See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257507729

Development and Mechanical Behavior of FML/Aluminium Foam Sandwiches

Article  in  Applied Composite Materials · October 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s10443-012-9306-3

CITATIONS READS

10 721

2 authors, including:

Bahar baştürk
Manisa Celal Bayar University
12 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bahar baştürk on 24 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Appl Compos Mater
DOI 10.1007/s10443-012-9306-3

Development and Mechanical Behavior of FML/

Aluminium Foam Sandwiches

S. B. Baştürk & M. Tanoğlu

Received: 30 April 2012 / Accepted: 21 November 2012

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract In this study, the Fiber-Metal Laminates (FMLs) containing glass fiber reinforced
polypropylene (GFPP) and aluminum (Al) sheet were consolidated with Al foam cores for
preparing the sandwich panels. The aim of this article is the comparison of the flexural
properties of FML/Al foam sandwich panels bonded with various surface modification
approaches (silane treatment and combination of silane treatment with polypropylene (PP)
based film addition). The FML/foam sandwich systems were fabricated by laminating the
components in a mould at 200 °C under 1.5 MPa pressure. The energy absorbtion capacities
and flexural mechanical properties of the prepared sandwich systems were evaluated by
mechanical tests. Experiments were performed on samples of varying foam thicknesses (8,
20 and 30 mm). The bonding among the sandwich components were achieved by various
surface modification techniques. The Al sheet/Al foam sandwiches were also consolidated
by bonding the components with an epoxy adhesive to reveal the effect of GFPP on the
flexural performance of the sandwich structures.

Keywords Fiber/Metal Laminates (FML) . Al foam . Sandwich composites . Interface .

Flexural behavior

1 Introduction

The composite sandwiches consist of face-sheet (skin) and core materials have various
application areas including aeronatucial, marine and transportation industry. Besides the
perfect flexural resistance and stiffness, high corrossion resistance, low thermal and acoustic
conductivity are the major advantegous of these systems over the traditional materials. The

S. B. Baştürk
Materials Engineering Department,
Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey

M. Tanoğlu (*)
Mechanical Engineering Department, İzmir Institute of Technology, Gülbahçe Campus,
35430 Urla, İzmir, Turkey
e-mail: metintanoglu@iyte.edu.tr
 Appl Compos Mater

fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites or metallic layers are generally used as skin
materials. Epoxy is the most popular type of thermosetting resin used for fabricating FRP
composites, however due to the long processing time for curing and low fracture resistance,
there is a trend to replace them with thermoplastic based composites.
A various type of honeycomb, balsa wood, polymeric and metallic foams have been used
as core materials to resist the shear loads in sandwich structures [1]. In order to provide high
stiffness of the sandwich composites, the core should be choosen with high shear modulus.
In addition to that its elastic modulus perpendicular to the skins should be considerably high
to eliminate the decrease in core thickness which results in a rapid decrease in flexural
rigidity [2]. The failure modes within those sandwich structures have been critical issue to
investigate by the researchers. Generally the sandwich composites fail by specific modes
such as indentation, face yield or wrinkle and core shear (Fig. 1). In addition to that the
debonding between the face and the core is also seen in some cases [3].

F
F wrinkling

a1 a1
F/2 F/2
F/2 F/2
(a) (b)
core shear
plastic hinge F
F plastic hinge

a1
a1 F/2 F/2
F/2 F/2
(c) (d)
core shear F
F plastic hinge core shear plastic hinge

a1 a1
F/2 F/2 F/2 F/2

(e) (f)
Fig. 1 Failure types of sandwich structures: a skin yieldinig, b skin wrinkling, c indentation, d core shear
failure mode A type, e core shear failure mode B type and f core shear failure mode AB type [3]
Appl Compos Mater

