending characteristics.
3. Results

3.1. Static Testing—Core Type Influence

One of the experiment’s main objectives was to monitor the influence of the coat thickness or, as
the case may be, number of laminated layers, on their basic mechanical properties. The bending
two layers
strength of of
theselected prepregsbasic
A-construction is taken
beaminto consideration.
consisting By increasing
of the honeycomb the“coated”
core number of layersside
at each in the
by
construction,
two both the prepregs
layers of selected mechanical and physical
is taken properties were
into consideration. changed over
By increasing an extensive
the number of layers range. In
in the
the research first phase, a honeycomb produced from Nomex paper with the
construction, both the mechanical and physical properties were changed over an extensive range. In core thickness of 8 mm
andresearch
the unified first
geometric
phase, structure
a honeycomb (3.2 produced
mm meshfrom size)Nomex
was selected
paper withfor observing the influence
the core thickness of 8 mm of
coating
Coatings thickness
2020, 10, 750 on the bending characteristics.
and unified geometric structure (3.2 mm mesh size) was selected for observing the influence of 6 of 19
PET foam AIREX T90 of the same
coating thickness on the bending characteristics. thickness of 8 mm and density of 100 kg·m −3 was used as

anotherPET potential core material forsame

sandwich constructions. The density
influence ofof coating −3thickness was
PET foam
investigated foam
on
AIREX
AIREX T90T90 of
honeycombs ofofthe
the thickness
samedensities
various
of
thickness(32, 88 mm
of 48,mm64,
and
and
and density
80) kg·m of 100 kg·m−3
−3. 100 kg·m
was
was usedused as as
another
another potential
potential core
core material
material for
for sandwich
sandwich constructions.
constructions. The
The influence
influence of
of coating
coating thickness
thickness was
was
The course
investigated on of expected growth
honeycombs of variousin densities
the strength(32, by
48, increasing
64, and 80) ofkg·m
coating
−3. thickness is shown in
investigated on honeycombs of various densities (32, 48, 64, and 80) kg·m −3 .
Figure The5. course
Bending ofstrength differences between the Abyand B constructions fluctuate from 21.95% in to
38.77%,Thewhile
course of expected
anotherexpected
growth
growth
growth
in the
in
in the
the strength
strength strength
for the by increasing
increasing
C-type
of
of coating
constructionscoating
was
thickness
thickness
lower,
is
fromis shown
shown
2.85% in
to
Figure
Figure 5.
5. Bending
Bending strength
strength differences
differences between
between the
the AA and
and BB constructions
constructions fluctuate
fluctuate from
from 21.95%
21.95% to
to
16.27%. while another growth in the strength for the C-type constructions was lower, from 2.85% to
38.77%,
38.77%, while another growth in the strength for the C-type constructions was lower, from 2.85%
16.27%.
to 16.27%.
140
120
FM [MPa]

140
100
120
80
σFMσ[MPa]

100
60 A
80
40
60
20 B
A
400
20 C
B
C2-3,2- C2-3,2- C2-3,2- C2-3,2- PET 90
0 C
32(L) 48(L) 64(L) 80(L)
C2-3,2- C2-3,2- C2-3,2- C2-3,2- PET 90
32(L) 48(L) CORE 6 4 ( TYPE
L) 80(L)
CORE TYPE
Figure 5. Influence of A–C coatings on the strength of the sandwich constructions. Core used: C2
Figure 5. Influence of A–C coatings on the strength of the sandwich constructions. Core used: C2
honeycomb
honeycomb with
with unified
unified mesh
mesh size
size of 3.2
ofon mm
3.2 the and
and various
mmstrength
various densities
densities (32, 48,
48, 64,
64, 80)
80) kg·m
(32, constructions.
−3, orientation:
−3 , orientation:
kg·mCore
Figure 5. Influence of A–C coatings of the sandwich used: C2
LL and
and PET
PET foam
foam (80
(80 kg·m
kg·m
−3).
−3 ).
honeycomb with unified mesh size of 3.2 mm and various densities (32, 48, 64, 80) kg·m , orientation:
−3

L and PET foam (80 kg·m−3).

IfIf converted
converted to to the
thetotal
totaldensity
densityof ofsandwich
sandwichconstructions,
constructions, ititisisevident
evidentthat
thatthe
thestrength
strengthgrowth
growth
by increasing
by increasing
If converted the
the tocoating
coating thickness
thickness
the total is
is of
density not
notsandwichefficient
efficient in in terms
terms of weight
constructions, of weight
it is(with (with increasing
increasing
evident that thethe the core
core thickness,
strength growth
thickness,
theincreasing
by the specific
specific strength strength
decreases,
the coating decreases,
particularly
thickness particularly
is not in in the
the caseinofterms
efficient case
C-type of C-type constructions).
ofconstructions). A
A survey ofthe
weight (with increasing survey
specific
core
of specific
strengths strengths
in the in
observedthe observed constructions
constructions is shown inis shown
Figure in
6. Figure 6.
thickness, the specific strength decreases, particularly in the case of C-type constructions). A survey
of specific strengths in the observed constructions is shown in Figure 6.
0.35
0.35
0.30
0.30
0.25
0.25
0.20
σfM/ρ

0.20 A
σfM/ρ

0.15 B
A
0.15 C
B
0.10
0.10 C
0.05
0.05
0.00
C2-3,2-32(L) C2-3,2-48(L) C2-3,2-64(L) C2-3,2-80(L)
0.00
C2-3,2-32(L) CORE TYPE
C2-3,2-48(L) C2-3,2-64(L) C2-3,2-80(L)
CORE TYPE
Figure 6. Specific strengths of sandwich constructions (A–C). C2-type honeycomb used with 3.2 mm
individual mesh size and various densities (29, 48, 64, and 80) kg·m−3 , honeycomb orientation: L.

As the coating thickness increases, the bending modulus value (EO ) increases as well (Figure 7);
in a comparison with the A-construction, the B-construction shows an average increase by 26.81%,
while the C-constructions (as compared to the B-construction) show a lower growth at the level
of 11.57%.
 individual mesh size and various densities (29, 48, 64, and 80) kg·m−3, honeycomb orientation: L.

As the coating thickness increases, the bending modulus value (EO) increases as well (Figure 7);
in a comparison with the A-construction, the B-construction shows an average increase by 26.81%,
while the C-constructions (as compared to the B-construction) show a lower growth at the level of
Coatings 2020, 10, 750 7 of 19
11.57%.

