Review

Structural Performance of Polyurethane Foam-Filled

Building Composite Panels: A State-Of-The-Art
Bijan Samali 1 , Saeed Nemati 1, * , Pezhman Sharafi 1 , Farzaneh Tahmoorian 2 and
Farshad Sanati 3
1 Centre for Infrastructure Engineering, Western Sydney University, Kingswood 2747, Australia;
B.Samali@uws.edu.au (B.S.); P.Sharafi@uws.edu.au (P.S.)
2 School of Engineering and Technology, Central Queensland University, Mackay, QLD 4740, Australia;
F.Tahmoorian@cqu.edu.au
3 Mechanical Engineering Faculty, Mashhad University, Mashhad 9177948974, Iran;
Sanati.farshad@yahoo.com
* Correspondence: Nematiuts@gmail.com; Tel.: +61-2-4736-0106




Received: 8 March 2019; Accepted: 26 March 2019; Published: 10 April 2019


Abstract: Composite panels with polyurethane (PU) foam-core and facing materials, such as
gypsum, engineered wood or some composite materials, are being used as structural members
in building construction. This paper reviews and summarises major research developments, and
provides an updated review of references on the structural performance of foam-filled building
composite panels from 1998 to 2017. The review revealed that previous studies on the structural
performance of foam-filled building composite panels could be categorised into five themes; namely,
energy absorption and dynamic behaviour; bending and shear behaviour, edgewise and flatwise
compressive/tensile behaviour; delamination/deboning issues; and finally some miscellaneous
issues. These categories comprise approximately 30%, 40%, 11%, 11% and 8% of related studies over
the last two decades, respectively. Also, over the past five years, the number of relevant studies has
increased by ~400% relative to the previous similar periods, indicating the attention and focus of
researchers to the importance of the structural performance of foam-filled composite panels.

Keywords: composite panels; polyurethane (PU) foam; energy absorption; flexural behaviour;
delamination

1. Introduction
Polyurethane (PUR or PU) could be a polymer composed of natural units joined by urethane
joins with an assortment of applications in industry. The first urethane was made in 1849 by Wurtz.
Afterward, in 1937, Otto Bayer provided PUs from the reaction between a polyester diol (polyols) and
an isocyanate. Then, during World War II, polyurethanes were used as an aircraft coating. However,
since 1954 ever more engineering applications have been proposed. PU foams cover a wide range
of stiffness, hardness and densities. Highly resilient and flexible foam seating, rigid foam insulation
panels, durable elastomeric wheels and tires, automotive suspension bushings, gaskets, seals and
hard plastic parts are some examples of the application of PU in the industry [1]. Most of the global
consumption of polyurethane products is in the form of foams [2]. PU products are strong and
durable, yet lightweight and easy to install, hence making them an excellent choice for homes and
buildings. Most amounts of the polyols that are used in the manufacturing of PU foams are derived
from petroleum, but increasing concern over the environmental impact and paucity of petroleum
in the future has incited the development of Polyurethane Foams (PUFs) from bio and renewable
raw materials. The growing interest in the use of renewable materials has led to increasing use of

J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40; doi:10.3390/jcs3020040 www.mdpi.com/journal/jcs

J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 2 of 30

renewable products, such as green and biobased polyols including vegetable oils, polysaccharides and
biomass, represent a rich source of hydroxyl precursors, in the production of PUFs in the last decades.
Herein a biobased precursor was used as a partial replacement of conventional polyol to manufacture
PU foams. PU is a vital component in several kinds of insulation materials. Open cells foams are
proper for sound insulation applications, while closed-cells foams are suitable for thermal insulation
applications. Within this scenario, closed-cell rigid foams are a vital class of materials due to their
excellent thermal insulation properties. For example, a brick wall would have to be 860-mm-thick to
have a comparative level of insulation of 25 mm of PU foam. While PU foams have some of the highest
insulating values, their mechanical strength is remarkable too. Therefore, high mechanical strength and
easy processing make rigid PUFs an attractive choice in different industrial applications. With regard
to the applications in structural members, foam-filled composite structures or Structural Insulated
Panels (SIPs) are the most commonly used systems and have been utilised successfully for commercial
buildings and houses worldwide for more than 50 years. As a history briefing, although foam-core
panels gained attention in the 1970s, the idea of using stress-skinned panels for the building began
in the 1930s. Then, in 1947, structural insulated panel development began when paperboard cores
were tested with several facing materials of tempered hardboard, plywood and treated paperboard.
Polystyrene core and paper overlaid with plywood facing panels were used in a construction in 1967,
and the panels have been effective to the present day. These structures have many advantages such
as lightweight, high strength, corrosion resistance, durability and speedy construction, together with
their excellent thermal and acoustic properties. Foam-filled composite panels with polyurethane
foam-core and facing materials such as gypsum, engineered wood or some composite materials, as
efficient building elements, are becoming significant players in modular construction with several
applications in residential and commercial buildings [3]. This paper reviews and summarises major
research developments, and provides an updated review of references on the structural performance
of foam-filled composite panels in the most common five different themes including energy absorption
and dynamic behaviour, bending and shear behaviour, edgewise and flatwise compression/tension
behaviour, delamination/deboning issues and some different themes.

2. Energy Absorption and Dynamic Behaviour

PU foams can be broadly classified as viscoelastic, making them suitable for repetitive use, and
rigid, which is a preferred property for applications requiring impact energy absorption. Viscoelastic
foams can compress under application of load and expand back to regain their original configuration.
However, in rigid foams, cells are commonly of open types that allow higher deformation of foam
under applied loading, and lead to higher energy absorption; but the damage is inflicted on cell
walls causing the overall deformation to be permanent. More crushable foams termed ‘semirigid’,
have higher energy absorption abilities compared to viscoelastic foams. The dynamic behaviour and
energy absorption performance of PU foam-filled composite panels has been extensively studied in
the literature. Wu et al. [4] investigated an innovative yet straightforward foam-filled lattice composite
panel proposed to enhance peak load and energy absorption capacity (Figure 1). They conducted an
experimental study to validate the effectiveness of the panel in increasing peak strength. Test results
showed that by using lattice webs, an approximately 1600% increase in peak strength could be achieved.
They also showed the energy absorption could be enhanced by increasing lattice web thickness and
foam density, while by using lattice webs, the panel showed higher initial stiffness.
The effect of foam density variations in the composite structures under high-velocity impact
loadings was investigated by Nasirzadeh et al. [5]. Their studied structures consisted of composite
facing made from glass fibre woven roving reinforced unsaturated polyester resin and rigid
polyurethane foam core with different densities. The results of analysis from Scanning Electron
Microscopy (SEM) also revealed that low ballistic performance in low-density foam core (below
40 kg/m3 ) in the composite structures could be associated with foam’s low cell wall thickness and
strut. They also showed that while foam cell wall thickness and strut play a vital role in crushing
 J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, x 3 of 24

J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 3 of 30

behaviour and consequently energy absorption, better ballistic performance was related to composite
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, x 3 of 24
panels with foam core density below 70 kg/m3 .

Figure1. Foam‐filled panel proposed by Wu et al. Adapted from [4].

The effect of foam density variations in the composite structures under high‐velocity impact
loadings was investigated by Nasirzadeh et al. [5]. Their studied structures consisted of composite
facing made from glass fibre woven roving reinforced unsaturated polyester resin and rigid
polyurethane foam core with different densities. The results of analysis from Scanning Electron
Microscopy (SEM) also revealed that low ballistic performance in low‐density foam core (below
40 kg/m3) in the Figure composite structurespanel
1. Foam-filled couldproposed
be associatedby Wuwith et al.foam’s
Adapted lowfromcell [4].
wall thickness and
strut. They also showed that while foam cell wall thickness and strut play a vital role in crushing
behaviour Figure1. Foam‐filled
and consequently energy panel proposed better
absorption, by Wu et al. Adapted
ballistic from [4]. was related to
performance
The low-velocity impact behaviour of PU foam-core composite panels was studied by
composite
Wang et The panels
effect
al. [6]. They with
of foam foam
conducted core
densitysome density
variations below 70 kg/m
in the composite
experimental
3 .
studies on structures
composite under high‐velocity
panels with plain impactweave
carbon The low‐velocity
loadings
fabric waslaminated impact
investigated behaviour
facebysheets.
Nasirzadeh of et
Results PUal.foam‐core
[5]. Their
showed thecomposite
studied
impact panels
structures was
parameters, studied
consisted
such ofby Wang
peaketload,
composite
as
al. [6]. They
facing madeconducted
from glass some
fibre experimental
woven rovingstudies on composite panels polyester
reinforced with plain weave carbon
absorbed energy/impact energy ratio and contact durationunsaturated
increase with impactresin and
energy, rigid
decrease
fabric laminated
polyurethane face
foam sheets.
core with Results
different showed the
densities. impact
The parameters,
results of such
analysis as
from peak load,
Scanning absorbed
Electron
with the impactor size. The absorbed energy/impact energy ratio and contact duration also decrease
energy/impact
Microscopy (SEM) energyalso ratio and contact
revealed that low duration
ballisticincrease
performancewith impact energy, decrease
in low‐density foam core with the
(below
withimpactor
the face sheet
size. The thickness,
absorbed while the
energy/impact peak load
energy increases.
ratio and In
contact addition,
duration both
also the planar
decrease with damage
the
40 kg/m3) in the composite structures could be associated with foam’s low cell wall thickness and
diameter
face and indentation depth increase with the impact energy, while decreasing with face sheet
strut.sheet
Theythickness,
also showed while thewhile
that peak foamload increases. In addition,
cell wall thickness andbothstrutthe
play planar
a vitaldamage
role indiameter
crushing
thickness.
and Also,
indentation
behaviour
they
and depth
showed the
increase with
consequently
impact
energy
response
the absorption,
impact energy, and damage
while
better
state
decreasing
ballistic
are independent
with face sheet
performance
of the
thickness.
was related
foam
to
coreAlso,
thickness. These
they panels
composite showed researchers
thefoam
with impact developed
coreresponse
density below a progressive
and damage damage model to
70 kg/m3.state are independent of the foam core describe the nonlinear
behaviour
thickness. of plain
These weave carbon
researchers laminates
developed
The low‐velocity impact behaviour of PU foam‐core a during
progressive impact.damage The model
composite results
panelstofrom the
describe
was numerical
studied thebynonlinear
Wang models
et
behaviour
agreed with of plain
experimental weave carbon
observations laminates [7]. during
In impact.
another The
study
al. [6]. They conducted some experimental studies on composite panels with plain weave carbon results
by Zhangfrom etthe
al. numerical
[8], a models
polyurethane
agreed
foam-filled with
fabric laminated experimental
pyramidal facelattice
sheets.observations
core composite
Results [7]. Inpanel
showed another
the study
(Figure
impact 2)bywas
parameters,Zhang et as
fabricated
such al. peak
[8],
in aorder
polyurethane
load, to improve
absorbed
foam‐filled
energy/impact
the energy pyramidal
absorption energy lattice
andratio core composite
and contact
low-velocity panel
duration
impact (Figure
increaseSome
resistance. 2) was fabricated
with compression in
impact energy,testsorder to
decreaseimprove
revealed the
withthatthe the
energy
impactor
foam-filled absorption
composite and
size. The absorbed low‐velocity
panels have energy/impactimpact
a higher load resistance.
energy Some
ratio capacity
carrying compression
and contact durationto
compared tests
also revealed
thedecrease
sum of the that the
withunfilled
the
foam‐filled
face sheet compositewhile
thickness, panels the have
peak a load
higher load carrying
increases. In addition,capacity
both compared
the planar todamage
the sum of the
diameter
specimen and the polyurethane block. Also, it was found that for small compressive strains, the energy
unfilled specimendepth
and indentation and the polyurethane
increase with the block.
impact Also, it was found
energy, that for smallwith compressive strains,
absorption of unfilled composite panels is more than that while decreasing
of foam-filled specimen facewith
sheethigher
thickness.
relative
the
Also,energy
they absorption
showed the of unfilled compositeand
impact response panels
damageis more than
state arethat of foam‐filled
independent of specimen
the foam with core
density
higher
lattice cores.density
relative
On thelattice
other hand, the energy
cores. On athe
absorptionthe
other hand,
of foam-filled composite panels, owing
thickness. These researchers developed progressive damage energymodel absorption
to describe ofthefoam‐filled
nonlinear
to lower relative
composite density lattice cores, was inferior to that of the unfilled specimens.
behaviour panels,
of plainowing
weavetocarbonlower laminates
relative densityduringlattice
impact. cores,
The was inferior
results from to thethat of the unfilled
numerical models
specimens.
agreed with experimental observations [7]. In another study by Zhang et al. [8], a polyurethane
foam‐filled pyramidal lattice core composite panel (Figure 2) was fabricated in order to improve the
energy absorption and low‐velocity impact resistance. Some compression tests revealed that the
foam‐filled composite panels have a higher load carrying capacity compared to the sum of the
unfilled specimen and the polyurethane block. Also, it was found that for small compressive strains,
the energy absorption of unfilled composite panels is more than that of foam‐filled specimen with
higher relative density lattice cores. On the other hand, the energy absorption of foam‐filled
composite panels, Figure
Figure 2. 2.
owing toStudied composite
lowercomposite
Studied panel by
relative density
panel Zhang
bylattice etetal.
Zhangcores,al.Adapted
was from
inferior
Adapted [8].
fromto[8].
that of the unfilled
specimens.
The dynamic response of foam‐core composite panels subjected to low‐velocity impact was also
The dynamic
studied by He et response of foam-core
al. [9]. Top facings of composite panelswith
composite panels subjected
a thicktocore
low-velocity
were shownimpact
to bewas
alsoassailable
studied by to the low‐velocity crashing under stepped levels of energy, while those with a thick coreto be
He et al. [9]. Top facings of composite panels with a thick core were shown
assailable to the low-velocity
decreased deformation crashing
of the interiorunder
plates stepped levels
significantly. of energy,
Their while
results also those with athat
demonstrated thick
thecore
decreased deformation of the interior plates significantly. Their results also demonstrated that the
sharper hemispherical samples were the most destructive with the lowest impact force peak. One
of the main disadvantages of composite structures is the loss of bearing capacity due to indentation
Figure 2. Studied composite panel by Zhang et al. Adapted from [8].
damage. Rizov et al. [10] evaluated the load–displacement response of foam core composite panels
through The dynamic response
experimental of foam‐core
tests. The composite
test specimens werepanels
made subjected
by using to rigid
low‐velocity impact
foam with was also of
a thickness
studied by He et al. [9]. Top facings of composite panels with a thick core
50 mm, and glass fibre-reinforced composite faces with a width of 2.4 mm. The load–displacement were shown to be
assailable to the low‐velocity crashing under stepped levels of energy,
response for loading and unloading states was documented amide the testing. The diameterwhile those with a thick core of
decreased deformation of the interior plates significantly. Their results also demonstrated that the
the damaged area on the facings was investigated after the unloading. Also, numerical modelling
of the indentation response was performed using finite element modelling as well. The primary
 the main disadvantages of composite structures is the loss of bearing capacity due to indentation
sharper hemispherical samples were the most destructive with the lowest impact force peak. One of
damage. Rizov et al. [10] evaluated the load–displacement response of foam core composite panels
the main disadvantages of composite structures is the loss of bearing capacity due to indentation
through experimental tests. The test specimens were made by using rigid foam with a thickness of
damage. Rizov et al. [10] evaluated the load–displacement response of foam core composite panels
50 mm, and glass fibre‐reinforced composite faces with a width of 2.4 mm. The load–displacement
through experimental tests. The test specimens were made by using rigid foam with a thickness of
response for loading and unloading states was documented amide the testing. The diameter of the
J. Compos.
50 mm, andSci. 2019,
glass 3, 40
fibre‐reinforced composite faces with a width of 2.4 mm. The load–displacement 4 of 30
damaged area on the facings was investigated after the unloading. Also, numerical modelling of the
response for loading and unloading states was documented amide the testing. The diameter of the
indentation response was performed using finite element modelling as well. The primary objective
damaged area on the facings was investigated after the unloading. Also, numerical modelling of the
of the investigation
objective was to anticipate
of the investigation the residual
was to anticipate thestresses
residual and strains,and
stresses andstrains,
particularly, the amount
and particularly,
indentation response was performed using finite element modelling as well. The primary objective
of the
the residual
amount of dent. A great dent.
the residual coordinate between
A great numerical
coordinate modelling
between resultsmodelling
numerical and the corresponding
results and
of the investigation was to anticipate the residual stresses and strains, and particularly, the amount
experimental
the corresponding data experimental
was obtained.data Theirwaswork ought to
obtained. be considered
Their work oughtastoa be step towards creating
considered as a stepa
of the residual dent. A great coordinate between numerical modelling results and the corresponding
more advanced
towards creating numerical analysis numerical
a more advanced capable ofanalysis
explaining indentation
capable as wellindentation
of explaining as postindentation
as well
experimental data was obtained. Their work ought to be considered as a step towards creating a
mechanical
as behaviour
postindentation of composite
mechanical behaviour structures.
of compositeThe structures.
behaviour The of nanoclay
behaviourand polyurethane
of nanoclay and
more advanced numerical analysis capable of explaining indentation as well as postindentation
foam‐filled composite
polyurethane foam-filledpanels and glass
composite panels fibre‐reinforced polyamide/polypropylenes
and glass fibre-reinforced face sheets face
polyamide/polypropylenes was
mechanical behaviour of composite structures. The behaviour of nanoclay and polyurethane
studied
sheets bystudied
was Sachse by et al. [11]. et
Sachse They conducted
al. [11]. low energylow
They conducted impact
energytests under
impact localised
tests under point and
localised
foam‐filled composite panels and glass fibre‐reinforced polyamide/polypropylenes face sheets was
surface
point andloads
surface and studied
loads the quasi‐static
and studied compressive
the quasi-static behaviour
compressive of theofcomposite
behaviour the compositepanels. The
panels.
studied by Sachse et al. [11]. They conducted low energy impact tests under localised point and
investigation
The investigation showedshowed usage
usage of of
nanoclay
nanoclay ininthe
thepolyurethane
polyurethanefoam foam core
core promoted both both energy
energy
surface loads and studied the quasi‐static compressive behaviour of the composite panels. The
absorbingand
absorbing andmaximal
maximal deflection
deflection during
during impact.
impact. An increase
An increase in the in the compression
compression modulusmodulus
of 20–37% of
investigation showed usage of nanoclay in the polyurethane foam core promoted both energy
20–37%
was also was also recorded
recorded for the composites
for the composites with polyamidewith polyamide
faces. Huafaces.
et al. Hua et al. [12]
[12] studied thestudied
structuralthe
absorbing and maximal deflection during impact. An increase in the compression modulus of
structuralofresponse
response carbon of carbon
fibre fibre composite
composite panels subjected
panels subjected to blasttoloading
blast loading
through through experimental
experimental and
20–37% was also recorded for the composites with polyamide faces. Hua et al. [12] studied the
and numerical
numerical approach.
approach. The measured
The measured strainstrain histories
histories illustrated
illustrated inverse inverse
stagesstages
at the at the centre
centre of the of the
front
structural response of carbon fibre composite panels subjected to blast loading through experimental
front
and andface
back back face Both
sheets. sheets. Bothspeared
strains strains damped
speared oscillation
damped oscillation with a oscillation
with a decreased decreased frequency
oscillation
and numerical approach. The measured strain histories illustrated inverse stages at the centre of the
frequency
as as well asfacing
well as increased increased facing deformations
deformations at the greater at the
blastgreater blastAs
intensity. intensity.
the blastAswave
the blast wave
traversed
front and back face sheets. Both strains speared damped oscillation with a decreased oscillation
traversed
across acrossthe
the panel, theobserved
panel, the flowobserved
separationflowandseparation
reattachmentand reattachment
led to a pressureled rise
to a at
pressure
the backrisesideat
frequency as well as increased facing deformations at the greater blast intensity. As the blast wave
the
of back
the sideThe
panel. of the panel. The
maximum maximum
deflection of thedeflection
back faceofsheet
the back
also face sheet with
increased also increased
higher blastwith higher
intensity
traversed across the panel, the observed flow separation and reattachment led to a pressure rise at
blastdecreased
and intensity with
and decreased
larger facewithsheetlarger
and corefacethickness
sheet and(Figure
core thickness
3). (Figure 3).
the back side of the panel. The maximum deflection of the back face sheet also increased with higher
blast intensity and decreased with larger face sheet and core thickness (Figure 3).