Various designs can be performed depending on the required failure type. It should be
noted that the length/thickness of the beam is a very critical parameter in terms of the
deformation characteristics of the sandwiches. For instance short and thick panels are
dominated by core shear while longer and thinner structures generally deform due to the
skin bending and/or yielding. If the sandwich composite has a short length to determine the
core shear strength at the shear failure load P, the skin strength value has not been reached.
Otherwise the test failure load would provide the skin strength.
By considering core shear, three types of failure can be observed in flexural test: mode A,
mode B and mode AB. In mode A, the plastic hinges occur in each face of the sandwich at
the corners of the loading point while the core on either side of the loading point deforms by
shearing. In mode B, the plastic hinges develop in each face of the panel; both at the
boundaries of the loading point and close to the each of the supports. The intermediate mode
AB includes both mode A and mode B so that one side of the sandwich deformes by mode A
while the other side fails by mode B type. Kesler and Gibson investigated the shear strength
size effects of the foams on the behaviors of the sandwiches under three point bending
conditions. Sandwich structures with aluminium foam cores were tested and their flexural
characteristics were observed by varying the parameters such as core thickness, skin
thickness, span length and beam depth. The measured limit loads were compared with the
formulas developed by Ashby et al. Moreover, the load-deflection curves of the samples
were plotted and their corresponding failure modes were identified. Based on the test results,
the predicted and measured values of the failure loads were in good agreement less than
12 % discrepeancy [4]. Crupi and Montanini evaluated the structural response of aluminium
foam sandwiches under static and dynamic flexural loading. In that study, Alporas™ and
Alulight™ foams were subjected to three point bending test and their failure modes were
determined by varying the span length. Different collapse modes were observed depending
on the foam type and span length. Based on the test reults, core shear was the dominant
deformation mechanism and indentation was also seen in some cases. Theoretical and
experimental results for the limit loads were in good agreement and energy absorption
capacities were compared under dynamic and static test conditions [5]. Russo and Zuccarello
[6] investigated the mechanical behaviour of fiber-glass laminate skins with PVC foam or
polyester mat cores. The authors investigated the failure modes and they found that the
shorter specimens failed due to the core shear failure with delamination while the relatively
longer sandwiches failed after the lower face-sheet tensile failure. Lim et al. [7] studied the
flexural behaviour of sandwiches composed of E-glass fiber/epoxy face-sheet and PVC
foam core. The failure types of the sandwich beam under transverse loading were predicted
with the beam theory based on elastic principles. It was found that the failure modes revealed
with experimental techniques were in good agreement with the theoretical results under three
point bending configuration. Corigliano et al. [8] concentrated on the mechanical perfor-
mance and numerical models of syntactic foam/glass fiber composite sandwiches. The
syntactic foam that filled the core of the sandwich resulted with a higher strength and
stiffness properties as compared to FRP composite systems. Styles and co-workers [9]
focused on the failure modes of thermoplastic composite skin/Al foam core sandwiches
under flexural loading. Three different core thicknesses were used and their effect on the
mechanical behaviour was evaluated. In their study, the thinner specimens showed skin
wrinkling and fracture with core cracking while the core thickness increase led to the core
indentation. Daniel and Abot [10] investigated the flexural characteristics of sandwiches
composed of unidirectional carbon/epoxy face-sheets and Al honeycomb cores. The sand-
wich beams were tested under three and four point bending loading. Based on the test
results, the skins showed a softening non-linear behaviour on the compression side and a
 Appl Compos Mater

stiffening effect was observed on the tension side. Steeves and Fleck [11] analysed the
bending behaviour of sandwich beams consisted of woven glass fiber/epoxy prepreg and
PVC foam core. The geometry and component properties significantly affected the failure
modes of beams. Core shear, skin micro-buckling and indentation beneath the middle
loading roller were the main failure mechanisms observed in the experiments.
The new generation of FMLs are being developed as armor systems against blast and
ballistic impacts due to their high energy absorption characteristics. The association of
aluminium (Al) and glass fiber reinforced polypropylene (GFPP) provides adventageous
of both metals and composites in such systems. The combination Al/GFPP laminate with Al
foam has been found to improve the impact properties and energy absorption capabilities of
sandwiches [12, 13]. Reyes [14] studied the flexural and low velocity impact behavior of the
FML reinforced sandwich panels with aluminum foam core. It was found that the failure
mechanisms of the sandwich components contributed to the energy absorption capability of
the system and the proposed energy balance model was in good agreement with the
experimental results. Tanoglu and Baştürk [15] investigated the compression and energy
absorption characteristics of Al foams and Al foam based sandwiches bonded with epoxy
and silane treatment. They found that the Al sheet/GFPP/Al foam sandwiches showed
maximum absorbed energy values due to the contribution of GFPP.
In this work, the sandwich structures composed of Al foams and FMLs were fabricated
and their flexural behaviors were determined with three point bending test configuration.
The FMLs with 2 mm Al sheet and cross-ply GFPP composites were integrated with closed-
cell Al foams with various thicknesses (8, 20 and 30 mm). The bonding among the sandwich
components were achieved by various surface modification techniques. To our knowledge,
there is a very limited work in the literature on the fabrication and testing of described
material system. In addition, this study is the first in the literature on the preparation of FML/
Al foam sandwich panels bonded with various surface modification approaches (silane
treatment and combination of silane treatment with PP-g-MA based film addition). The Al
sheet/Al foam sandwiches were also produced and tested to reveal the effect of GFPP
composite layers in terms of core shear strength, face-sheet strength and dissipated energy.