Figure 7. Influence of coating types (A–C) on the effective bending modulus of sandwich constructions;
core used:
Figure 7. C2 type honeycomb
Influence of coatingwithtypes
unified meshon
(A–C) sizethe
3.2 mm and different
effective bending densities
modulus (32, 48,
of 64, and 80)
sandwich
kg·m−3 , L orientation,
constructions; and
core used: C2PET
typefoam (90 kg·m−3
honeycomb ). unified mesh size 3.2 mm and different densities
with
(32, 48, 64, and 80) kg·m−3, L orientation, and PET foam (90 kg·m−3).
Specific bending modulus E/ρ decreases as the coating thickness increases (decrease t was noted
in C-type
Specificconstructions was more
bending modulus significant)
E/ρ decreases and,coating
as the in general, it particularly
thickness depends ton
increases (decrease the
was core
noted
Coatings 2020,
materials 10,
used x FOR PEER
(Figure REVIEW
8).
in C-type constructions was more significant) and, in general, it particularly depends on the core 8 of 21

materials used (Figure 8).

25

20

15
E/ρ

A
10 B
C

0
C2-3,2-32(L) C2-3,2-48(L) C2-3,2-64(L) C2-3,2-80(L)
CORE TYPE
Figure 8. Specific bending modulus of sandwich constructions (A–C); honeycomb used: C2 type,
C2 type8.honeycomb with unified mesh size 3.2 mm and different densities (32, 48, 64, andC2
80)type, −3 ,
kg·mC2
Figure Specific bending modulus of sandwich constructions (A–C); honeycomb used:
L orientation.
type honeycomb with unified mesh size 3.2 mm and different densities (32, 48, 64, and 80) kg·m−3, L
orientation.
As regards sandwich construction strength characteristics in terms of the honeycomb density,
thereAs
is regards
a significant positive
sandwich effect on the
construction bendingcharacteristics
strength strength (see Figure 9).ofAsthe
in terms thehoneycomb
honeycombdensity,
density
there is a significant positive effect on the bending strength (see Figure 9). As the honeycomb density
changed by 16 kg·m−3, its strength increased in the A-type constructions by 55.18%, while in the B and
C constructions, strength increased, on average, by 48.69 and 48.83% respectively, with the greatest
difference in strength occurs between honeycomb densities 32 kg·m−3 and 48 kg·m−3; however, with
the increase in honeycomb densities, such differences decrease.
Coatings 2020, 10, 750 8 of 19

changed by 16 kg·m−3 , its strength increased in the A-type constructions by 55.18%, while in the
B and C constructions, strength increased, on average, by 48.69 and 48.83% respectively, with the
greatest difference in strength occurs between honeycomb densities 32 kg·m−3 and 48 kg·m−3 ; however,
with the increase in honeycomb densities, such differences decrease.
On the other hand, with the use of honeycombs of higher densities, the bending modulus has
minor effects: with the increase in honeycomb density, an average growth in the bending modulus
in A-type construction by 8.24% was noted, while the same values for B- and C-type constructions
were 10.07% and 9.04%, respectively. Changes in bending moduli with regard to changing honeycomb
densities are shown in Figure 10.
By using higher density honeycombs, it is possible to significantly increase the strength of
sandwich constructions with negligible increases in their weight.
Apart from the influence on the strength, the honeycomb density also strongly influences
its workability; therefore, the honeycomb density is a significant parameter in the designing and
manufacturing
Coatings processes
2020, 10, x FOR of sandwich constructions.
PEER REVIEW 9 of 21

140

120

100
σfM [MPa]

80
A
60 B
C
40

20

0
C2-3,2-32(L) C2-3,2-48(L) C2-3,2-64(L) C2-3,2-80(L)
CORE TYPE
Figure 9. Influence of honeycomb density (32, 48, 64, 80) kg·m−3 on the bending strength of sandwich
Figure 9. Influence
constructions of orientation).
A–C (L honeycomb density (32, 48, 64, 80) kg·m−3 on the bending strength of sandwich
constructions A–C (L orientation).
In evaluations of the influence of honeycomb cell sizes, constructions made with honeycomb of
64 kg·m−39000
density and cell sizes of 3.2, 4.8, and 6.4 mm were compared. Regarding the evaluated A, B,
and C constructions, the highest values of strength were found at the constructions with the cell size of
8000 in the constructions with the cell size of 6.4 mm, the values were lowest. A similar trend
4.8 mm, while
was noted for the bending modulus.
7000of the coating influence effectivity in the sandwich constructions in the L direction,
In terms
the average increases in strength of 22.81% (3.2 mm mesh size), 25.32% (4.8 mm mesh size), and 21.44%
6000
(6.4 mm mesh size) were recorded; in the W direction, the strength increased only slightly by 6.21%
E [MPa]

5000 size), 16.61% (4.8 mm mesh size), and 6.26% (6.4 mm mesh size).
(3.2 mm mesh
The development of strength and bending modulus in terms of honeycomb geometry areAshown
4000
in Figures 11 and 12. B
3000 C

2000

1000

0
C2-3,2-32(L) C2-3,2-48(L) C2-3,2-64(L) C2-3,2-80(L)
CORE TYPE
 C2-3,2-32(L) C2-3,2-48(L) C2-3,2-64(L) C2-3,2-80(L)
CORE TYPE

Figure 9. Influence of honeycomb density (32, 48, 64, 80) kg·m−3 on the bending strength of sandwich
Coatings 2020, 10, 750 9 of 19
constructions A–C (L orientation).

9000

8000

7000

6000
E [MPa]

5000
A
4000
B
3000 C

2000

1000
Coatings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21
0
(6.4 mm mesh size)C2-3,2-32(L)
were recorded; inC2-3,2-48(L)
the W direction, C2-3,2-64(L) C2-3,2-80(L)
the strength increased only slightly by 6.21%
(3.2 mm mesh size), 16.61% (4.8 mm mesh size), CORE TYPE(6.4 mm mesh size).
and 6.26%
The development of strength and bending modulus in terms of honeycomb geometry are shown
Figure 10. Influence of honeycomb density (32, 48, 64, 80) kg·m−3 on the bending modulus of sandwich
in Figures 11 and 12.
constructions
Figure A–C (L
10. Influence oforientation).
honeycomb density (32, 48, 64, 80) kg·m on the bending modulus of sandwich
−3

constructions A–C (L orientation).

