International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 88 (2014) 138–144

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmecsci

Flatwise compression and flexural behavior of foam core and polymer

pin-reinforced foam core composite sandwich panels
B. Abdi n, S. Azwan n, M.R. Abdullah, Amran Ayob, Yazid Yahya, Li Xin
Centre for Composites, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The behavior of foam core sandwich (FCS) and polymer pin-reinforced foam core sandwich (PRFCS)
Received 24 January 2014 panels was experimentally explored for flatwise compression and flexural loadings. The FCS and PRFCS
Received in revised form panels were made of chopped strand mat glass/polyester as face sheets and polyurethane foam as core
10 June 2014
material using a vacuum infusion process. The aim of the study is to determine the effect of the polyester
Accepted 6 August 2014
Available online 13 August 2014
pin reinforcement in the foam core when the panels are subjected to flexural and flatwise compression
loadings. Moreover, the effects of different loading rates on the flexural response of glass/polyester
Keywords: laminate and both types of the sandwich panels were determined. It was found that by reinforcing the
Loading rate foam core with cylindrical polymer pins, the flatwise compression and flexural properties of panels were
Flexural
increased significantly. Furthurmore, it was found that the diameter of polymer pins had a large
Flatwise compression
influence while the loading rate had a moderate influence on the flexural stiffness of both types of the
Sandwich panel
Polymer pins composite sandwich panels.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Composite sandwich structures are made of two thin and rigid
face sheets and a light and thick core material. Due to the
advantages of composite sandwich structures such as the high
specific strength-to-weight ratio, these structures are widely used
in industries such as automotive, aircraft and aerospace, marine
and civil industries. In application, these structures are usually
subjected to various types of loadings such as compression,
bending, and low and high-velocity impact loadings. Due to the
difficulties in visually detecting damages under different types of
loadings [1], understanding of the mechanical behavior of compo-
site sandwich panels is crucial in predicting their strength.
Various studies have been carried out on damage and failure
behavior of composite sandwich panels under compression and
three point flexural loadings [2–8]. For example, analytical studies
on the collapse mechanism of composite sandwich structures
under three-point flexural loading has been carried out by Steves
and Fleck [9] where different types of failures in composite
sandwich structures with composite face sheets and foam core
have been analyzed. Composite sandwich beam with two various
boundary conditions, fully clamped and simply supported, under
three-point flexural loading has been studied by Tagarielli et al.
n
Corresponding authors. Tel.: þ 60 12 7704483; þ 60 19 4260775.
E-mail addresses: behzad.abdi@gmail.com (B. Abdi),
mr.syedmohd@yahoo.com (S. Azwan).
[10] to determine the collapse modes and simple formulation has
been presented. In this study, softening post-yield and hardening
behaviors have been demonstrated in the simply supported and
fully clamped composite sandwich beam.
Sandwich structures with aluminum foam core under four-
point flexural loading have been studied experimentally by Styles
et al. [11] and the effect of the foam core thickness on failure
modes has been observed for the sandwich structure. Styles et al.
found that thick sandwich beam has failed because of core
indentation while in thin sandwich beams, they failed due to skin
wrinkling and fracture and core cracking and crushing. Composite
sandwich beams under two types of flexural loading, flatwise and
edgewise flexural loadings, have been studied by Manalo et al.
[12]. In this study, composite sandwich beams made of glass fiber-
reinforced polymer face sheets and modified phenolic core mate-
rial under four-point flexural loading have been tested. Manalo
et al. found that composite sandwich beam in the edgewise
flexural loading could take more loads than in the flatwise position
and sandwich beam in the edgewise position had failed according
to progressive failure of the face sheets while in the flatwise
position, the beams failed due to shear failure of the core.
Experimental study on composite sandwich beam made of uni-
directional carbon fiber reinforced epoxy resin face sheets and
aluminum honeycomb core with adhesive film under four-point
flexural loading has been carried out by Daniel and Abot [13]. In
this study, softening non-linearity and stiffening non-linearity
have been observed on the compression and tension side of
composite sandwich beam. The static and fatigue behaviors of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2014.08.004
0020-7403/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 B. Abdi et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 88 (2014) 138–144
composite sandwich beam made of two types of core material,
including balsa wood and PVC foam, have been studied experi-
