Original Article

Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials

2019, Vol. 21(6) 2014–2030
Compression and low ! The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
velocity impact response sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1099636218792675
of sandwich panels with journals.sagepub.com/home/jsm

polyester pin-reinforced
foam filled
honeycomb core

RS Jayaram1, VA Nagarajan1 and

KP Vinod Kumar2

Abstract
Hybridization of face, core and their combination is of great interest to develop high
performance composite sandwich panels. In this regards, hybrid core of ‘polyester
pin-reinforced foam filled honeycomb sandwich panels’ was fabricated and compared
with unreinforced ‘foam filled honeycomb sandwich panels’ in terms of compressive
and low velocity impact performances. MATLAB image processing techniques
was applied to determine the impact damage area. Incorporating reinforcing pins for
connecting faces and core is an effectual way to improve interfacial bonding, also
imparts through thickness properties for sandwich panels. Compression tests
performed on the sandwich panels revealed that the polyester pin reinforcement in
foam filled honeycomb sandwich panel enhanced the load bearing capacity considerably.
The low velocity impact properties such as load at initial damage, total absorbed energy
were greatly improved and impact damage area reduced significantly by the addition of
the pins.

Keywords
Sandwich panels, foam filled honeycomb, polyester pins, low velocity, MATLAB

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University College of Engineering, Nagercoil, India
2
Department of Chemistry, University College of Engineering, Nagercoil, India
Corresponding author:
RS Jayaram, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University College of Engineering, Nagercoil, Anna
University Constituent College, Konam Post 629004, Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu, India.
Email: rsjram@gmail.com
Jayaram et al. 2015

Introduction
The utilization of composite sandwich structures in automobiles and civil infra-
structure applications has been growing rapidly due to their low weight that leads
to decrease in the total weight and fuel consumption. In addition, sandwich struc-
tures have excellent bending stiffness and capable to absorb high energy. A sand-
wich structure composed of two thin, strong face sheets bonded either side of a
thick lightweight core [1,2]. Under flexural loading, the face sheets carry in-plane
load while core retards shear load. Conversely, the main drawback of this struc-
ture, even a low impact by external objects, tool drops, etc. might initiate face sheet
indentation and further causes interior damage in the form of matrix cracking,
fiber breakage, face sheet debond and core crushing [3,4]. In this case, visual
inspection may show minute damage in the impacted top face sheet, but consid-
erable damage may take place between face sheets and core. Also, the damage
caused by low-velocity impact may leads to considerable loss of stiffness and resid-
ual strength of the sandwich structures [5].
For a characteristic sandwich panel, the overall mechanical performance
depends on three factors: the face sheet, the core, and the interface bonding
between the core and face sheet [6]. Numerous studies have been carried out on
low velocity impact response of sandwich panels composed of distinct face sheets
and core materials [7–9]. Experimental studies on damage resistance and tolerance
of sandwich structures subjected to low-velocity impacts have been carried out
[10–12] and extensive attempt to increase the impact resistance of sandwich
panels [13–15]. The properties of core material are considered vital to improve
the impact resistance of sandwich panels [16]. The failure initiation, propagation
and mechanisms of honeycomb sandwich panels under low-velocity impact have
been investigated numerically [17].
Several experimental and numerical investigations revealed that delamination
and debonding are perhaps the most crucial failures that occur in sandwich panels
[18–20]. The interfacial debond between face/core prompts local bending deforma-
tion and diminishes the integral properties of sandwich panels. The most common
method to enhance mechanical characteristics and improve interfacial bonding
between face sheets and core of sandwich structures are Z-pinning [21] and tufting
[22], refers to sewing the face sheets and core mutually by Z-directional or through-
thickness reinforcements. Nanayakkara et al. [23] studied the through-thickness
compression properties of z-pinned sandwich composites. Their experimental
result shows that, the out of plane compression properties increased by over hun-
dred percentages, because of energy absorption capacity of z-pins. Abdi et al.
investigated the mechanical behavior of polymer pin reinforced foam core sand-
wich panel [24,25]. They reported that reinforcing foam with polymer pins
increases compression, flexural and indentation properties considerably.
Moreover, through thickness pinning is to either substitute or support the exist-
ing core to increase the structural integrity and interfacial toughness of the sand-
wich panels [26]. Vaidya et al. [27] studied the low velocity impact response of
2016 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 21(6)