140
In evaluations of the influence of honeycomb cell sizes, constructions made with honeycomb of
64 kg·m−3120
density and cell sizes of 3.2, 4.8, and 6.4 mm were compared. Regarding the evaluated A,
B, and C constructions, the highest values of strength were found at the constructions with the cell
100
size of 4.8 mm, while in the constructions with the cell size of 6.4 mm, the values were lowest. A
similar trend was noted for the bending modulus.
σfM [MPa]

80 of the coating influence effectivity in the sandwich constructions in the L direction, the
In terms
average increases in strength of 22.81% (3.2 mm mesh size), 25.32% (4.8 mm mesh size), and 21.44%A
60 B
C
40

20

0
C2-3,2-64 (L) C2-4,8-64 (L) C2-6,4-64 (L)
CORE TYPE
Figure 11. Influence of honeycomb geometry with mesh size (3.2, 4.8, and 6.4) mm on the bending
strength
Figure 11.ofInfluence
sandwichofconstructions
honeycomb A–C.
geometry with mesh size (3.2, 4.8, and 6.4) mm on the bending
strength of sandwich constructions A–C.
An overall survey of bending strength and its comparisons in both directions is shown in Figure 13.
Differences between strengths in the W and L directions fluctuated with honeycomb densities (32, 48,
9000
and 80) kg·m−3 in relatively equal values: 74.07% (32 kg·m−3 density), 74.38% (48 kg·m−3 density),
8000
and 76.39% for 80 kg·m−3 density. Only the honeycombs with the density of 64 kg·m−3 showed the
difference at a lower level: 31.31%. The highest difference between the bending strengths in the W and
7000
L directions was found at the honeycomb density of 64 kg·m−3 .
6000
E [MPa]

5000
A
4000
B
3000 C
2000
 C2-3,2-64 (L) C2-4,8-64 (L) C2-6,4-64 (L)
CORE TYPE

Figure 11. Influence of honeycomb geometry with mesh size (3.2, 4.8, and 6.4) mm on the bending
Coatings 2020, 10, 750 10 of 19
strength of sandwich constructions A–C.

9000

8000

7000

6000
E [MPa]

5000
A
4000
B
3000 C
2000

1000

0
C2-3,2-64
Coatings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW (L) C2-4,8-64 (L) C2-6,4-64 (L) 11 of 21
CORE TYPE
difference at a lower level: 31.31%. The highest difference between the bending strengths in the W
Figure 12. Influence of honeycomb geometry with mesh size (3.2, 4.8, and 6.4) mm on the bending
and L directions was found at the honeycomb density of 64 kg·m−3.
modulus
Figure 12.ofInfluence
sandwichofconstructions A–C.
honeycomb geometry with mesh size (3.2, 4.8, and 6.4) mm on the bending
modulus of sandwich constructions A–C.
140
An overall survey of bending strength and its comparisons in both directions is shown in Figure
120 between strengths in the W and L directions fluctuated with honeycomb densities (32,
13. Differences
48, and 80) kg·m-3 in relatively equal values: 74.07% (32 kg·m−3 density), 74.38% (48 kg·m−3 density),
and 76.39%100for 80 kg·m−3 density. Only the honeycombs with the density of 64 kg·m−3 showed the
A-W direction
σfM [MPa]

80
A-L direction

60 B-W direction
B-L direction
40 C-W direction
C-L direction
20

0
C2-3,2-32 C2-3,2-48 C2-3,2-64 C2-3,2-80
CORE TYPE
Figure 13. Influence of honeycomb orientation (L vs. W direction) on the bending strength of sandwich
Figure 13. Influence
constructions of honeycomb orientation (L vs. W direction) on the bending strength of
(A–C types—overview).
sandwich constructions (A–C types—overview).
The honeycomb orientation in sandwich constructions affects the bending modulus in a like
manner.
The The effectiveorientation
honeycomb bending modulus in all constructions
in sandwich constructionsisaffects
largerthe
in the L direction
bending than in
modulus in athe W
like
direction,The
buteffective
the differences are more variable: for the density of 29 kg·m −3 , the average difference is
manner. bending modulus in all constructions is larger in the L direction than in the W
53.57%; for 48the
kg·m −3 , the average difference is 26.05%; for 64 kg·m−3 , the
direction, but differences are more variable: for the density of 29 kg·m−3, average difference
the average differenceis the
is
smallestfor
53.57%; (8.86%);
48 kg·m and, for
−3 the 80 kg·m−3difference
average , a difference of 17.26%
is 26.05%; for was observed.
64 kg·m The undeniably
−3, the average differencesmallest
is the
difference
smallest was observed
(8.86%); and for 80 in kg·m
the B-type constructions
−3, a difference usingwas
of 17.26% theobserved.
honeycomb Thedensity kg·m−3 ,
of 64smallest
undeniably
while the highest
difference difference
was observed was
in the foundconstructions
B-type with the B-type constructions
using the honeycomb combined
density with the
of 64 honeycomb
kg·m −3, while

density −3
of 32difference
kg·m , reaching the level
the highest was found withofthe
58.56%.
B-type Therefore, it can be
constructions stated thatwith
combined the differences
the honeycomb in the
bending moduli between the L and W directions are decreasing with increasing honeycomb
density of 32 kg·m , reaching the level of 58.56%. Therefore, it can be stated that the differences in
−3 densities.
the bending moduli between the L and W directions are decreasing with increasing honeycomb
densities. A survey of the bending moduli in W directions and their comparison with L directions is
shown in Figure 14.
Coatings 2020, 10, 750 11 of 19

Coatings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21

A survey of the bending moduli in W directions and their comparison with L directions is shown
Coatings
in Figure2020,
14.10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21
9000
9000
8000
8000
7000
7000
6000
A-W direction
E [MPa]

6000
5000 A-L
A-Wdirection
direction
E [MPa]

