Low-Velocity Impact Response of Composite Sandwich Panels

XML Template (2015) [5.2.
2015–3:28pm] [1–12]
//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PILJ/Vol00000/150010/APPFile/SG-PILJ150010.3d (PIL) [PREPRINTER stage]
Original article
Proc IMechE Part L:

J Materials: Design and Applications
Low-velocity impact response of 0(0) 1–12
! IMechE 2015
composite sandwich panels Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1464420715572236
pil.sagepub.com
Shengqing Zhu and Gin Boay Chai
Abstract
In the present work, a detailed and rigorous theoretical approach was developed to investigate the impact response of
composite sandwich panel subjected to low-velocity impact. The effect of the size of the impactor is included in the
mathematical model. The theoretical approach uses the principle of minimum total potential energy to relate the
deflection to the impact load. The internal energy comprising contact, bending and membrane energy together with
the potential energy of the external work done were accounted for in the derivation of the load–displacement rela-
tionship of impactor with the composite sandwich panel. No perforation was accounted for in the present approach.
Extensive impact tests were conducted and presented in some details. The comparison of the current approach with the
experimental results showed that the trends of the impact response were predicted with some degree of confidence.
Keywords
Honeycomb sandwich, laminates, impact behaviour, analytical, low velocity
Date received: 14 October 2014; accepted: 20 January 2015
Introduction composite facesheets4,5,7 and they did not consider

Over the past decades, composite sandwich panels the impactor’s size. A theoretical solution was pro-
consisting of a lightweight and low modulus core posed for sandwich panels subjected to impact load-
bonded between two high modulus fibre-reinforced ing by Fatt et al.4 who argued that the indentation
composite facesheets are increasingly used in aircraft response can be divided into three stages which are
and aerospace industries due to their high specific deflection of top facesheets, i.e. initial elastic stage,
strengths and stiffnesses. During service, they are bending-dominated stage, and membrane-dominated
found to be susceptible to impact by foreign object stage. However, the demarcation points of the three
such as runway stones, tool drop, debris, etc. The stages are yet to be defined. Assuming pure membrane
work on the behaviour of composite sandwich panel state of the top facesheets, indentation of composite
under impact is still ongoing and not yet completed. sandwich panel was investigated by a thin plate rest-
Extensive research work on impact response of ing on a rigid-plastic foundation.5
sandwich panel through experimental studies1–3 and In another theoretical development of plate for
theoretical approaches4–7 has been reported. It was small deflection analysis, large deflection and mem-
found from experimental study1 that thicker facesheet brane deflection were respectively included in the
significantly increases the initial threshold and ultim- development7 and a rigorous solution was proposed.
ate loads, while increasing the core density has minor For sandwich panels with isotropic facesheets, Zhou
effect on ultimate loads. With a given sandwich panel and Stronge8 used the principle of minimum potential
subjected to impact energy, more damage will be energy to develop a theoretical model to predict the
caused by hemispherical-end impactor than that by impact response. Higher order theory was also
flat-ended indenters. For impact response of sandwich applied to sandwich panel to explore the response.
panels impacted with a hemispherical-end impactor, Spring-mass models9 and energy-balanced models10
various sizes of hemispherical shaped impactor were
tested on a series of identical sandwich panel.2 It was School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Division of Aerospace
found that the load–displacement curve indicated a Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
higher structural stiffness for the case with a larger
radius impactor than that of a smaller radius Corresponding author:
Gin Boay Chai, School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Division
impactor. of Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, 50
Several theoretical solutions were proposed to pre- Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798.
dict the impact response of sandwich panel with Email: mgbchai@ntu.edu.sg
Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 21, 2015
XML Template (2015) [5.2.2015–3:28pm] [1–12]
2 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)
were derived for the impactor/sandwich system. specimens was tested at least twice to ensure that the
However, the contact stiffness between impactor/ test results are repeatable and thus consistent with
sandwich is quite complicated to determine. some degree of reliability.
Contact law for impactor/sandwich was initially The honeycomb core in specimen S01 was fabri-
modified from Hertz law, and it was later found cated with three kinds of cell size, i.e. 13 mm, 6 mm
that Hertz law is limited only to small deformation and 3 mm with the same core density of 75 kg/m3.
since the middle layer is soft core.11 To get a more
precise response of sandwich panel during indenta-
tion, models of a plate resting elastic foundation12
Theoretical approach
or rigid-plastic4–7 foundation were proposed. The It is widely agreed that the response of composite
effect of indentation and overall deformation of sand- sandwich panel subject to transverse impact will
wich panel were assumed to be uncoupled4–7 and the experience at least three stages before experiencing
impact response can thereafter be determined. Note the maximum force.1,4,16
the contact force is usually assumed as a point load Stage I: Initial linear stage with both facesheets and
and the effect of the radius of the impactor is not the core remaining intact, in which the panel only
accountable for. In Turk and Fatt,5 the contact undergoes small deformation and bending and shear-
force was assumed to be uniformly distributed and ing dominates the deformation of the sandwich panel.
the radius of contact was assumed to be 0.4 times of Stage II: At the end of stage I, initial threshold
the radius of impactor although the radius of contact force is defined and stage II will be triggered by mul-
may vary with deformation. tiple damage modes such as, matrix damage, fibre
In this contribution, a rigorous theoretical breakage or delamination on facesheet, core crushing
approach to solve for the impact response of a circular or debonding between facesheets and core.13 In this
composite sandwich panel with the edges clamped is stage, the sandwich panel will deform further with one
presented in detail. A localised indentation law was or more damage modes listed above and large deform-
proposed based on the assumption that the top face- ation response is dominant as revealed by experiment
sheets is modelled with the composite plate theory and with experimental evidences. Bending and membrane
the core is modelled as an elastic-plastic foundation. stiffnesses typically dominate the large deformation
Impact tests were conducted and the experiment meas- response of the panel while only membrane stiffness
urements were used to validate the theoretical solution. dominates the post large deformation of the panel.
Stage III: Stage II ends with the maximum force
being reached and then the impactor either rebounds
Experiment setup or perforates the panel.
The Instron Dynatup 8250 impact testing machine From the experimental results of composite sand-
was used for the impact tests. In the tests, the wich panels without perforation, a typical impact
impact mass is kept at a constant of 2.735 kg through- force–deflection response was modelled with three dis-
out the tests. Upon release, the free-falling impactor tinct stages as shown in Figure 2. In the first two stages,
would fall vertically along two smooth guided col- i.e. initial linear stage, core crushing stage, spring-back
umns, and through the centre hole of the clamp stage. In the first two stages, the displacement of
plate of diameter 76.4 mm to strike the specimen as
shown in Figure 1. The specimen was positioned
between the top and bottom clamp plates, with the
mid-point of the plate directly located underneath ∅13.1 mm Steel Impactor
the impactor. The support condition simulated is
equivalent to that of a fully clamped circular sandwich
panel specimen. Transient response of the samples
Sandwich Panel
included the velocity and deflection of the impactor,
and contact load, as a function of time. Vo m/s
The composite sandwich panels were of size
100 100 mm2 and their facesheets were made of
FibreduxÕ 913C-HTA carbon fibre-epoxy laminates
with ply thickness of 0.125 mm while the honeycomb
cores were made of Nomex paper, as described in Zhu
and Chai.13 To investigate the effect of cell size on
impact response of sandwich panel, three kinds of cell
size with identical core density of 75 kg/m3, i.e. 13 mm, ∅76.4mm
Clamp Plate
6 mm and 3 mm are used in fabrication of specimen S01.
100 mm
The laminated facesheets were bonded to the honey-
comb core with Redux adhesive. In total, there were 10
groups of specimens as listed in Table 1. Each group of Figure 1. Illustration for the dimension of the impact tests.
XML Template (2015) [5.2.2015–3:28pm] [1–12]
Zhu and Chai 3
Table 1. Configuration of sandwich panel and the impact velocity.
Sandwich panel configuration
ID Facesheet layup Core height (mm) Total height (mm) Impact velocity (m/s) Impact energy (J)
S01 [0/90]10s 15 20.0 2.30 7.27

