materials
Article
Characteristics of Carbon-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Face Sheet
and Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Rigid Polyurethane Foam
Sandwich Structures under Flexural and Compression Tests
Harri Junaedi 1, * , Tabrej Khan 1 and Tamer A. Sebaey 1,2
Citation: Junaedi, H.; Khan, T.;
Sebaey, T.A. Characteristics of
Carbon-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Face Sheet and
Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Rigid
Polyurethane Foam Sandwich
Structures under Flexural and
Compression Tests. Materials 2023, 16,
5101. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ma16145101
Academic Editor: Karim Benzarti
Received: 28 May 2023
Revised: 12 July 2023
Accepted: 18 July 2023
Published: 20 July 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Materials 2023, 16, 5101. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16145101
1 Engineering Management Department, College of Engineering, Prince Sultan University,
Riyadh 11586, Saudi Arabia; tkhan@psu.edu.sa (T.K.); tsebaey@psu.edu.sa (T.A.S.)
2 Mechanical Design and Production Department, Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University,
Zagazig 44519, Egypt
* Correspondence: hlukman@psu.edu.sa
Abstract: Composite sandwich structures are extensively used in aircraft applications. Aircraft
components are required to be robust and lightweight. Sandwich structures made of carbon-fiber-
reinforced polymer as the facing sheets and milled-glass-fiber-reinforced rigid polyurethane foam
with a different glass fiber content as the core structure were prepared. The influence of glass fiber
content in the foam on the sandwich structure’s mechanical properties was investigated. Flexural and
compression tests were performed to assess the mechanical properties of the sandwich structures.
Visual inspection and an optical microscope were used to observe the morphology of the polyurethane
composite foams at different contents. From the flexural test, the force, facing stress and core shear
stress improved with the increase in the milled fiber loading with the maximum increase at 10 wt.%
loading and then a drop. Meanwhile, the compression modulus and strength increased up to
20 wt.% loadings and then dropped subsequently. The increase in the polyurethane composite foam’s
compression strength shifted the bending load’s failure type from facing crack failure into core shear
failure. The loadings range of 8–10 wt.% showed a transitional of the bending loading failure type.
The density of the foams increased with the increase in milled glass fiber loading. At 10 wt.% loading,
the density increased by 20%, and it increased by 47% at 30 wt.% loading. At 30 wt% loading, the
optical microscope images of the foam showed wall thinning and broken walls that were responsible
for the drop in the mechanical properties of the sandwich.
Keywords: sandwich structure; CFRP; polyurethane foam; glass fiber; mechanical properties;
flexural; compression
1. Introduction
A composite sandwich structure consists of two composite face sheets and a core [1].
The facing skins are made of high-strength and rigid material, while the core is usually
made of lightweight and porous material. The employment of sandwich structures as
aircraft components offers the benefit of being lightweight while also providing a range of
other beneficial mechanical, chemical and physical properties. Some of these properties
include flexural strength, rigidity, impact toughness, compression strength, shear strength,
durability and sound and thermal insulation [2].
The behavior of a sandwich structure is affected by facing skin properties, core shear
strength properties, interfacial bonding between the facing skin and core and the thickness
of the skin and core [3]. In a composite sandwich, most of the bending loads are carried
by the facing skins of the composite. Meanwhile, the sandwich core mainly handles the
transverse shear and normal loads [4]. Thus, the core shear strength is an essential factor
when developing sandwich structures. The core is also the one that keeps the skins apart
from each other to form a lightweight sandwich structure. The types of the core are usually
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials
Materials 2023, 16, 5101 2 of 13