5000
4000 B-W direction
A-L direction
4000
3000 B-L
B-Wdirection
direction
C-W direction
B-L direction
3000
2000
C-L
C-Wdirection
direction
2000
1000 C-L direction
1000
0
C2-3,2-32 C2-3,2-48 C2-3,2-64 C2-3,2-80
0
C2-3,2-32 CORE TYPE
C2-3,2-48 C2-3,2-64 C2-3,2-80
CORE TYPE
Figure
Figure 14. Influenceofofhoneycomb
14. Influence honeycomb orientation
orientation (L and
(L and W directions)
W directions) of various
of various densities
densities on the
on the effective
effective
Figure bending
bending14. modulus
Influence
modulus of sandwich
of honeycomb
of sandwich constructions:
orientation
constructions: types
(L A–C
types A–C (overview).
and (overview).
W directions) of various densities on the
effective bending modulus of sandwich constructions: types A–C (overview).
The
The influence
influence of of honeycomb
honeycomb orientation
orientationon on the
the bending
bending characteristics
characteristicswas was evaluated
evaluatedin in terms
terms
of
of another
another parameter
parameter of
of honeycomb
honeycomb geometry,
geometry, i.e.,
i.e., the
the mesh
mesh size.
size. InIn this
this
The influence of honeycomb orientation on the bending characteristics was evaluated in terms case,
case, aa constant
constant density
density
honeycomb
honeycomb
of (64
(64 kg·m
kg·m−3−3,of
another parameter with
, with mesh
meshsizes
honeycomb sizesofof3.2,
3.2,4.8
geometry, 4.8 and
and
i.e., 6.4
the mm)
mm)was
6.4mesh wasevaluated.
size. evaluated.
In this case, a constant density
Likewise,
honeycomb (64as
Likewise, as in
inthe
kg·m −3, previous
the previous
with meshcase,
case,
sizestheofbending
the bending strength
3.2, 4.8 andstrength in
6.4 mm)inthe
theLLdirection
was directionwas
evaluated. wasalways
alwayshigher
higherthan
than
the bending
the bending strength
Likewise,strength in
as in the the W
inprevious direction
the W direction
case, the(Figure
(Figure
bending15). As the
15).strength strength
As the strength in the W
in the W was
in the L direction direction
direction
alwaysincreases
increases only
only
higher than
slightly
slightly
the with
bending the
thecoating
withstrengthcoating
in thethickness,
thickness, the
thedifferences
W direction differences
(Figure 15). in the
inAs bending
thethe
bending
strengthstrength
in the between
strength Wbetween LLand
direction and W
Wincrease
increase
increases only
with
with increasing
with thecoating
increasing
slightly coatingthickness.
coating thickness.
thickness, the differences in the bending strength between L and W increase
with increasing coating thickness.
140
140
120
120
100
A-W direction
fM [MPa]

100
80 A-L
A-Wdirection
direction
σfMσ[MPa]

80 B-W direction
A-L direction
60
60 B-L
B-Wdirection
direction
40
C-W direction
B-L direction
40
20 C-L
C-Wdirection
direction
20 C-L direction
0
C2-3,2-64 C2-4,8-64 C2-6,4-64
0
C2-3,2-64CORE TYPE
C2-4,8-64 C2-6,4-64
CORE TYPE
Figure 15. Influence of honeycomb orientations (L and W) with various geometry (mesh sizes 3.2 mm,
Figure
4.8 mm15.
andInfluence
6.4 mm)ofon
honeycomb orientations
the bending strength of(Lsandwich
and W) with various geometry
constructions (mesh sizes 3.2 mm,
(types A–C).
4.8 mm and 6.4 mm) on the bending strength of sandwich constructions (types A–C).
Figure 15. Influence of honeycomb orientations (L and W) with various geometry (mesh sizes 3.2 mm,
4.8 mm and 6.4 mm) on the bending strength of sandwich constructions (types A–C).
Regarding the bending modulus, the situation remains the same. The bending modulus
magnitude in thethe
Regarding W direction,
bending for all three the
modulus, observed cell sizes
situation (3.2, 4.8
remains theand 6.4 mm),
same. The copies themodulus
bending bending
magnitude in the W direction, for all three observed cell sizes (3.2, 4.8 and 6.4 mm), copies the bending
Coatings 2020, 10, 750 12 of 19

Coatings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21

Regarding the bending modulus, the situation remains the same. The bending modulus magnitude
modulus values in the
in the W direction, L direction,
for all but of cell
three observed course
sizesat(3.2,
lower4.8value levels.
and 6.4 mm),The relevant
copies survey is
the bending shown
modulus
in Figure 16.
values in the L direction, but of course at lower value levels. The relevant survey is shown in Figure 16.

9000

8000

7000

6000
A-W direction
E [MPa]

5000 A-L direction

4000 B-W direction
B-L direction
3000
C-W direction
2000
C-L direction
1000

0
C2-3,2-64 C2-4,8-64 C2-6,4-64
CORE TYPE
Figure 16. Influence of honeycomb orientations (L and W) with various geometry (mesh sizes 3.2 mm,
4.8 mm,16.
Figure and 6.4 mm)ofon
Influence the bending
honeycomb modulus of
orientations (Lsandwich constructions
and W) with (types A–C).
various geometry (mesh sizes 3.2 mm,
4.8 mm, and 6.4 mm) on the bending modulus of sandwich constructions (types A–C).
3.2. Static Testing—Construction Type Influence
3.2. Static Testing—Construction
Temperature Type Influence
modes and curing conditions for composite materials represent important process
parameters that affect
Temperature modes theirandfinal mechanical
curing conditions properties. Because
for composite the studied
materials sandwich
represent constructions
important process
are produced in a single process step with the composite coating, the curing conditions
parameters that affect their final mechanical properties. Because the studied sandwich constructions of the composite
polymer
are matrixinmay
produced consequently
a single processinfluence
step with thethe
properties
composite of the whole the
coating, sandwich
curingconstruction.
conditions of In the
our
sandwich constructions, no additional film was used and therefore
composite polymer matrix may consequently influence the properties of the whole sandwich the very matrix of the composite
coating (prepreg)
construction. hadsandwich
In our a substantial role in the creation
constructions, of bonding
no additional film between
was usedthe andcoating and the
therefore the core.
very
As the temperature increases, the viscosity of the phenolic resin drops, and
matrix of the composite coating (prepreg) had a substantial role in the creation of bonding between between 80 and 90 ◦ C,
the coating
the resin starts
and totheflow
core.and creeps up along the surfaces of the honeycomb cell walls. It is therefore
advisable to adjust the
As the temperature temperature
increases,mode in a wayof
the viscosity that
theallows the transport
phenolic of a part
resin drops, and of the polymer
between 80 andresin
90
from the prepreg at certain time to the interface of coating and glass fabric/honeycomb.
°C, the resin starts to flow and creeps up along the surfaces of the honeycomb cell walls. It is therefore In the production
of composites
advisable for sandwich
to adjust constructions,
the temperature modenot in aonly
wayisthat
the primary
allows the goal for the best
transport of areinforcement matrix
part of the polymer
ratio in the composite important, but also the same importance must be put on
resin from the prepreg at certain time to the interface of coating and glass fabric/honeycomb. In the strength optimization
at the coating–core
production interface.for
of composites Forsandwich
this reason, the influencenot
constructions, on bending
only is thecharacteristics
primary goal in theformonitored
the best
sandwich constructions was observed in three curing cycles. Their developments
reinforcement matrix ratio in the composite important, but also the same importance must be put on are illustrated in
Figures 17 and 18. The influence of curing temperatures on the strength of
strength optimization at the coating–core interface. For this reason, the influence on bending each monitored construction
differed from case
characteristics in theto monitored
case. In thesandwich
A and B constructions
constructions the washighest
observed strength was
in three recorded
curing with
cycles. the
Their
Cycle 1 (130 ◦ C); however, the C construction showed the lowest level in this very cycle.
developments are illustrated in Figures 17 and 18. The influence of curing temperatures on the
strength of each monitored construction differed from case to case. In the A and B constructions the
highest strength was recorded with the Cycle 1 (130 °C); however, the C construction showed the
lowest level in this very cycle.
Coatings
Coatings 2020,
2020, 10,
10, x750
FOR PEER REVIEW 14
13 of
of 21
19
Coatings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21

Figure 17. Alternative curing cycles.