z-pinned sandwich structures and reported that the Z-pinning lowers the damage
area. Han et al. [28] experimentally and numerically investigated the low velocity
impact damage characteristics of stitched sandwich panels, showing that stitching
resists the growth of delamination, thus reduced damage area and increased the
ultimate strength. Wallace et al. [29] studied the influence of pin reinforcement
on the delaminated face sheet under in-plane compression and reported that the
pinning improved the compressive strength significantly.
As the core of honeycomb sandwich panel is hollow metal, general through
thickness interfacial toughening methodologies are not suitable. But it was suitable
for foam filled honeycomb core. Besides, foam filled core prevents premature
bending, buckling, and shear failure of honeycomb cell walls. In contrast to the
unfilled honeycomb cores, the foam core exhibits improved resistance to the inter-
face debonding and delamination due to an added adhesive area of foam filled
honeycomb cells [30]. Also, the filling of honeycomb core by foam improved the
damage tolerance and impact resistance of sandwich panels under low velocity
impact [31,32].
The objective of this investigation is to study the influence of polyester pin
addition in foam filled honeycomb sandwich panels (PFHS) under compression
and low velocity impact loads. Two distinct diameters of pins 2 and 3 mm were
used to reinforce foam filled core and their effects were also studied. It is expected
that the foam filled honeycomb and reinforced pin can complement each other to
withstand the compressive and impact loading.

Experimental details
Materials and manufacturing
The sandwich panel face sheets are made of two layers of woven glass fabric (600 g)
and polyester resin. Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide was used as catalyst and cobalt
naphthenate as accelerator. The core material used in this study was aluminum
honeycomb with 6.3 mm cell size, 0.068 mm wall thickness and 10 mm height. For
filling the honeycomb core, polyurethane foam of density 52 kg/m3 was used, as
evaluated following ASTM D-1622 standard. A mold with needed dimensions was
prepared, in order to fill the honeycomb core with foam. The foam in solution state
was poured into the mold and honeycomb core was set on it immediately with
a small distance from the bottom of the mold. After the solidification of foam,
it filled the honeycomb core [33].
Both foam filled honeycomb sandwich panels (FHS) and PFHS panels were
fabricated by vacuum infusion method. Figure 1 illustrates the schematic repre-
sentation of the difference in fabrication of FHS and PFHS panels by vacuum
infusion process. In this method a glass plate was laid on a flat surface, and then a
releasing agent was applied on the mold surface. The glass fabric was stacked on
either sides of the foam filled honeycomb core and placed on the mold surface, and
then covered with peel ply. Then the laminate was sealed by using vacuum bag and
Jayaram et al. 2017

Figure 1. Schematic representation showing the difference in fabrication of (a) FHS panel and
(b) PFHS panel by vacuum infusion process.
FHS: foam filled honeycomb sandwich panels; PFHS: polyester pin-reinforced foam filled honey-
comb sandwich panels.

a sealant tape. To ensure the constant flow of resin, a supply pipe was installed at
the inlet. Once infusing the resin, the system was cured at room temperature under
vacuum for 24 hours.
Figure 2 illustrates the schematic representation of PFHS panel. The enlarged
view of alternate (W) and adjacent (L) arrangements of pins in the foam filled
honeycomb core is depicted in Figure 3. The foam filled honeycomb core was
drilled in the foam areas of hexagonal cells to make holes by using a CNC machine
to form pins for PFHS panels, so that the polyester resin would flow into these
holes to form the solid cylindrical pins after cured. Figure 4 shows the fabrication
of PFHS panels.
The pins are made of the polyester resin that is used in the face sheets. As the
manufacturing takes place together; the face sheets, foam filled honeycomb core
and polyester pins were built-in to form a single inclusive solid structure.

Experimental tests
Out-of-plane compression test was performed at a constant loading rate of 1 mm/
min using Kalpak Computerized Universal Testing Machine in accordance with
ASTM C-365/365M standard. Samples in triplicate were used for tests to confirm
the repeatability of test results.
2018 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 21(6)

Figure 2. Schematic representation of PFHS panel (face sheet partially removed to show the
arrangement of pins).
PFHS: polyester pin-reinforced foam filled honeycomb sandwich panels.

Figure 3. Typical arrangements of pins in PFHS panels.

PFHS: polyester pin-reinforced foam filled honeycomb sandwich panels.