made of porous or hollow materials such as honeycomb, corrugated, foam and lattice
structures, which can be made of different lightweight materials such as aluminum and
different types of polymers [4–9]. Different types of foam have been used as a core material
of composite sandwiches, such as polyurethane foam (PUF) [10–13], aluminum foam [14,15],
epoxy foam [16,17], phenolic foam [18], polyethylene foam [19], polypropylene foam [20]
and many others. Foam consists of hollow or porous particles and the polymer as the
matrix is called syntactic foam [21–24]. The hybridization of different types of the core,
such as a PUF-filled lattice structure core, has also been studied [10].
Meanwhile, for facing skins, fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs), such as glass-fiber-
reinforced polymer (GFRP), carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) and aluminum alloy,
have become an option due to their excellent properties in terms of strength, stiffness and
light weight. Interfacial bonding between the facing skins and core is also critical [25].
Without good interfacial adhesion, the load transfer mechanism from the facing skin to
the core will not occur [26]. The sandwich would eventually fail in the interfacial due to
transverse shear force at a lower force. An adhesive is usually added in the interfacial to
promote bonding [27]. For the foam type of core, the direct casting of the foam between
the facing sheets can provide a good interfacial adhesion between the core and the facing
sheets without an additional adhesive.
PUF, as a core material, has lightweight, low-density and good thermal and sound
insulation properties. In general, PUF and other foam materials have an advantage com-
pared to other core materials in the ease of shaping and forming. Adding fillers to foam
materials has been proven as a benefit to enhance the properties and expand the applica-
tions of polyurethane foams. Polyurethane foams’ compression modulus and strength can
be improved by adding glass fiber (GF) [28] or carbon fiber (CF) [29]. Adding filler will
also alter the cell morphology of the PUF cell [30,31]. Cell morphology affects the foam’s
mechanical and physical properties [32].
Several investigations on filler-reinforced foam core sandwich structures have been
conducted. Mahfuz et al. [33] studied the effect of TiO2 nanoparticle loading into a PUF
core on a sandwich panel’s flexural and fracture toughness properties. The skins were
made of a glass-fiber-reinforced epoxy laminate. They reported a significant enhancement
in the flexural strength and modulus at the 3 wt.% loading of TiO2 nanoparticles. However,
adding the nanoparticles reduced the debond fracture toughness of the face sheet and the
core. Caglayan et al. [34] investigated the effects of a carbon nanotube (CNT) on a sandwich
panel’s rigid polyurethane (PU) core. Four plies of prepreg carbon-fiber-reinforced epoxy
were used as the facing skins of the sandwich panel. As a result, an increase of 13% in
compressive strength compared to neat PUF was reported. Core shear and face ultimate
strength also improved by 30%. The core shear failure type occurred for all sandwich
panels. Devaraj et al. [25] embedded chopped fiber on the interface of the face skin and
core of a sandwich panel. Three different types of chopped fibers with an average length of
12 mm were used: glass, carbon and Kevlar. The properties of the sandwich panels were
investigated with flexural, compressive, shear and fracture toughness tests. The sandwich
panels with chopped glass fibers presented the highest face–core interfacial bonding,
flexural strength, shear strength and fracture toughness compared to other chopped fibers
added to the interfacial region. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the data available
on a polymeric sandwich with a milled-fiber-reinforced PUF core are limited, which this
study addresses.
The current paper studied the effects of a different GF content in the PUF of a CFRP-
GF-reinforced PUF sandwich composite. Different wt.% of GFs were added to PUF to
form polyurethane composite foam. The polyurethane composite foams were used in the
sandwich structure as a core, with CFRP as the facing skin. Flexural and compression tests
were carried out to evaluate the composite sandwiches’ mechanical properties. Flexural
strength, core shear strength and facing strength were determined from the flexural test.
Meanwhile, the compression strength and modulus of the PUF core were calculated with a
Materials 2023, 16, 5101 3 of 13

compression test. An optical microscope was used to observe the transformation in the cell
morphology of the foam due to the addition of GF.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials
An as-received composite laminate (CFRP) of a 0.85 mm thickness was supplied by
Dragonplate, ALLRed & Associates Inc. (Elbridge, NY, USA). It was employed as the facing
sheet of the sandwich. The CFRP laminate was quasi-isotropic and consisted of three plies
of carbon fiber (CF) with twill woven fabric at a 0/90◦ orientation on the front outer ply,
spread tow twill woven at a ±45◦ orientation on the middle ply and plain twill woven at a
0/90◦ orientation on the back outer ply with a total thickness of 0.85 mm and epoxy 304 as
the matrix. The density of the CFRP was 1.42 g/cm3 . Based on the ignition loss method
according to ASTM D2584-18, the fiber volume fraction of the CFRP was 52%. The closed-
cell rigid PUF components, from a manufacturer, with a cured density of about 96 kg/m3
(6 lb/ft3 ) were supplied from Totalboat (Bristol, RI, USA). The PUF was used as the core
material of the composite sandwich. The PUF comprised two components (components
A and B) with a mix ratio of 1:1 by weight. Component A contained polymethylene
polyphenyl polyisocyanate, and component B consisted of diethylene glycol and 1,1,1,3,3-
Pentafluoropropane (HFC-245FA) as a blowing agent. Additionally, 1/32 inch mesh milled
glass fiber with a diameter of 16 µm and an average length of 230 µm [35] was used as
reinforcement. The sizing was a cationic surface sizing agent. The glass fiber was supplied
by Fibre Glast Developments Corp (Brookville, OH, USA).
The CFRP composite laminates were cut with a band saw into a dimension of
200 × 30 mm. The core thickness was set to 10 mm to achieve a total thickness of 11.7 mm.
The core structure was a glass-fiber-reinforced PUF with different-content glass fiber, i.e.,
0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 20 and 30 wt.%. For the polyurethane composite foam, first, component
A of the PUF was mixed with the GF at the prescribed content using a mechanical stirrer
for 15 min. Then, component B was added to the mixture and stirred for about 30 s. The
mixture was immediately poured between 2 CFRP sheets, keeping the distance between the
2 sheets at 10 mm. The joint between the skins and the core was due to directly casting the
PUF in between the skins (Figure 1). During the foaming process, the face sheets were set
horizontally to obtain the foaming direction in the vertical direction, which is the loading
direction. To ensure a uniform thickness of the sandwich, the two face sheets were set in
a die of the required thickness during the foaming process. The excess foam was left to
expand outside the sandwich and cut after the foam had fully cured.