Figure 17.
Figure Alternative curing
17. Alternative curing cycles.
cycles.

160
160
140
140
120
120
100
[MPa]

100
σfM[MPa]

80 Thardening=110°C
80 Thardening=110°C
Thardening=130°C
60
σfM

Thardening=130°C
60 Thardening=150°C
40 Thardening=150°C
40
20
20
0
0 A B C
A B C
CONSTRUCTION TYPE
CONSTRUCTION TYPE
Figure 18. Influence of curing cycles on the bending strength of the A, B, and C constructions (used core:
Figure 18. Influence
honeycomb of curing
C2-3.2-80/L cycles on the bending strength of the A, B, and C constructions (used
orientation).
Figure
core: 18. Influence
honeycomb of curingorientation).
C2-3.2-80/L cycles on the bending strength of the A, B, and C constructions (used
core: honeycomb C2-3.2-80/L orientation).
In terms of the influence on bending modulus, Curing Cycle 2 seems to be most suitable. The A
and BInconstructions producedon
terms of the influence in bending
this modemodulus,
achievedCuring
the highest
Cyclevalues of bending
2 seems moduli
to be most as regards
suitable. The A
the In
giventerms of the influence
construction group, on bending
while at the modulus,
C Curing
construction, theCycle 2 seems
achieved to
bendingbe most suitable.
modulus
and B constructions produced in this mode achieved the highest values of bending moduli as regards was The A
almost
and
the B constructions
identical
given to produced
Curing Cycle
construction in
3. On
group, this mode
average,
while achieved
at the the the highest
values of bending
C construction, values
moduli
the achieved of bending
produced
bending moduli as
withinwas
modulus regards
thisalmost
mode
the
(110given construction
◦ C) were
identical to bygroup,
higherCycle
Curing 5.51% while
3. On at thethe
asaverage,
compared C to
construction, the1.achieved
CuringofCycle
values bending modulibending
produced modulus
withinwas
thisalmost
mode
identical
(110 °C) to Curing
A summary
were of Cycle
higher the 3. Onasaverage,
by three-point
5.51% bending
compared thetovalues
CuringofCycle
measurementsbending moduli
is1.given produced
in Table 3. within this mode
(110 A
°C)summary
were higher by 5.51% as compared to Curing Cycle 1.
of the three-point bending measurements is given in Table 3.
A summary of the three-point bending measurements is given in Table 3.
Coatings 2020, 10, 750 14 of 19

Table 3. Three-point bending results.

Core Type Construction Construction Construction

Unit
C2-3,2-64 tc = 8 mm A B C
Direction L W L W L W
Eef (MPa) 5661 5148.25 7191 6636.5 7859 7245.5
σfM (MPa) 67.47 59.9 90.7 69.52 101.25 67.02
Fmax (N) 1001.25 889.1 1487.25 1139.75 1849 1225.25
W at Fmax (J) 3301.99 2888.6 4997.98 3160.87 5847.21 2771.01

4. Impact Testing
For these reasons, it is necessary to define the influence of core material types and thicknesses as
well as the variability in the thicknesses of coatings for the toughness of such materials exposed to
impact stressing. In the evaluations of the impairment scope and mechanism of the samples exposed to
falling bodies, it is possible to define impairment hypotheses and, at the same time, to adopt follow-up
measures for the construction of sandwich materials.
The set of samples was tested according to the ISO 6603-2 Standard, using the ZWICK 1456 test
equipment (ZwickRoell, Brno, Czech Republic). A hemisphere-shaped impactor (10 mm diameter)
was selected, and its falling rate ranged between 1.55 to 1.65 m·s−1 ; the test temperature was kept at
20 ± 2 ◦ C. In the test arrangement, the maximum impact force was evaluated. Two levels of impact
energy were chosen: 30 J and 60 J.
In the course of impact tests, the sandwich constructions with variable coating thicknesses (A, B,
and C constructions) were evaluated with a primary goal of determining the influence of coating
thickness and core type on the impact resistance of sandwich constructions.
In the sandwich constructions with thicknesses of ~10 mm, the influence of six core types in
total—three types of Nomex honeycombs of density 32 kg·m−3 , 48 kg·m−3 , and 64 kg·m−3 ; one type of
aluminium honeycomb of 77 kg·m−3 density; and one type of AIREX T90-100 polymer foam—was
studied. The maximum values of the force developed in the impact course are shown in Figure 19.
In terms of the thickness influence, an increase in the impact force can be noted with increasing
thickness. This effect can be observed, at both impact energy levels, in all constructions produced of
Nomex cores and polymer foams. A perceptible increase in the impact force can be observed at a higher
level between the A and B constructions rather than between the B and C constructions. In addition,
significant differences were noted between the densities and/or mesh sizes of the honeycombs used.
As regards the core material types used, the highest impact force values are shown in the
constructions with polymer cores as compared to all other core materials; on the other hand, for the
constructions with aluminium honeycombs, the lowest values were recorded. As regards this core
type, the influence of coatings could not be reasonably evaluated.
It can be surmised from the measured results that the value of maximum impact force is significantly
influenced by the used core types. Consequently, the resistance can be further increased by changing the
coating structure, which is mostly efficient in constructions containing polymer foams (i.e., the increase
in resistance of the A type construction compared with the B type construction by 36.86% at the impact
force of 30 J, or by almost 84% at the impact force of 60 J), which is clearly evident even from the
graphic recording of the test progress.
Coatings 2020, 10, 750 15 of 19
Coatings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21