Low-velocity impact tests were performed using Fractovis Plus Drop Weight
Impact Testing Machine. The testing machine is equipped with a data acquisition
system to record and store impact response of the specimens including velocity,
load and absorbed energy as per ASTM D5628-10 standard. The specimen was
placed in the fixture and clamped between two circular rings of 80 mm diameter
using pneumatic actuation system. The details of sandwich panel samples including
weight for out-of-plane compression and low velocity impact tests are listed in
Table 1.
For all tests, hemispherical impactor of diameter 12.7 mm and weight 4.926 kg
was used. The impactor was guided through two smooth guide columns and
impact on the center of a specimen. The tests were conducted over a range of
impact energies from 10 J to 50 J by varying the velocity of the impactor up to
4.5 m/s. The different impact energies were employed by varying the drop height of
Jayaram et al. 2019

Figure 4. Fabrication of PFHS panel by vacuum infusion process.

PFHS: polyester pin-reinforced foam filled honeycomb sandwich panels.

Table 1. Details of samples for out-of-plane compression and low velocity impact tests.

No. of Diameter of Sample size Weight

Samples Test type samples pins (mm) (mm3) (g)

FHS Out-of-plane compression 3 – 50  50  13 181

PFHS2 Out-of-plane compression 3 2 50  50  13 201
PFHS3 Out-of-plane compression 3 3 50  50  13 211
FHS Low velocity impact 3 – 100  100  13 711
PFHS2 Low velocity impact 3 2 100  100  13 771
PFHS3 Low velocity impact 3 3 100  100  13 821
FHS: foam filled honeycomb sandwich panels; PFHS: polyester pin-reinforced foam filled honeycomb sand-
wich panels.

the impactor and thereby the impact velocity. For all tests, care was taken to
ensure that the impactor would not impact directly on a point over a pin to min-
imize the effect of penetration point on the acquired results. After testing, the
damage on specimen was captured qualitatively using a Canon EOS 700D digital
camera (Canon India Private Limited India). The damage area was measured
qualitatively by using MATLAB 7.9 image processing tool [34,35].

Results and discussion

Out-of-plane compression tests
The FHS panel and PFHS panels with two different pin diameters 2 mm and 3 mm
were tested under out-of-plane compression to determine the effect of pin incor-
poration. Figure 5 shows the load–deflection response of the sandwich panels
subjected to out-of-plane compression loading.
2020 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 21(6)

Figure 5. Load–deflection curves of the sandwich panels subjected to out-of-plane compres-

sion loading.

For both FHS and PFHS panels, the load declines after reaching a maximum
value due to the initiation of failure. In FHS panel, the decline in the load was
caused by honeycomb core cell wall buckling and in PFHS panels, due to initiation
of cracks in pins. Also, compared to the FHS panel, there is a considerable
improvement in compression properties of pin incorporated PFHS panels. The
load bearing capability of FHS panel is 8.23 kN, whereas it is 13.81 kN and
17.26 kN for PFHS2 and PFHS3 panels, respectively. The improvement in load
bearing capability of PFHS2 and PFHS3 panel is 67.8% and 109.7% higher than
FHS panel, respectively. In PFHS panels, vast improvement in the compression
properties is due to the reinforced polyester pins, since the out-of-plane compres-
sion properties of polyester pins are high, compared to the foam filled honeycomb
core alone. The similar result is obtained for sandwich panel through thickness
epoxy pins reinforced polyethylene foam core [36].
After the initial failure of the FHS panel, the load continued to increase owing
to the densification of the foam filled honeycomb core. The presence of foam in the
honeycomb core increases the resistance of cell wall buckling. Similarly, after
the initial failure of PFHS panels the load carrying capacity increases as a result
of the densification of core through crushing of pins and foam filled honey-
comb core.
Figure 6 shows the out-of-plane compression tested FHS and PFHS specimens.
As seen from the figure, the FHS specimen crushed uniformly because of reduced
local densification of the foam filled honeycomb core [37], However, the PFHS
Jayaram et al. 2021

Figure 6. Specimens after out-of-plane compression test: (a) FHS and (b) PFHS.
FHS: foam filled honeycomb sandwich panels; PFHS: polyester pin-reinforced foam filled honey-
comb sandwich panels.

specimens crushed non-uniformly due to the presence of incorporated hard poly-

ester pins.
The specific initial failure load of PFHS2 and PFHS3 panels is increased by
51.94% and 88.9% than FHS panels due to the incorporated polyester pins.
Therefore, incorporated polyester pins in foam filled honeycomb core improved
the out-of-plane compression properties of sandwich panels considerably.