mentally by Dai and Hahn [14]. The face sheets were quasi-
isotropic E-glass non-woven fabric cured in epoxy vinylester resin
by using vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM) and the
beams were loaded under three and four-point flexural loadings.
Debonding and delamination are the most important failures in
composite sandwich panels, and these failures are considered in
most of the experimental and numerical studies [15]. Different
types of sandwich panels such as sandwich panels with shear keys
and through-thickness stitched sandwich panels were introduced
to improve the mechanical properties against debonding failure
[16,17]. Recently, through-thickness stitched foam core sandwich
panels were studied and used in industries due to their high-
performance [18,19]. For instance, by reinforcing the sandwich
panel with z-pins, the flat-wise compressive strength of the
sandwich panel increased by 2500% [20]. In these structures, the
foam core of the sandwich panel is reinforced with fibers in
different methods such as orthogonal weaving, stitching, tufting
and z-pinning [21]. Although, through-thickness stitched foam
core sandwich panels have high-strength performance the fabri-
cation process of these structures is tedious and needs an extra
process that will incur an increase in the fabrication cost [22].
In the present study, the flatwise compression and flexural
behaviors of two types of sandwich panels, the foam core
sandwich panels (FCS) and polymer pins reinforced foam core
sandwich panels (PRFCS) were studied experimentally. Both types
of sandwich panels consist of glass fiber reinforced polyester face
sheets and high density polyurethane foam core. The core of PRFCS
panels was reinforced with cylindrical polymer pins. The effects of
reinforcing the foam core with two different diameters of cylind-
rical polymer pins were studied. In the three-point flexural
loading, loading rates of 1 mm/min, 10 mm/min, 100 mm/min
and 500 mm/min were used.
2. Polymer pin-reinforced foam core composite sandwich
panel
Polymer pin-reinforced foam core composite sandwich (PRFCS)
panel is a new type of sandwich panel where the foam core is
reinforced with circular polymer pins which also rigidly connect
the top and bottom face sheets. A schematic of PRFCS panel is
illustrated in Fig. 1. The polymer pins function to prevent the low
strength foam-core from crushing and prevent the interface
between the face sheets and the foam-core from debonding and
delamination. The polymer pins are made of the same polymer
Fig. 1. Schematic of PRFCS panel (foam core partially removed to show pins).
Table 1
The details of specimens for tests to determine the mechanical properties of materials.
Specimens Type of test
Glass/polyester laminate Tensile
Glass/polyester laminate Flexural
Polyurethane foam core Flatwise compression
139
that is used in the face sheets' matrix. The advantages of PRFCS
panel over the other types of sandwich panels are listed below:
1. The fabrication takes place in one step. Therefore, the face
sheets, foam core and the polymer columns are integrated into
one construction.
2. The polymer pins rigidly joined the top and bottom face sheets
of the panel and improve the resistance of the face sheets and
foam core from debonding and increasing the interface
strength between the foam core and the face sheets.
3. Material
The face sheets of the sandwich panels are made of three layers
of chopped strand mat glass fiber (600 g) and polyester resin and
the foam core is a high density (139.13 kg/m3) polyurethane foam.
The face sheets thickness is 17 0.1 mm and the core thickness is
11.5 mm. The tensile, three-point flexural and flatwise compres-
sion tests were carried out at constant loading rate of 1 mm/min to
determine the tensile and the flexural properties of glass/polyester
laminate and the compression property of foam core material,
respectively. The support span length for the three-point flexural
tests of chopped strand mat glass fiber/polyester laminate was set
to be 32 mm, which is 16 times the total thickness of specimens.
The details of specimens for experimental tests to determine the
mechanical properties of materials are listed in Table 1.
Figs. 2 and 3 show the stress–strain curves of the tensile tests
and flexural stress–deflection curves of three-point flexural tests
of chopped strand mat glass/polyester laminate, respectively. Fig. 4
shows the compressive stress–strain response of polyurethane
foam core subjected to flatwise compression loading. The mechan-
ical properties of chopped strand mat glass fiber/polyester lami-
nate such as Young's modulus E, Poisson's ratio v, failure stress σ F ,
failure strain εF , flexural failure stress σ fF and the ultimate strength
are listed in Table 2. Using ASTM Standard for flatwise compres-
sion test, the ultimate strength of foam core was determined. From
Fig. 4, the value is calculated to be 1.297 MPa.
Fig. 2. The stress–strain curves of glass/polyester laminate.
Type of specimen Dimensions
Dog bone 15 mm  100 mm (gauge length)  2.1 mm
Rectangular 15 mm  100 mm
Square 50 mm  50 mm
140 B. Abdi et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 88 (2014) 138–144