Figure 19. An overview of maximum forces in the impact tests. Sandwich constructions with cores of
c = 9 mm
tFigure 19.and tc = 10 mm
An overview of thicknesses.
maximum forces in the impact tests. Sandwich constructions with cores of
tc = 9 mm and tc = 10 mm thicknesses.
After the test, sandwich structures were visually inspected for defects. These defects usually result
Aftertests
in impact the and
test,they
sandwich
includestructures
defects onwere
upper visually inspected
and lower for defects.
coatings/apart from These
the Cdefects usually
type structures,
result
core in impact tests
deformations, and on
defects they include
the defectsinterface,
coating–core on upperand andcoating
lower coatings/apart from the C type
delamination (peeling).
structures,
Defective core deformations,
samples with Nomex defects on the coating–core
honeycombs and polymer foams interface,
show and coatinglocalized
narrowly delamination
defects
(peeling).
of circular cross sections approximately copying the impacting body. In the case of aluminium
Defective
honeycomb samples the
structures, with Nomex
scope honeycombs
of damage anddue
is larger polymer
to higher foams show narrowly
damaging localized
of the coating–core
defects of The
interface. circular cross sections
composite coating approximately
itself shows copying
damaged thepoints
impacting
in thebody.
formInofthe case offibers
broken aluminium
at two
honeycomb structures, the scope of damage is larger due to higher
mutually perpendicular axes, which corresponds with prepreg placements in the coating with damaging of the coating–core
interface.
0/90 The composite
◦ orientation. coating
Furthermore, itself showsofdamaged
delamination individual points
layersin isthe formin
visible ofthe
broken
damagedfibersarea.
at two
mutually
In theperpendicular
following phase axes, which corresponds
of penetration with prepreg
tests, composite sandwichplacements
materialsin with
the coating
20 mmwiththick0/90°
cores
orientation. Furthermore, delamination of individual layers is visible in the damaged
were tested. The test included the following 20 mm thick core materials; C2-4.8-32 Nomex honeycomb, area.
AIREX InT90-100
the following
polymer phase
foam,ofand
penetration
ECM 4.8-77tests, compositehoneycomb.
aluminium sandwich materials
The results withand20comparisons
mm thick
cores
for were tested.
sandwich The testwith
constructions included
cores the
up tofollowing 20 mm thick
10 mm thickness core materials;
are shown in Figure C2-4.8-32
20. Nomex
honeycomb, AIREX T90-100 polymer foam, and ECM 4.8-77 aluminium honeycomb.
The highest values of impact forces were obtained with the constructions with Nomex honeycomb The results and
comparisons for sandwich constructions with cores up to 10 mm thickness
cores and, on the contrary, the lowest values were found with the constructions with aluminium are shown in Figure 20.
honeycomb cores, and this is the case for cores up to 10 mm and even 20 mm. The significant drop
in maximum stresses of the constructions with polymer cores was noted. For 20 mm thick cores,
the coating thickness influence was always positive.
The scope and type of damage in the constructions with 20 mm thick cores are almost identical as
in the previous case. For the aluminium honeycombs, a substantial separation of the lower coating is
visible. At 13 mm thick Nomex honeycomb cores (C2-3.2-64), the construction defects are characterized
with a pronounced shear disturbance approximately in the core center.
In detail, it is possible to see the core thickness influence in Figure 21, where the plotted maximum
puncture force for constructions with 8, 10, 13, and 20 mm thicknesses is shown. In the framework of
these thicknesses, all three construction types (A–C) were tested at two impact energies: 30 J and 60 J.
There was an apparent drop in the impact resistance in the constructions with 13 mm thick
cores (Figure 21), while in the constructions with 20 mm thick cores, an increase could be found
again, where these (20 mm thick) constructions show the maximum values within the whole frame
of observation. The drop in the resistance with increasing thickness of constructions (with 13 mm
Coatings 2020, 10, 750 16 of 19

thickness) can be explained by relatively significant reinforcements of cell walls of thinned cores
with resin from the phenolic coating. On the other hand, with 20 mm thick cores, the honeycomb
deformation property takes place probably to a greater degree. In addition, it is also possible to observe
the fact that the honeycombs of lower densities (10 mm and 20 mm thicknesses) show better parameters
than the honeycombs of 64 kg·m−3 density and smaller mesh site (8 and 13 mm thicknesses). 17 of 21
Coatings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Figure 20. A survey of maximum forces at the impact test. Sandwich constructions with tc = 20 mm
Coatings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 21
Figure
thick 20. AAsurvey
cores. of maximum
comparison with theforces at the
structures = 10 mm
tc impact test. Sandwich
thick cores. constructions with tc = 20 mm
thick cores. A comparison with the structures tc = 10 mm thick cores.
9000
The 8000
highest values of impact forces were obtained with the constructions with Nomex
honeycomb cores and, on the contrary, the lowest values were found with the constructions with
aluminium 7000
honeycomb cores, and this is the case for cores up to 10 mm and even 20 mm. The
significant6000
drop in maximum stresses of the constructions with polymer cores was noted. For 20 mm
thick cores, the coating thickness influence was always positive. A-30 J
Fmax [N]

5000
The scope and type of damage in the constructions with 20 mm thick cores are almost A-60identical
J
4000
as in the previous case. For the aluminium honeycombs, a substantial separation of the lower coating
B-30 J
is visible. At 13 mm thick Nomex honeycomb cores (C2-3.2-64), the construction defects are
3000
characterized with a pronounced shear disturbance approximately in the core center. B-60 J
2000 it is possible to see the core thickness influence in Figure 21, whereC-30
In detail, the Jplotted
maximum puncture force for constructions with 8, 10, 13, and 20 mm thicknesses is shown. C-60 J In the
1000
framework of these thicknesses, all three construction types (A–C) were tested at two impact energies:
30 J and 60 J. 0
There was anNomex
apparent C2-3,2-
drop inNomex C2-4,8-
the impact Nomex in
resistance C2-3,2- Nomex C2-4,8-
the constructions with 13 mm thick cores
(Figure 21), while in the constructions with 20 mm thick cores, an 32
64 (8mm) 32 (10mm) 64 (13mm) (20mm)
increase could be found again,
CONSTRUCTION TYPE
where these (20 mm thick) constructions show the maximum values within the whole frame of
observation.
Figure 21.TheInfluence
drop inofthe resistance
core with
thicknesses; theincreasing
honeycomb thickness of constructions
used of various geometry (with 13 mm
C2-3.2-64
thickness)
Figure can
21. Influence of core thicknesses; the honeycomb used of various geometry C2-3.2-64 (W with
be explained
(W orientation). by relatively significant reinforcements of cell walls of thinned cores
resinorientation).
from the phenolic coating. On the other hand, with 20 mm thick cores, the honeycomb
In all groups
deformation withtakes
property identical cores
place of the to
probably given thickness,
a greater a positive
degree. influence
In addition, it isofalso
increasing
possiblethe
to
coating
observe thickness
the fact for
that the
the impact resistance
honeycombs of can
lower be observed
densities (10 as
mmit can
and be
20seen
mm from Tables
thicknesses)
In all groups with identical cores of the given thickness, a positive influence of increasing the 4–6.
show better
parameters
coating than for
thickness thethe
honeycombs of 64 can
impact resistance kg·m density as
be−3observed and smaller
it can be seenmesh
fromsite (8 4,5,6.
tables and 13 mm
thicknesses).
Table 4. Results of impact testing till tc < 10 mm.