Figure
Figure3. 3. Deflection
Deflection ofdepends
of panels panels depends on blastface
on blast intensity, intensity, face
thickness thickness
and and core
core thickness. thickness.
Adapted from [12].
Adapted from [12].
In Deflection
Figure3. another study ondepends
of panels the performance and effectiveness
on blast intensity, of core
face thickness and fibre‐reinforced polymer
thickness. Adapted from (FRP)
[12].
composite panels
In another underonblast
study the loading, Ahmed
performance andet al. [13] conducted
effectiveness a numerical model,
of fibre-reinforced verified
polymer (FRP)by
In another study on the performance and effectiveness of fibre‐reinforced polymer (FRP)
experiments (Figure 4). Their panel had an inner core made of woven and
composite panels under blast loading, Ahmed et al. [13] conducted a numerical model, verified honeycomb shaped
composite panels under blast loading, Ahmed et al. [13] conducted a numerical model, verified by
material, while (Figure
the sand/PU was usedhad as filling material. They studiedand thehoneycomb
amount ofshaped
energy
experiments (Figure 4). 4).
by experiments Their
Their panel
panel had anan innercore
inner coremade
made ofofwoven
woven and honeycomb shaped
absorbed by
material, while panels and their peak deformation. Finally, the analyses revealed that using the
material, whilethe
thesand/PU
sand/PUwas wasused as filling
used material.
as filling They studied
material. the amount
They studied of energyofabsorbed
the amount energy
aforementioned
by panels by core
andpanels configuration
their peak noticeably enhances FRP panels’ behaviour under blast loads.
absorbed and deformation. Finally, the analyses
their peak deformation. Finally, revealed that using
the analyses the aforementioned
revealed that using the
core configuration noticeably enhances FRP panels’ behaviour under blast loads.
aforementioned core configuration noticeably enhances FRP panels’ behaviour under blast loads.

Figure 4. Schematic of experimental test. Adapted from [13].

Figure 4.
Figure Schematic of
4. Schematic of experimental
experimental test.
test. Adapted
Adapted from [13]..
from [13]

Yang et al. [14] investigated the response of closed-cell PU foam core composite panels with
woven carbon/epoxy laminate face sheets under low-velocity impacts. They introduced a numerical
modelling for the composite panels, including continuum damage, cohesive layers and crushable
foam model with isotropic hardening. Then, ultrasonic testing and high-speed cameras were used to
determine the damage and delamination characteristics. The results showed that the higher exposure
 J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, x 5 of 24

Yang
J. Compos. Sci. et 3,al.40[14] investigated the response of closed‐cell PU foam core composite panels with
2019, 5 of 30
woven carbon/epoxy laminate face sheets under low‐velocity impacts. They introduced a numerical
modelling for the composite panels, including continuum damage, cohesive layers and crushable
temperatures
foam model resulted in larger
with isotropic damageThen,
hardening. zonesultrasonic
for both testing
the low and
and high impact
high‐speed energies.
cameras In another
were used to
determine
study, Taraghithe damage
et al. and delamination
[15] studied the effect of characteristics.
multiwalled The results
carbon showed on
nanotubes that thethe higher and
internal
exposure
external temperatures
damages resulted
of the core in larger damage
a fibre-reinforced zones
epoxy forsheets
face both the low and to
subjected high impact energies.
a low-velocity impact.
In another study, Taraghi et al. [15] studied the effect of multiwalled
Results showed that this solution could improve the absorbed energy and penetration threshold carbon nanotubes on the of the
internalcomposite
foam-core and external damages
panels. of the corestudy
A comparative a fibre‐reinforced
between compositeepoxy face sheets subjected
structures to a
with and without
low‐velocity impact. Results showed that this solution could improve the absorbed energy and
foam core with regards to their impact behaviour was conducted by Kavianiboroujeni et al. [16] on
penetration threshold of the foam‐core composite panels. A comparative study between composite
three-layer composite structures made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and hemp. Low-speed
structures with and without foam core with regards to their impact behaviour was conducted by
falling weight and Charpy tests were used to study the role of hemp content, skin thickness and
Kavianiboroujeni et al. [16] on three‐layer composite structures made of high‐density polyethylene
density
(HDPE)of the
andcore
hemp.material.
Low‐speed Based on the
falling results,
weight the structures
and Charpy with
tests were used foam core the
to study hadrolegreater
of hempenergy
absorption capabilities. Also, based on the falling weight impact results,
content, skin thickness and density of the core material. Based on the results, the structures with the energy dissipation
properties
foam coreof composite
had greater structures without foam
energy absorption core wereAlso,
capabilities. betterbased
than onthe theother one. weight
falling This property
impact was
significantly
results, the affected
energy by skin fibre
dissipation content and
properties thickness,
of composite and structure
structures without arrangement.
foam core were In better
another thanstudy,
Huangthe et al. [17]
other one.studied the staticwas
This property bursting and low-velocity
significantly affected byimpact behaviour
skin fibre contentofand the flexible
thickness, composite
and
structure
panels, which arrangement.
consisted of a In 3Danother study,
fabric filled Huang
flexible PU et al. [17]
as core and studied
two compound the static burstingasand
laminates facings.
The low‐velocity
results revealed impact
thatbehaviour
the staticofbursting
the flexible composite
strength of thepanels,
foam which
could consisted
increase to of 324%
a 3D fabric filled
by reinforcing
withflexible PU as core and
the filling-resistant 3D two compound
fabric. The fibrelaminates
blendingasratiofacings.
of theThe results
filling revealed
resistant 3D thatfabric the
hadstatic
a large
bursting strength of the foam could increase to 324% by reinforcing with the filling‐resistant 3D
effect on the static bursting strength, and the flexible composite panels with the filling resistant 3D
fabric. The fibre blending ratio of the filling resistant 3D fabric had a large effect on the static
fabric showed better elongation which is favourable to the low-velocity impact strength. In a numerical
bursting strength, and the flexible composite panels with the filling resistant 3D fabric showed better
and experimental study on the low-velocity impact on composite panels with hybrid nanocomposite
elongation which is favourable to the low‐velocity impact strength. In a numerical and experimental
facestudy
sheets,
on Feli et al. [18] presented
the low‐velocity a three-dimensional
impact on composite solution
panels with hybrid based on Fourier
nanocomposite seriesFeli
face sheets, andet the
generalised
al. [18] differential
presented aquadrature method.solution
three‐dimensional The effects
basedof impact energy
on Fourier and and
series geometrical parameters
the generalised
including in-plane
differential dimension
quadrature ratio,The
method. core thickness
effects and energy
of impact face sheet
andthickness
geometrical on parameters
contact force and lateral
including
deflection
in‐plane dimension ratio, core thickness and face sheet thickness on contact force and structures
histories were also investigated [19]. Low-speed drop-weight tests of composite lateral
weredeflection
also carried out were
histories by Jiang et al. [20], where
also investigated a new lamellar
[19]. Low‐speed orthogonal
drop‐weight tests ofcomposite with auxetic
composite structures
were
effect wasalso carried out
employed forby Jiang resistance
impact et al. [20], where a new absorption.
and energy lamellar orthogonal
Nonauxetic composite with auxetic
composite structure
witheffect was employed
the same components, for impact
but with resistance and energy absorption.
other reinforcement structures,Nonauxetic
was also made composite structure to
for comparison
with thethe
investigate same components,
impact but with
of reinforcing onother reinforcementmechanism
the deformation structures, was
and also made forbehaviour
mechanical comparison of the
to investigate the impact of reinforcing on the deformation mechanism
composite structures. It appeared that both auxetic and nonauxetic composite specimens exhibited and mechanical behaviour of
the composite structures. It appeared that both auxetic and nonauxetic composite specimens
different mechanical behaviour under distinct deformation and damage mechanism (Figure 5). Pull-out
exhibited different mechanical behaviour under distinct deformation and damage mechanism
tests showed that strong interfacial bonding could warrant the desired deformation of structural
(Figure 5). Pull‐out tests showed that strong interfacial bonding could warrant the desired
reinforcements and auxetic impact of the composite. It was concluded that the auxetic composite had
deformation of structural reinforcements and auxetic impact of the composite. It was concluded that
a higher energy
the auxetic absorption
composite hadperformance
a higher energy in medium
absorptionstrain range too.
performance in medium strain range too.

Figure 5. 5.Studied
Figure Studiedcomposites
composites by Jiangetetal.
by Jiang al.Adapted
Adapted from
from [20].
[20].

Hybrid
Hybrid laminated
laminated composites,fabricated
composites, fabricated based
based on
onhigh‐density
high-densityflexible
flexiblepolyurethane foam
polyurethane and and
foam
reinforced
reinforced withwith inter/intra‐plyhybrid
inter/intra-ply hybrid laminates
laminates was
wasproposed
proposedbybyYan
Yanet et
al.al.
[21]. Their
[21]. experimental
Their experimental
results
results revealed
revealed that
that foam
foam cellcollapse
cell collapseand
and hybrid
hybrid laminates
laminatesrupture
rupturewere
were dominant
dominant mechanisms
mechanismsof of
energy absorption under quasi‐static and dynamic loadings. Also, interlaminar stress and composite
energy absorption under quasi-static and dynamic loadings. Also, interlaminar stress and composite
tensile strength determined the compressive potential energy and double‐peak behaviour.
tensile strength determined the compressive potential energy and double-peak behaviour. Quasi-static
bursting and puncture resistances exhibited entirely different relationships to various construction
and expansion factors. According to their results, energy dissipation capacity was influenced most
significantly by the constant rate of transverse (CRT) puncture compared to the dynamic puncture
process. In a comprehensive study, Ghalami et al. [22] investigated the effect of parameters of projectile
velocity, core density, core thickness, face sheet thickness and orientation of fibres on ballistic limit and
Quasi‐static bursting and puncture resistances exhibited entirely different relationships to various
construction and expansion factors. According to their results, energy dissipation capacity was
influenced most significantly by the constant rate of transverse (CRT) puncture compared to the
dynamic puncture process. In a comprehensive study, Ghalami et al. [22] investigated the effect of
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 6 of 30
parameters of projectile velocity, core density, core thickness, face sheet thickness and orientation of
fibres on ballistic limit and energy absorption of composite structures with polyurethane foam core
andenergy
aluminium
absorption and ofcomposite
compositeface sheets.with
structures Their results showed
polyurethane foam core thatandthe face sheets
aluminium andhave
compositea
significant contribution
face sheets. to theshowed
Their results energy that absorption
the faceofsheets
composite
have panels. Also, contribution
a significant increasing core to density
the energy
didabsorption
not significantly changepanels.
of composite absorbing Also,energy in comparison
increasing core density with
didthe
noteffects of other
significantly parameters.
change absorbing
Velecela
energyetinal. [23] explained
comparison with thetheeffects
utilisation of parameters.
of other finite element analysis
Velecela et al.for
[23]the simulation
explained of the
the utilisation
crushing response
of finite elementofanalysis
glass reinforced plastic (GRP)
for the simulation of thecomposite panels gained
crushing response to absorb
of glass reinforcedclash energy.
plastic (GRP)
Finite element panels
composite analysisgained
was used to predict
to absorb theenergy.
clash collapseFinite
modeelement
associated with the
analysis wasconfiguration
used to predict of a the
triggering
collapsemechanism
mode associatedthat was presented
with in the foam‐cored
the configuration composite
of a triggering panels and
mechanism thatforwasanalyses
presented of the
in the
affection of the samples’ aspect ratio on the specific energy absorption of
foam-cored composite panels and for analyses of the affection of the samples’ aspect ratio on the specific these panels. The
numerical
energy analysis
absorption predicted
of theseapanels.
triggerThe geometry that analysis
numerical indicatespredicted
the transition fromgeometry
a trigger bucklingthat failure to
indicates
oncoming crushing,
the transition fromand showed
buckling failurethat
to there
oncomingis no apparent
crushing, andtrend
showed between
that therethe isaspect ratio of
no apparent trend
specimens and their specific energy absorption. Mamalis et al. [24] studied
between the aspect ratio of specimens and their specific energy absorption. Mamalis et al. [24] studied the edgewise
compressive
the edgewise behaviour, failure
compressive modes and
behaviour, crushing
failure modes characteristics
and crushingof different types
characteristics of composite
of different types of
panels. The investigated
composite panels. Thepanels consisted
investigated of four
panels kindsofoffour
consisted polymer
kinds foam core and
of polymer foam two
coretypes
andof twoFRPtypes
facing laminates.
of FRP The effectThe
facing laminates. of effect
some of critical
some parameters of the of
critical parameters facings and foam
the facings and foamcore core
and andthe the
composite
composite configuration
configuration on the compressive
on the compressive response
responseandand
the the
crushing
crushing characteristics
characteristics of the panels,
of the panels,
such as collapse
such as collapse modes,
modes, crash
crashenergy
energy absorption
absorptionand andthe thepeak
peakload,
load, are
are investigated.
investigated. GeorgeGeorge et etal.
al.[25]
[25]studied
studiedthe thecomposite
compositepanels
panelsfabricated
fabricatedusing
usinga afixed
fixed carbon
carbon fibre‐reinforced
fibre-reinforced polymer
polymer (CFRP)
(CFRP) truss
truss
and and a variety
a variety of closed‐cell
of closed-cell polymerpolymer and syntactic
and syntactic foamsfoams
(Figure (Figure 6). Results
6). Results showed showed the
the thickness
thickness and in‐plane
and in-plane shear modulus
shear modulus and strength
and strength of theincrease
of the cores cores increase
with rising withfoam
risingdensity.
foam density.
The usage
Theofusage of semirigid
semirigid foams asfoams
the coreas the core material
material was found was tofound
result to
in aresult
seriousin adecrease
serious in decrease in the
the compressive
compressive contributed by the CFRP trusses. X‐ray tomography showed
contributed by the CFRP trusses. X-ray tomography showed that the trusses develop an elliptical that the trusses develop an
elliptical cross‐section
cross-section duringduring pressure‐assisted
pressure-assisted resin transfer.
resin transfer. Micromechanical
Micromechanical modellingmodelling
was employed was to
employed
study the to interaction
study the interaction
between the between the mechanical
mechanical properties properties
and volume and volumeoffractions
fractions of the
the core materials
coreandmaterials and truss topology.
truss topology.