Both FCS and PRFCS panels were fabricated using an air bubble-
free resin vacuum infusion process. In this process, the air bubbles
inside the resin were removed using vacuum pressure (vacuum
chamber) and the air bubble-free resin was driven into the laminate
by using vacuum pressure. The schematic of the fabrication process of
FCS and PRFCS panels is illustrated in Fig. 5. For fabrication of circular
polymer pins in PRFCS panels, holes in the foam core were drilled in a
square arrangement by using a CNC machine. The arrangement of the
polymer pins in PRFCS panels is illustrated in Fig. 6
A total of nine FCS specimens and 24 PRFCS specimens with two
different diameters of polymer pins, 2 mm and 3 mm, were prepared
for three-point flexural and compression tests. The details of speci-
mens for three-point flexural and compression tests of sandwich
panels are listed in Table 3. Fig. 7 shows the FCS panel and PRFCS
panel in that the foam is partially removed to show the polymer pins.

4. Experimental tests

Three-point flexural and flatwise compression tests were

carried out using an Instron universal testing machine at constant

Fig. 3. The flexure stress–flexure deflection curves of glass/polyester laminate.

Fig. 6. The square arrangement of polymer pins in PRFCS panels.

Table 3
Details of specimens for three-point flexural and compression tests.

Specimens Type of Number of Diameter Dimensions Weight

Fig. 4. The compressive stress–deflection response of polyurethane foam core. tests specimens of pins (mm3) (gram)
(mm)

Table 2 FCS Flexural 9 – 240  30  13.5 467 1

Mechanical properties of chopped strand mat glass fiber/polyester laminate. PRFCS2 Flexural 9 2 240  30  13.5 517 1
PRFCS3 Flexural 9 3 240  30  13.5 617 1
E ðGPaÞ v σ F ðMPaÞ εF σ fF ðMPaÞ FCS Compression 3 – 50  50  13.5 137 2
PRFCS2 Compression 3 2 50  50  13.5 187 2
15.75 0.22 154.1 0.0136 219.506 PRFCS3 Compression 3 3 50  50  13.5 217 2