2.2. Methods
Flexural and compression tests were performed using a universal testing machine
(WDW-10, Dongguan Hongtuo Instruments Co., Ltd., Dongguan, China). The three-
point flexural test was performed with a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min until failure
for a batch of three samples for each configuration according to the ASTM D7249 stan-
dard [36]. Facing stress (σ) and core shear stress (Fsult ) at maximum forces are calculated by
Equations (1) and (2), respectively, as follows:

Pmax
σ= (1)
(d + c)b

PS
Fsult = (2)
2t(d + c)b
where Pmax is the maximum force from the force–deflection curve, b is the width of the
sandwich, c is the core thickness, d is the total thickness of the sandwich, S is the support
span of the bending test and t is the thickness of the facing skin. The span support (S) of
the specimen was set to 150 mm. The specimen had a nominal length of 200 mm, a width
of 30 mm and a thickness of 11.7 mm. During loading, the sample edge was monitored to
Materials 2023, 16, 5101 4 of 13

examine any damage on the foam surface and/or the separation of the face sheets from the
core. Figure 2a shows the three-point bending test of the sandwich panel. Meanwhile, a
compression test was done to assess the compression properties of the core material. The
test was performed on the composite sandwiches according to the ASTM C365 standard [37]
with a 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed, as shown in Figure 2b. A specimen of 30 × 30 mm
and a foam thickness of 10 mm was used. The specimens were compressed up to 90%
of strain. The compression strength and modulus of the PU composite foam core were
calculated. Five compression tests were performed for each composition.

Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14

Figure
Figure 1. Manufacturing
1. Manufacturing process
process of the
of the sandwich
sandwich composite.
composite.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 2.
2. Mechanical
Mechanical testing
testing setup
setup for
for (a)
(a) flexural
flexural test
test and
and (b)
(b) compression
compression test.
test.

An optical microscope was utilized to observe the cell morphology of the PUF and
the alteration of the cell morphology due to the addition of milled GF. The apparent den-
sity of the PU foam and PU composite foams were measured by dividing the weight by
the foam volume to identify the change in the density due to the addition of GF.
Materials 2023, 16, 5101 5 of 13

An optical microscope was utilized to observe the cell morphology of the PUF and the
alteration of the cell morphology due to the addition of milled GF. The apparent density of
the PU foam and PU composite foams were measured by dividing the weight by the foam
volume to identify the change in the density due to the addition of GF.

3. Results and Discussion

Table 1 lists the apparent density of the composite foam core. As anticipated, the den-
sity of the PU composite foam increased with the increase in the wt.% of GF loading since
the GF has a much higher density (2.54 g/cm3 ) compared to the neat PUF. At 30 wt.% of GF
loading, the density increase was 46% compared to the neat PUF. The same phenomenon
has also been reported by other researchers [38,39].