Figure 6. Hybrid composite core of a composite panel with 3D woven carbon fibre composite faces.
Figure 6. Hybrid composite core of a composite panel with 3D woven carbon fibre composite faces.
Adapted from [25].
Adapted from [25].
In a similar work, the effect of the polyurethane foam-filled lattice core composite panel on the
In a similar work, the effect of the polyurethane foam‐filled lattice core composite panel on the
energy absorption and the compression strength was studied by Rostamiyan et al. [26]. Results of
energy absorption and the compression strength was studied by Rostamiyan et al. [26]. Results of
the compression tests showed that the foam-filled composite panels have a better bearing capacity
the compression tests showed that the foam‐filled composite panels have a better bearing capacity
compared to the sum of the unfilled specimens and PU block. Abdi et al. [27] compared the indentation
compared to the sum of the unfilled specimens and PU block. Abdi et al. [27] compared the
and the compression behaviour of PRFCS composite panels with the common traditional composite
indentation and the compression behaviour of PRFCS composite panels with the common
panels. Their results showed that by using cylindrical polymer pins, the indentation strength, energy
traditional composite panels. Their results showed that by using cylindrical polymer pins, the
absorption and compression strength of the composite panels were increased. In addition, the diameter
indentation strength, energy absorption and compression strength of the composite panels were
of pins had a significant role in the indentation and compression behaviour of polymer pin-reinforced
FCS panels. Also, the influence of polymer pins on indentation behaviour is similar to the effect of
increasing the thickness of the face sheet. On the other hand, they found that by increasing the strain
rate, the indentation and energy absorption properties of composite panels are improved. Table 1
shows a summary of the critical literature in the area of energy absorption and dynamic behaviour of
PU foam-filled composite panels.
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 7 of 30

Table 1. Summary of the critical literature of energy absorption and dynamic behaviour.

Ref. Goal Investigated Parameters Variables

• initial stiffness • lattice web thickness
Increasing the peak load and energy absorption capacity of composite
[4] • deformability • lattice web spacing
panels
• energy absorbing capacity • foam density

Determination of effects of foam density on composite panels energy • ballistic limit velocity • foam density
[5]
absorption • energy absorption capacity

• impact response • impactor diameter

Determination of low-velocity impact behaviour of foam-core composite • damage states • impact energy
[6,7]
panels • absorbed energy/impact energy ratio • face sheet thickness
• contact duration and peak load • foam core thickness
• load–displacement response
[8] Study on the response of foam core composite panels to indentation • the diameter of the damaged zone on the face sheet • No variation
• geometrical nonlinearity

• impact force time history • impact energy

• dynamic displacement time history • foam-core thickness
Determination of the dynamic response of foam-core composite plates
[9] • the residual plastic deformation • punch-head shape
subjected to low-velocity impact
• the energy absorption capacity • punch-head size
• backplate deflection

• contact duration
[10] Improvement the energy absorption • load capacity • density
• energy absorption capacity

• energy absorption capacity • foam components

Determination of effects of nanoclay on polyurethane foam-filled
[11] • deflection • face sheet materials
composite panels energy absorption
• quasi-static compression modulus

• the maximum deflection of the face sheets • peak overpressure

Study on the structural response of carbon fibre composite panels
[12] • damage/delamination characteristics • face sheet thickness
subjected to blast loading
• penetration rate • core thickness
Conduction a numerical model to study the effectiveness of • amount of energy absorbed by panels • core configurations
[13]
fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite panels under blast effect • panels peak deformation • core material

Study on the response of foam core composite panels under low-velocity • damage and delamination characteristics • temperature
[14]
impacts. • level of impact energy
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 8 of 30

Table 1. Cont.

Ref. Goal Investigated Parameters Variables

Improvement of absorbed energy and penetration threshold of the • Energy profile diagrams (EPDs) • level of impact energy
[15]
foam-core composite panels • damage size

• strength • skin thickness

Experimental investigation of the impact behaviour of three-layer • load • core density
[16] composite structures made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and • absorbed energy • skin fibre content
hemp, with and without a foam core • deflection • structure configuration
• failure patterns

Investigation of the static bursting and low-velocity impact property of the • static bursting strength • fibre blending ratio
[17]
composite flexible composites • elongation

Modelling of low-velocity impact on the composite panels with hybrid • contact force • No variation
[18,19]
nanocomposite face sheets • lateral displacement of the contact point

• deformation mechanism
• mechanical responses • reinforcement structure
[20] Study on the low-velocity drop-weight impact tests of composites • strain rate • auxetic/nonauxetic
• pull-out test • composites
• energy absorbing capacity
• mechanisms of energy absorption
• such as foam cell collapse and hybrid • type of loading
• laminates rupture • thicknesses
• interlaminar stress
• expansion factors
[21] Study on hybrid laminated composites energy absorption
• composite tensile strength • constant rate of transverse (CRT)
• quasi-static bursting resistances puncture/dynamic puncture
• quasi-static puncture resistances
• energy dissipation capacity
• projectile velocity
• ballistic limit and energy absorption • core density/thickness
[22] Investigation of high-velocity impact on composite panels
• face sheet thickness
• orientation of fibres
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 9 of 30

Table 1. Cont.

Ref. Goal Investigated Parameters Variables

• failure mode • width
Use of FE analysis for the simulation of the crushing response of
[23] • crush zone morphology • height
composite panels aimed to absorb collision energy
• specific energy absorption • the angle of the top surface of the panel

• compressive properties • type of foam core

Study on compressive properties, collapse modes and crushing • collapse modes
[24] characteristics of various types of composite panels in edgewise • types of faceplate
• peak load • composite construction geometry
compression tests.
• crash energy absorption

• core in-plane shear modulus

• core in-plane shear strength
Study on composite panels fabricated using a fixed carbon fibre-reinforced • compressive strength • core foam density
[25] polymer (CFRP) truss and a variety of closed-cell polymer and syntactic • the compressive strength of the foam
• the ellipticity of the truss cross sections
foams
• volumetric energy absorptions
• gravimetric energy absorptions
Investigation of the effect of the polyurethane foam-filled lattice core • energy absorption efficiency • relative density lattice cores
[26]
composite panel on the energy absorption and the compression strength • the compression strength • foam-filled and unfilled core
• the diameter of polymer pins
• indentation strength
Comparison between the indentation and compression behaviour of • the thickness of the face sheet
[27] • energy absorption
PRFCS and common traditional composite panels • type of foam core reinforcement
• compression strength
• strain rate
 • volumetric energy absorptions
• gravimetric energy absorptions
Investigation of the effect of the polyurethane foam-filled
• energy absorption efficiency • relative density lattice cores
[26] lattice core composite panel on the energy absorption
• the compression strength • foam-filled and unfilled core
and the compression strength
• the diameter of polymer pins
• the thickness of the face
Comparison between the indentation and compression • indentation strength
sheet
[27] behaviour of PRFCS and common traditional composite • energy absorption
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 • type of foam core 10 of 30
panels • compression strength
reinforcement
• strain rate

3.
3. Bending andShear
Bending and ShearBehaviour
Behaviour
With respect to
With respect to strength,
strength,ininaddition
additiontoto global
global buckling,
buckling, there
there are are at least
at least fivefive major
major modes
modes of of
failure of the composite panels when loaded in bending and shear (Figure
failure of the composite panels when loaded in bending and shear (Figure 7). 7).

Majorfailures
Figure7.7.Major
Figure failures modes
modes under
under bending
bending andand shear.
shear. Adapted
Adapted fromfrom
[28].[28].

Considering the
Considering possible failures,
the possible failures, in research by
in research by Mirzapour
Mirzapour et al. [28],
et al. [28], an
an experimental
experimental studystudy was
was carried
carried out toout to investigate
investigate and optimise
and optimise the processing
the processing conditions
conditions in thein the fabrication
fabrication of the of the
composite
composite structures designed for flexural load bearing applications. Outputs showed that the core
structures designed for flexural load bearing applications. Outputs showed that the core bearing
bearing capacity reduces and the debonding strength rises with the enhancement of temperature
capacity reduces and the debonding strength rises with the enhancement of temperature during
during the preparation of the rigid PU foam core. Flexural behaviour of composite panels, fabricated
the preparation of the rigid PU foam core. Flexural behaviour of composite panels, fabricated by
by laminating two glass fibre-reinforced polymer skins and polyurethane foam core, was also
laminating two glass fibre-reinforced polymer skins and polyurethane foam core, was also studied by
studied by Sharaf et al. [29]. Soft and hard foams were tested in three-point and four-point bending
Sharaf et al. [29]. Soft and hard foams were tested in three-point and four-point bending as well as
as well as under uniform load. They showed that stiffness and bending strength improved by 165%
under uniform load. They
and 113%, respectively, as showed
the core that stiffness
density and bending
was doubled. strengththe
In addition, improved by 165%
contributions of and
shear113%,
respectively,
deformation of the soft and hard cores to deflection on mid-span were 75% and 50%, respectively. In of
as the core density was doubled. In addition, the contributions of shear deformation
the soft and
another study,hard cores[30]
Manalo to deflection
presented on themid-span
structural were 75% and
behaviour 50%,preconstructed
of a new respectively. In another
wall system study,
Manalo
made of glass fibre-reinforced rigid PU foam and a magnesium oxide board. The results of testsglass
[30] presented the structural behaviour of a new preconstructed wall system made of
fibre-reinforced
demonstrate thatrigid PU foamofand
the strength theaboard
magnesium
manages oxidethe board. Theof
behaviour results of tests demonstrate
the composite walls. Dawood that the
strength
et al. [31]of the board
evaluated themanages
static andthe behaviour
fatigue of the composite
characteristics walls. Dawood
of an innovative et al. [31] evaluated
3-D glass-fibre-reinforced
the static(GFRP)
polymer and fatigue characteristics
composite of an innovative
panel by analytical modelling 3-D glass-fibre-reinforced
verified by experimental polymerresults. The(GFRP)
results indicated
composite panel by thatanalytical
the shearmodelling
behaviourverified
and degree of compositeresults.
by experimental interaction
The of the panels
results indicatedare that
sensitive
the shear to the arrangement
behaviour and degree of the panel core.interaction
of composite They showed thepanels
of the panelsarewith stiffer cores
sensitive to thegenerally
arrangement
exhibited
of the panel a higher
core. degree of degradation
They showed the panelsthanwith
panels with
stiffer moregenerally
cores flexible cores.
exhibitedWang et al. [32]
a higher degree
experimentally focused on the bending behaviour of novel composite
of degradation than panels with more flexible cores. Wang et al. [32] experimentally focused panels with GFRP facing and on
foam-web
the bending core panels. They
behaviour investigated
of novel composite thepanels
influence withof GFRP
web thickness,
facing and web height and
foam-web corewebpanels.
spacing on failure mode, initial bending stiffness and mid-span deflection. Test
They investigated the influence of web thickness, web height and web spacing on failure mode, initial results showed that
the bending strength and stiffness are increased by the web thickness and height increasing. A
bending stiffness and mid-span deflection. Test results showed that the bending strength and stiffness
composite panel composed of glass fibre-reinforced polymer skin with polyvinyl chloride and
are increased by the web thickness and height increasing. A composite panel composed of glass
polyurethane foam core with epoxy resin was proposed by Mostafa et al. [33]. The flexural response
fibre-reinforced polymer skin with polyvinyl chloride and polyurethane foam core with epoxy resin
of the composite panel with and without shear keys was evaluated under four-point bending test.
was proposed by Mostafa et al. [33]. The flexural response of the composite panel with and without
They observed a significant improvement in the flexural stiffness and strength of the panel
shear keys was evaluated under four-point bending test. They observed a significant improvement
incorporated with shear keys. In another work of same researchers, lightweight foam-filled
in the flexural
composite stiffness
panels were and strength
tested throughof the panel incorporated
four-point bending tests withto shear keys. Intheir
characterise another work of
flexural
same researchers, lightweight foam-filled composite panels were tested through
behaviour, and the results were compared with the predictions of the classical composite theory [34]. four-point bending
tests
Tuwar to et
characterise their flexural
al. [35] evaluated behaviour,
three different and the results
polyurethane foam were comparedfor
configurations with the foam-core
GFRP predictions of
the
composite panels. The facings of the three core configurations are shown in Figure 8. The resultsfoam
classical composite theory [34]. Tuwar et al. [35] evaluated three different polyurethane
configurations for GFRP foam-core composite panels. The facings of the three core configurations are
shown in Figure 8. The results showed that the type-1 and -2 cores were very weak and flexible, but
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, x 9 of 24
the third one showed a more strength and stiffness than the others.