Low velocity impact test

Contact force–time curves of FHS and PFHS sandwich panels. The force–time curves of
FHS and PFHS panels at different impact energy level are shown in Figure 7.
The force and time is a vital variable in impact analysis. Contact force is defined as
the reaction force applied from the specimen to the impactor [38]. From Figure 7,
it can be seen that for testing of specimen at each particular impact energy, impac-
tor exhibits different contact time. This is due to the addition of polyester pins in
foam filled honeycomb core sandwich panels.
The force–time curve was initially linear up to the peak force, which is termed as
initial damage point. The initial damage point is defined as the maximum load
carrying capability of the specimen. The damage at this point generally corre-
sponds to the matrix failure. For all five impact energy levels, each specimen
showed different initial damage point. After the damage initiation, the sandwich
panel experiences a reduction on stiffness that leads to a drop in the force–time
curve. The second peak force in the force–time curve relates to the contact of
impactor on the inner core through the penetration of top face sheet. The damages
at this point obviously includes fiber delamination and breakage of the top
face sheet.
The load bearing capability of FHS and PFHS panels with two different diam-
eters was compared and it is revealed that the polyester pin reinforced foam filled
honeycomb cored PFHS2 and PFHS3 specimens were better than foam filled
honeycomb cored FHS specimen. From Figure 7(a), at impact energy of 10 J it
was seen that PFHS3 panel had the maximum value of 2.87 kN followed
by PFHS2 panel with 2.52 kN, whereas FHS panel was 2.11 kN, respectively.
2022 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 21(6)

Figure 7. Force–time histories of FHS and PFHS panels under different impact energy levels
(a) 10 J, (b) 20 J, (c) 30 J, (d) 40 J, and (e) 50 J.
FHS: foam filled honeycomb sandwich panels; PFHS: polyester pin-reinforced foam filled honey-
comb sandwich panels.

The specific load bearing capacity of PFHS2 and PFHS3 panels is 10.13% and
17.81% higher than FHS panel. The improvement in load bearing capability is
attributed to the high bonding strength and stiffness in the face/core interfaces
provided by the incorporation of pins in the PFHS panels. By comparing the
impact properties of PFHS panels with a pin diameter of 2 and 3 mm, the load
carrying capability of PFHS panels with a pin diameter of 3 mm is 13.8% and 36%
Jayaram et al. 2023

Figure 8. Influence of impact energy on the absorbed energy of the unpinned FHS and pinned
PFHS sandwich panels.
FHS: foam filled honeycomb sandwich panels; PFHS: polyester pin-reinforced foam filled honey-
comb sandwich panels.

higher than PFHS panel with a pin diameter of 2 mm and FHS panels,
respectively.
The specimen also represents different load carrying capability values with 20 J,
30 J, 40 J and 50 J impact energy levels. Compared to impact energy of 10–30 J, the
peak force of specimens reduced at impact energy of 40–50 J, which is due to the
impactor propagation through panel thickness and progressive accumulation of
material damages [39]. As the constituent materials used for both FHS and PFHS
panels are same, it is evident from the results that the inclusion of polyester pins in
the foam filled core improves the load bearing capability of the PFHS sandwich
panels. From Figure 7, it was observed that the time to attain peak force decreases
with increase in applied impact energy. For instance, under 10 J impact energy of
PFHS3 specimen (Figure 7(a)), time to attain peak force was 1.74 ms, but it was
1.172 ms, 0.972 ms, 0.744 ms and 0.534 ms under 20 J, 30 J, 40 J and 50 J impact
energy levels correspondingly (Figure 7(b) to (e)). This attribute was owing to the
increase in velocity of the impactor [40].

Energy absorption properties of FHS and PFHS panels sandwich panels under low velocity
impact. The energy absorbed by the FHS and PFHS panels with respect to differ-
ent impact energy is shown in Figure 8. It can be seen that, for the increasing
impact energy level there is a slight varying influence on the energy absorption
capacity of the pinned PFHS panel. At impact energy level of 10 and 20 J,
2024 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 21(6)

Figure 9. Impact damage (front and back face) observed for FHS panels.
FHS: foam filled honeycomb sandwich panels.