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Materials and Fabrication of Sandwich Structures

Aluminium (Al) sheet and Al foam with various thicknesses were used to produce sandwich
constructions in this study. A closed-cell aluminum foam material (supplied by Shinko Wire
Company Ltd, Austuria) with the trade name ALULIGHT-AFS® was chosen as a core
material. The foam panels contained about 0.6 mm thick non-porpous Al skin that was
formed during manufacture of the foam. The Al foam constituents were cut from the large
panels of 8, 20 and 30 mm thicknesses with the densities varied between 0.395 to 0.456 gr/
cm3, respectively. The thickness of Al face-sheet was selected as 2 mm. Within the study, the
sandwich components were bonded together with some surface modification techniques and/
or adhesive film application as listed in Table 1. The surfaces of Al face-sheets and core were
sanded and cleaned with aceton before adhesive application and/or silane treatment. A
commercial epoxy resin (Bison®) was used as an adhesive material in order to produce Al
sheet/Al foam sandwich samples. The thermoplastic FML skins were based on a cross-ply
glass fiber reinforced polypropylene (GFPP) and Al sheet. The woven cloth consisting of co-
mingled glass and polypropylene fibers (GFPP) with a fiber volume fraction of 34.5 %
Appl Compos Mater

Table 1 Adhesives and interface modification techniques used for the integration of sandwich components

Sandwich configuration Adhesive type Surface modification Processing technique

Al foam/Al sheet Epoxy adhesive – Cold pressing at room

temperature
Al foam/GFPP – Silane coupling agent Hot pressing at 200 °C
composite/Al sheet and 1.5 MPa
Al foam/GFPP PP-g-MA based – Hot pressing at 200 °C
composite/Al sheet adhesive film and 1.5 MPa
Al foam/GFPP PP-g-MA based Silane coupling agent Hot pressing at 200 °C
composite/Al sheet adhesive film and 1.5 MPa

(Telateks® Inc, Turkey) were placed between Al sheet and Al foam as an intermediate layer
for producing different type of hybrid sandwich structure. Silane coupling agent was used
for tailoring the interfaces of the GFPP-Al sheet and GFPP-Al foam. For this purpose, Al
sheet and Al foam surfaces were firstly degreased, and then modified with silane (Z-6032,
Dow-Corning®) based on the procedure [16] described by the manufacturer. The
schematic represantation and photo of the produced Al foam based sandwich config-
uration prepared based on the procedure described above are shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b),
respectively.
A maleic anhydride modified polypropylene (PP-g-MA) layer was incorporated between
the Al-GFPP interface for providing better adhesion. For this purpose, 20 wt. % PP-g-MA
films were prepared by extrusion and hot pressing techniques. The fine granules of blend
was obtained using twin screw extruder (EUROLAB®) as shown in Fig. 3(a). The cooled
granules were pressed at 185 °C under the fixed pressure of 1 MPa by hot press to obtain
films. The prepared films had an average thickness of 0.5 mm as shown in Fig. 3(b). For

GFPP composite

Al foam

Al sheet interface
(a)

(b)
Fig. 2 a Schematic representation and b photo of Al sheet/GFPP/Al foam sandwich composite
 Appl Compos Mater

(a) (b)
Fig. 3 20 wt % PP-g-MA/80 wt % PP blends a as fine granules b as asdhesive film after hot pressing

improving the strength of bondings, both silane treatment and PP-g-MA based adhesive film
addition were applied together within the same sandwich systems. The fabrication steps of
these sandwiches were similar to the ones described above. The surfaces of Al sheet and Al
foam were modified with silane coupling agent and subsequenly the prepared PP-g-MA
based films were placed between Al sheet and GFPP, as well as Al foam and GFPP layers.
The sandwich test samples were preapared according to the ASTM C 393–62 for flexural
testing and Table 2 lists the values of geometrical dimensions, weight and densities of the
specimens.