Figure
Figure 8. 8. Composite
Composite panel
panel configurations
configurations for type
for type 1, 2,
1, type type
and2,type
and3.type
(left 3. (left toAdapted
to right) right) Adapted
from [35].
from [35].
The effect of fully reversed bending loading on high cycle fatigue performance of composite
panels was studied by Mathieson et al. [36] by comparing them to similar panels tested under fully
unloaded conditions. Their panels failed in shear of the foam core when the fatigue life reduced
significantly at fully reversed loading to ~10% of that at fully unloaded conditions. They showed in
order to achieve at least 2 million cycles—the commonly acceptable fatigue life in structural
engineering—the maximum service loads should be limited to 30% and 45% of ultimate monotonic
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 11 of 30

The effect of fully reversed bending loading on high cycle fatigue performance of composite panels
was studied by Mathieson et al. [36] by comparing them to similar panels tested under fully unloaded
conditions. Their panels failed in shear of the foam core when the fatigue life reduced significantly
at fully reversed loading to ~10% of that at fully unloaded conditions. They showed in order to
achieve at least 2 million cycles—the commonly acceptable fatigue life in structural engineering—the
maximum service loads should be limited to 30% and 45% of ultimate monotonic strength, respectively.
They estimated that the threshold loading levels at infinite fatigue life were 23% and 37% of ultimate
monotonic strength for the cases of fully reversed loading and fully unloaded conditions, respectively.
Kumar et al. [37] also studied the effect of change of thickness of fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP)
facing sheets and inserts on the composite panels bending behaviour. They kept the total thickness of
composite panels constant, while the span length was varying to find which combination of the panel,
containing varied thickness of face sheets and inserts, could provide the best static flexural values.
Composite panels with reinforcement ribs or webs are prone to creep when subjected to significant
permanent loads. The effects of this phenomenon were studied by Garrido et al. [38]. They presented
an experimental assessment and the analytical modelling of the viscoelastic response of two types
of composite panels, with and without reinforcement ribs by considering panels comprising GFRP
faces, cores of PU foam and longitudinal GFRP ribs. The results showed that ribs increased the flexural
strength and stiffness of the panels by a factor of two while providing a threefold reduction in their
creep compliance. Junes et al. [39] provided a nonlinear calculation procedure for textile reinforced
concrete (TRC) facing composite panels with some main properties including the use of materials
“real” behaviour law, the use of numerical methods, the application of arbitrary combination loads and
allowing the study of both global and local behaviour. This procedure is based on the cross-section
and length of the panel meshing and the noncoupling of bending, shear and local bending effects of
the mechanical behaviour of the panel. A sensitivity study is carried out to investigate the evolution of
the error depending on the mesh size, too. The effects of soy-based rigid PU foam cores and composite
foams, containing wood fibre, on the performance of small-scale wooden wall panels was studied
by Kakroodi et al. [40]. They investigated the strengthening of the core under monotonic and static
cyclic shear loads. Adding wood fibre resulted in a reduction in the density (23%) and compressive
strength (63%) of the foam, while specific tensile modulus, i.e., the ratio of tensile modulus to the
density of the foam, increased by ~39%. Mostafa [41] studied the mechanical properties of composite
structures, focusing on the behaviour of semicircular shear keys (Figure 9). Their composite panel was
composed of GFRP skin with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and PU foam core, while the shear keys were
made of chopped strand glass fibre impregnated with epoxy resin. They investigated different pitches
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, x 10 of 24
to determine the most sustainable form.

Figure9.9.Investigated
Figure Investigatedcomposite
compositepanel
panelwith
withand
andwithout
withoutshear
shearkeys
keysby
byMostafa.
Mostafa.Adapted
Adaptedfrom
from[41].
[41].

Sharafstudied
Sharaf studiedthetheflexural
flexuralperformance
performance ofofcomposite
composite panels
panels composed
composed of of aaPU
PUfoam
foamcore
coreand
and
GFRPskins
GFRP skinsand
andwith
withand
andwithout
withoutGFRP
GFRPribs
ribs[42,43].
[42,43].The
Thestudy
studycomprises
comprisesexperimental,
experimental, numerical,
numerical,
andanalytical
and analyticalinvestigations
investigations that
that showed
showed flexural
flexural strength
strength and and stiffness
stiffness couldcould increase
increase by 50%byto50% to
150%,
150%, depending on the rib configuration, compared to a panel without ribs. He proposed
depending on the rib configuration, compared to a panel without ribs. He proposed an analytical model an
analytical model to predict the possible failure modes as well. His results also demonstrated that as
the core density increased, flexural strength and stiffness increased and shear deformation reduced.
Besides, increasing skin thickness became more effective as the core density increased. In another
effort, Sharaf et al. [44] studied finite element modelling of the bending performance of composite
panels consisted of GFRP facings and PU core, considering different patterns of glass FRP ribs and
different densities for cores. The model covers both material and stability failure. It was shown that
 Figure 9. Investigated composite panel with and without shear keys by Mostafa. Adapted from [41].

Sharaf studied the flexural performance of composite panels composed of a PU foam core and
GFRP skins and with and without GFRP ribs [42,43]. The study comprises experimental, numerical,
and
J. analytical
Compos. Sci. 2019,investigations
3, 40 that showed flexural strength and stiffness could increase by 50% 12 of to
30
150%, depending on the rib configuration, compared to a panel without ribs. He proposed an
analytical model to predict the possible failure modes as well. His results also demonstrated that as
to
thepredict the possible
core density failure
increased, modes
flexural as well.and
strength Hisstiffness
results also demonstrated
increased and shearthat as the corereduced.
deformation density
increased, flexural strength and stiffness increased and shear deformation
Besides, increasing skin thickness became more effective as the core density increased. In another reduced. Besides, increasing
skin thickness
effort, Sharaf et became
al. [44]more effective
studied finiteaselement
the coremodelling
density increased. In another
of the bending effort, Sharaf
performance et al. [44]
of composite
studied
panels consisted of GFRP facings and PU core, considering different patterns of glass FRP of
finite element modelling of the bending performance of composite panels consisted GFRP
ribs and
facings
different densities for cores. The model covers both material and stability failure. It was showncores.
and PU core, considering different patterns of glass FRP ribs and different densities for that
The
ribs model covers both material
allow compression skin to reachand stability failure. It
its full material was shown
strength. Skinthat ribs allow
wrinkling wascompression
the failure mode skin
to reach its full material strength. Skin wrinkling was the failure
of panels without ribs, while those under distributed loads failed either by excessive shearmode of panels without ribs, while
those under distributed
deformation or diagonalloads failed
fracture of either by excessive
the core, depending shear deformation
on the core density.or diagonal fracture
Also, tensile of the
failure of
core, depending on the core density. Also, tensile failure of GFRP skin
GFRP skin never occurred in their study. These researchers, in a similar work, also addressed the never occurred in their study.
These researchers,
numerical modelling in a of
similar work, also
lightweight addressed
composite the numerical
panels intended modelling of lightweight
for the cladding composite
of buildings. The
panels
panels intended
are designed for theto cladding
resist wind of buildings.
loading. AThe robustpanels
3D are designed
FE model wasto developed
resist windfor loading. A robust
the large‐scale
3D FE model
panels (9145 mm was developed
× 2440 mmfor × the large-scale
78 mm) testedpanels
under (9145 mm ×loading.
transverse 2440 mmIt×was 78 mm)
then tested under
successfully
transverse loading. It was then successfully validated using experimental
validated using experimental results. The results again showed that failure of tensioned skin never results. The results again
showed
occurs inthat thisfailure
type of of tensioned
panels as skin never occurs
compression skininwrinkling
this type ofandpanels as compression
crushing consistently skin wrinkling
govern [45].
and crushing consistently govern [45]. Mastali et al. [46–48] focused on a
Mastali et al. [46–48] focused on a novel composite panel made of deflection hardening cementitious novel composite panel made
of deflectionon
composites hardening
the top and cementitious
GFRP on composites
the bottom on layertheand
top some
and GFRP
shearon the bottom
connectors in layer
the GFRPand some
ribs.
shear connectors in the GFRP ribs. They used two types of shear connectors,
They used two types of shear connectors, which include perforated and indented shapes, as shown which include perforated
and indented
in Figure shapes,
10. The testsasshowed
shown that in Figure 10. The
the shear tests showed
connection that thebehaviour
mechanical shear connection
stronglymechanical
influences
behaviour
the deflection strongly
at peak influences
load, the thepeak
deflection at peak
load, the load, load
postpeak the peak load,capacity
bearing the postpeak
and the load bearing
degree of
capacity and
composite action. the degree of composite action.

Figure 10. Used

Figure 10. Used connectors
connectors by
by Mastali et al.
Mastali et al. Adapted
Adapted from [46–48].
from [46–48].
Dawood et al. studied the two‐way flexural performance of 3‐D GFRP composite panels. The
Dawood et al. studied the two-way flexural performance of 3-D GFRP composite panels.
panels included GFRP facings and through‐thickness fibre insertions foam core. An experimental
The panels included GFRP facings and through-thickness fibre insertions foam core. An experimental
test was carried out to evaluate the influence of the fibre insertion pattern and the core thickness on
test was carried out to evaluate the influence of the fibre insertion pattern and the core thickness on
the flexural performance under a single load. The experimental results were used to verify a static
the flexural performance under a single load. The experimental results were used to verify a static
finite element model which was used to predict the behaviour. Both results indicate that at smaller
finite element model which was used to predict the behaviour. Both results indicate that at smaller
deflections the panel behaviour is dominated by plate bending action, while for larger deflections
deflections the panel behaviour is dominated by plate bending action, while for larger deflections
membrane action dominates. In addition, the parametric study indicates that increasing the relative
membrane action dominates. In addition, the parametric study indicates that increasing the relative
flexural or shear rigidities of the panel alters the behaviour towards the plate bending mechanism,
flexural or shear rigidities of the panel alters the behaviour towards the plate bending mechanism,
thereby reducing the percentage of load carried by membrane action [49]. Fam et al. explored the
feasibility of fabrication and flexural performance of panels composed of a low-density PU core
composited between two GFRP facings. Large-scale panels with dimensions of 2500 mm by 660 mm
by 80 mm were tested in one-way bending under a simulated uniform load. Various arrangements
of GFRP ribs connecting the two facings were compared to a panel without ribs. The investigation
showed that by integrating the ribs both strength and stiffness of the panels improved. The maximum
growth in strength was regarded doubling the core density in a panel without ribs. Also, in the
panel without rib, the shear deformation of the core contributed to over 50% of deflections at the
mid-span. By adding the ribs, bending behaviour became more dominant, and shear behaviour
contributed only 15% to 20% of the maximum deflection. Simple analytical investigations indicated
that the ultimate strengths of the studied panels were the same with similar size reinforced concrete
panels while concrete panels were 9 to 14 times heavier in weight [50]. Garrido et al. [51] studied
the shear response of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and PU foams in composite panels under
elevated temperature through experimental and numerical investigations. Their results showed that
with increasing temperature, the shear responses of PET and PU foams became more nonlinear. In a
similar study, Garrido et al. [52] presented an experimental and numerical analysis of the influence of
contributed
contributedonly only15% 15%toto20% 20%ofofthe themaximum
maximumdeflection.
deflection.SimpleSimpleanalytical
analyticalinvestigations
investigationsindicated
indicated
that the ultimate strengths of the studied panels were the same with
that the ultimate strengths of the studied panels were the same with similar size reinforced concrete similar size reinforced concrete
panels
panelswhilewhileconcrete
concretepanels panelswerewere9 9toto1414times
timesheavier
heavierininweight
weight[50]. [50].Garrido
Garridoetetal.al.[51]
[51]studied
studiedthe the
shear
shearresponse
responseofofpolyethylene
polyethyleneterephthalate
terephthalate(PET) (PET)and andPU PUfoams
foamsinincomposite
compositepanels panelsunder under
elevated
elevated temperature
temperature
J. Compos. Sci.
through experimental and numerical investigations. Their results showed13
2019, 3, 40 through experimental and numerical investigations. Their results showed
that
that
of 30
with
with increasing temperature, the shear responses of PET and PU foams became more nonlinear.InIna a
increasing temperature, the shear responses of PET and PU foams became more nonlinear.
similar
similarstudy,
study,Garrido
Garridoetetal.al.[52] [52]presented
presentedananexperimental
experimentaland andnumerical
numericalanalysis
analysisofofthe theinfluence
influence
temperature
ofof temperature on the shear creep reaction of a rigid PU foam
temperature on the shear creep reaction of a rigid PU foam in composite panels.The
on the shear creep reaction of a rigid PU in
foamcomposite
in panels.
composite The
panels. resultsTherevealed
results
results
that
revealed the
revealedthat foam’s
thatthe creep
thefoam’s reaction
foam’screep increases
creepreaction with
reactionincreases both
increaseswith stress
withboth level
bothstress and temperature.
stresslevel
levelandandtemperature.
temperature.
Shamsetet
Shams
Shams etal.al.
al.[53]
[53]presented
[53] presented possible
presentedpossible applications,
possibleapplications,
applications,the theproduction
the productionmethod
production methodand
method andthe
and themajor
the majorresults
major results
results
ofexperimental
ofof experimental investigations on the shear load-bearing
experimental investigations on the shear load‐bearing behaviour of composite sectionswith
investigations on the shear load‐bearing behaviour
behaviour of of composite
composite sections
sections with
with
textile-reinforced
textile‐reinforced
textile‐reinforcedconcrete concrete
concrete(TRC) (TRC)
(TRC)and and ultrahigh
andultrahigh performance
ultrahighperformance fibre-reinforced
performancefibre‐reinforced
fibre‐reinforcedconcrete concrete
concrete(UHPFRC), (UHPFRC),
(UHPFRC),asas
as
well well
as as
varyingvaryingtypes types
of of connectors
connectors and and
foam foam
cores. cores.
Kim et
well as varying types of connectors and foam cores. Kim et al. [54] investigated the staticKim
al. et
[54] al. [54]
investigatedinvestigated
the static the
and static
and fatigueand
fatigue
fatigue characteristics
characteristics of PU of PU foam-cored
foam‐cored compositecomposite structures.
structures. Three
characteristics of PU foam‐cored composite structures. Three types of specimens: nonstitched, Three
types types
of of specimens:
specimens: nonstitched,
nonstitched,
stitchedand
stitched
stitched andstiffened
and stiffenedcomposite
stiffened compositespecimens,
composite specimens,
specimens, with
with
with glass
glass
glass fabric
fabric
fabric faces
faces
faces anda aaPU
and
and PUfoam
PU foamcore,
foam core,were
core, wereused
were used
used
(Figure
(Figure 11). Results showed that after fatigue loading of 106 cycles, the
(Figure 11). Results showed that after fatigue loading of 106 cycles, the static bending strengths ofallall
11). Results showed that after fatigue loading of 106 cycles, the static
static bending
bending strengths
strengths of of all
specimens
specimens
specimensdecreasedecrease compared
decreasecompared comparedwith with those
withthose of the
thoseofofthe static
thestatictests.
statictests.Also,
tests.Also,from
Also,fromthe results
fromthe of
theresults scanning
resultsofofscanningimages,
scanning
no
images, failure is found to have occurred under fatigue loading.
images, no failure is found to have occurred under fatigue loading. Results indicate thatthe
no failure is found to have occurred under fatigue Results
loading. indicate
Results that the
indicate degradation
that the
of stiffness of
degradation
degradation causes
ofstiffnessthe causes
stiffness decrease
causesthe indecrease
the bending
decreaseinstrength
inbending
bending ofstrength
foam-cored
strength compositecomposite
ofoffoam‐cored
foam‐cored structures due
compositestructures to the
structures
aging
due
due of
thethe
totothe aging polyurethane
aging ofofthe foam corefoam
thepolyurethane
polyurethane during
foam core fatigue
core during
during cycles.
fatigue
fatigue In addition,
cycles.
cycles. the strength
InInaddition,
addition, the of stitched
thestrength
strength ofof
specimen
stitched is improved
specimen is by increasing
improved by the stitching
increasing thread
the diameter
stitching
stitched specimen is improved by increasing the stitching thread diameter and decreasing its and
thread decreasing
diameter its
and distance.
decreasingHowever, its
fatigue characteristics
distance.
distance. However,
However,fatigue are not
fatigue predominantly
characteristics
characteristics are affected
are not by the variation
notpredominantly
predominantly of stitching
affected
affected bybythe thread
the diameter
variation
variation ofof
and distance.
stitching
stitching thread
threaddiameter
diameterand anddistance.
distance.