Fig. 5. The schematic of the fabrication process of sandwich panels using vacuum infusion process; (a) FCS panel and (b) PRFCS panel.
 B. Abdi et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 88 (2014) 138–144
Fig. 7. (a) FCS panel and (b) PRFCS panel (foam partially removed to show pins).
Fig. 8. Three-point flexural test of sandwich panel.
Fig. 9. The force–deflection response of FCS panel subjected to three-point flexural
loading.
loading rate of 1 mm/min. The support span length for three-point
flexural tests of both FCS and PRFCS panels was set to be 180 mm.
The test for each specimen was repeated three times to make sure
the repeatability of test results. The three-point flexural test is
illustrated in Fig. 8. In three-point flexural tests, the load was
applied directly over a row of polymer pins.
The force–deflection response of FCS panels subjected to three-
point flexural loading at a constant loading rate of 1 mm/min is
illustrated in Fig. 9. It can be seen from Fig. 9 that the measured
results have a variation of less than 1% and 5.5% in failure load and
deflection at failure load, respectively.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. The effect of reinforcing foam core with polymer pins, in flexural
loading
The three-point flexural behavior of FCS and PRFCS panels with
two different diameters of polymer pins was studied. The load/
141
weight–deflection and the flexure stress–deflection responses of
both types of sandwich panels are illustrated in Fig. 10.
As can be seen from the curves in Fig. 10, by reinforcing the
foam core with polymer pins, the flexural stiffnesses and ultimate
strengths of the sandwich panels are increased. In Fig. 10(a), by
reinforcing the foam core with polymer pins with diameter of
2 mm, the maximum value for load/weight is increased from
1112.9(N/N) to 1612.2(N/N) and the deflection at failure load is
increased from 6.67 mm to 13.207 mm. Therefore, the flexural
properties of PRFCS2 panels were increased by 44.9% and 98% in
maximum value for load/weight and deflection at failure load,
respectively. In comparison with FCS panels, the flexural proper-
ties of PRFCS3 panels were increased by 48.6% and 42.6% in
maximum value for load/weight and the deflection at failure load,
respectively.
The failure load, deflection at failure load, failure flexural stress
of FCS and PRFCS panels are compared and listed in Table 4. By
comparing the results of PRFCS2 panels and PRFCS3 panels, in can
be seen that increasing the diameter of polymer pins improves the
strengths and stiffnesses quite significantly. The maximum value
for load/weight parameter of PRFCS3 panel is 2.5% higher than
PRFCS2 panel. Moreover, the maximum flexural stress of PRFCS2
and PFRCS3 panels are 77.2% and 97% higher than the maximum
flexural stress of FCS panels.
Fig. 11 shows the failure of both types of sandwich panels
subjected to three-point flexural loading. It can be seen from
Fig. 11(a) that only top face sheet of FCS panel fails in three-point
flexural loading. Local face sheet buckling took place exactly at
loading line and no failure was observed in the foam core. In PRFCS
panels, the modes of failure and also the location of failure were
changed as the load was being increased. Failure was observed to
occur in the foam core and at the interface between the foam and
face sheets of the sandwich panel (Fig. 11(b)). In PRFCS panels, by
increasing the load, failure started with cracking of the polymer
pins at the interface, near the point of loading, and this failure
gradually moved toward the support spans (Fig. 11(c)). Finally,
failure moved from one interface to the other interface through
the foam core (Fig. 11(d)).
5.2. The effect of reinforcing foam core with polymer pins, in flatwise
compression
To determine the effect of reinforcing foam core of sandwich
panel with polymer pins on flatwise compression behavior, FCS
panels and PRFCS panels with two different diameters of polymer
pins were tested at constant loading rate of 1 mm/min. Fig. 12
shows the load/weight–deflection response of sandwich panel
under flatwise compression loading.
It can be seen from Fig. 12 that the flatwise compression
behavior of FCS and PRFCS panels is significantly different and
the compression properties of PRFCS panel are higher than FCS
142 B. Abdi et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 88 (2014) 138–144

Fig. 10. Flexural behavior of FCS and PRFCS panels; (a) the load/weight-deflection response, and (b) the flexure stress–deflection response.

Table 4
The comparison of FCS panels and PRFCS panels subjected to three-point flexural loading.

Type Failure load (N) Failure load/Weight (N/N) Deflection at failure load (mm) Flexure stress (MPa)

FCS 502.2 1112.9 6.67 23.0

PFRCS2 806.62 1612.2 13.207 40.77
Difference 60.6% 44.9% 98% 77.2
PFRCS3 989.61 1653.7 9.51 45.31
Difference 97.1% 48.6 42.6% 97%

Fig. 11. Failure of sandwich panels; (a) FCS panel, and (b–d) PRFCS panel.

panel. The failure load/weight of FCS panels is around 25350(N/N)
while for PRFCS2 and PRFCS3 panels is 91338(N/N) and 140247(N/N),
that it is 3.6 and 5.53 times higher than FCS panels, respectively.
The large difference between the compression properties are due
to the compression properties of polymer pins being higher than
the foam core material alone. From Fig. 12 it can be seen that there
is no force peak in the FCS panel while PRFCS panels show load
peaks after which the forces drop. These peaks correspond to the
crushing failure of polymer pins under compression loading.
Reinforcing foam core of sandwich panel with polymer pins
improve the flatwise compression properties of sandwich panels
dramatically.
Fig. 13 illustrates the failure of PRFCS sandwich panel under
compression loading (the foam core has been removed partially to
show the failure of polymer pins under compression loading).
It can be seen that the polymer pins were crushed under compres-
sion loading.
5.3. The effect of loading rate on flexural behavior
To study the effect of loading rates on flexural behavior of
sandwich panel, FCS panel and PRFCS panel with two different
diameters were tested at loading rates of 1 mm/min, 10 mm/min,
100 mm/min and 500 mm/min. Fig. 14 shows the flexure stress–
deflection response of FCS panels under three-point flexural
loading.
It can be seen from Fig. 14 that the loading rate influences the
flexural properties of FCS panels. Increasing the loading rate results
in the increase of the failure strength. By increasing the loading rate
from 1 mm/min to 10 mm/min, 100 mm/min and 500 mm/min the
 B. Abdi et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 88 (2014) 138–144 143

Fig. 12. The load/weight–deflection response of sandwich panel under flatwise

compression loading.