2.2 Flexural Test of Sandwich Structures

The three point bending test (3 PB) according to the ASTM C 393–62 standart was applied
to the prepared sandwiches to measure the flexural properties such as core shear stress, face-
sheet compressive and tensile stresses and deflections [17]. At least three specimens for each
type of sandwiches were tested and force versus stroke values were recorded using a 100 kN

Table 2 Physical and geometrical properties of sandwich samples integrated with epoxy based adhesive or
PP based film addition and silane surface treatment

Sample type Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Foam

thickness length width weight density density
(mm) (mm) (mm) (gr) (gr/cm3) (gr/cm3)

Sandwiches bonded with epoxy 12.52 199.70 71.31 212.33 1.19 0.45
23.86 199.70 71.01 270.56 0.79 0.40
34.30 200.00 70.90 281.17 0.57 0.29
Sandwiches bonded with GFPP 12.75 202.00 72.00 226.00 1.18 0.36
after silane surface treatment 23.25 202.00 71.10 272.16 0.79 0.33
33.85 200.00 71.20 326.53 0.77 0.38
Sandwiches bonded with 13.20 202.00 70.74 227.76 1.37 0.43
PP-g-MA based film 25.80 202.00 71.58 317.23 0.85 0.39
35.97 204.00 71.41 347.10 0.66 0.34
Sandwiches bonded with 13.04 201.00 69.35 228.70 1.25 0.48
PP-g-MA based film after 26.09 201.00 72.30 309.20 0.81 0.42
silane surface treatment
35.34 199.70 70.80 370.00 0.72 0.43
Appl Compos Mater

capacity Devotrans® universal test machine at a crosshead displacement rate of 2 mm/min.

The total sandwich thickness (h) was calculated based on the face-sheet (f) and core
thickness (c) values as shown in Eq. (1). The core shear (S) and face-sheet stress (F) values
are expressed in Eqs. (2) and (3). In these equations P is the maximum load, b is the
sandwich width and a1 represents the span length. It should be noted here that the
formulations given below are valid for the idealised elastic sandwich structures. Based
on this assumption, the shear stress vary parabolically through the face-sheet (skin)
thickness and core, however, if the face-sheets are much thinner (f<<c) and stiffer
than the core the shear stress can be assumed as linear along the face-sheet and
constant in the core [18]. So, “S” provides an estimation of the core shear stress while
“F” predicts the face-sheet tensile or compression stress for bending in the sandwich
composites.
h ¼ c þ 2f ð1Þ

P
S¼ ð2Þ
ðh þ cÞb

Pa1
F¼ ð3Þ
2f ðh þ cÞb

f
c
f
a1 b

(a)

(b)
Fig. 4 a Three point bending test configuration according to the ASTM C 393–62 b test specimen under loading
 Appl Compos Mater

The three point bending test configuration and a fabricated test specimen under flexural
loading are seen in Fig. 4(a) and (b), respectively. Three samples per each thickness were
tested and their flexural behaviours were evaluated.