Figure 11.
Figure
Figure 11.Configurations
Configurations
Configurationsofof3 3types
typesofofspecimens.
specimens.Adapted
Adaptedfrom
from[54].
[54].
InInaddition, a series ofofexperimental tests have been done on three types ofofcreative
creativecomposite
In addition,
addition, aa series
series of experimental
experimental tests
tests have
have beenbeen done
done onon three
three types
types of creative composite
composite
panels
panelsofoflightweight
lightweight mobile
mobile housing
housing bybyLabans
Labans etetal.al.[55]
[55](Figure
(Figure 12). Their
12). Theirmechanical
mechanical behaviour
behaviour
panels of lightweight mobile housing by Labans et al. [55] (Figure 12). Their mechanical behaviour was
was
wasinvestigated
investigated inina afour‐point
four‐pointbending
bending test comparing
test comparing the
thedata
data totothe
theplywood
plywood panel. Also,
panel. Also,
investigated in a four-point bending test comparing the data to the plywood panel. Also, numerical
numerical
numerical simulations were used
usedtostress
toevaluate stress
stressdistribution and
andglobal behaviour. Results
simulationssimulations
were used to were
evaluate evaluate
distribution distribution
and global behaviour. global behaviour.
Results Results
identified that
identified
identified that studied
that studied panels
panelsare
aresuitable
suitable for floor
for floor and
and wall
wall units.
units.
studied panels are suitable for floor and wall units.

Figure 12.
Figure
Figure Studied
12.
12. composite
Studied
Studied panels
composite
composite byby
panels
panels Labans
by etet
Labans
Labans al.al.
et Adapted
al. from
Adapted
Adapted [55]
from
from ..
[55].
[55]

Abdolpour et al. [56] performed a series of experimental tests on a composite specimen to be used
as a floor slab module of an emergency housing system. The specimen comprises a frame made of
GFRP pultruded profiles, and two composite panels formed by GFRP skins and a PU core (Figure 13).
They investigated the feasibility of the assemblage process of the prototype and performance to support
load conditions typical of residential houses. Furthermore, composite panels were tested, analysing
their flexural response, failure mechanisms and creep behaviour. Results showed the great behaviour of
the specimen to be used as a structural floor module of emergency housing. Also, numeric simulations
were carried out to evaluate the stress distributions in the specimen components as well as bearing
mechanism of the connections.
In addition, Jayaram et al. [57] studied incorporating polyester pins in a polyurethane foam-filled
honeycomb core composite panel to increase the interfacial strength between the faces and core
(Figure 14). The effect of strain rates on bending performance of composite panels was also evaluated.
Results show that increasing the pin diameter has a larger effect, whereas the strain rate had a moderate
influence on the failure load of all of the composite panels.
 (Figure 13). They investigated the feasibility of the assemblage process of the prototype and
specimen components as well as bearing mechanism of the connections.
performance to support load conditions typical of residential houses. Furthermore, composite panels
were tested, analysing their flexural response, failure mechanisms and creep behaviour. Results
showed the great behaviour of the specimen to be used as a structural floor module of emergency
housing. Also, numeric simulations were carried out to evaluate the stress distributions in the
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 14 of 30
specimen components as well as bearing mechanism of the connections.

Figure 13. Schematic of the modular prototype: (a) full prototype; (b) prototype without walls and
roof. Adapted from [56].
Figure 13. Schematic of the modular prototype: (a) full prototype; (b) prototype without walls and
roof. Adapted from [56].
In addition, Jayaram et al. [57] studied incorporating polyester pins in a polyurethane
foam‐filled honeycomb core composite panel to increase the interfacial strength between the faces
In addition, Jayaram et al. [57] studied incorporating polyester pins in a polyurethane
and core (Figure 14). The effect of strain rates on bending performance of composite panels was also
foam‐filled honeycomb core composite panel to increase the interfacial strength between the faces
evaluated.
Figure
Figure Results
13.
13. 14). show of
Schematic
Schematic that
of theincreasing
modular
theof
modular the pin diameter
prototype:
prototype: (a) full
(a) has a larger
prototype;
full performance
prototype; (b) effect, whereas
prototype
(b) of
prototype without
withoutthe strain
walls
walls and rate
and core (Figure The effect strain rates on bending composite panels wasand
also
had aroof.
moderate
roof. Adapted
Adaptedinfluence on the failure load of all of the composite panels.
from [56].
from [56].
evaluated. Results show that increasing the pin diameter has a larger effect, whereas the strain rate
had a moderate influence on the failure load of all of the composite panels.
In addition, Jayaram et al. [57] studied incorporating polyester pins in a polyurethane
foam‐filled honeycomb core composite panel to increase the interfacial strength between the faces
and core (Figure 14). The effect of strain rates on bending performance of composite panels was also
evaluated. Results show that increasing the pin diameter has a larger effect, whereas the strain rate
had a moderate influence on the failure load of all of the composite panels.

Figure 14. Schematic representation of PU foam-filled honeycomb core composite panel. Adapted
Figure 14.[57].
from Schematic representation of PU foam‐filled honeycomb core composite panel. Adapted from [57].

FigureOn
14. the other hand,
Schematic Reis et al.
representation [58]foam‐filled
of PU proposedhoneycomb
a novel composite panel.panel.
core composite The top and bottom
Adapted faces,
from [57].
On the other hand, Reis et al. [58] proposed a novel composite panel. The top and bottom faces,
consisting of GFRP plates, are connected with through‐thickness fibres to achieve the composite
On the other
consisting hand,plates,
of GFRP Reis etare
al. [58] proposed
connected witha novel composite panel.
through-thickness Thetotop
fibres and bottom
achieve faces,
the composite
action with a polyurethane foam core (Figure 15). They discussed the influence of the panel
consisting of GFRP
action with plates, are
a polyurethane foamconnected with15).
core (Figure through‐thickness
They discussed the fibres to achieve
influence of thethe composite
panel thickness,
thickness, through‐thickness fibre configuration and density, and other parameters on the tension,
action with a polyurethane
through-thickness foam coreand
fibre configuration (Figure 15).and
density, They
otherdiscussed
parameters theoninfluence of compression,
the tension, the panel
compression, flexure and shear behaviour, deeply.
thickness,
flexure through‐thickness
Figureand
14. shear behaviour,
Schematic fibre configuration
deeply.
representation andhoneycomb
of PU foam‐filled density, and
coreother parameters
composite on the tension,
panel. Adapted from [57].
compression, flexure and shear behaviour, deeply.
On the other hand, Reis et al. [58] proposed a novel composite panel. The top and bottom faces,
consisting of GFRP plates, are connected with through‐thickness fibres to achieve the composite
action with a polyurethane foam core (Figure 15). They discussed the influence of the panel
thickness, through‐thickness fibre configuration and density, and other parameters on the tension,
compression, flexure and shear behaviour, deeply.

Figure 15. Different arrangements of through‐thickness fibres. Adapted from [58].

Figure
Figure 15. 15. Different
Different arrangements
arrangements of through-thickness
of through‐thickness fibres.
fibres. Adapted
Adapted from
from [58][58].
.

Table 2 shows a summary of the critical literature in the area of bending and shear behaviour of
PU foam-filled composite panels.

Figure 15. Different arrangements of through‐thickness fibres. Adapted from [58].

J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 15 of 30

Table 2. Summary of the critical literature of bending and shear behaviour of PU foam-filled composite panels.

Ref. Goal Investigated Parameters Variables

• specific flexural strength
Optimisation of processing conditions in the fabrication of the composite
[28] • core strength • construction processing conditions
structures designed for flexural applications
• debonding strength
• flexural strength
Study on the flexural behaviour of a new composite panel proposed for • core density
[29] • flexural stiffness
cladding of buildings • loading arrangement
• shear deformation at the mid-span
• shear stiffness and strength
• bending moment capacity
[30] Identification of the behaviour of an emerging prefabricated wall system • No variation
• effective flexural stiffness
• mid-span deflection
• effective elastic modulus • pattern and density of fibre
• shear modulus • thickness of panels
[31] Study on static and fatigue bending behaviour of composite panels
• the degree of composite interaction • number of skins FRP plies
• the degree of degradation • core stiffness
• ultimate bending strength/ stiffness • web thickness
[32] Study on the bending behaviour of an innovative composite panel • failure mode such as local wrinkling • web height
• mid-span deflection • web spacing
• flexural stiffness and strength • with and without shear keys
[33] Analysis of flexural behaviour of the composite composite panels
• stress-strain curve • foam type
[34] Study of composite panel flexural behaviour • linear/nonlinear flexural response • No variation
• bending strength
[35] Evaluation of three core alternatives for GFRP foam-core composite panels • core foam material
• bending stiffness
[36] Study of composite panel fatigue behaviour • flexural stiffness/fatigue life curve • loading condition
Study on the effect of facing thickness on composite panels flexural • facing thickness
[37] • flexural stiffness
behaviour • span length
• flexural strength
Presentation of an experimental assessment and analytical modelling of • types of composite panels, with and without
[38] • flexural stiffness
the viscoelastic response of composite panels reinforcement ribs
• creep curve
• load-deflection behaviour
providing a nonlinear calculation procedure of textile reinforced concrete • cross-section of the panel
[39] • failure mode
(TRC) facings composite panels • length of the panel
• strain development
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 16 of 30

Table 2. Cont.

Ref. Goal Investigated Parameters Variables

• foam density/compressive strength
Study on the strengthening of soy-based PU foam cores, neat and • the specific tensile modulus of foam • loading
[40] composite foams containing wood fibre on the performance of small-scale
• the ratio of tensile modulus to the density of the foam • foam components
wooden wall panels under monotonic and static cyclic shear loads
• shear strength of panel
Study on effects of semicircular shear keys on composite panels shear • kind of core foam
[41] • shear strength
strength • space between shear keys
• comprehensive material testing
Experimental, numerical and analytical investigations on the flexural • Panels with and without GFRP ribs connecting
• flexural strength and stiffness
[42,43] performance of composite panels composed of a polyurethane foam core • skin thickness/rib spacing
• deflection
and GFRP skins • core density
• possible failure modes
• material/geometrical nonlinearity
Numerical modelling of the flexural behaviour of composite panels • shear deformation/flexural strength • patterns of glass fibre-reinforced polymer ribs
[44] composed of woven glass fibre-reinforced polymer skins and • material/stability failure • density of core
polyurethane foam core • tensile failure and skin wrinkling • panel thickness
• longitudinal rib spacing
• load-strain response
Numerical modelling and large-scale testing of lightweight composite • load-deflection response
[45] panels intended for cladding of buildings in order to satisfy design code • No variation
• failure modes
requirements in terms of strength and stiffness
• stiffness
• peak load-mid-span deflection
[46–48] Evaluation of the flexural performance of hybrid composite panels • postpeak load carrying capacity • shear connectors’ geometry
• the degree of composite action
• fibre insertion pattern
Evaluation of the two-way bending behaviour of 3-D GFRP composite • two-way bending behaviour
[49] • panel thickness
panels • bearing capacity
• flexural/shear rigidities
• strength and stiffness of the panels
Feasibility study of fabrication and flexural performance of composite • configurations of internal and exterior GFRP ribs
[50] • shear deformation
panels of low-density PU foam and GFRP skins • core density
• mid-span deflection
Study on the effects of elevated temperature on the shear response of PET • kind of core foam
[51] • shear modulus of composite panels
and PUR foams used in composite panels • temperature
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 17 of 30

Table 2. Cont.

Ref. Goal Investigated Parameters Variables

• shear creep/shear strength
Experimental/analytical study on the effect of temperature on the shear • shear stress level
[52] • creep coefficient
creep response of a rigid PUR foam at composite panels • temperature
• shear modulus reduction factor
• mid-span deflection
Presenting the possible applications, the production method, and the • axial load capacity
major results of experimental investigations on the load-bearing behaviour • types of connectors
[53] • shear load capacity
of composite panels with textile-reinforced concrete (TRC) and ultrahigh • types of foam cores
• possible applications
performance fibre reinforced concrete
• possible production methods
• static and fatigue loading
• bending strength
Investigation of the static and fatigue characteristics of nonstitched, • nonstitched, stitched and stiffened configuration
[54] • ultrasonic C-scanning crack controlling
stitched and stiffened PU filled composite panels • the distance of stitching thread
• bending stiffness
• the diameter of stitching thread
• global behaviour
• core material
Mechanical evaluation of novel composite panels for application in • stress distribution
[55] • facing material
lightweight mobile housing • specific stiffness
• panel configuration
• strength characteristics
• flexural response
• failure mechanisms
Performing a series of experimental tests on a composite prototype to be
[56] • creep behaviour • No variation
used as a floor module of an emergency house
• stress distribution
• load transfer mechanism
• flexural stiffness
• flexural stress
• flexural strength
• damping properties • strain rates
[57] Increase the interfacial strength between the faces and core
• failure load • pin diameter
• deflection at failure load
• natural frequency
• damping ratio
• tensile strength of the composite panel
• panel thickness
• the compressive strength of the composite panel
• through-thickness
Introducing a new 3D fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) panels designed to • flexural strength of composite panel
[58] • fibre configuration
overcome delamination • shear strength of composite panel
• fibre density
• facing elastic modulus
• Fibre insertion (per cm2 )
• the shear modulus of the composite panel
 •• natural frequency
deflection at failure load
•• damping
natural ratio
frequency
•• tensile strength
damping ratio of the composite panel
•• the compressive
tensile strength ofstrength of the panel
the composite
• panel thickness
•composite panel
the compressive strength of the
•• through‐thickness
panel thickness
Introducing a new 3D fibre‐reinforced polymer • flexural
composite panel strength of composite panel
[58] •• fibre configuration
through‐thickness
(FRP) panelsa designed
Introducing to overcome delamination
new 3D fibre‐reinforced polymer •• shear strength
flexural strengthofofcomposite
compositepanel
panel
[58] •• fibreconfiguration
fibre density
(FRP) panels designed to overcome delamination •• facingstrength
shear elastic modulus
of composite panel
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 •• Fibredensity
fibre insertion (per cm
182) of 30
•• the shear
facing modulus
elastic modulusof the composite
• Fibre insertion (per cm2)
•panel the shear modulus of the composite
panel

4.
4. Edgewise
Edgewise and and Flatwise
FlatwiseCompressive/Tensile
Compressive/TensileBehaviour Behaviour
4. Edgewise and Flatwise Compressive/Tensile Behaviour
Mathieson
Mathieson et et al.
al. [59]
[59] presented
presented experimental
experimental and and analytical
analytical investigations
investigations of of axially
axially loaded
loaded
Mathieson
large-scale
large‐scale slender et composite
slender al.composite
[59] presented
panelspanels experimental
with and without
with and
and withoutribsanalytical
(Figure
ribs 16).investigations
The model
(Figure 16). The of model
showedaxially loaded
reasonable
showed
large‐scale
agreement
reasonable with slender
agreementtest composite
results
with test panels for
for results
strength with
and and without
stiffness
strength andand ribsused
was
stiffness (Figure
and 16).
in aused
was The
parametric
in model
study.showed
a parametric Itstudy.
was
reasonable
shown agreement
that thethat
It was shown addition with test results
of a longitudinal
the addition for strength
of a longitudinal and
rib connecting stiffness
the skins
rib connecting and was
theatskins used
mid-width in a parametric
resulted
at mid‐width in astudy.
resulted 180%
in a
It180%
was increase
increase shown
in axialthat the addition
strength by of a
changing longitudinal
the rib
failure connecting
mode from the
skinskins at mid‐width
wrinkling
in axial strength by changing the failure mode from skin wrinkling to global buckling. to globalresulted
buckling.in a
180%
Adding
Adding increase in axialexternal
longitudinal
longitudinal strengthribs
external by changing
ribs to
tothe the failure
theinternal
internal one mode from
onechanged
changed the skin
thefailure
failurewrinkling
mode
modeto toto global
skin
skin buckling.
crushing
crushing and
and
Adding
increased longitudinal
increasedstiffness
stiffnessby external
by40%,
40%,but ribs
butdid to
didnot the internal
notenhance
enhance one
strength.changed
strength. Axial
Axial the failure
stiffness
stiffness andmode to
strength
and skin
strength crushing
alsoalso
increased
increasedand
as
increased
skins or stiffness
ribs became by 40%,
thicker, but
or did
their not enhance
Young’s strength.
modulus Axial
increased
as skins or ribs became thicker, or their Young’s modulus increased or as core shear modulusstiffness
or as and
core strength
shear modulusalso increased
increased,
as skins or
however,
increased, the ribs
failure
however, became
mode thicker,
varied
the failure or their
depending
mode varied Young’s
on length.
depending modulus increased or as core shear modulus
on length.
increased,
Mohamed however,
Mohamed et et al.the failure
al. [60]
[60] studiedmode
studied three varied
three designsdepending
designs of of glasson length.
glass reinforced
reinforced composite
composite structures,
structures, namely
namely
boxes, Mohamed
trapezoid and
boxes, trapezoid et al. [60]
andrigid studied
rigidpolyurethane three
polyurethane designs
foam
foam of glass
(Figure
(Figure reinforced
17).17). composite
The mechanical
The mechanical responsestructures,
response namely
of threeofdesigns
three
boxes,
designs trapezoid
of composite
of composite and structures
structuresrigid polyurethane
under under
flexural foam loading
flexural
loading (Figure 17).
was The
was analysed mechanical
analysed
usingusing response
the
the finite finite
element of three
element designs
method.
method. The
of
The composite
simulation structures
results of under
flexural flexural
behaviour loadingwere was analysed
validated
simulation results of flexural behaviour were validated by experimental findings. by using the
experimental finite element
findings. method. The
simulation results of flexural behaviour were validated by experimental findings.