Construction 1 Construction 2 Construction 3

HC Nomex tc = 8 mm AL Alloy tc = 9 mm PET Foam tc = 9 mm
C2-3.2-64 3.2-77 AIREX T90-100
Coatings 2020, 10, 750 17 of 19

Table 4. Results of impact testing till tc < 10 mm.

Construction 1 Construction 2 Construction 3

HC Nomex tc = 8 mm AL Alloy tc = 9 mm PET Foam tc = 9 mm
C2-3.2-64 3.2-77 AIREX T90-100
Sheet Construction A B C A B C A B
Fmax (N) 3674.8 4755 5171.9 2778.5 4170.8 4096.6 4390.8 6427.3
Fp (N) 1837.4 2377.5 2586 1389.2 2085.4 2048.3 2195 3213
Ep (J) 18.8 31.05 32.05 21.05 33.3 32.04 22.42 32.12

Table 5. Results of impact testing with different types of core material Nomex.

Construction 2 Construction 3
Construction 1 Construction 4
HC Nomex HC Nomex
HC Nomex tc = 8 mm HC Nomex tc = 13 mm
tc = 9 mm tc = 10 mm
C2-3.2-64 C2-3.2-64
C2-3.2-48 C2-6.4-32
Sheet Construction A B C A B A B A B C
Fmax (N) 3674.8 4755 5171.9 3815.9 5031.2 4393.6 5266.9 2335.2 3005.4 3410.7
Fp (N) 1837.4 2377.5 2586 1907.95 2515.6 2196 2633.4 1167.59 1502.71 1705.38
Ep (J) 18.8 31.05 32.05 19.59 31.7 14.15 24.01 23.73 33.55 35.90

Table 6. Results of impact test with different Nomex core.

Construction 2 Construction 3
Construction 1 Construction 4
HC Nomex tc = 9 HC Nomex tc = 10
HC Nomex tc = 8 mm HC Nomex tc = 13 mm
mm mm
C2-3.2-64 C2-3.2-64
C2-3.2-48 C2-6.4-32
Sheet Construction A B C A B A B A B C
Fmax (N) 3674.8 4755 5171.9 3815.9 5031.2 4393.6 5266.9 2335.2 3005.4 3410.7
Fp (N) 1837.4 2377.5 2586 1907.95 2515.6 2196 2633.4 1167.59 1502.71 1705.38
Ep (J) 18.8 31.05 32.05 19.59 31.7 14.15 24.01 23.73 33.55 35.90

5. Conclusions
The presented case study is focused on useful experimental findings about the mechanical
properties of sandwiches that are influenced by materials as well as layer arrangements in the structures
of such composites. Experimentally, it was found that the specific strength is positively influenced only
by the construction core. In all three presented hybrid constructions, it is possible to see significant
drops in bending strengths as well as in effective bending moduli. If the strength characteristics
of sandwich constructions are considered in terms of honeycomb densities, then their significant
positive influence on the bending strength will be evident. On the other hand, the use of higher density
honeycombs brings about, with the density increase, a much less effect to the bending modulus.
The highest differences between the bending strength in the L and W directions were recorded for
the honeycomb density of 64 kg·m−3 . The effective bending modulus was higher for all constructions
in the L direction as compared to the W direction. The honeycomb orientation influence on bending
characteristics was evaluated even in terms of another parameter of honeycomb geometry, and this
was the mesh size. In this case, the evaluated honeycombs were of constant density of 64 kg·m−3 with
mesh sizes of 3.2, 4.8, and 6.4 mm. Similarly, as in the previous case, the bending strength in the L
direction was always higher than that in the W direction.
Regarding the influence of thicknesses, it is possible to observe an increase with increasing
thicknesses of the coating. As concerns the core material type used in the composite, the highest impact
strength occurs in the constructions with a polymer core as compared to all other core materials, while,
on the contrary, in the constructions with aluminium honeycombs, the obtained values were at their
lowest. The highest values of impact forces are found in the constructions with Nomex honeycomb
cores, while, on the other hand, the constructions with aluminium honeycomb returned the lowest
values, namely, in the case of 10 mm and 20 mm thick cores. A significant drop in the maximum stress
in constructions with polymer cores is remarkable. Even in the case of 20 mm thick cores, the influence
of coating thickness is always positive. Within the framework of all groups of the same core of the
Coatings 2020, 10, 750 18 of 19

given thickness, a positive influence on the impact resistance can be observed with increasing the
coating thickness.
The sandwich material properties were also influenced by thermal modes used in their processing.
In terms of influencing the bending modulus, Curing Cycle 2 seems to be the most favorable.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.K.; methodology, P.K. and Z.K.J.; software, Z.K.J.; validation, M.G.
and I.R.; formal analysis, Z.K.J.; investigation, I.R.; resources, P.K.; data curation, P.K. and Z.K.J.; writing—original
draft preparation, P.K.; writing—review and editing, P.K. and I.R.; visualization, I.R.; supervision, P.K.; project
administration, M.G.; funding acquisition, M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, Czech Republic in
the framework of the projects SP2020/18, SP2020/61, and SP2020/39, and by the Ministry of Education, Science,
Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic in the framework of the project VEGA 1/0717/19.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to
publish the results.