3 Results and Discussions

3.1 Flexural Characteristics of Sandwich Structures

The force–deflection data of the sandwiches were recorded during the bending test. The
figures from 5(a) to (d) show the representitive flexural force–deflection curves of sand-
wiches with various bonding types. The sandwiches exhibited an initial linear elastic region
with a subsequent non-linear part resulted in the decrease of slope near to the maximum
force (elasto-plastic phase). The foam thickness increase led to the increase of both equiv-
alent flexural rigidity and the slope of linear elastic region. The force level after maximum
force values showed some differences among the samples. Regardless of the bonding type
and the core thickness, some sandwich structures showed a smooth force drop while some of
them exhibited a sudden drop followed by a plateau region in which the foams fail by
buckling of the cell walls and edges. Based on the test results, the plateau parts in the graphs,
in general, showed fluctuation rather than flat characteristics over larger displacements.
Independent of bonding type, 8 mm foam sandwiches showed similar deformation path in
the inelastic region after the peak load and a smooth but steady load decrease is observed
until the plateau part. The progression of force decrease is rather slowly in plateau compared
to the initial inelastic zone and some of structures exhibited instantaneous load loss followed
by an almost constant load which was probably due to the partial debonding of the skin from
the core. The 20 mm foam core sandwich samples generally showed abrupt load drop except
Fig. 5(b). The force drop after the peak value is much clearer compred to the thinner
structures. In the plateau region, the load is nearly permanent and and energy relase took
place. The force–deflection behaviors of 30 mm foam sandwich specimens exhibited some
variations. In Fig. 5(a), initially significantly and then more smoothly load decrease is
observed after the maximum force with a steady load increase in the plateau part. In
Fig. 5(b), the transition zone from the elasto-plastic phase to the plateau region is more
extensive and showed a smooth characteristic. The samples bonded with PP-g-MA based
film exhibited more distinctive load loss after the peak value and the force level remains
almost constant in the plateau zone. The composite system in Fig. 5(d) showed similar path
with Fig. 5(c) up to 4 mm deflection. However, an abrupt force drop is seen in the same
graph which is probably due to the secondary failure mechanism formation.
The average collapse load (maximum load) values of sandwiches consolidated together
with different bonding types are summarized in Fig. 6 with respect to foam thickness. The
core thickness increase generally led to the increase of maximum load for all of the samples
regardless of the type of bonding. The core thickness increase from 8 to 20 mm resulted with
an increase of 14.75 % of the collapse load while this value reached to 32.8 % increase for
the foam thickness changes from 20 to 30 mm. When the collapse load values of Al sheet/Al
foam sandwiches and Al sheet/GFPP/Al foam sandwiches are compared, it is clearly seen
that the former samples exhibited lower values. The combination of GFPP composite and Al
metal layer resulted in the decrease of the elastic modulus of the hybrid system, however, the
same system exhibited higher tensile/compressive strength values. As it is known, in
sandwich structures, the skin materials bear the in plane compressive and tensile stresses.
The higher loads exposed to the Al sheet/GFPP/Al foam system was attributed to this fact. In
Appl Compos Mater

Fig. 5 Force–deflection graphs of Al foam based sandwiches (AFS) containing various foam thickness and
bonded with a epoxy adhesive, b GFPP after silane surface treatment, c PP-g-MA based adhesive film d PP-g-
MA based adhesive film after silane surface treatment

addition, a weaker bonding of epoxy adhesive may result with the lower collapse load values
of Al sheet/Al foam sandwich samples.
The aim of silane surface modification and PP-g-MA based film addition into the
sandwiches was to provide robust integration between the components. Compared to the
average collapse loads of sandwiches bonded with silane surface modification and PP-g-MA
based film introduced, the former bonding type is more effective. The silane treated samples
showed higher collapse loads regardless of the foam thickness. The sandwiches modified
with silane coupling agent and incorporating PP-g-MA based film layer, in general, showed
better performance among all the bonding types.
The variations of core shear and face-sheet strength of sandwiches with respect to core
thickness are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. Considering the failure modes observed
from the bending test, two main failure mechanisms competed: skin bending and core shear.
As expressed before, the length/thickness ratio dominates the failure modes of sandwich
structures. The 8 mm core structures exhibited skin bending more significantly while the
 Appl Compos Mater

Fig. 6 The collapse load versus foam thickness variation of sandwich samples consolidated with various
adhesives

thicker samples showed distinctive core shear deformation (Figs. 10 and 11). Based on the
Eq. (2), the core shear strengths of 20 and 30 mm sandwiches showed similar values where
the thinner structures showed markedly higher strength values. This discrepancy also
indicates the failure type difference among the thin and thick sandwich samples. Therefore
Eq. (3) is used for the calculation of 8 mm foam specimens’ face-sheet strength and Fig. 8
shows the variation this parameter depending on the bonding type.
The dissipated energy under bending was calculated from the force-displacement curves
of the specimens as shown in Fig. 9 with respect to the foam thickness variation. Based on
the three point bending test results, the increase of core thickness resulted in the increase of
energy dissipation. Besides that, the GFPP composite layer might have positive contribution
in terms of the energy absorption of the sandwiches. The 30 mm thick foam sandwiches
bonded with GFPP after silane surface modification exhibited the highest absorption
capacity among the other samples. A significant jump is also observed for the sandwiches

Fig. 7 Average core shear strength versus foam thickness variation of sandwiches with various adhesives
Appl Compos Mater

Fig. 8 Average face-sheet strength versus foam thickness variation of sandwiches with various adhesives

with the same thickness integrated with silane treatment and PP-g-MA based film
addition.