Table 1. The apparent density of polyurethane composite foam.

wt.% GF PUF Apparent Density (kg/m3 )

0 90
4 96
10 108
20 113
30 132

Figure 3 shows the optical microscope images of PU composite foam at different wt%
GF loading. It shows that the addition of GF reduces the cell size and wall thickness of
the foam. At 30 wt% of GF, it can be observed that the wall thickness is getting thinner
compared to lower GF loadings. Our findings are in agreement with others [38,40]. For
a deeper investigation, Figure 4 shows the cell of the foam of PUF/30% GF at a higher
magnification. From the figure, it is obvious that fibers tend to embed in the wall of the
cell. In each cell, thick, thin and broken walls can be found. Thin and broken walls are
responsible for the deterioration of the strength of the foam.
Figure 5 shows the flexural-force–deflection curves of the composite sandwiches with
different GF contents. There are two types of curves observed. For the first one, once
reaching the maximum load, a sudden drop occurs until a particular load, then continues
to drop slowly. This behavior is associated with the failure of the face sheet at the contact
point with the test fixture. The second form of the load–displacement curve has two steps
of failure; after reaching the maximum load, the load dropped suddenly due to the core
shear failure, then the load started to increase again, followed by a second sudden drop
due to the separation of the bottom skin. For 8 wt.% GF and below, damage associated with
the face sheet was observed. For 10 wt.% GF and above, the second damage mechanism
was observed.
From the force–deflection curves, core ultimate shear strength and facing strength can
be calculated based on the ASTM D7249 standard [36]. Figure 6 shows graphs of force, core
shear ultimate strength and facing strength by increasing GF content. The force, core shear
stress and facing stress have a similar tendency: to increase up to 10 wt.% loadings and
subsequently drop. The sandwich of 10 wt.% of GF improved the force, core shear strength
and facing strength by 43%, 39% and 40%, respectively, compared to the sandwich with neat
PUF. The presence of GF improved the flexural strength of the sandwiches. The embedded
GF on the PUF wall and the decrease in the cell size contribute to the improvement in
the flexural properties. Meanwhile, the decrease in the force, core shear stress and facing
stress of the sandwiches at 20 wt.% of loading and above was due to the agglomeration of
GF. An excessive loading of GF on the foam disrupts the cell structure, reduces the wall
thickness and furthermore even breaks the wall, thus creating a stress concentration in
the foam wall and decreasing the flexibility of the foam [41]. It is worth remarking that
the facing stress, although it is different in value, reaches its maximum at almost the same
deformation level (around a 8 mm deflection). After this level, degradation starts with a
Materials 2023, 16, 5101 6 of 13

Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 14

high rate in the neat PUF and is slower as the wt.% of GF increases up to 10 wt.%, where a
sudden fracture occurs.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 3.
3. Optical
Optical microscope
microscope (OM)
(OM) images
images of
of the
the foam
foam core:
core: (a)
(a) pure
pure PUF,
PUF, (b)
(b) PUF/10%
PUF/10%GF,
GF,(c)
(c)20%
20%
GF and (d) PUF/30% GF.
GF and (d) PUF/30% GF.

The damage associated with each type of failure is shown in Figure 7. Two types of
failure were observed from the failed samples: top-facing skin failure and core shear failure.
The type of failure was affected by the wt.% loading of the GF. No failure begins from
interfacial bonding between the facing and the core foam, which confirms the hypotheses of
high interface bonding between the PUF and the CFRP face sheet. Top skin failure occurred
due to a compression load on the foam, creating local bending and fiber kinking on the
top-facing skin, then leading to a fracture of the top-facing skin. The core failure occurred
due to the shear stress on the foam exceeding the shear strength of the foam. Core failure
was then followed by the separation of the bottom-facing skin. In the case of separation, a
thin layer of foam was observed as attached to the surface of CFRP. This indicates higher
interfacial bonding between the facing skin CFRP and the PU composite foam core, as
compared to the shear strength of the core [21].
Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 1
Materials 2023, 16, 5101 7 of 13

Figure 4. Optical microscope (OM) images of the foam core of PUF/30% GF at a higher magnifica-
tion.

Figure 5 shows the flexural-force–deflection curves of the composite sandwiches with

different GF contents. There are two types of curves observed. For the first one, once reach-
ing the maximum load, a sudden drop occurs until a particular load, then continues to
drop slowly. This behavior is associated with the failure of the face sheet at the contact
point with the test fixture. The second form of the load–displacement curve has two steps
of failure; after reaching the maximum load, the load dropped suddenly due to the core
shear failure, then the load started to increase again, followed by a second sudden drop
due to the separation of the bottom skin. For 8 wt.% GF and below, damage associated
with the face sheet was observed. For 10 wt.% GF and above, the second damage mecha-
nism
Figurewas
Figure observed.
4.4.Optical
Optical microscope
microscope (OM)(OM) images
images of the
of the foam foam
core core of PUF/30%
of PUF/30% GF magnification.
GF at a higher at a higher magnifica
tion.