Fig. 13. Failure of PRFCS sandwich panel under compression loading.

Fig. 15. The flexure stress–deflection response of sandwich panels under three-
point flexural loading; (a) PRFCS2 panels, and (b) PRFCS3 panels.

Table 5
The comparison of FCS panels and PRFCS panels subjected to three-point flexural
loading at different loading rates.

Type Failure load (N) Deflection at Flexure stress (MPa)

failure load (mm)

Loading rate¼ 1 mm/min

FCS 502.2 6.67 23.0
PFRCS2 806.62 13.207 40.77
Difference 60.6% 98% 77.2
PFRCS3 989.61 9.51 45.31
Difference 97.1% 42.6% 97%
Loading rate¼ 10 mm/min
Fig. 14. The flexure stress–deflection response of FCS panels under three-point
FCS 522.7 6.06 23.34
flexural loading.
PFRCS2 895.7 12.25 45.97
Difference 71.4% 102.1% 97%
failure strengths were increased by 3.23%, 17.62% and 19.2%, PFRCS3 1042.65 8.6 48.3
respectively. Fig. 15 shows the flexure stress–deflection response Difference 99.5% 41.9% 106.9%
of PRFCS2 and PRFCS3 panels under three-point flexural loading. Loading rate¼ 100 mm/min
FCS 584.9 6.67 26.61
It can be seen from Fig. 15 that the loading rate affects the
PFRCS2 967.9 11.34 49.03
flexural behavior of PRFCS panels. By increasing the loading rate, Difference 65.5% 70.0% 84.3%
the failure strength of sandwich panels is increased. In PRFCS2 PFRCS3 1046.4 9.0 53.02
panels, by increasing the loading rate from 1 mm/min to 10 mm/ Difference 78.9% 34.9% 99.2%
min, 100 mm/min and 500 mm/min the failure strength was Loading rate¼ 500 mm/min
FCS 604.7 7.51 27.0
increased by 10.6%, 17.9% and 27.2%, respectively. In PRFCS3 panels, PFRCS2 1049.8 11.68 52.9
increasing the loading rate from 1 mm/min to 10 mm/min, Difference 73.6% 55.5% 95.9%
100 mm/min and 500 mm/min the failure strength was increased PFRCS3 1239.7 9.18 57.38
by 8.6%, 19.3% and 29.1%, respectively. Therefore, it can be Difference 105.0% 22.2% 112.5%
discussed that the loading rate has a significant effect on flexural
behavior and the pin size affects the failure strength significantly.
The comparison of FCS panels and PRFCS panels subjected to
three-point flexural loading at different loading rates is listed in rate on flexural properties of PRFCS panels is higher than FCS
Table 5. panels. From previous studies [23,24], this behavior of composite
By comparing the flexural behavior of FCS with PRFCS panels at sandwich panels comes from the polymer that is used in fabrica-
different loading rates, it can be discussed that the effect of loading tion of these structures.
144 B. Abdi et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 88 (2014) 138–144
6. Conclusion
Flatwise compression and flexural tests of FCS and PRFCS
panels were carried out experimentally and it was found that by
reinforcing the foam core of sandwich panels with cylindrical
polymer pins, the flexural and flatwise compression properties of
these structures were improved dramatically and the improve-
ment was higher in flatwise compression loading. It was found
that increasing the diameter of polymer pins improved the flexural
and flatwise compression properties of PRFCS panels. The effects
of loading rates on three-point flexural behavior of FCS and PRFCS
panels were studied and the results showed that the loading rate
moderately affected the flexural properties of both types of
sandwich panels. By increasing the loading rate, the flexural
properties were increased and the influence of loading rate on
PRFCS panels was higher than FCS panels. Therefore, it can be
concluded that although by reinforcing FCS panels, the weight of
the panels is increased slightly, the improvement of their flatwise
compression and flexural performance is higher and this feature of
PRFCS panels can be used in the design of composite sandwich
panels.