3.2 Failure Mechanisms of Sandwich Structures

The main failure modes observed in the three point bending experiments (Figs. 10 and 11)
were the core shear yield and debonding of sandwich components, independent of core
thickness. Moreover, the concentrated load application to the sandwiches resulted in the
localized bending of the upper face-sheet, as expected. Debonding occured between FML
face-sheet/Al foam core, Al layer/GFPP composite or Al layer/Al foam core probably due to
the lower interfacial strength as compared to the core shear strength and/or skin strength. In
terms of the core shear mechanism, shear cracks originated in the foam between the load and
the support fixtures since the failure in the core started with cracking followed by some
crushing of the cells. The core failed with about 45° angle showing a distinctive failure

Fig. 9 The energy dissipation versus foam thickness variation of sandwiches with various adhesives
 Appl Compos Mater

Mode A
foam thickness
debonding core shear
Mode A Mode AB
core shear 8 mm
core shear
Mode A
core shear
Mode AB
core shear 20 mm

Mode AB
30 mm core shear
Compression
kink failure

Mode A
core shear
shear
crack

(a) (b)
Fig. 10 Failure modes observed during flexural testing of a Al sheet/Al foam sandwiches integrated with
epoxy adhesive b Al sheet/GFPP/Al foam sandwiches bonded after silane surface treatment

surface with a crack propagation through the foam cells. The damage development appeared
to be steady and consistent with the increase of displacement. In a three point bending test,
both core shear and sandwich bending are observed for the same samples. The length/
thickness ratio of 8 mm foam structures is higher compared to the other two thicker
sandwiches and appearent plastic yielding at the midpoints of the samples are present as
seen in the figures. Therefore, their dominant deformation mode was evaluated as skin
bending. However, different core shear types were also seen as the secondary failure modes
in the same structures and shown in the figures. Chen and Fleck investigated the effect of
foam thickness on the behaviour of compressive strength and they found that the thinner
sandwich composites are generally dominated by skin failure modes [19].

Mode AB foam thickness Mode AB

core shear core shear

debonding 8 mm debonding Mode A

core shear

Mode A
core shear 20 mm

Compression
kink failure
30 mm
Mode A
core shear
shear
crack

(a) (b)
Fig. 11 Failure modes observed during flexural testing of a Al sheet/GFPP/Al foam sandwiches bonded with
PP-g-MA based film b Al sheet/GFPP/Al foam sandwiches integrated with PP-g-MA based film and silane
surface treatment
Appl Compos Mater

Thickness increase leads to the formation of core dominated failure mechanisms instead
of skin deformation and similar type of behaviour was also observed in this study. The 20
and 30 mm foam core sandwich systems are generally deformed by core shear failure as can
be seen from the figures. As indicated in the literature part of this study, three types of core
shear failure are available: mode A, mode B and mode AB. In Figs. 10 and 11, mode A and
mode AB are clearly seen as the main failure modes with debonding and/or skin bending.
Symmetric deformation was observed for the mode A type of samples and plastic hinges
developed in each face of the panel at the tip of the loading fixture. Assymetric collapse
mechanism was seen in failure by core shear mode AB type and one part of the sandwich
beyond the outer support did not deform. Plastic hinge formation was present in the
deformed portion of the sandwich panel in the AB failure mode. Compression kink failure
was also observed as another deformation mode in the 30 mm foam core specimens. This
situation is attributed to the local buckling which occurred at much lower predicted stresses.
This buckling probably happened because the thick sandwich failed in core shear so the
skins could not be supported by the core and they buckled. The 20 and 30 mm core sandwich
samples bonded with PP-g-MA based adhesive film with/without silane treatment generally
showed mode A core shear failure. Almost no debonding was observed between the GFPP
and Al constituents in sandwiches integrated with PP-g-MA based film indicating the
strength of polymeric adhesive film. Other debonding cases among the components might
be attributed to the insufficient adhesive effect. The geometrical variables in the test
configuration such as span length, sandwich width or face-sheet thickness were not consid-
ered in this study in order to clearly observe the effect of core thickness and adhesive type.
Therefore, other failure types like wrinkling or indentation were not seen during the
experiments.