Figure 5 shows the flexural-force–deflection curves of the composite sandwiches with

different GF contents. There are two types of curves observed. For the first one, once reach
ing the maximum load, a sudden drop occurs until a particular load, then continues to
drop slowly. This behavior is associated with the failure of the face sheet at the contac
point with the test fixture. The second form of the load–displacement curve has two step
of failure; after reaching the maximum load, the load dropped suddenly due to the cor
shear failure, then the load started to increase again, followed by a second sudden drop
due to the separation of the bottom skin. For 8 wt.% GF and below, damage associated
with the face sheet was observed. For 10 wt.% GF and above, the second damage mecha
nism was observed.

Figure
Figure 5.
5. Representation
Representation of
of the
the flexural-force–deflection
flexural-force–deflection curves
curves for
for different
different configurations.
configurations.

As seen in Figure 8, a close-up image of the 4 wt.% GF sample, the core is compressed
due to the bending load, thus causing the top-facing skin failure due to local bending. The
top skin experienced a higher deflection compared to the bottom-facing skin. The same
phenomenon has also been reported by Steeves and Fleck [42] for FRP-facing and foam
core composite sandwiches. It was described as a failure due to indentation.
 stress and facing stress of the sandwiches at 20 wt.% of loading and above was due to the
agglomeration of GF. An excessive loading of GF on the foam disrupts the cell structure,
reduces the wall thickness and furthermore even breaks the wall, thus creating a stress
concentration in the foam wall and decreasing the flexibility of the foam [41]. It is worth
remarking that the facing stress, although it is different in value, reaches its maximum at
almost the same deformation level (around a 8 mm deflection). After this level, degrada-
Materials 2023, 16, 5101 8 of 13
tion starts with a high rate in the neat PUF and is slower as the wt.% of GF increases up
to 10 wt.%, where a sudden fracture occurs.

(a) (b)

Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14

(c)
Figure 6. Flexuralseparation, a the
properties of thincomposite
layer of foam was (a)
sandwich: observed as Core
Force, (b) attached
shearto the and
stress surface
(c) of CFRP. This
Figure 6. Flexural properties of the composite sandwich: (a) Force, (b) Core shear stress and (c) Facing
indicates
Facing stress (at different higher
wt.% interfacial bonding between the facing skin CFRP and the PU composite
of GF).
stress (at different wt.% of GF).
foam core, as compared to the shear strength of the core [21].
The damage associated with each type of failure is shown in Figure 7. Two types of
failure were observed from the failed samples: top-facing skin failure and core shear fail-
ure. The type of failure was affected by the wt.% loading of the GF. No failure begins from
interfacial bonding between the facing and the core foam, which confirms the hypotheses
of high interface bonding between the PUF and the CFRP face sheet. Top skin failure oc-
curred due to a compression load on the foam, creating local bending and fiber kinking
on the top-facing skin, then leading to a fracture of the top-facing skin. The core failure
occurred due to the shear stress on the foam exceeding the shear strength of the foam.
Core failure was then followed by the separation of the bottom-facing skin. In the case of

Figuretypes
Figure 7. Sample failure 7. Sample failure types
for sandwich for sandwich
composite: (a) composite:
neat PUF, (a)
(b)neat PUF,GF,
4 wt.% (b) (c)
4 wt.% GF, (c)
10 wt.% GF,10 wt.% GF,
(d) 20 wt.% GF and (e) 30 wt.% GF.
(d) 20 wt.% GF and (e) 30 wt.% GF.
As seen in Figure 8, a close-up image of the 4 wt.% GF sample, the core is compressed
due to the bending load, thus causing the top-facing skin failure due to local bending. The
top skin experienced a higher deflection compared to the bottom-facing skin. The same
phenomenon has also been reported by Steeves and Fleck [42] for FRP-facing and foam
core composite sandwiches. It was described as a failure due to indentation.
Materials 2023,16,
Materials2023, 16,x5101
FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of
9 of14
13

Figure
Figure8.8.Close-up
Close-upimage
imageofofflexural
flexuraltest
testsample
samplefailure
failureof
of44wt.%
wt.%GF.
GF.