Figure 10. Impact damage (front and back face) observed for PFHS3 panel

the absorbed energy for both unpinned FHS and pinned PFHS panels are
almost similar.
The failure observed for PFHS panels with diameter 2 mm and 3 mm is similar.
Hence the images of PFHS2 specimens at different impact energies are not given.
Figures 9 and 10 compare a typical damage observed for FHS and PFHS speci-
mens after impact loading. For all panels, the damage area was calculated by using
MATLAB image processing techniques. Various stages involved in the processing
of the image of impact damage for the calculation of damage area using the image
processing technique are shown in Figure 11.
Visual inspection of impact tested specimens at 10 J reveals that in FHS and
PFHS panels the damage is limited to localized delamination at the location of
Jayaram et al. 2025

Figure 11. Various stages of image processing. (a) Captured image, (b) Processing of image and
(c) Final image.

Figure 12. Influence of impact energy on the size of the impacted damage region for the
unpinned FHS and pinned PFHS sandwich panels.
FHS: foam filled honeycomb sandwich panels; PFHS: polyester pin-reinforced foam filled honey-
comb sandwich panels.

incident of impactor on the top face sheet as shown in Figures 9 and 10. Also, no
breakage of fibers was observed in FHS and PFHS panels after impact. At this
impact energy, the damage area for these panels is more or less equal as shown in
Figure 12.
In contrast to the FHS panel, the amount of delamination damage in the face
sheet of PFHS panel is less. The minimal amount of top face damage is due to high
interlaminar fracture toughness promoted by the polyester pins through strong
interface bonding between the faces and core [41]. At 20 J, in FHS and PFHS
panel, a small dent was introduced at the impact location and observed damages
include matrix crack, fiber breakage and circumferential fracture lines [42].
2026 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 21(6)

Figure 13. Cross-sectional view and microscopic image of failed specimens at impact energy
of 30 J.

From Figure 8, at impact energy level of 30 J, the energy absorption capacity of

the pinned PFHS3 panel is 9% and 3% higher than FHS and PFHS2 panels. These
panels suffered face sheet damage and crushing of foam filled core as shown in
Figures 9 and 10. Figure 13 shows the cross-sectional and microscopic image
of failed FHS and PFHS3 specimens at impact energy 30 J. At this high energy,
in addition to the delamination, the impact damage is extended to the core after
rupturing the face sheet. Bare eye examination reveals the delamination in back
face of FHS panel, whereas no damage was observed in the case of PFHS panels.
However, microscopic view of FHS panel reveals delamination as well as minor
cracks, but no damage was observed in PFHS panels. At this impact energy, the
damage area of PFHS3 panel is 8% and 21% less than the PFHS2 and FHS panels
as shown in Figure 12.
Jayaram et al. 2027

Figure 8 shows that, at impact energy of 40 and 50 J, the amount of energy

absorbed by the pin reinforced PFHS panels was slightly higher than the unpinned
FHS panel. At 40 J, FHS and PFHS panels experienced both face sheets damage
and core crushing as shown in Figures 9 and 10. The front face sheet perforated
and back face sheet delaminated outwards. Compared to the PFHS panel, the
damage area at front face is higher and delamination at bottom face is consider-
ably higher for FHS panel. The strong interface bonding provided by the pins in
PFHS panels resists the delamination growth. Generally, delamination is an inte-
rior damage and so increase in delamination is an indication of much interi-
or damage.
The damages suffered by the specimens under 50 J impact load were more
severe compared to damages under 40 J impact loads. Both the FHS and PFHS
specimens experienced through thickness perforation damages. From Figures 9
and 10, the void in the top face sheet denotes the point of penetration and
circumferential fracture around the impact location to FHS and PFHS panels.
It can be seen from Figure 12, the damage area for PFHS panels is significantly
lower than FHS panel. The rear face sheet of both panels suffered radial
perforation and a large area of delamination was observed compared to the
top face sheet. The specific energy absorption capacity of PFHS3 panel is
17% higher than FHS panel. Therefore, polyester pin reinforcement in foam
filled honeycomb core enhances the energy absorption capacity and reduced
the amount of impact damage significantly. This enhancement is attributed
to delamination toughening of the face sheet, interfacial toughening of the
face/core as well as by strengthening the foam filled honeycomb core by reinforc-
ing pins.