S02 [þ45/02/90/02/45]s 15 18.5 1.65 3.74
S03 [þ45/02/90/02/45]s 20 23.5 1.65 3.74
S04 [þ45/02/90/02/45]s 25 28.5 1.65 3.74
S05 [0/90/0/90/0]s 15 17.5 1.65 3.74
S06 [0/90/0/90/0]s 20 22.5 1.65 0.88
S07 [0/90/0/90/0]s 25 27.5 1.65 3.74
S08 [þ45/45/0/90/0]s 20 22.5 0.80 14.17
S09 [þ45/45/0/90/0]s 20 22.5 1.65 7.27
S10 [þ45/45/0/90/0]s 20 22.5 3.21 3.74
where Rc and r is the radius of contact and the dis-

tance from the contact centre respectively, and qm is
P the maximum pressure.
PII In the first stage (stage I shown in Figure 2), the
facesheets and the core are in the elastic regime and
the core is prior to crushing. The contact force
increases linearly to the initial threshold force of P1
II with an impactor displacement of I . Here, Hertz law
will be adopted to represent the contact pressure in
PI initial linear stage.
Local deflection of the top facesheet prior to core
crushing is modelled using the small deflection theory
I of a plate on an elastic foundation as shown in
III
Figure 4. In the first stage, the maximum indentation
I is assumed to be much less than core thickness hc
and radius of the impactor Ri during deformation.
UI δI UII δII δ The foundation modulus of the core is simply given
as
Figure 2. Typical impact force vs. deflection response. E3c

kc ¼ ð3Þ
hc
impactor is the sum of overall deflection of the panel
w and localised indentation , thus where hc and E3c are respectively the height and the
modulus in thickness direction of the core. Details of
¼wþ ð1Þ the rigorous development of stage I is shown in
Appendix 2, the total potential energy is expressed as
Stage I: Initial linear stage YI
32Df 2 kc 2 I 2 4Rc 2
Some researchers assumed that the contact force ¼ þ P 1 ð4Þ
3I 2 6 5I 2
between the impactor and the sandwich panel as a
point load as shown in Figure 3(a). In this contribu- where the subscript f is used to denote the facesheet
tion, the contact force is assumed as a distributed force and superscript I for stage I. In the above equation, P
as shown in Figure 3(b). For the contact analysis of is the contact force, Df is the effective bending stiffness
spherical isotropic impactor with a flat body, the con- of the facesheet, is the deflection of top facesheet at
tact force, contact pressure and indentation during r ¼ 0, and I is the boundary of the deformed area of
contact can be solved using Hertz law.14 The contact top
Q facsheet. Applying the minimising condition of
pressure, qðrÞ, on the surface of spherical-end impactor @ =@ ¼ 0 gives
was given by14