AAfailure
failuremechanism
mechanismcomparison
comparisonofofthe thecomposite
composite sandwich
sandwich with
with facing
facingfailure
failureat 8at
wt.%
8 wt.% andand
corecore
failure at 10atwt.%
failure is shown
10 wt.% in Figure
is shown 9. For the
in Figure facing
9. For thefailure
facingsample, Figure
failure sample,
9a shows
Figure 9athat the that
shows failurethestarts
failure from thefrom
starts crushing of the foam
the crushing core
of the andcore
foam is followed by the
and is followed
break of the top-facing skin material. Further bending to the sample
by the break of the top-facing skin material. Further bending to the sample compressed compressed more of
the
morecoreoffoam. Meanwhile,
the core for the core for
foam. Meanwhile, failure
the sample (Figure
core failure 9b), the
sample failure
(Figure started
9b), from
the failure
the fracture
started fromofthe
thefracture
core due ofto transverse
the core due to shear stress, which
transverse was then
shear stress, followed
which by afollowed
was then partial
separation
by a partial ofseparation
the bottom-facing skin. With the skin.
of the bottom-facing increase
With in the
the increase
deflection, in the
thebottom-facing
deflection, the
skin was opened,
bottom-facing skinfollowed
was opened, by a followed
full separation
by a fullof separation
the right side of theof right
the loadsidepin on load
of the the
bottom-facing skin and partial
pin on the bottom-facing skin and top-facing skin. Fromskin.
partial top-facing FigureFrom5, itFigure
can be5,observed that de-
it can be observed
flection increases
that deflection with the
increases increase
with in GF for
the increase in GFGFforlower than 8than
GF lower wt.%. The increase
8 wt.%. in thein
The increase
deflection was was
the deflection related to the
related improvement
to the improvement in the compression
in the compression strength
strength composite
compositefoam.foam.
The
Thelocalized
localizedbending
bendingon onthe
thetoptopofofCFRP
CFRPfacing
facingdue duetotolocalized
localizedindentation
indentationwas wasdetained
detained
as
asthe
thecompression
compressionstrength
strengthof ofthe
thePUPUcomposite
compositefoam foamincreased.
increased.As Asaaresult,
result,the
thefacing
facing
failure
failureoccurred
occurredatataahigher
higherdeflection.
deflection.
To thoroughly understand the behavior of the sandwiches under flexural loading with
a different wt.% of GF, the compression properties need to be investigated as correlated
to the damage mechanism in bending. The compression strength was calculated with the
stress at 10% of strain divided by the sample’s cross-section area. The compression modulus
was evaluated from the slope of the linear section of the compression stress–strain curve.
Figure 10 shows the compression properties of the sandwiches by the increase in wt.% of
GF. An enhancement in compression strength was observed, as seen in Figure 10a. An
increase of about 26% compared to PUF only occurred with the addition of 2% of GF, but
then the increase was not as much as before with the increase in wt.% of GF. The maximum
increase was observed at 20 wt.% GF, with about a 38% increase compared to PUF only
before it dropped at 30 wt.% of GF loading. Other researchers [39,43] also reported an
increase in the compression strength of PUF due to reinforcement by GF. There was a slight
increase in the compression modulus up to 10 wt.% GF loading. A 40% improvement was
observed at 20 wt.% GF loading followed by a drop at 30 wt.%.
Adding GF into PUF enhances the compression strength and modulus, nevertheless
decreasing the flexibility of the PU composite foam. The increase in the strength and
modulus of the core hindered the premature crushing of the PU composite core under the
loading pin during the bending. Facing skin failure that occurred for sandwiches with
neat PUF and PU composite foam with lower GF loadings did not arise in sandwiches
at a GF loading of 20 wt.% or higher. The sandwiches with a higher wt.% of GF tend to
fail with a core shear fracture. The decrease in the compression strength of the core due
to the excessive amount of GF disturbed the foaming and continuity of the foam’s cell
structure [44].
Materials 2023, 16, 5101 10 of 13
Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14

Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 14

(a) (b)
Figure 9. The flexural test failure mechanism: (a) 8 wt.% GF with top-facing skin failure and (b) 10
Figure 9. The flexural test failure mechanism: (a) 8 wt.% GF with top-facing skin failure and
There waswith
wt.% GF a slight increase
core shear in the compression modulus up to 10 wt.% GF loading. A 40%
failure.
(b) 10 wt.% GF with
improvement wascore shear failure.
observed at 20 wt.% GF loading followed by a drop at 30 wt.%.
To thoroughly understand the behavior of the sandwiches under flexural loading
with a different wt.% of GF, the compression properties need to be investigated as corre-
lated to the damage mechanism in bending. The compression strength was calculated
with the stress at 10% of strain divided by the sample’s cross-section area. The compres-
sion modulus was evaluated from the slope of the linear section of the compression stress–
strain curve. Figure 10 shows the compression properties of the sandwiches by the in-
crease in wt.% of GF. An enhancement in compression strength was observed, as seen in
Figure 10a. An increase of about 26% compared to PUF only occurred with the addition
of 2% of GF, but then the increase was not as much as before with the increase in wt.% of
GF. The maximum increase was observed at 20 wt.% GF, with about a 38% increase com-
pared to PUF only before it dropped at 30 wt.% of GF loading. Other researchers [39,43]
also reported an increase in the compression strength of PUF due to reinforcement by GF.