Figure16. Test setup. Adapted from [59].

Figure Test setup.
16. Test
Figure16. setup. Adapted
Adapted from
from [59].
[59].

Figure 17. Investigated Composite panels. Adapted from [60].

Figure17. Investigated Composite panels. Adapted from [60].
The behaviour of Figure17.
foam core Investigated
compositeComposite
(FCS) andpanels.
polymerAdapted from [60]. foam core composite
pin-reinforced
The behaviour of foam core composite (FCS) and polymer pin‐reinforced foam core composite
(PRFCS) panels wasofexperimentally
The behaviour investigated
foam core composite (FCS)for for polymer
and flatwise pin‐reinforced
compression and foamflexural
core tests by
composite
(PRFCS) panels was experimentally investigated flatwise compression and flexural tests by Abdi
Abdi
(PRFCS) et al. [61]. was
panels The FCS and PRFCSinvestigated
specimens were made of chopped strand mat glass/polyester
et al. [61]. The FCSexperimentally
and PRFCS specimens were formade
flatwise compression
of chopped andmat
strand flexural tests by Abdi
glass/polyester as
as
et
J.
facings
al. [61].
Compos.
and
Sci. The
2019,
PUFCS
3, x
foam
and asPRFCS
the core material were
specimens (Figure 18). of
made Their goal was
chopped to explore
strand mat the15influence
glass/polyester
of 24
of
as
facings and PU foam as the core material (Figure 18). Their goal was to explore the influence of the
the polyester
facings and PU pin foamreinforcement
as the core in the foam
material core under
(Figure mentioned
18). Their goal wasloadings.
to explore Also,
the the influence
influence of
of the
several
polyester loading rates on the in
pin reinforcement bending
the foambehaviour
core underof glass/polyester
mentioned loadings. laminate
Also, in
theboth types of
influence of panels
several
was loading Itrates
explained. wason the bending
found behaviour
that by using of glass/polyester
cylindrical polymer pins,laminate in both types
the flatwise of panels
strength and bending
was explained.
properties of theIt panels
was found
werethat by using
raised. cylindrical itpolymer
Furthermore, was found pins,that
the the
flatwise strength
diameter and had a
of pins
bending properties of the panels were raised. Furthermore, it was found that the diameter
significant influence while the loading rate had a moderate influence on the flexural stiffness of both of pins
had aof
types significant
composite influence
panels.while the loading rate had a moderate influence on the flexural stiffness
of both types of composite panels.

Figure The
Figure18. The schematic
18.schematic of theprocess
of the fabrication fabrication process
of FCS and ofcomposite
PRFCS FCS andpanels.
PRFCS composite
Adapted panels.
from [61].
Adapted from [61].
Nemati et al. [62] proposed a creative composite panel, which has been made for rapid
assembled postdisaster buildings and prefabricated modular construction. The panel is made with
two high‐density polyethylene (HDPE) sheets as the skins and a high‐density PU foam as the core
(Figure 19). HDPE sheets, manufactured with a studded surface, considerably enhance the pull‐out
and delamination strength, as well as the stress distribution and buckling of the panel. Flatwise and
edgewise compression tests were carried out following ASTM codes to study the compressive
strength and the bearing performance of the composite panels. Numerical analysis was also
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 19 of 30

Figure18. The schematic of the fabrication process of FCS and PRFCS composite panels. Adapted from [61].
Nemati
Nemati et et al.
al. [62]
[62] proposed
proposed aa creative
creative composite
composite panel,
panel, which
which has
has been
been made
made for
for rapid
rapid
assembled
assembled postdisaster buildings and prefabricated modular construction. The panel is made with
postdisaster buildings and prefabricated modular construction. The panel is made with
two
two high‐density polyethylene (HDPE) sheets as the skins and a high‐density PU foam as the core
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) sheets as the skins and a high-density PU foam as the core
(Figure
(Figure 19).
19). HDPE
HDPE sheets,
sheets, manufactured
manufactured with
with aa studded
studded surface,
surface, considerably
considerably enhance
enhance the
the pull-out
pull‐out
and
and delamination
delamination strength,
strength, as
as well
well as
as the
the stress
stress distribution
distribution and
and buckling
buckling ofof the
the panel.
panel. Flatwise
Flatwise and
and
edgewise compression tests were carried out following ASTM codes to study the
edgewise compression tests were carried out following ASTM codes to study the compressive compressive strength
and the bearing
strength and theperformance of the composite
bearing performance of thepanels. Numerical
composite panels.analysis
Numericalwas analysis
also conducted to
was also
simulate
conducted thetocompressive
simulate the behaviour of composite
compressive behaviourstructures. They found
of composite that theThey
structures. innovated
foundcomposite
that the
panel improves the compressive performance of foam panels.
innovated composite panel improves the compressive performance of foam panels.

Figure 19. Illustration of the 3-D composite panel with HDPE skins and PU core (left) and used
Figure 19. Illustration of the 3‐D composite panel with HDPE skins and PU core (left) and used
formwork (right). Adapted from [62].
formwork (right). Adapted from [62].

Koissin et al. [63] addressed the behaviour of composite panels subjected to edgewise compression.
Koissin et al. [63] addressed the behaviour of composite panels subjected to edgewise
They conducted a local low-velocity impact test and investigated the residual strength of the foam
compression. They conducted a local low‐velocity impact test and investigated the residual strength
core. Results showed that such damage can alter the edgewise compressive strength. Table 3 shows a
of the foam core. Results showed that such damage can alter the edgewise compressive strength.
summary of the critical literature in the area of edgewise and flatwise compressive/tensile behaviour
Table 3 shows a summary of the critical literature in the area of edgewise and flatwise
of PU foam-filled composite panels.
compressive/tensile behaviour of PU foam‐filled composite panels.

Table 3. Summary of the critical literature of edgewise and flatwise compressive/tensile behaviour of
PU foam‐filled composite panels.
Ref. Goal Investigated Parameters Variables
Study on compressive properties, collapse • compressive properties
• type of foam core
modes and crushing characteristics of various • collapse modes
[24] • types of faceplate
types of composite panels in edgewise • peak load
• composite construction geometry
compression tests. • crash energy absorption
Study on composite panels fabricated using a • core in‐plane shear modulus
• core foam density
[25] fixed carbon fibre‐reinforced polymer (CFRP) • core in‐plane shear strength
• compressive strength of foam
truss and a variety of closed‐cell polymer and • compressive strength
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 20 of 30

Table 3. Summary of the critical literature of edgewise and flatwise compressive/tensile behaviour of PU foam-filled composite panels.

Ref. Goal Investigated Parameters Variables

• compressive properties
• type of foam core
Study on compressive properties, collapse modes and crushing characteristics of • collapse modes
[24] • types of faceplate
various types of composite panels in edgewise compression tests. • peak load
• composite construction geometry
• crash energy absorption
• core in-plane shear modulus
• core in-plane shear strength
Study on composite panels fabricated using a fixed carbon fibre-reinforced polymer • compressive strength • core foam density
[25]
(CFRP) truss and a variety of closed-cell polymer and syntactic foams • the ellipticity of the truss cross sections • compressive strength of foam
• volumetric energy absorptions
• gravimetric energy absorptions
Investigation of the effect of the polyurethane foam-filled lattice core composite panel • energy absorption efficiency • relative density lattice cores
[26]
on the energy absorption and the compression strength • compression strength • foam-filled and unfilled core
• diameter of polymer pins
• indentation strength
Comparison between the indentation and compression behaviour of PRFCS and • thickness of face sheet
[27] • energy absorption
common traditional composite panels • type of foam core reinforcement
• compression strength
• strain rate
• with and without ribs
• slenderness ratio
• axial strength • thickness of skin
• axial stiffness • thickness of rib
[59] Experimental and analytical investigations of axially loaded composite panels
• failure mode (global buckling or skin wrinkling) • Young’s modulus of skin
• failure load • Young’s modulus of rib
• core shear modulus
• length of panel
• flexural stiffness
Core shear, flatwise and edgewise compression studies of three designs of glass • flatwise compressive strength
[60] • composite construction geometry
reinforced composite composite panels • edgewise compressive strength
• core shear strength
• flexural stiffness • loading rates
Study on the effect of composite panels’ foam core pin reinforcement under flexural
[61] • deflection • type of foam core reinforcement
and flatwise compression loadings
• failure load • diameter of polymer pins
• edgewise compression strength
Study on edgewise and flatwise compression behaviour of an innovative composite
[62] • flatwise compression strength • No variation
panel
• failure mode
Study on the effect of a local quasi-static indentation or a low-velocity impact on the • with face-core debonding
[63] • edgewise compression strength
residual strength of foam core composite panels subjected to edgewise compression • without face-core debonding
 Study on the effect of composite panels’ foam • flexural stiffness • loading rates
[61] core pin reinforcement under flexural and • deflection • type of foam core reinforcement
flatwise compression loadings • failure load • diameter of polymer pins
• edgewise compression strength
Study on edgewise and flatwise compression
[62] • flatwise compression strength • No variation
behaviour of an innovative composite panel
• failure mode
Study on the effect of a local quasi‐static
• with face‐core debonding
indentation or a low‐velocity impact on the
J. Compos.
[63] Sci.residual 3, 40 of foam core composite panels
2019, strength • edgewise compression strength • 21
without face‐core debonding of 30
subjected to edgewise compression

5. Delamination and Debonding

Due to the layered
layered composition
composition of compositecomposite panels,
panels, core–face junction delamination is a
commonly
commonly occurred failure mode, often referred to aslamellar
occurred failure mode, often referred to as a a lamellaror peeling failure.
or peeling Jakobsen
failure. et al.et[64]
Jakobsen al.
presented a novel
[64] presented delamination
a novel delamination stopper concept
stopper for composite
concept for compositepanels. Their
panels. goalgoal
Their waswasrerouting
reroutingthe
peeling andand
the peeling confining
confiningit toitthe
to first conditions.
the first They
conditions. carried
They out out
carried some three-point
some three‐pointbending
bendingtests on
tests
different material compositions of composite structures. Their results showed
on different material compositions of composite structures. Their results showed that for all the that for all the tested
configurations the suggested
tested configurations peel stopper
the suggested was able
peel stopper wastoable
stopto face
stopcore delamination.
face Looped
core delamination. fabric
Looped
reinforced foam composite
fabric reinforced (U-core)(U‐core)
foam composite is a newistype of composites
a new that has been
type of composites studied
that has beenby Chen et
studied byal.Chen
[65].
The loop can be effectively embedded in the foam core so that the interface
at al. [65]. The loop can be effectively embedded in the foam core so that the interface mechanical mechanical properties
can be improved.
properties can be In this study,
improved. In athis
simulation
study, a of damage evaluation
simulation of damageand strengthand
evaluation analysis wasanalysis
strength carried
out on a micromechanical model of foam. In addition, some flatwise tension
was carried out on a micromechanical model of foam. In addition, some flatwise tension and shear and shear loadings test
were conducted.
loadings test wereTest results showed
conducted. that the
Test results drawback
showed that of
thetraditional
drawbackcomposite panels
of traditional under flatwise
composite panels
tension and shear
under flatwise loadings
tension and is overcome
shear loadings(Figure 20).
is overcome (Figure 20).

Figure 20. Structure concept of looped fabric reinforced foam composite (U-core). Adapted from [65].
Figure 20. Structure concept of looped fabric reinforced foam composite (U‐core). Adapted from [65].
Miron
Miron etetal. al.[66]
[66]used
usedthethe
digital image
digital imagecorrelation method
correlation (DIC) (DIC)
method for a study
for aon interface
study damage
on interface
characterisation and interlaminar
damage characterisation failure of composite
and interlaminar specimens.specimens.
failure of composite Virtual strain gauges
Virtual are used
strain gauges at the
are
interface in the PU core to measure the opening strains. Peel tests showed
used at the interface in the PU core to measure the opening strains. Peel tests showed interesting interesting particularities on
damage arrangement
particularities on damage and strain variation
arrangement and is strain
completed. Also,
variation is the critical strain
completed. Also,atthe damage
criticalinitiation
strain at
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, x 17 of 24
and the critical
damage initiationdisplacement when displacement
and the critical damage is finalised when is established
damage in the cohesive
is finalised zone. in
is established Then,
the
after the
cohesive law
softening calibration,
zone.provided the
Then, after use of
in the the coherent
the calibration,
core a pattern elements
the use together
of the coherent
of strain with a linear
variation elements
similar tosoftening
together
the one law
with provided
a linear
obtained
experimentally. Sharma et al. [67] studied all vibration modes of composite panels to ensureal.that
in the core a pattern of strain variation similar to the one obtained experimentally. Sharma et [67]
studied all vibration modes of composite panels to ensure that debonding
debonding between facings and core in the through‐thickness vibration mode does not occur during between facings and
core inThey
service. the through-thickness
conducted an experimentalvibration modal
mode does noton
analysis occur duringpanels
composite service. of They conducted
different densitiesan
andexperimental modalunder
core thicknesses analysis on composite
different boundary panels of different
conditions densities and
and evaluated the core thicknessesmode
corresponding under
different boundary conditions and evaluated the corresponding mode
shapes and modal damping. In their study, a nondimensional parameter representing the ratio of shapes and modal damping.
In their
core study,
density anda core
nondimensional
thickness to parameter
face density representing the ratiowas
and face thickness of core density and
established, which core thickness
correlates
to face density and face thickness was established, which correlates
with the measured fundamental natural frequency. Besides, Sharma et al. [68] investigated the with the measured fundamental
natural frequency.
influence Besides,feed
of drilling velocity, Sharma et al.flank
rate and [68] length
investigated the influence
on the peeling of PU of drilling
foam velocity,
composite feed
panels
rate and
(Figure 21).flank length on
A scanning the peeling
electron of PUsystem
microscopy foam composite
was used to panels
show(Figure
the damage21). Afrom
scanning
drilling.electron
The
microscopy system was used to show the damage from drilling. The drilling
drilling process was evaluated based on a factor called the delamination factor, which is defined as process was evaluated
thebased
ratioonofa factor called the diameter
the maximum delamination factor,
of the whichzone
damage is defined
to drillas the ratio of the
diameter. maximum
Results showed diameter
that
of the damage
drilling speed was zonethetomost
drillimportant
diameter. controllable
Results showed that drilling
parameter duringspeed
drilling was
of the most important
composite panels
controllable
followed by feedparameter
rate andduring drilling of composite panels followed by feed rate and flank length.
flank length.