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1 64Df kc I 2
2 P¼ þ ð5Þ
r 1 cI 3I 2 3
qðrÞ ¼ qm 1 ð2Þ
Rc
XML Template (2015) [5.2.2015–3:28pm] [1–12]
(a) Impactor (b) Impactor
P p(r)
q(r)
Core Core
Figure 3. Different load models for contact between impactor and top facesheet: (a) point load model; (b) distributed load model.
Figure 4. Schematic of contact and deformation of impactor and sandwich panel.
where Woinowsky-Krieger15 if we set cI ¼ 0. From equation

(6), it was found that cI is not a constant but increases
4Rc 2 with impact event progressing. To estimate the upper
cI ¼ ð6Þ bound of cI in stage I with top plate undergoing small
5I 2
deformation, maximum value of Rc in the first stage
Applying the minimising condition of @P=@I ¼ 0 was used7
in equation (5) yields
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Rc ¼ 2Ri I ð9Þ
1
64Df 4
I ¼ ð7Þ Substituting equations (7) and (9) into equation (6)
kc
yields the maximum value for cI as
Substituting the above back into equation (5) yields
the contact force P of Ri
cI ¼ ð10Þ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi L
8 Df kc
P¼ ð8Þ where L is a characteristic length of the sandwich
1 cI qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
125E3c Df
panel given by L ¼ hc cu 2
and cu is the ultimate
Noting that cI is remarkably less than unity, the
relationship above will be consistent with that derived crushing strength of the sandwich panel. Note that the
in Olsson and McManus7 and Timoshenko S and effect of impactor size may be insignificant for the case
XML Template (2015) [5.2.2015–3:28pm] [1–12]
Zhu and Chai 5
of Ri 55 L. When the radius of impactor Ri is of the where Af , Bf and Df are functions of the extensional
order of L, the impactor size would have a significant stiffnesses Aij and flexural stiffnesses Dij defined in the
influence on the impact response. classical lamination theory, and they are defined as:
Substituting equation (3) into equation (8), the 8 1
< Af ¼ 32 ð3A11 þ 3A22 þ 2A12 þ 4A66 Þ
indentation stiffness Kind in the first stage is given as 1
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Bf ¼ 4 ðD11 þ D22 þ 6D12 2D66 Þ ð17Þ
:
8 Df E3c Df ¼ 18 ð3D11 þ 3D22 þ 2D12 þ 4D66 Þ
KIind ¼ ð11Þ
1 cI hc Since the contact area is quite small compared to
The initial threshold force has been given by the core-crushing area, the shape function of top face-
Olsson and McManus16 as sheet in core-crushing is assumed to be
8 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
> 8
< PI ¼ 8cu D f hc
for hc 4 hcm < for 04r4Rc
E3c
ð12Þ 2 2
> P ¼ 3pffiffi3ffi 2Df 3 for h 5 h ðrÞ ¼ ð18Þ
2
r
: I cu E3c c cm
: 1 II for Rc 4r4Rp
13
2Df
where hmax ¼ 64
27 E3c and is the strain hardening where II is the radius for core-crushing area.
index. Substituting the shape function into equation (17)
For low-velocity impact, the displacement of the and performing the integration, the strain energy due
impactor is the sum of indentation and overall deflec- to bending and membrane yields
tion of the panel
" pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi # 322 ð4Af 2 þ 35Df Þ
PI PI 8 Df kc 1 UII
bm ¼ ð19Þ
I ¼ þ ¼ cu þ ð13Þ 105II 2
Kbs KIind ð1 cI ÞKbs kc
The work done due to core crushing by plastic
where Kbs is the combined flexural-shear stiffness of a deformation is given by
fully clamped panel given by17
Z " 2 #2
Kb Ks 16Df II
r qII 2
Kbs ¼ , Kb ¼ , UII
core ¼ 2qr 1 dr ¼
Kb þ Ks ð3 þ Þð1 ÞRp 2 0 II 3
ð14Þ
4Gc ðhc þ hf Þ2 ð20Þ
Ks ¼ ,
hc ð1 þ 2 ln s1 Þ When calculating the external work by contact
force, the press distribution of contact force may be
where Kb , Ks are the bending and shear stiffness; Gc , taken into consideration. In the pioneer work,4,8 the
Rp , hf are the shear modulus of the core, boundary work done by contact force was simply assumed to be
distance and thickness of facesheets, respectively. The WII ¼ P, in which the effect of pressure distribution
structural stiffness in the first stage is thus given by over impactor was ignored and the contact force was
assumed as a concentrated force since the contact
Kbs KIind
KI ¼ ð15Þ radius in stage I is very small. In Turk and Fatt,5
Kbs þ KIind the contact pressure distribution was assumed to be
Note the derivation above ignores the effect of the uniformly distributed over contact area and the radius
cell size of the honeycomb core. The experimental study of contact was assumed 0.4 times of the radius of the
presented subsequently in this paper shows that the impactor. In the current model, the contact area is
effect of cell size is insignificant in the impact response. assumed to be circular for the orthotropic facesheets
and the contact pressure distribution is uniformly dis-
tributed. The external work thus can be expressed as
Stage II
In the present work, a three-stage theoretical model of Z 2 Z Rc 2
II P r2
a circular plate subjected to impact loading by a W ¼ r 1 2 drd ð21Þ
0 0 Rc 2 II
spherical shaped impactor was proposed. For the
top facesheet, the strain energy due to bending and Upon integration yields
membrane are expressed as18
II Rc 2
( W ¼ P 1 2 ð22Þ
Z 4
II II
@w 1 @w @2 w
UII
b þ UII
m ¼ Af þ Bf The total potential energy of the impacted plate
0 @r r @r @r2
" system is
2 #)
@2 w 1 @w 2
þ Df þ 2 rdr Y
II
@r2 r @r
¼ UII II
bm þ Ucore W
II
ð23Þ
ð16Þ
XML Template (2015) [5.2.2015–3:28pm] [1–12]
Substituting equations (19), (20), (22) into equation and overall deformation
(23), the total potential energy is thus
Uabs ¼ UI þ UII ð31Þ
YII 322 ð4Af 2 þ 35Df Þ When the contact force reaches its maximum
¼ during impact, the energy absorbed by sandwich
105II 2
ð24Þ panel equals to impact energy on the assumption
qII 2 Rc 2
þ P 1 2 that there are no cracking in both facesheets
3 II
Mi v0 2
Q Uabs ¼ Eimp ¼ ð32Þ
Minimizing of @ @ ¼ 0 yields 2