Conclusion
The polyester pin reinforcement in foam filled honeycomb core sandwich panel
enhanced the compression and low velocity impact properties significantly. The
low initial peak load of honeycomb based sandwich panel under compression
loading drawback is overcome by pin reinforcement. Also, increasing the pin diam-
eter, results in improved properties of PFHS3 panels than PFHS2 panels.
Comparison of the load carrying capabilities, energy absorption, damage proper-
ties and failure mechanism under diverse impact energies showed that the pin
reinforced PFHS panels performed better than unpinned FHS panels. The
MATLAB image processing of the specimens proved that damage areas increased
with increase in applied impact energy level and it was low for PFHS panels due to
the high interlaminar fracture toughness promoted by the polyester pins through
strong interface bonding between the faces and core. The conclusion is that, only
with an insignificant increase in weight, the resulting structural performance of
PFHS sandwich panel is appreciably better than FHS panels.
2028 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 21(6)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.

References
1. He M and Hu W. A study on composite honeycomb sandwich panel structure. Mater
Des 2008; 29: 709–713.
2. Bitzer T. Honeycomb technology: Materials, design, manufacturing, applications and test-
ing. London: Chapman & Hall, 1997, p.3.
3. Abrate S. Localized impact on sandwich structures with laminated facings. Appl Mech
Rev 1997; 50: 69–82.
4. Cantwell WJ, Scudamore R, Ratcliffe J, et al. Interfacial fracture in sandwich laminates.
Compos Sci Technol 1999; 59: 2079–2085.
5. Wang J, Waas AM and Wang H. Experimental and numerical study on the low-velocity
impact behavior of foam-core sandwich panels. Compos Struct 2013; 96: 298–311.
6. Ji G, Ouyang Z and Li G. Debonding and impact tolerant sandwich panel with hybrid
foam core. Compos Struct 2013; 103: 143–150.
7. Morada G, Ouadday R, Vadean A, et al. Low-velocity impact resistance of ATH/epoxy
core sandwich composite panels: Experimental and numerical analyses. Compos B Eng
2017; 114: 418–431.
8. Liu J, He W, Xie D, et al. The effect of impactor shape on the low-velocity impact behavior
of hybrid corrugated core sandwich structures. Compos B Eng 2017; 111: 315–331.
9. Liu L, Feng H, Tang H, et al. Impact resistance of Nomex honeycomb sandwich
structures with thin fibre reinforced polymer facesheets. J Sandwich Struct Mater
2016; 20: 531–552.
10. Raju KS, Smith BL, Tomblin JS, et al. Impact damage resistance and tolerance of
honeycomb core sandwich panels. J Compos Mater 2008; 42: 385–412.
11. Bernard ML and Lagace PA. Impact resistance of composite sandwich plates. J Reinf
Plast Compos 1989; 8: 432–445.
12. Zenkert D, Shipsha A, Bull P, et al. Damage tolerance assessment of composite sand-
wich panels with localised damage. Compos Sci Technol 2005; 65: 2597–2611.
13. Ramakrishnan KR, Guerard S, Viot P, et al. Effect of block copolymer nano-
reinforcements on the low velocity impact response of sandwich structures. Compos
Struct 2014; 110: 174–182.
14. Avila AF, Carvalho MGR, Dias EC, et al. Nano-structured sandwich composites
response to low-velocity impact. Compos Struct 2010; 92: 745–751.
15. Reis PNB, Santos P, Ferreira JAM, et al. Impact response of sandwich composites with
nano-enhanced epoxy resin. J Reinf Plast Compos 2013; 32: 898–906.
16. Wang H, Ramakrishnan KR and Shankar K. Experimental study of the medium veloc-
ity impact response of sandwich panels with different cores. Mater Des 2016; 99: 68–82.
Jayaram et al. 2029