References
1. Suarez, S.A.; Gibson, R.F.; Sun, C.T.; Chaturvedi, S.K. The influence of fiber length and fiber orientation on
damping and stiffness of polymer composite materials. Exp. Mech. 1986, 26, 175–184. [CrossRef]
2. D’Alessandro, V.; Petrone, G.; De Rosa, S. Modelling of aluminium foam sandwich panels. Smart Struct. Syst.
2014, 13, 615–636. [CrossRef]
3. Yamashita, M.; Gotoh, M. Impact behavior of honeycomb structures with various cell
specifications—Numerical simulation and experiment. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2005, 32, 618–630. [CrossRef]
4. Petrone, G.; D’Alessandro, V.; Franco, F.; De Rosa, S. Damping evaluation on eco-friendly sandwich panels
through reverberation time (RT60) measurements. J. Vib. Control 2015, 21, 3328–3338. [CrossRef]
5. Sargianis, J.J.; Kim, H.I.; Andres, E.; Suhr, J. Sound and vibration damping characteristics in natural material
based sandwich composites. Compos. Struct. 2013, 96, 538–544. [CrossRef]
6. Heslehurst, R. Composite sandwich structure design requirements—terms, definitions and global properties.
Compos. Aust. 2015, 12–13.
7. Davies, J. Lightweight Sandwich Construction; Blackwell Science Publishing: London, UK, 2001; p. 384.
8. Thotakuri, M.V.; Raju, K.S. Transverse compressive properties of honeycomb core under oblique Loading.
In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual GRASP Symposium, Wichita, KS, USA, 27 April 2007; pp. 13–14.
9. Bitzer, T.N. Honeycomb Technology: Materials, Design, Manufacturing, Applications and Testing; Chapman &
Hall: London, UK, 1997; p. 233.
10. HexWeb®Honeycomb Attributes and Properties. Hexcel Corporation. Available online: https://www.
pccomposites.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/PCHC4-4TY4_TDS.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2020).
11. Foo, C.C.; Chai, G.B.; Seah, L.K. Mechanical properties of Nomex material and Nomex honeycomb structures.
Compos. Struct. 2007, 80, 588–594. [CrossRef]
12. Keller, T.; Haas, C.; Valee, T. Structural concept, design, and experimental verification of a glass fiber-reinforced
polymer sandwich roof structure. J. Compos. Constr. 2008, 12, 454–468. [CrossRef]
13. Zhou, G.; Hill, M.D.; Hookham, N. Investigation of parameters governing the damage and energy absorbing
characteristics of honeycomb sandwich panels. J. Sandw. Struct. Mater. 2007, 9, 309–342. [CrossRef]
14. Fiedler, T.; Öchsner, A. Experimental analysis of the flexural properties of sandwich panels with cellular core
materials. Mater. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2007, 39, 121–124. [CrossRef]
15. Belingardi, G.; Cavatorta, M.P.; Duella, R. Material characterization of a composite foam sandwich for the
front structure of a high speed train. Compos. Struct. 2003, 61, 13–25. [CrossRef]
16. Akatay, A.; Bora, M.Ö.; Fidan, S.; Çoban, O. Damage characterization of three point bended honeycomb
sandwich structures under different temperatures with cone beam computed tomography technique.
Polym. Compos. 2015, 39. [CrossRef]
17. Zhou, G.; Hill, M.D.; Hookham, N. Damage characteristics of composite honeycomb sandwich panels in
bending under quasi-static loading. J. Sandw. Struct. Mater. 2006, 8, 55–90. [CrossRef]
Coatings 2020, 10, 750 19 of 19

18. Lister, J.M. Mechanical Behaviour of Honeycomb Sandwich Structures under Bending: Studying the Effect of
Core Orientation and Different Face Thicknesses on the Mechanical Behavior under Bending; Lambert Academic
Publishing: San Luis Obispo, CA, USA, 2013; p. 244.
19. Zakeri, A.A.; Mazraehshahi, H.T. Experimental study on Mechanical properties of aircraft honeycomb
sandwich structures. EPJ Web Conf. 2010, 6, 24003. [CrossRef]
20. Steeves, C.A.; Fleck, N. Collapse Mechanism of Sandwich Beams with Composite faces and Foam Core,
Loaded in Three-Point Bending. Part 1: Analytical Models and Minimum Weight Design. Int. J. Mech. Sci.
2004, 46, 561–583. [CrossRef]
21. Menna, C.; Zinno, A.; Asprone, D.; Prota, A. Numerical assessment of the impact behaviour of honeycomb
sandwich structures. Compos. Struct. 2013, 106, 326–339. [CrossRef]
22. Zhou, J.; Guan, Z.W.; Cantwell, W.J. The impact response of graded foam sandwich structures. Compos. Struct.
2013, 97, 370–377. [CrossRef]
23. Liu, X.; Athanasiou, C.E.; Padture, N.P.; Sheldon, B.W.; Gao, H. A machine learning approach to fracture
mechanics problems. Acta Mater. 2020, 190, 105–112. [CrossRef]
24. Xia, Z.; Curtin, W.A.; Sheldon, B.W. A new method to evaluate the fracture toughness of thin films. Acta Mater.
2004, 52, 3507–3517. [CrossRef]
25. Kamiński, M. Multiscale homogenization of n-component composites with semi-elliptical random interface
defects. Int. J. Sol. Struct. 2005, 42, 3571–3590. [CrossRef]
26. Chang, J.; Wang, X.; Shao, J.; Li, X.; Xin, W.; Luo, Y. Synthesis and characterization of environmentally-friendly
self-matting waterborne polyurethane coatings. Coatings 2020, 10, 494. [CrossRef]
27. Diaz, R.J.A.; Rodriguez-Camargo, C.D.; Svaiter, N.F. Directed polymers and interfaces in disordered media.
Polymers 2020, 12, 1066. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Lopez, D.M.B.; Ahmad, R. Tensile mechanical behaviour of multi-polymer sandwich structures via fused
deposition modelling. Polymers 2020, 12, 651. [CrossRef]
29. Jiang, X.; Wang, Z.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, F.; You, F.; Yao, C. Structural design and sound absorption properties
of nitrile butadiene rubber-polyurethane foam composites with stratified structure. Polymers 2018, 10, 946.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Němec, M.; Igaz, R.; Gergel, T.; Danihelová, A.; Ondrejka, V.; Krišt’ák, L’.; Gejdoš, M. Acoustic and
thermophysical properties of insulation materials based on wood wool. Akustika 2019, 33, 115–123.
31. Galatas, A.; Hassanin, H.; Zweiri, Y.; Seneviratne, L. Additive manufactured sandwich composite/ABS parts
for unmanned aerial vehicle application. Polymers 2018, 10, 1262. [CrossRef]
32. Koštial, P.; Rusnák, V.; Malinarič, S.; Jančíková, Z.; Valíček, J.; Harničárová, M. Thermal properties of
sandwiches for applications in transportation. Adv. Struct. Mater. 2017, 33, 179–184.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).