1 64ð8Af 3 þ 35Df Þ qII 2 Combining equations (29) to (32) and equation
P¼ þ ð25Þ (27), the value of II can be solved numerically
1 cII 105II 2 3
Z II
where cII is the dimensionless coefficient given by PI I Mi v0 2
2 þ Pd ¼ ð33Þ
cII ¼ R c2 . Similar to analysis of the value of cI , the 2 I 2
II
value of cII is obviously less than unity since Rc 5 II .
Minimizing P with respect to II
Stage III: Recovery stage
14 When the deflection of the panel reaches its maximum
64ð8Af 2 þ 35Df Þ
II ¼ ð26Þ value, the corresponding kinetic energy of the system
35q
is zero. After this stage, the impactor will rebound and
Substituting equation (26) into equation (25), the this indicates the start of the unloading stage. For the
relationship of contact force with indentation is given curve for unloading stage, the contact law of unload-
as ing was adopted11
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 52
16 ð8Af 2 þ 35Df Þq m
P¼ ð27Þ P ¼ PII ð34Þ
3ð1 cII Þ 35 II m
Combining equation (27) with equation (1), stage where II is the maximum displacement and m is the
II response of a composite sandwich panel subjected permanent displacement.
to low-velocity impact is
8 Kinetic energy absorbed during impact
>
> ¼wþ
>
< During impact, a portion of the kinetic energy of the
P ¼ Kbs w qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð28Þ impactor is transferred to the strain energy of the
>
>
>
: P ¼ 16 qð8Af 2 þ35Df Þ facesheet and the plastic strain energy of the core.
3ð1cII Þ 35
After impact, strain energy in the facesheet is trans-
ferred to the impactor during the rebound. The kinetic
energy lost in this procedure is therefore due to work
done by plastic deformation of the core. Substituting
Maximum contact force PII equation (26) into equation (20), the plastic work by
The maximum contact force can be solved using the core crushing prior to facesheet failure is given
law of conservation of energy. The energy absorbed in
the first stage, UI as shown in Figure 2, can be Z Z " #2
expressed as
m II
r 2
ULoss ¼ 2qr 1 drd
0 0 II
PI I
UI ¼ ð29Þ Z m rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 8 ð8Af 2 þ 35Df Þq
¼ d
3ð1 cII Þ 0 35
The energy absorbed in the second stage, UII as
shown in Figure 2, can be written as integration of ð35Þ
the contact force with the displacement experienced
by the impactor
Z II Results and discussions of experimental
II
U ¼ Pd ð30Þ results
I
The energy absorbed by sandwich panel, Uabs , is In total, 12 test configurations listed in Table 1 were
the sum of the energy absorbed during indentation tested. Each test configuration was tested at least
XML Template (2015) [5.2.2015–3:28pm] [1–12]
Zhu and Chai 7
twice to ensure that the test results are repeatable and why the effect of impactor size was claimed to be triv-
thus consistent with some degree of reliability. The ial in their investigations3 since they used a small
results are now presented and discussed with some radius of impactor. When radius of impactor makes
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
deliberations. Rpi ffiffi 1
5 10 , the difference, e, is within 10% and the
L0
theoretical solution of equation (36) still agrees well
Parametric discussions with experimental data. Since the difference, e, is not
The effect of impactor size. Ignoring the effect of impac- sensitive to Ri in this range, the impactor size will not
tor size and setting c ! 0, equation (27) can be re- affect the response significantly.3 However, if Ri is in
Rpi ffiffi 1
written as the range of 4 10, the response will be different
L0
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi as shown in Figure 5.
16 ð8Af 2 þ 35Df Þq
P ¼ ð36Þ
3 35
Membrane plate theory. If the effect of bending for top
which is the solution without the consideration of factsheet is ignored, equation (27) can be written as
impactor size and the point-load case in Figure 3(a)
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
was adopted. The difference between the result using 32 2qAf 3
the point force assumption with of that using the dis- Pmem ¼ ð39Þ
3ð1 cII Þ 35
tributed force assumption, e, is given by