17. Luo RK, Green ER and Morrison CJ. An approach to evaluate the impact damage
initiation and propagation in composite plates. Compos B Eng 2001; 32: 513–520.
18. Kursun A, Senel M, Enginsoy HM, et al. Effect of impactor shapes on the low velocity
impact damage of sandwich composite plate: Experimental study and modelling.
Compos B Eng 2016; 86: 143–151.
19. Sakly A, Laksimi A, Kebir H, et al. Experimental and modelling study of low velocity
impacts on composite sandwich structures for railway applications. Eng Fail Anal 2016;
68: 22–31.
20. Chen Y, Hou S, Fu K, et al. Low-velocity impact response of composite sandwich
structures: Modelling and experiment. Compos Struct 2017; 168: 322–334.
21. Pegorin F, Pingkarawat K, Daynes S, et al. Influence of z-pin length on the delamina-
tion fracture toughness and fatigue resistance of pinned composites. Compos B Eng
2015; 78: 298–307.
22. Henao A, de Villoria RG, Cuartero J, et al. Enhanced impact energy absorption char-
acteristics of sandwich composites through tufting. Mech Adv Mater Struct 2015;
22: 1016–1023.
23. Nanayakkara A, Feih S and Mouritz AP. Experimental analysis of the through-
thickness compression properties of z-pinned sandwich composites. Compos A Appl
Sci Manuf 2011; 42: 1673–1680.
24. Abdi B, Azwan S, Abdullah MR, et al. Flatwise compression and flexural behavior of
foam core and polymer pin-reinforced foam core composite sandwich panels. Int J
Mech Sci 2014; 88: 138–144.
25. Abdi B, Azwan S, Abdullah MR, et al. Comparison of foam core sandwich panel and
through-thickness polymer pin–reinforced foam core sandwich panel subject to inden-
tation and flatwise compression loadings. Polym Compos 2016; 37: 612–619.
26. Marasco AI, Cartié DDR, Partridge IK, et al. Mechanical properties balance in novel
Z-pinned sandwich panels: Out-of-plane properties. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 2006;
37: 295–302.
27. Vaidya UK, Kamath MV, Hosur M, et al. Low-velocity impact response of cross-ply
laminated sandwich composites with hollow and foam-filled Z-pin reinforced core.
J Compos Technol Res 1999; 21: 84–97.
28. Han F, Yan Y and Ma J. Experimental study and progressive failure analysis of stitched
foam-core sandwich composites subjected to low-velocity impact. Polym Compos 2016;
39: 624–635.
29. Wallace BT, Sankar BV and Ifju PG. Pin reinforcement of delaminated sandwich beams
under axial compression. J Sandwich Struct Mater 2001; 3: 117–129.
30. Burlayenko VN and Sadowski T. Analysis of structural performance of sandwich plates
with foam-filled aluminum hexagonal honeycomb core. Comput Mater Sci 2009;
45: 658–662.
31. Vaidya UK, Kamath MV, Mahfuz H, et al. Low velocity impact response of resin
infusion molded foam filled honeycomb sandwich composites. J Reinf Plast Compos
1998; 17: 819–849.
32. Wu CL, Weeks CA and Sun CT. Improving honeycomb-core sandwich structures for
impact resistance. J Adv Mater 1995; 26: 41–47.
33. Mozafari H, Molatefi H, Crupi V, et al. In plane compressive response and crushing of
foam filled aluminum honeycombs. J Compos Mater 2015; 49: 3215–3228.
34. Image processing tool box user’s guide. Florida, USA: The MathWorks Inc., 1994.
2030 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 21(6)

35. Nagarajan VA, Sundaram S and Rajadurai JS. A novel approach based on digital image
analysis to evaluate refined delamination factor for E-Glass 21xK43 Gevetex/LY556/
DY063 epoxy composite laminates. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 2011;
225: 1977–1982.
36. Wang B, Wu L, Jin X, et al. Experimental investigation of 3D sandwich structure with
core reinforced by composite columns. Mater Des 2010; 31: 158–165.
37. Alavi Nia A and Sadeghi MZ. The effects of foam filling on compressive response of
hexagonal cell aluminum honeycombs under axial loading-experimental study. Mater
Des 2010; 31: 1216–1230.
38. Atas C and Sayman O. An overall view on impact response of woven fabric composite
plates. Compos Struct 2008; 82: 336–345.
39. Kim T-W and Hwang S-S. Damage evolution and mechanical properties of woven glass
fiber\polymer composites under low-velocity impact. In: 25th annual conference on
composites, advanced ceramics, materials, and structures: A: Ceramic engineering and
science proceedings, New Jersey, 2001, pp.323–329. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
40. Ude AU, Ariffin AK and Azhari CH. Impact damage characteristics in reinforced
woven natural silk/epoxy composite face-sheet and sandwich foam, coremat and hon-
eycomb materials. Int J Impact Eng 2013; 58: 31–38.
41. Nanayakkara A, Feih S and Mouritz AP. Experimental impact damage study of a
z-pinned foam core sandwich composite. J Sandwich Struct Mater 2012; 14: 469–486.
42. Al-Shamary AKJ, Karakuzu R and Ozdemir O. Low-velocity impact response of sand-
wich composites with different foam core configurations. J Sandwich Struct Mater 2016;
18: 754–768.