(a) (b)
Figure 10. Compression properties of the composite sandwiches: (a) strength and (b) modulus at
Figure 10. Compression properties of the composite sandwiches: (a) strength and (b) modulus at
different wt.% of GF.
different wt.% of GF.
Adding GF into PUF enhances the compression strength and modulus, nevertheless
decreasing the flexibility of the PU composite foam. The increase in the strength and mod-
ulus of the core hindered the premature crushing of the PU composite core under the
loading pin during the bending. Facing skin failure that occurred for sandwiches with
neat PUF and PU composite foam with lower GF loadings did not arise in sandwiches at
a GF loading of 20 wt.% or higher. The sandwiches with a higher wt.% of GF tend to fail
with a core shear fracture. The decrease in the compression strength of the core due to the
Materials 2023, 16, 5101 11 of 13

4. Conclusions
Composite sandwich panels consisting of CFRP as facing skins and GF-reinforced
PUF as the core were manufactured. Adding GF into polyurethane foam has a constructive
effect on the mechanical and physical properties of the sandwich composite. The density
of the PU composite foam increased with the increase in GF loading. The force, core
shear stress and facing stress of the sandwich composite was enhanced up to about 40%
at 10 wt.% GF loading and then dropped subsequently. The compression strength and
modulus also improved with increased GF loading, with the maximum improvement at
20 wt.% GF loading and then a drop. The failure of the sample on the flexural test shifted
from the top-facing skin crack into core shear failure in the range of 8–10 wt.% GF loadings.
Adding GF to the PUF increases the compression strength of the PU composite foam, thus
preventing the crushing or indentation of the core. But the higher content of the GF also
reduced the wall thickness and created the agglomeration of GF on the wall, which reduced
the flexibility of the core foam; therefore, the sandwich failed at a lower force.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.A.S.; methodology, H.J., T.K. and T.A.S.; validation, H.J.,
T.K. and T.A.S.; formal analysis, H.J.; investigation, H.J. and T.K.; resources, T.A.S.; data curation,
H.J.; writing—original draft preparation, H.J.; writing—review and editing, H.J., T.K. and T.A.S.;
visualization, H.J.; supervision, T.A.S.; funding acquisition, H.J. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The APC was funded by Prince Sultan University.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data will be made available upon request to the authors.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Prince Sultan University,
Saudi Arabia for paying the Article Processing Charges (APC) of this publication.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Vasiliev, V.V.; Morozov, E.V. Mechanics of Laminates. Adv. Mech. Compos. Mater. Struct. 2018, 29, 191–242. [CrossRef]
2. The Importance of Aircraft Floor Panels. Available online: https://www.comtekadvanced.com/the-importance-of-aircraft-floor-
panels (accessed on 27 November 2022).
3. Sahu, S.K.; Sreekanth, P.S.R.; Reddy, S.V.K. A Brief Review on Advanced Sandwich Structures with Customized Design Core and
Composite Face Sheet. Polymers 2022, 14, 4267. [CrossRef]
4. He, M.; Hu, W. A Study on Composite Honeycomb Sandwich Panel Structure. Mater. Des. 2008, 29, 709–713. [CrossRef]
5. Xiong, J.; Du, Y.; Mousanezhad, D.; Eydani Asl, M.; Norato, J.; Vaziri, A. Sandwich Structures with Prismatic and Foam Cores: A
Review. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2019, 21, 1800036. [CrossRef]
6. Chang, W.S.; Ventsel, E.; Krauthammer, T.; John, J. Bending Behavior of Corrugated-Core Sandwich Plates. Compos. Struct. 2005,
70, 81–89. [CrossRef]
7. Reis, E.M.; Rizkalla, S.H. Material Characteristics of 3-D FRP Sandwich Panels. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 1009–1018.
[CrossRef]
8. Manalo, A.C. Behaviour of Fibre Composite Sandwich Structures under Short and Asymmetrical Beam Shear Tests. Compos.
Struct. 2013, 99, 339–349. [CrossRef]
9. Mohamed, M.; Anandan, S.; Huo, Z.; Birman, V.; Volz, J.; Chandrashekhara, K. Manufacturing and Characterization of
Polyurethane Based Sandwich Composite Structures. Compos. Struct. 2015, 123, 169–179. [CrossRef]
10. Taghipoor, H.; Musharavati, F.; Sebaey, T.A.; Eyvazian, A.; Ghiaskar, A. Experimental Investigation of the Three-Point Bending
Properties of Sandwich Beams with Polyurethane Foam-Filled Lattice Cores. Structures 2020, 28, 424–432. [CrossRef]
11. Khan, T.; Acar, V.; Aydin, M.R.; Hülagü, B.; Akbulut, H.; Seydibeyoğlu, M.Ö. A Review on Recent Advances in Sandwich
Structures Based on Polyurethane Foam Cores. Polym. Compos. 2020, 41, 2355–2400. [CrossRef]
12. Samali, B.; Nemati, S.; Sharafi, P.; Yaghmaei, F.; Farrokhi, A. Feasibility Analysis of the Use of Rigid Polyurethane Foam in
Modular Sandwich Panels for Rapid Assembly Structures. Int. J. GEOMATE 2018, 15, 113–120. [CrossRef]
13. Tuwair, H.; Hopkins, M.; Volz, J.; ElGawady, M.A.; Mohamed, M.; Chandrashekhara, K.; Birman, V. Evaluation of Sandwich
Panels with Various Polyurethane Foam-Cores and Ribs. Compos. B Eng. 2015, 79, 262–276. [CrossRef]
Materials 2023, 16, 5101 12 of 13