Consequently, the ratio of solution of equation (27)

P P
e ¼

¼ 1 1 ð37Þ
to the membrane solution of equation (39) gives
P
1 cII rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P 35l
Substituting equation (57) into equation (37) yields P¼ ¼ 1þ 2 ð40Þ
Pmem 8

P P
1 where l is a non-dimensional stiffness coefficient

e¼

¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1 ð38Þ
P
Rpi ffiffi defined as
1 L0
Df
l¼ ð41Þ
where is the dimensionless indentation given by
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi A f hf 2
315Ae 2 hf
¼ hf and L0 ¼ 8qAf (see details in Appendix 3). In case of a facesheet of isotropic homogeneous
The variation of the factor e with Ri in equation (38) material, l is a constant l ¼ 13 0:33. For a laminated
was plotted in Figure 5. The results for the value of plate, l is highly dependent on the thickness of plies,
Rpi ffiffi
L0
used in Raju and Tomlin2,3 and Alfonso3 is also Elastic modulus and on their ply orientations as well.
pffiffiffi The graphical plots in Figure 6 show that membrane
included in Figure 5. Note that L0 is a large value
theory underestimates the contact force for lower
for almost combination of facesheets and the core
indentation while gives a good approximation for
used in typical composite sandwich panels and, thus,
indentation exceeding three times of the thickness of
the parameter cII is quite small. This was the reason
0.6
Ri = 38.1mm, Lo = 9020mm [3] 3.5
Ri = 50.8mm, Lo = 599mm [2] λ=0.1
Ri = 76.2mm, Lo = 599mm [2] 3 λ=0.2
.
λ=0.33(isotropic facesheet)
Non-Dimensional force
0.4 λ=0.4
Difference, e
2.5
λ=0 (Membrane only)
0.2
1.5
0
0.5
1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4
α hf Non-Dimensional indentation
Figure 5. Variation of difference, e, with the non-dimensional Figure 6. Results showing membrane theory underestimating
impactor radius in stage II. the contact force.
XML Template (2015) [5.2.2015–3:28pm] [1–12]
the facesheet. Besides, a smaller value of l will lead to experiment are less than the diameter of the impactor.
a smaller difference, e, with a given indentation. From these experimental results, it can be concluded
that the effect of cell size of impact response for sand-
wich panel can be ignored on condition that cell size is
Experimental validations for the first stage
less than the diameter of the impactor. For compari-
For the specimens listed in Table 1, specimens S02 to son, the current three-stage solution is also included in
S04 and S05 to S07 were fabricated respectively with Figure 10. The current mathematical model provides
[þ45/02/90/02/45]s and [0/90/0/90/0]s layup for their a reasonable prediction of the initial threshold force
facesheets but with different core thicknesses. From and stiffness during stage I response, and prediction is
the experimental results shown in Figure 7, the initial in good agreement in stage II response. However, the
threshold force PI varies little with core thickness. maximum force and displacement were overestimated
Since increasing the core thicknesses will increase since the energy losses were neglected.
bending and shearing stiffness while decrease indenta- For specimens S08–S10, the configurations of
tion stiffness, the effect of core thickness on transverse sandwich panel are the same but the impact velocities
stiffness is indeterminable.
The same consistency in the results can be found
for specimens S05–S07. Comparison of the results for
specimens S02–S04 with specimens S05–S07 shows 2.8
Exp [0/90/0/90/0]s
that facesheets thickness plays a bigger role in the Exp [+45/02/90/02/-45]s
influence of the transverse stiffness and the initial Theory [0/90/0/90/0]s
Transverse stiffness (kN/mm)
threshold force than the core thickness. 2.3 Theory [+45/02/90/02/-45]]s
Consequently, the dominant effect of Df on the trans-
verse stiffness KI and the initial threshold force PI is
obvious. This trend is consistent with that shown in 1.8
equation (12).
The variation of the initial threshold force PI with
core thickness for different Df is plotted in Figure 8. 1.3
The discrepancy between the predicted results with
the experimental data shows the need for the inclusion
of other failure modes besides core buckling.
0.8
10 15 20 25 30
Core thickness (mm)
Experimental validations for the second stage
The experimental load–displacement curve for speci- Figure 8. Variation of transverse stiffness with core
men S01 impacted with impact velocity of 2.3 m/s was thickness.
plotted in Figures 9 and 10. In Figure 9, the responses
of the sandwich panels with different cell size behave
almost the same. Note all cell sizes used in the present
4
Cell size 13mm