Figure
Figure Delamination
21.21.Delamination damage
damage mechanismsofofdrilling.
mechanisms drilling.Adapted
Adapted from[68].
from [68].

Mostafa et al. [69] presented semicircular shear keys to improving the shear performance and
skin–core peeling resistance for foam‐filled composite panels with the core. Polyvinylchloride (PVC)
and PU foam core are chosen for the study and composited between glass fibre‐reinforced polymer
facings, while the chopped strand (CS) glass fibre is used for the shear key. A parametric study on
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 22 of 30
Figure 21. Delamination damage mechanisms of drilling. Adapted from [68].

Mostafa et
Mostafa al. [69]
et al. [69] presented
presented semicircular
semicircular shear
shear keys
keys toto improving
improving the the shear
shear performance
performance and and
skin–core peeling resistance for foam‐filled composite panels with the core. Polyvinylchloride
skin–core peeling resistance for foam-filled composite panels with the core. Polyvinylchloride (PVC) (PVC)
and PU
and PU foam
foam core
core are
are chosen
chosen for
for the
the study
study and
and composited
composited between
between glassglass fibre-reinforced
fibre‐reinforced polymer
polymer
facings, while the chopped strand (CS) glass fibre is used for the shear key. A parametric
facings, while the chopped strand (CS) glass fibre is used for the shear key. A parametric study on the study on
the influence
influence of theofshear
the key
shear key diameter
diameter on the shear
on the in-plane in‐plane shear performance
performance has beennumerically.
has been performed performed
numerically. Also, a comprehensive experimental testing program
Also, a comprehensive experimental testing program was conducted on the constituents to obtain was conducted on thethe
constituents to obtain the basic parameters used in the finite element modelling.
basic parameters used in the finite element modelling. Results showed for all studied configurations Results showed for
all studied
the consideredconfigurations
shear keys were the able
considered shear keys
to stop interface wereand
peeling ableto to stop interface
redirect peeling
it to diagonal and to
orientation
with a great improvement in the shear behaviour. Lameiras et al. [70] proposed an innovativeetand
redirect it to diagonal orientation with a great improvement in the shear behaviour. Lameiras al.
[70] proposed an innovative and thermally efficient composite panel for the structural
thermally efficient composite panel for the structural walls of a prefabricated modular housing system. walls of a
prefabricated
Their composite modular housingofsystem.
panel consists Their composite
glass fibre-reinforced panel consists
polymer of glass fibre‐reinforced
(GFRP) connectors and two thin
polymer (GFRP) connectors and two thin facings of steel‐fibre‐reinforced
facings of steel-fibre-reinforced self-compacting concrete (SFRSCC) (Figure 22). The feasibilityself‐compacting concreteof
(SFRSCC)
using (Figure 22).and
the connectors TheSFRSCC
feasibility
on of
theusing
outerthe connectors
layers is studied andthrough
SFRSCC on theofouter
a series layers
pull-out is
tests
studied through a series of pull‐out tests where failure modes and load capacity
where failure modes and load capacity of the connections are analysed. Table 4 shows a summary of of the connections
are analysed.
references Table 4 shows a summary of references [57,58,64–70].
[57,58,64–70].

Figure 22.
Figure Components of
22. Components of the
the proposed
proposed devised
devised load-bearing
load‐bearing composite
composite panel.
panel. Adapted
Adapted from
from [70].
[70].
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 23 of 30

Table 4. Summary of references [57,58,64–70].

Ref. Goal Investigated Parameters Variables

• flexural stiffness
• flexural stress
• flexural strength
• damping properties • strain rates
[57] Increase the interfacial strength between the faces and core
• failure load • pin diameter
• deflection at failure load
• natural frequency
• damping ratio
• tensile strength of the composite panel
• panel thickness
• the compressive strength of the composite panel
• through-thickness
Introducing a new 3D fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) panels • flexural strength of composite panel
[58] • fibre configuration
designed to overcome delamination • shear strength of composite panel
• fibre density
• facing elastic modulus
• Fibber insertion (per cm2 )
• the shear modulus of the composite panel
[64] presenting a new peel stopper concept for composite structures • debonding/delamination • No variation
• flatwise tension strength
• shear strength
• foam density
Study on interface mechanical properties of Looped fabric • pull strength
[65] • type of foam fabric reinforcement (U-core and traditional 2D)
reinforced foam composite (U-core) panels • failure mode
• pressure–displacement curves under the flatwise tension
• The pressure–displacement curves under the shear load
• interface damage characterisation of composite panels including opening strain
at the interface • width of specimens
Numerical and experimental study on interface damage • interlaminar failure of composite panels including critical strain at the damage • thickness of specimens
[66]
characterisation and interlaminar failure of composite panels and critical displacement when damage is finalised • length of initial delamination
• the pattern of strain variation • the Position of the monitored points
• crack opening
• first fundamental frequency • core density/thickness
[67] Study on dynamic characteristics of composite panels • corresponding mode shapes • boundary conditions
• modal damping • rigid inserts
• cutting/ drilling velocity
• delamination factor (the ratio of the maximum diameter of damage zone to
Study on the influence of drilling on the delamination of PU • feed rate
[68] drill diameter)
composite panels • flank length
• surface roughness
• flute length
Improvement of debonding failure between skin and core is • kind of foam material
[69] • shear strength
highly important composite panels • shear keys diameter
• connectors tensile strength, stiffness, stress-strain relationship, and • kind of connectors (embedded or adhesively bonded)
Introducing an innovative and thermally efficient composite
[70] cost competitiveness • types of GFRPs
panel for the structural walls
• connectors pull-out test and load capacity • Kind of foam
• panel thickness
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 24 of 30

6. Miscellaneous Themes
Yanes-Armas et al. [71] studied the structural creep behaviour of GFRP-polyurethane (PUR)
web-core composite structures subjected to sustained loading. The study showed that the density
of foam and the loading type must be considered to evaluate the structural behaviour of the
GFRP-PUR web-core panels. The effect of creep on the web–core interaction was then investigated.
The results showed the shear resistance of the GFRP webs, their dimensions and governing failure
mode depended on the applied design recommendation. Finally, a design procedure to predict the
overall shear resistance of the GFRP-PUR core, considering the creep effects, was presented too.
Chan et al. performed experimental and numerical studies of sustainable composite biocomposites.
The biocomposites were developed using plant-based materials. The laminated face sheets comprised
woven hemp fabric and tree sap-based epoxy, while the core involved castor oil-based polyurethane
foam reinforced with waste rice hulls ashes. Tensile, compressive and three-point bending tests
were conducted. Finite element models were developed. From numerical simulation results, the
composite biocomposites were found to be a structurally acceptable replacement for standard gypsum
drywall [72]. Azimi et al. [73] studied a creative composite panel consisted of glass fibre composite
facings and coconut coir fibre-reinforced PU foam core. The physical and mechanical properties were
found to be significant at 5 wt % coconut coir fibre in PU foam cores as well as in composite composites.
It was found that composite properties serve better in composite construction. Reany et al. [74] studied
on composite plates with one corrugated and one flat skin with the goal to find configurations with
higher strength and/or stiffness and reduced weight. The corrugations led to increased bending
stiffness in one direction but, reduced in the other. Kam et al. [75] have shown the optimum
design of laminated PU foam-filled composite plates with both continuous/discrete core thicknesses.
Design variables subjected to strength constraint are studied via a two-level optimisation technique.
Finally, a failure test of laminated composite foam-filled composite plates with different lamination
arrangements was performed to validate the proposed optimal design method. Arruda et al. [76]
presented numerical investigations on the creep behaviour of composite panels produced by vacuum
infusion with GFRP faces and ribs, and polyurethane (PUR) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
foam cores. The results showed that the proposed numeric models predicted the creep behaviour of
the composite panels perfectly. In a similar research, Table 5 shows the summary of references [71–76].
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 25 of 30

Table 5. Summary of references [71–76].

Ref. Goal Investigated parameters Variables

studying on structural creep behaviour of GFRP-polyurethane • foam anisotropy
[71] • overall shear resistance of the GFRP-PUR core over time
web-core composite structures subjected to sustained loading • foam density loading type
• uniaxial compression test
Experimental and numerical studies of sustainable composite • weight ratio of waste RHA/rice hulls
[72] • tension test
biocomposites • percentage of cooked Foam
• three-point flexural bending tests
• shear strength of the composite panel
• shear strength of the foam
• the flexural strength of the composite panel
To characterise the physical and mechanical properties and to • the flexural stiffness of the composite panel
[73] elucidate the effect of coconut coir fibres in polyurethane foam cores • density of foam • Amount of coconut coir fibres
and composite panels • flexural modulus of the composite panel
• flexural modulus of the foam
• bearing capacity of the composite panel
• bearing capacity of the foam
• panel strength
Study on composite panels with one corrugated and one flat skin in • panel stiffness • skin configuration (corrugated and flat)
[74] order to find configurations with higher strength and/or stiffness and • panel weight • corrugation geometry
reduced weight • uniaxial buckling • material properties
• shear buckling
Introducing a new method for optimum design of laminated • optimal design parameters • method of design (continuous and discrete core thickness)
[75]
composite panels • optimal weight • lamination arrangements
[76] Numerical investigations on the creep behaviour of composite panels • creep behaviour • kind of foam
research, Table 5 shows the summary of references [71–76].

Table 5. Summary of references [71–76].

Ref. Goal Investigated parameters Variables
studying on structural creep behaviour of
• overall shear resistance of the GFRP‐PUR • foam anisotropy
J.[71]
Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40web‐core composite structures
GFRP‐polyurethane
core over time •
26
foam density loading type
of 30
subjected to sustained loading
• uniaxial compression test • weight ratio of waste
Experimental and numerical studies of sustainable
[72] • tension test RHA/rice hulls
composite biocomposites
• three‐point flexural bending tests • percentage of cooked Foam
7. Conclusions
• shear strength of the composite panel
• shear strength of the foam
According to the above comprehensive discussion, the following conclusions can be drawn.
• the flexural strength of the composite panel
To characterise the physical and mechanical
• the flexural stiffness of the composite panel • Amount of coconut coir
properties and to elucidate the effect of coconut coir
•[73] Energy absorption and dynamic behaviour, bending and shear behaviour,
fibres in polyurethane foam cores and composite
• density of foam fibres edgewise and flatwise
• flexural modulus of the composite panel
compression/tension behaviour and delamination/deboning themes comprise 30%, 40%, 11%
panels
• flexural modulus of the foam
•
and 11% of related studies, respectively, over the last two decades. Also, 8% of related studies
bearing capacity of the composite panel
• bearing capacity of the foam
over the last two decades are related to the whole of other themes (Figure
Study on composite panels with one corrugated
• panel strength
•
23).
skin configuration
• panel stiffness
•[74] First two categories represent the 70% of the studies. The direct use of the results
and one flat skin in order to find configurations
• panel weight
(corrugated and flat) of these two
with higher strength and/or stiffness and reduced • corrugation geometry
• uniaxial buckling
categories
weight of studies in the seismic design of building panels can be a •reasonable
• shear buckling
reason for this
material properties

amount of studies. • method of design

Introducing a new method for optimum design of • optimal design parameters (continuous and discrete core
•[75] Energy absorbing
laminated composite panels capacity, flexural stiffness
• and shear
optimal weight strength of composite
thickness) panels account 27%,
• lamination arrangements
15% and 12% of studied parameters, respectively.
Numerical investigations on the creep behaviour of
[76] • creep behaviour • kind of foam
• Torsional
composite panelsbehaviour of foam-filled panels and their connections are neglected absolutely and
could be suggested for future researches.
7. Conclusions
• Over the past 22 years, the number of these studies has increased by at least two hundred percent
during each
According to the five-year period relative to
above comprehensive the previous
discussion, period. However,
the following overcan
conclusions thebe past five years,
drawn.
this increase was approximately four hundred percent, indicating the interest and attention of
• J. Compos.
Energy Sci.absorption
2019, 3, x and dynamic behaviour, bending and shear behaviour, edgewise and
researchers to the importance of the structural performance of foam-filled composite 20 of 24
panels
flatwise compression/tension behaviour and delamination/deboning themes comprise 30%,
(Figure 24).
40%, 11%23.
Figure and 11% of related
Percentages studies,
of different respectively,
research over the last
themes regarding two decades.
the structural Also, 8%
performance of of
• Studies on the structural performance of foam-filled composite panels from 1998 to 2017 have a
related studies
foam‐filled over thepanels
composite last twofromdecades are related to the whole of other themes (Figure 23).
1998 to 2017.
uniform continental distribution between America, Asia & Oceania and Europe (Figure 25).
• First two categories represent the 70% of the studies. The direct use of the results of these two
categories of studies in the seismic design of building panels can be a reasonable reason for this
8%
amount of studies.
• 11% capacity,
Energy absorbing 30% Energy absorption
flexural stiffness and shearand dynamic
strengthbehaviour
of composite panels account
Bending and shear behaviour
27%, 15% and 12% of studied parameters, respectively.
Edgewise and flatwise compressive/tensile behaviour
• Torsional11%behaviour of foam‐filled panels and their connections are neglected absolutely and
Delamination and deboning issues
could be suggested for future researches. Miscellaneous themes
• Over the past 22 years, the number of these studies has increased by at least two hundred
percent during each 40%five‐year period relative to the previous period. However, over the past
five years, this increase was approximately four hundred percent, indicating the interest and
attention
Figure of researchers
23. Percentages to the
of different importance
research of the the
themes regarding structural performanceof foam-filled
structural performance of foam‐filled
compositepanels
composite panels (Figure
from 1998 to24).
2017.

60
NUMBER OF STUDIES

40

20

0
Period I Period II Period III Period IV
(1998-2002) (2003-2007) (2008-2012) (2013-2017)
YEAR
Figure 24. Growing up of studies on the structural performance of foam-filled composite panels from
1998 to 2017.
Figure 24. Growing up of studies on the structural performance of foam‐filled composite panels from
1998 to 2017.

• Studies on the structural performance of foam‐filled composite panels from 1998 to 2017 have a
uniform continental distribution between America, Asia & Oceania and Europe (Figure 25).
 Figure 24. Growing up of studies on the structural performance of foam‐filled composite panels from
1998 to 2017.

• Studies on the structural performance of foam‐filled composite panels from 1998 to 2017 have a
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 27 of 30
uniform continental distribution between America, Asia & Oceania and Europe (Figure 25).