Acknowledgment
This work is supported by UTM research university grant (GUP)
Grant no. R.J130000.7824.4F131.
References
[1] Abrate S. Impact on composite structures. United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press; 2005.
[2] Gdoutos E, Daniel I, Wang K-A. Compression facing wrinkling of composite
sandwich structures. Mech Mater 2003;35:511–22.
[3] Crasto AS, Kim RY. Compression strengths of advanced composites from a
novel mini-sandwich beam. United States: SAMPE Quarterly (Society of
Aerospace Material and Process Engineers); 1991; 22.
[4] Mouritz A, Thomson R. Compression, flexure and shear properties of a
sandwich composite containing defects. Compos Struct 1999;44:263–78.
[5] Avery JL, Sankar BV. Compressive failure of sandwich beams with debonded
face-sheets. J Compo Mater 2000;34:1176–99.
[6] Sleight DW, Wang JT. Buckling analysis of debonded sandwich panel under
compression. United States America: NASA; 1995.
[7] Frostig Y, Baruch M. Bending of sandwich beams with transversely flexible
core. AIAA J 1990;28:523–31.
[8] Gdoutos E, Daniel I, Wang K-A, Abot J. Nonlinear behavior of composite
sandwich beams in three-point bending. Exp Mech 2001;41:182–9.
[9] Steeves CA, Fleck NA. Collapse mechanisms of sandwich beams with compo-
site faces and a foam core, loaded in three-point bending. Part I: analytical
models and minimum weight design. Int J Mech Sci 2004;46:561–83.
[10] Tagarielli V, Fleck N, Deshpande V. Collapse of clamped and simply supported
composite sandwich beams in three-point bending. Compos B: Eng
2004;35:523–34.
[11] Styles M, Compston P, Kalyanasundaram S. The effect of core thickness on the
flexural behaviour of aluminium foam sandwich structures. Compos Struct
2007;80:532–8.
[12] Manalo A, Aravinthan T, Karunasena W, Islam M. Flexural behaviour of
structural fibre composite sandwich beams in flatwise and edgewise posi-
tions. Compos Struct 2010;92:984–95.
[13] Daniel IM, Abot JL. Fabrication, testing and analysis of composite sandwich
beams. Compos Sci Technol 2000;60:2455–63.
[14] Dai J, Thomas Hahn H. Flexural behavior of sandwich beams fabricated by
vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding. Compos Struct 2003;61:247–53.
[15] Langdon G, von Klemperer C, Rowland B, Nurick G. The response of sandwich
structures with composite face sheets and polymer foam cores to air-blast
loading: preliminary experiments. Eng Struct 2012;36:104–12.
[16] Mitra N. A methodology for improving shear performance of marine grade
sandwich composites: sandwich composite panel with shear key. Compos
Struct 2010;92:1065–72.
[17] Xia F, Wu X-Q. Study on impact properties of through-thickness stitched foam
sandwich composites. Compos Struct 2010;92:412–21.
[18] Du L, Jiao G. Indentation study of Z-pin reinforced polymer foam core
sandwich structures. ComposA: Appl Sc Manuf 2009;40:822–9.
[19] Wang P, Lei Y, Yue Z. Experimental and numerical evaluation of the flexural
properties of stitched foam core sandwich structure. Compos Struct
2013;100:243–8.
[20] Rice M, Fleischer C, Zupan M. Study on the collapse of pin-reinforced foam
sandwich panel cores. Exp Mech 2006;46:197–204.
[21] Nanayakkara A, Feih S, Mouritz A. Experimental analysis of the through-
thickness compression properties of z-pinned sandwich composites. Compos
A: Appl Sci Manuf 2011;42:1673–80.
[22] Larry ES, Daniel OA. Development and evaluation of stitched sandwich panels.
2001.
[23] Abdi B, Koloor S, Abdullah M, Ayob A, bin Yahya MY. Effect of strain-rate on flexural
behavior of composite sandwich panel. Appl Mech Mater 2012;229:766–70.
[24] Koloor S, Abdi B, Abdullah M, Ayob A, Yahya MYB. Effect of strain rate
upsetting process on mechanical behaviour of epoxy polymer. Appl Mech
Mater 2012;229:303–8.