3.5 Cell size 6mm
2.3 Cell size 3mm
Exp [0/90/0/90/0]s
3
Exp [+45/02/90/02/-45]s
Contact force (kN)
Theory [0/90/0/90/0]s
2.5
Theory [+45/02/90/02/-45]s
Initial threshold force (kN)
1.8
2
1.5
1.3 1
0.5
0
0.8 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
10 15 20 25 30 Displacement (mm)
Core thickness (mm)
Figure 9. Load–displacement curve for specimen S01 sub-

Figure 7. Variation of initial threshold force with core jected to impact velocity of 2.3m/s: Comparison of experi-
thickness. mental results of different cell sizes.
XML Template (2015) [5.2.2015–3:28pm] [1–12]
Zhu and Chai 9
4.5 5
Theory prediction, 1st stage Prediction
4 Theory prediction, 2nd stage Experiment
Thery prediction, 3rd stage 4
3.5 Experiment
Contact force (kN)
Plastic work (J)

3
3
2.5
2 2
1.5
1
1
0.5 0
0 0 1 2 3
Indentation (mm)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Displacement (mm)
Figure 12. Energy absorbed by core-crushing for specimens
S08 and S09.
Figure 10. Load–displacement curve for specimen S01 sub-
jected to impact velocity of 2.3 m/s: Comparison of experi-
mental with theoretical results.
stage III results of equation (34) are included in the

comparison. Since the present model ignores the effect
Exp,v=0.8m/s
Exp,v=1.65m/s
of strain rate, our present model gives the same results
3 Exp,v=3.21m/s for the same sandwich panel subjected to different
Theory, 2nd stage
impact velocity in stage II.
3rd Stage,v=0.8m/s
3rd Stage,v=1.65m/s As can be seen in Figure 11, the response of sand-
Contact force (kN)
wich panel subjected to impact velocity of 0.8 m/s

2
was predicted accurately. However, our model over-
estimated the maximum force for composite sand-
wich panel with higher impact energy. This is
1 mainly because of the assumption that there is no
failure in facesheets, which can contribute some
energy loss to the total potential energy of the com-
posite sandwich panel. When there is damage in the
0 facesheets, equation (33) becomes invalid, and thus
0 1 2 3 4 the present model is valid only for the case of no
Displacement (mm)
facesheet failure.
Figure 11. Load–displacement curves of specimens S08–S10.