Figure 25. Continental distribution of studies on the structural performance of foam-filled composite
Figure 25.from
panels 1998 to 2017.
Continental distribution of studies on the structural performance of foam‐filled composite
panels from 1998 to 2017.
Author Contributions: S.N. and P.S.; Methodology, S.N. and F.S.; Formal Analysis, B.S. and S.N.; Data
Curation, S.N. and F.T.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, S.N. and B.S.; Writing-Review & Editing, B.S. and
P.S., Supervision.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Bomberg, M.T.; Lstiburek, J.W. Spray Polyurethane Foam in External Envelopes of Buildings; Taylor & Francis:
Abingdon, UK, 1998.
2. Cousins, K. Polymers in Building and Construction; Rapra Technology Limited: Shropshire, UK, 2002.
3. Sharafi, P.; Samali, B.; Ronagh, H.; Ghodrat, M. Automated spatial design of multi-story modular buildings
using a unified matrix method. Autom. Constr. 2017, 82, 31–42. [CrossRef]
4. Wu, Z.; Liu, W.; Wang, L.; Fang, H.; Hui, D. Theoretical and experimental study of foam-filled lattice
composite panels under quasi-static compression loading. Compos. Part B Eng. 2014, 60, 329–340. [CrossRef]
5. Nasirzadeh, R.; Sabet, A.R. Study of foam density variations in composite composite panels under high
velocity impact loading. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2014, 63, 129–139. [CrossRef]
6. Wang, J.; Waas, A.M.; Wang, H. Experimental study on the low-velocity impact behavior of foam-core
composite panels. In Proceedings of the 53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 23–26 April 2012.
7. Wang, J.; Waas, A.M.; Wang, H. Experimental and numerical study on the low-velocity impact behavior of
foam-core composite panels. Compos. Struct. 2013, 96, 298–311. [CrossRef]
8. Zhang, G.; Wang, B.; Ma, L.; Wu, L.; Pan, S.; Yang, J. Energy absorption and low velocity impact response
of polyurethane foam filled pyramidal lattice core composite panels. Compos. Struct. 2014, 108, 304–310.
[CrossRef]
9. He, Y.; Zhang, X.; Long, S.; Yao, X.; He, L. Dynamic mechanical behavior of foam-core composite composite
structures subjected to low-velocity impact. Arch. Appl. Mech. 2016, 86, 1605–1619. [CrossRef]
10. Rizov, V.; Shipsha, A.; Zenkert, D. Indentation study of foam core composite composite panels. Compos. Struct.
2005, 69, 95–102. [CrossRef]
11. Sachse, S.; Poruri, M.; Silva, F.; Michalowski, S.; Pielichowski, K.; Njuguna, J. Effect of nanofillers on low
energy impact performance of composite structures with nanoreinforced polyurethane foam cores. J. Compos.
Struct. Mater. 2014, 16, 173–194.
12. Hua, Y.; Akula, P.K.; Gu, L. Experimental and numerical investigation of carbon fiber composite panels
subjected to blast loading. Compos. Part B Eng. 2014, 56, 456–463. [CrossRef]
13. Ahmed, S.; Galal, K. Effectiveness of FRP composite panels for blast resistance. Compos. Struct. 2017, 163,
454–464. [CrossRef]
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 28 of 30

14. Yang, P.; Shams, S.S.; Slay, A.; Brokate, B.; Elhajjar, R. Evaluation of temperature effects on low velocity
impact damage in composite composite panels with polymeric foam cores. Compos. Struct. 2015, 129,
213–223. [CrossRef]
15. Taraghi, I.; Fereidoon, A. Non-destructive evaluation of damage modes in nanocomposite foam-core
composite panel subjected to low-velocity impact. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 103, 51–59. [CrossRef]
16. Kavianiboroujeni, A.; Cloutier, A.; Rodrigue, D. Low Velocity Impact Behaviour of Asymmetric Three-layer
Composite Composite Structures with and Without Foam Core. Polym. Polym. Compos. 2017, 25, 381.
[CrossRef]
17. Huang, S.-Y.; Lou, C.W.; Yan, R.; Lin, Q.; Li, T.T.; Chen, Y.S.; Lin, J.H. Investigation on structure and
impact-resistance property of polyurethane foam filled three-dimensional fabric reinforced composite
flexible composites. Compos. Part B Eng. 2017, 131, 43–49. [CrossRef]
18. Feli, S.; Mahdipour Jalilian, M. Three-dimensional solution of low-velocity impact on composite panels with
hybrid nanocomposite face sheets. Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 2017, 25, 579–591. [CrossRef]
19. Feli, S.; Jalilian, M. Theoretical model of low-velocity impact on foam-core composite panels using finite
difference method. J. Compos. Struct. Mater. 2017, 19, 261–290.
20. Jiang, L.; Hu, H. Low-velocity impact response of multilayer orthogonal structural composite with auxetic
effect. Compos. Struct. 2017, 169, 62–68. [CrossRef]
21. Yan, R.; Wang, R.; Lou, C.W.; Huang, S.Y.; Lin, J.H. Quasi-static and dynamic mechanical responses of hybrid
laminated composites based on high-density flexible polyurethane foam. Compos. Part B Eng. 2015, 83,
253–263. [CrossRef]
22. Ghalami-Choobar, M.; Sadighi, M. Investigation of high velocity impact of cylindrical projectile on composite
panels with fiber–metal laminates skins and polyurethane core. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2014, 32, 142–152.
[CrossRef]
23. Velecela, O.; Soutis, C. Prediction of crushing morphology of GRP composite composite panels under
edgewise compression. Compos. Part B Eng. 2007, 38, 914–923. [CrossRef]
24. Mamalis, A.; Manolakos, D.E.; Ioannidis, M.B.; Papapostolou, D.P. On the crushing response of composite
composite panels subjected to edgewise compression: Experimental. Compos. Struct. 2005, 71, 246–257.
[CrossRef]
25. George, T.; Deshpande, V.S.; Sharp, K.; Wadley, H.N. Hybrid core carbon fiber composite composite panels:
Fabrication and mechanical response. Compos. Struct. 2014, 108, 696–710. [CrossRef]
26. Rostamiyan, Y.; Norouzi, H. Flatwise Compression Strength and Energy Absorption of Polyurethane
Foam-Filled Lattice Core Composite Panels. Strength Mater. 2016, 48, 801–810. [CrossRef]
27. Abdi, B.; Azwan, S.; Abdullah, M.R.; Ayob, A.; Yahya, Y. Comparison of foam core composite panel and
through—Thickness polymer pin–reinforced foam core composite panel subject to indentation and flatwise
compression loadings. Polym. Compos. 2016, 37, 612–619. [CrossRef]
28. Mirzapour, A.; Beheshty, M.H.; Vafayan, M. The response of composite panels with rigid polyurethane foam
cores under flexural loading. Iran. Polym. J. 2005, 14, 1082–1088.
29. Sharaf, T.; Shawkat, W.; Fam, A. Structural performance of composite wall panels with different foam core
densities in one-way bending. J. Compos. Mater. 2010, 44, 2249–2263. [CrossRef]
30. Manalo, A. Structural behaviour of a prefabricated composite wall system made from rigid polyurethane
foam and Magnesium Oxide board. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 41, 642–653. [CrossRef]
31. Dawood, M.; Taylor, E.; Ballew, W.; Rizkalla, S. Static and fatigue bending behavior of pultruded GFRP
composite panels with through-thickness fiber insertions. Compos. Part B Eng. 2010, 41, 363–374. [CrossRef]
32. Wang, L.; Liu, W.; Wan, L.; Fang, H.; Hui, D. Mechanical performance of foam-filled lattice composite panels
in four-point bending: Experimental investigation and analytical modeling. Compos. Part B Eng. 2014, 67,
270–279. [CrossRef]
33. Mostafa, A.; Shankar, K.; Morozov, E. Independent analytical technique for analysis of the flexural behaviour
of the composite composite panels incorporated with shear keys concept. Mater. Struct. 2015, 48, 2455–2474.
[CrossRef]
34. Mostafa, A.; Shankar, K.; Morozov, E. Behaviour of PU-foam/glass-fibre composite composite panels under
flexural static load. Mater. Struct. 2015, 48, 1545–1559. [CrossRef]
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 29 of 30

35. Tuwair, H.; Hopkins, M.; Volz, J.; ElGawady, M.A.; Mohamed, M.; Chandrashekhara, K.; Birman, V.
Evaluation of composite panels with various polyurethane foam-cores and ribs. Compos. Part B Eng.
2015, 79, 262–276. [CrossRef]
36. Mathieson, H.; Fam, A. High cycle fatigue under reversed bending of composite panels with GFRP skins
and polyurethane foam core. Compos. Struct. 2014, 113, 31–39. [CrossRef]
37. Kumar, M.V.; Soragaon, B. Fabrication and evaluation of multilayered polyurethane foam core composite
panels for static flexural stiffness. Procedia Eng. 2014, 97, 1227–1236. [CrossRef]
38. Garrido, M.; Correia, J.R.; Keller, T.; Cabral-Fonseca, S. Creep of Composite Panels with Longitudinal
Reinforcement Ribs for Civil Engineering Applications: Experiments and Composite Creep Modeling.
J. Compos. Constr. 2016, 21, 04016074. [CrossRef]
39. Junes, A.; Larbi, A.S. An indirect non-linear approach for the analysis of composite panels with TRC facings.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 112, 406–415. [CrossRef]
40. Kakroodi, A.R.; Khazabi, M.; Maynard, K.; Sain, M.; Kwon, O.S. Soy-based polyurethane spray foam
insulations for light weight wall panels and their performances under monotonic and static cyclic shear
forces. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 74, 1–8. [CrossRef]
41. Mostafa, A. Numerical analysis on the effect of shear keys pitch on the shear performance of foamed
composite panels. Eng. Struct. 2015, 101, 216–232. [CrossRef]
42. Sharaf, T. Flexural Behaviour of Composite Panels Composed of Polyurethane Core and GFRP Skins and
Ribs. Ph.D. Thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada, 2010.
43. Sharaf, T.; Fam, A. Experimental investigation of large-scale cladding composite panels under out-of-plane
transverse loading for building applications. J. Compos. Constr. 2010, 15, 422–430. [CrossRef]
44. Sharaf, T.; Fam, A. Numerical modelling of composite panels with soft core and different rib configurations.
J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2012, 31, 771–784. [CrossRef]
45. Sharaf, T.; Fam, A. Analysis of large scale cladding composite panels composed of GFRP skins and ribs and
ribs and polyurethane foam core. Thin-Walled Struct. 2013, 71, 91–101. [CrossRef]
46. Mastali, M.; Valente, I.B.; Barros, J.A.; Gonçalves, D.M. Development of innovative hybrid composite panel
slabs: Experimental results. Compos. Struct. 2015, 133 (Suppl. C), 476–498. [CrossRef]
47. Mastali, M.; Valente, I.B.; Barros, A.O. Development of innovative hybrid composite panel slabs: Advanced
numerical simulations and parametric studies. Compos. Struct. 2016, 152 (Suppl. C), 362–381. [CrossRef]
48. Mastali, M.; Valente, I.; Barros, J.A. Flexural performance of innovative hybrid composite panels with special
focus on the shear connection behavior. Compos. Struct. 2017, 160, 100–117. [CrossRef]
49. Dawood, M.; Taylor, E.; Rizkalla, S. Two-way bending behavior of 3-D GFRP composite panels with
through-thickness fiber insertions. Compos. Struct. 2010, 92, 950–963. [CrossRef]
50. Amir Fam, T.S. Flexural performance of composite panels comprising polyurethane core and GFRP skins
and ribs of various configurations. Compos. Struct. 2010, 92, 2927–2935.
51. Garrido, M.; Correia, J.R.; Keller, T. Effects of elevated temperature on the shear response of PET and PUR
foams used in composite composite panels. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 76, 150–157. [CrossRef]
52. Garrido, M.; Correia, J.R.; Keller, T. Effect of service temperature on the shear creep response of rigid
polyurethane foam used in composite composite floor panels. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 118, 235–244.
[CrossRef]
53. Shams, A.; Stark, A.; Hoogen, F.; Hegger, J.; Schneider, H. Innovative composite structures made of high
performance concrete and foamed polyurethane. Compos. Struct. 2015, 121, 271–279. [CrossRef]
54. Kim, J.H.; Lee, Y.S.; Park, B.J.; Kim, D.H. Evaluation of durability and strength of stitched foam-cored
composite structures. Compos. Struct. 1999, 47, 543–550. [CrossRef]
55. Labans, E.; Kalnins, K.; Bisagni, C. Flexural behavior of composite panels with cellular wood, plywood
stiffener/foam and thermoplastic composite core. J. Compos. Struct. Mater. 2017, 1099636217699587.
[CrossRef]
56. Abdolpour, H.; Kalnins, K.; Bisagni, C. Development of a composite prototype with GFRP profiles and
composite panels used as a floor module of an emergency house. Compos. Struct. 2016, 153, 81–95. [CrossRef]
57. Jayaram, R.; Nagarajan, V.A.; Kumar, K.P. Polyester Pinning Effect on Flexural and Vibrational Characteristics
of Foam Filled Honeycomb Composite Panels. Latin Am. J. Solids Struct. 2017, 14, 1314–1326. [CrossRef]
58. Reis, E.M.; Rizkalla, S.H. Material characteristics of 3-D FRP composite panels. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22,
1009–1018. [CrossRef]
J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 40 30 of 30

59. Mathieson, H.; Fam, A. Numerical modeling and experimental validation of axially loaded slender sandwich
panels with soft core and various rib configurations. Eng. Struct. 2016, 118, 195–209. [CrossRef]
60. Mohamed, M.; Anandan, S.; Huo, Z.; Birman, V.; Volz, J.; Chandrashekhara, K. Manufacturing and
characterization of polyurethane based composite composite structures. Compos. Struct. 2015, 123, 169–179.
[CrossRef]
61. Abdi, B.; Azwan, S.; Abdullah, M.R.; Ayob, A.; Yahya, Y.; Xin, L. Flatwise compression and flexural behavior
of foam core and polymer pin-reinforced foam core composite composite panels. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2014, 88,
138–144. [CrossRef]
62. Saeed Nemati, P.S. Bijan Samali, Shahab Khakpour, Compressive Behaviour of Modular Polyurethane Foam-Filled
Composite Panels with 3-D High Density Polyethylene Skins; Centre for Infrastructures Engineering (CIE),
Western Sydney University: Sydney, Australia, 2017; pp. 1–21.
63. Koissin, V.; Shipsha, A.; Skvortsov, V. Compression strength of composite panels with sub-interface damage
in the foam core. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2009, 69, 2231–2240. [CrossRef]
64. Jakobsen, J.; Bozhevolnaya, E.; Thomsen, O.T. New peel stopper concept for composite structures.
Compos. Sci. Technol. 2007, 67, 3378–3385. [CrossRef]
65. Chen, M.; Zhou, G.; Wang, J. On mechanical behavior of looped fabric reinforced foam composite.
Compos. Struct. 2014, 118, 159–169. [CrossRef]
66. Miron, M.C.; Constantinescu, D.M. Strain fields at an interface crack in a composite composite. Mech. Mater.
2011, 43, 870–884. [CrossRef]
67. Sharma, R.S.; Raghupathy, V. Influence of core density, core thickness, and rigid inserts on dynamic
characteristics of sandwich panels with polyurethane foam as core. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2010, 29,
3226–3236. [CrossRef]
68. Sharma, S.; Krishna, M.; Murthy, H.N. Delamination during drilling in polyurethane foam composite
composite structures. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2006, 15, 306–310. [CrossRef]
69. Mostafa, A.; Shankar, K.; Morozov, E. Effect of shear keys diameter on the shear performance of composite
composite panel with PVC and PU foam core: FE study. Compos. Struct. 2013, 102, 90–100. [CrossRef]
70. Rodrigo Lameiras, J.B.; Isabel Valente, B.; Miguel, A. Development of composite panels combining fibre
reinforced concrete layers and fibre reinforced polymer connectors. Part I: Conception and pull-out tests.
Compos. Struct. 2013, 105, 446–459. [CrossRef]
71. Yanes-Armas, S.; de Castro, J.; Keller, T. Long-term design of FRP-PUR web-core composite structures in
building construction. Compos. Struct. 2017, 181, 214–228. [CrossRef]
72. Chan, K.E. Experimental and numerical studies of sustainable composite bio-composites derived from
plant-based resources. J. Compos. Struct. Mater. 2017, 19, 192–215. [CrossRef]
73. Azmi, M.A.; Abdullah, H.; Idris, M.I. Properties of polyurethane foam/coconut coir fiber as a core material
and as a composite composites component. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering;
IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2013.
74. Reany, J.; Grenestedt, J.L. Corrugated skin in a foam core composite panel. Compos. Struct. 2009, 89, 345–355.
[CrossRef]
75. Kam, T.; Lai, F.; Chao, T. Optimum design of laminated composite foam-filled composite plates subjected to
strength constraint. Int. J. Solids Struct. 1999, 36, 2865–2889. [CrossRef]
76. Arruda, M. Numerical modelling of the creep behaviour of GFRP composite panels using the Carrera Unified
Formulation and Composite Creep Modelling. Compos. Struct. 2017, 183, 103–113. [CrossRef]

© 2019 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/).