4 Conclusions

In this study, the flexural behavior of the sandwich structures produced with various bonding
techniques and suface modifications were investigated. The three point bending configura-
tion was utilized and the formulations based on this configuration were used. Both skin
thickness, sample and span length parameters were selected as the same in order to compare
the effect of core thickness on the flexural characteristics of sandwich structures. The core
thickness increase led to the increase of overall collapse load according to the experimental
results. The length/thickness ratio of 8 mm foam structures is higher compared to the other
two thicker (20 and 30 mm foam core) sandwiches and appearent plastic yielding at the
midpoints of the samples were observed. Therefore, their dominant deformation mode was
evaluated as skin bending. However different core shear types were also seen as the
secondary failure modes in the same sandwich systems. Thickness increase leads to the
formation of core dominated failure mechanisms instead of skin deformation and similar
type of behaviour was also observed in this study. The 20 and 30 mm foam core sandwich
systems generally deformed by core shear failure. Compression kink failure was also
observed as another deformation type in the 30 mm foam core specimens. This formation
of this failure is attributed to the local buckling which occurred at much lower predicted
stresses. The effect of silane surface modification and PP-g-MA based film introduction into
the same sandwich system was investigated during this study. The samples modified
with silane coupling agent and consolidated with PP-g-MA based film layer showed
the highest performance among all the bonding types. The damage progression
appeared to be steady and consistent with the increase of displacement. Skin bending,
 Appl Compos Mater

core shear and debonding were found to be the major failure mechanisms observed
during the flexural tests.

References

1. Kıratisaevee, H., Cantwell, W.J.: The impact response of aluminum foam sandwich structures based on a
glass fiber-reinforced polypropylene fiber-metal laminate. Polym. Compos. 25, 499–509 (2004)
2. Zenkert, D.: An Introduction to Sandwich Construction. Emas Publishing, (1995)
3. Ashby, M.F., Gibson, L.J.: Metal foams: a design guide. Butterworth Heinemann, USA (2000)
4. Kesler, O., Gibson, L.J.: Size effects in metallic foam core sandwich beams. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 326, 228–
234 (2002)
5. Crupi, V., Montanini, R.: Aluminum foam sandwiches collapse modes under static and dynamic three-
point bending. Int. J. Impact. Eng. 34, 509–521 (2007)
6. Russo, A., Zuccarello, B.: Experimental and numerical evaluation of the mechanical behavior of GFRP
sandwich panels. Compos. Struct. 81, 575–586 (2007)
7. Lim, T.S., Lee, C.S., Lee, D.G.: Failure modes of foam core sandwich beams under static and impact
loads. J. Compos. Mater. 38, 1639–1662 (2004)
8. Corigliano, A., Rizzi, A., Papa, E.: Experimental characterization and numerical simulations of a
syntactic-foam/glass-fibre composite sandwich. Compos. Sci. Tech. 60, 2169–2180 (2000)
9. Styles, M., Compston, P., Kalyanasundaram, S.: The effect of core thickness on the flexural behavior of
aluminium foam sandwich strucrures. Compos. Struct. 80, 532–538 (2007)
10. Daniel, I.M., Abot, J.L.: Fabrication, testing and analysis of composite sandwich beams. Compos. Sci.
Tech. 60, 2455–2463 (2000)
11. Steeves, C.A., Fleck, N.A.: Collapse mechanisms of sandwich beams with composite faces and a foam
core, loaded in three-point bending. Part 2: experimental investigation and numerical modeling. Int. J.
Mech. Sci. 46, 585–608 (2004)
12. Carrillo, J.G., Cantwell, W.J.: Mechanical properties of a novel fiber-metal laminate based on a polypro-
pylene composite. Mech. Mater. 41, 828–838 (2009)
13. Reyes, G., Cantwell, W.J.: The mechanical properties of fiber-metal laminates based on glass fibre
reinforced polypropylene. Compos. Sci. Tech. 60, 1085–1094 (2000)
14. Reyes, G.: Mechanical behavior of thermoplastic FML-reinforced sandwich panels using aluminum foam
core: experiments and modeling. J. Sandw. Struct. Mater. 12, 81–96 (2010)
15. Baştürk, S.B., Tanoğlu, M.: Mechanical and energy absorption behaviours of metal/polymer layered
sandwich structures. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 30(1539–1547) (2011)
16. Dow Corning. www.dowcorning.com. Z-6032 Silane Product Information. (2009)
17. American Society of Testing and Materials Standard C393-62. Test Method for Flexural Properties of
Sandwich Constructions. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, (2000)
18. Timoshenko, S.P., and Goodier, J.N.: Theory of Elasticity. McGraw-Hill, (1970)
19. Chen, C., Fleck, N.A.: Size effects in the constrained deformation of metallic foams. J. Mech. Phys. Solid
50, 955–977 (2002)

View publication stats