Experimental validations for energy absorbed by
are 0.8 m/s, 1.65 m/s, 3.21 m/s, respectively. The
core crushing
experimental results together with the predicted The energy absorbed by plastic deformation of the
results are plotted in Figure 11. The experimental core during impact was expressed in equation (35).
load–displacement curves show the typical three The predicted results and experimental data are
stages of response which are plotted in Figure 12 for specimens S08 and S09. The
comparison shows the theoretical prediction agrees
1. Stage I: the curves in this stage are approximately very well with the experimental results.
linear with almost the same stiffness.
2. Stage II: the stiffness in the second stage is signifi-
Concluding marks
cantly lower than that in stage I. Larger impact
energy will lead to a higher maximum force and On the basis of the contact relations between the
maximum deflection. impactor with the top facesheet of the sandwich
3. Stage III: the residual energy of the composite sand- panel, a rigorous theoretical model for quasi-static
wich panel helps in rebounding the impactor away. response panel was developed to compute the
impact force–displacement response of composite
sandwich panel subjected to low-velocity impact.
In Figure 10, the predicted stage I is not included in Load–displacement relationship was modelled in
the comparison. Stage II results of equation (28) and three stages, i.e. initial linear stage, core crushing
XML Template (2015) [5.2.2015–3:28pm] [1–12]
stage and recovery stage. Each stage was modelled 8. Zhou DW and Stronge WJ. Dynamic indentation of
with different considerations of approach. lightweight sandwich panels. 11th European conference
The effect of cell size on impact response for sand- on composite materials. Rhodes, Greece, 2004.
wich panel can be ignored on condition that the cell 9. Malekzadeh K, Khalili MR and Mittalc RK. Response
of composite sandwich panels with transversely flexible
size is less than diameter of the impactor. The effect of
core to low-velocity transverse impact: A new dynamic
impactor size on the impact response was investi-
model. Int J Impact Eng 2007; 34(3): 522–543.
gated. In stage I response, the effect of impactor size 10. Hazizan MA and Cantwell WJ. The low velocity impact
can be ignored for cases of Ri 5 L; in stage II response of an aluminium honeycomb sandwich struc-
response, the effect of impactor size can be ignored ture. Compos Part B: Eng 2003; 34: 679–687.
for cases of Ri 55 L0 , this means that the assumption 11. Abrate S. Impact on composite structures. Cambridge:
of the contact force as a point force is valid. Larger Cambridge University Press, 1998.
impact radius will give significant increase in struc- 12. Lee SM and Tsotsis TK. Indentation failure behavior of
tural stiffness of the composite sandwich panel honeycomb sandwich panels. Compos Sci Technol 2000;
during low-velocity impact. 60(8): 1147–1159.
Impact response of composite sandwich panel is 13. Zhu S and Chai GB. Damage and failure mode maps of
composite sandwich panel subjected to quasi-static
coupled with impact induced damage and also the
indentation and low velocity impact. Compos Struct
damage evolution. Since the damage modes of
2013; 101: 204–214.
matrix damage, fibre breakage or delamination on 14. Johnson KL. Contact mechanics. Cambridge:
facesheet and debonding between facesheets and Cambridge University Press, 1985.
core are not included in the current theoretical 15. Timoshenko S and Woinowsky-Krieger S. Theory of
model, future improvement to the theory will need plates and shells. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill,
to include the above damage modes and the evolution 1959.
of these damages. 16. Olsson R. Engineering method for prediction of impact
response and damage in sandwich panels. J Sandwich
Struct Mater 2002; 4: 3–19.
Acknowledgement 17. Chai GB and Zhu S. A review of low-velocity impact on
The authors acknowledge the School of Mechanical and sandwich structures. Proc IMechE, Part L, J Materials:
Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological Design and Applications 2011; 225: 207–230.
University, Singapore for their permission to use the com- 18. Lee J and Souties C. Prediction of impact-induced fibre
puting and laboratory facilities. damage in circular composite plates. Appl Compos
Mater 2005; 12: 109–131.
Funding 19. Foo CC, Chai GB and Seah LK. A model to predict
low-velocity impact response and damage in sand-
The authors thank the School of Mechanical and Aerospace
wich composites. Compos Sci Technol 2008; 68:
Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
1348–1356.
for the financial grant to support this PhD programme.
20. Daniel IM and Ishai O. Engineering mechanics of com-
posite materials. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University
References Press, 2005.
1. Zhou G and Hill M. Investigation of parameters govern-
ing the damage and energy absorption characteristics of
honeycomb sandwich panels. J Sandwich Struct Mater
2007; 9(4): 309–342. Appendix 1
2. Raju KS and Tomblin JS. Damage characteristics in sand-
wich panels subjected to static indentation using spherical Notation
indentors. AIAA-2001-1189, 2001, pp.103–111.
3. Alfonso LA. Damage response of sandwich plates subject Ae effective in-plane extensional stiffness
to dynamic loads. Master of Science Thesis, of the facesheet
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA, 1995. Df effective bending modulus of the
4. Fatt MSH and Park KS. Dynamic models for low-velo- facesheet
city impact damage of composite sandwich panels – Part E3c Young’s modulus of the core in the
A: Deformation. Compos Struct 2001; 52(3–4): 335–351. thickness direction
5. Türk MH and Fatt MSH. Localized damage response of Gc shear modulus of the core
composite sandwich plates. Compos Part B: Eng 1999; hc thickness of the core
30(3): 157–165.
hf thickness of the facesheet
6. Zhou DW and Stronge WJ. Low velocity impact denting
kc foundation modulus of the core
of HSSA lightweight sandwich panel. Int J Mech Sci
2006; 48: 1031–1045. Kb , Ks flexural and shear stiffness of a panel
7. Olsson R and McManus HL. Improved theory for con- respectively
tact indentation of sandwich panels. AIAA/ASME/ Kbs combined flexural-shear stiffness of a
ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, structural dynamics, and panel
materials conference, New Orleans, LA, USA 1996; Mi mass of impactor
34(6): 1238–1244. q contact pressure
XML Template (2015) [5.2.2015–3:28pm] [1–12]
Zhu and Chai 11
r radial distance from contact point According to Abrate,11 laminates with more than
Rc radius of contact area six plies and a symmetric lay-up can be modelled as
Ri radius of impactor orthotropic plates. Thus, under asymmetrical bend-
Rp radius of composite sandwich panel ing, the strain energy of the elastic circular clamped
vo velocity of impactor at point of impact laminated facesheet is given by6,19
w global bending and shearing deflection
32Df 2
of the panel UIskin ¼ ð46Þ
local indentation of the panel 3I 2
strain hardening index where Df ¼ 18 ð3D11 þ 3D22 þ 2D12 þ 4D66 Þ and Dij are
total deflection of the panel the laminate bending stiffnesses.
Poisson’s ratio Note the analysis in stage I is treated as a small
cu core crushing strength deformation analysis, thus only bending strain energy
I radius of core crushed region during was considered in equation (46). Assuming that the
Stage I response contact pressure is governed by equation (2), the work
II radius of core crushed region during done by the contact load P is
Stage II response
Z 2 Z Rc 2
I r2
W ¼ pðrÞr 1 2 drd ð47Þ
0 0 II
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P 2
Appendix 2 where pðrÞ ¼ 2R 2 1 Rr 2 .
c c
Performing the integration yields

Total potential energy of stage I I 4Rc 2
W ¼ P 1 ð48Þ
The localised indentation area is assumed to be circu- 5I 2
lar and clamped at its boundary8,19 during the elastic The total potential energy is therefore
stage I, and the profile of the local indentation is rep- YI
resented as4,6,19 ¼ UIskin þ UIcore WI ð49Þ
"
2 #2
r Substituting equations (45), (46), (48) into equation
ðrÞ ¼ 1 ð42Þ (49) yields the total potential energy as
I
YI
where is the transverse deflection at r¼0 and I is the 32Df 2 kc 2 I 2 4Rc 2
radius of region of local indentation of the top face- ¼ þ P 1 ð50Þ
3I 2 6 5I 2
sheet (see Figure 2). The indentation profile approxi-
mates the lowest mode of vibration for a clamped
circular plate,11 where the shape of the indentation Appendix 3
profile is symmetrical about its centre. In addition,
the boundary conditions ðrÞ ¼ 0 and d(r)/dr ¼ 0 at
r ¼ I , as well as the symmetrical condition, d(r)/
Contact radius in stage II
dr ¼ 0 at r ¼ 0 are satisfied. The radius of contact was found to be very small with
Since the indentation in this stage I is far less compared with radius of core-crushing II and is quite
than impact radius Ri due to small deformation of difficult to be estimated.3–5 Turk and Fatt,5 however,
top plate, the contact radius Rc can be further used Rc ¼ 0:4Ri in their analysis. In this present work,
approximated as Rc is approximated based on the following assump-
tions: the area of the facesheet above the core-crush-
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Rc 2Ri ð43Þ ing area is in pure stretching and the bending terms in
equations (26) and (27) will be ignored, and the radius
1
The strain energy of the core due to the deform- of contact is much less than II and thus 1c II
1 will
ation of the elastic foundation is given as be used in equation (27). The radial strain in the top
facesheet is given by
Z 2 Z I
1 1
UIcore ¼ kc 2 ðrÞ rdrd ð44Þ "r ¼ ½0 ðrÞ2 ð51Þ
0 0 2 2
After substituting equation (43) into equation (44) Substituting the shape function of equation (18)
and upon integration, UIcore can be written as into equation (51) yields
kc 2 I 2 82 Rc 2
UIcore ¼ ð45Þ "r ¼ ð52Þ
6 II 4
XML Template (2015) [5.2.2015–3:28pm] [1–12]
Transverse equilibrium of the contact area for the

top facesheet requires
P ¼ 2Rc Nr sin ð55Þ

Ri
Combining equations (52) to (54) give the solution
for Rc as
Nr
1
θ Rc ¼
8qAf Ri 2 8
II ð56Þ
315Ae 2
Equation (56) can be written in a non-dimensional

Rc form as
2 14 rffiffiffiffiffiffi
Rc hf Ri
Figure 13. Schematic of contact area and its loading for stage cII ¼ ¼ ð57Þ
II L0
II. qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
315Ae 2 hf
where L0 ¼ 8qAf . Equation (57) shows cII
From geometric analysis of Figure 13 for the con- increases with impactor size Ri and decreases insignifi-
tact area, the angle is cantly with indentation.
Rc
sin ¼ ð53Þ
Ri
The relationship between the radical strain "r and

the axial force Nr gives
Nr ¼ Ae "r ð54Þ
where Ae is the effective in-plane tensile stiffness and

2
as shown by Daniel and Ishai20 as Ae ¼ A11 AA1212 if
coupling ignored.

Low-Velocity Impact Response of Composite Sandwich Panels

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Low-Velocity Impact Response of Composite Sandwich Panels

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Low-Velocity Impact Response of Composite Sandwich Panels

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

XML Template (2015) [5.2.

Proc IMechE Part L:

Shengqing Zhu and Gin Boay Chai

Date received: 14 October 2014; accepted: 20 January 2015

Introduction composite facesheets4,5,7 and they did not consider

2 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

Zhu and Chai 3

Table 1. Configuration of sandwich panel and the impact velocity.

Sandwich panel configuration

S01 [0/90]10s 15 20.0 2.30 7.27

where Rc and r is the radius of contact and the dis-

Figure 2. Typical impact force vs. deflection response. E3c

4 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

(a) Impactor (b) Impactor

Figure 4. Schematic of contact and deformation of impactor and sandwich panel.

where Woinowsky-Krieger15 if we set cI ¼ 0. From equation

Zhu and Chai 5

6 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

Zhu and Chai 7

8 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

Cell size 13mm

Figure 9. Load–displacement curve for specimen S01 sub-

Zhu and Chai 9

Plastic work (J)

stage III results of equation (34) are included in the

wich panel subjected to impact velocity of 0.8 m/s

Figure 11. Load–displacement curves of specimens S08–S10.

10 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

Zhu and Chai 11

12 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

Transverse equilibrium of the contact area for the

P ¼ 2Rc Nr sin ð55Þ

Equation (56) can be written in a non-dimensional

The relationship between the radical strain "r and

where Ae is the eﬀective in-plane tensile stiﬀness and

You might also like