14. Banhart, J.; Seeliger, H.W. Recent Trends in Aluminum Foam Sandwich Technology. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2012, 14, 1082–1087.
[CrossRef]
15. Luo, H.; Lin, H.; Zhao, Z.; Liu, Y.; Yao, G. Preparation of Aluminum Foam Sandwich Reinforced by Steel Sheets. Procedia Mater.
Sci. 2014, 4, 39–43. [CrossRef]
16. Kwon, D.J.; Kim, J.H.; Devries, K.L.; Park, J.M. Optimized Epoxy Foam Interface of CFRP/Epoxy Foam/CFRP Sandwich
Composites for Improving Compressive and Impact Properties. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2021, 11, 62–71. [CrossRef]
17. Anderson, T.; Madenci, E. Graphite/Epoxy Foam Sandwich Panels under Quasi-Static Indentation. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2000, 67,
329–344. [CrossRef]
18. Tang, Z.; Zha, X.; Zu, D. Bending Properties of Steel Faced Sandwich Composite Panels with Phenolic Foam Cores. J. Reinf. Plast.
Compos. 2016, 35, 834–852. [CrossRef]
19. Boccaccio, A.; Casavola, C.; Lamberti, L.; Pappalettere, C. Structural Response of Polyethylene Foam-Based Sandwich Panels
Subjected to Edgewise Compression. Materials 2013, 6, 4545. [CrossRef]
20. Loypetch, N.; Tröltzsch, J.; Nestler, D.; Kroll, L. Influence of Talc in Polypropylene Foam Cores of Sandwich Structures with Skins
Made of Thermoplastic Prepregs. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 480, 012012. [CrossRef]
21. Salleh, Z.; Islam, M.M.; Epaarachchi, J.A.; Su, H. Mechanical Properties of Sandwich Composite Made of Syntactic Foam Core
and GFRP Skins. AIMS Mater. Sci. 2016, 3, 1704–1727. [CrossRef]
22. Palumbo, M.; Tempesti, E. Fiber-Reinforced Syntactic Foams as a New Lightweight Structural Three-Phase Composite. Appl.
Compos. Mater. 2001, 8, 343–359. [CrossRef]
23. Gupta, N.; Woldesenbet, E. Characterization of Flexural Properties of Syntactic Foam Core Sandwich Composites and Effect of
Density Variation. J. Compos. Mater. 2005, 39, 2197–2212. [CrossRef]
24. Chen, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J.; Gangarao, H.; Liang, R.; Zhang, Y.; Hui, D. Experimental and Modeling Investigations of the
Behaviors of Syntactic Foam Sandwich Panels with Lattice Webs under Crushing Loads. Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 2021, 60, 450–465.
[CrossRef]
25. Devaraj, S.J.; Arputham, A.J.K. Influence of Chopped Fibers on the Interfacial Bonding of Glass Fiber Reinforced Epoxy
Skin/Polyurethane Core in a Sandwich Composite. Polym. Compos. 2022, 43, 5563–5572. [CrossRef]
26. Lascano, D.; Guillen-Pineda, R.; Quiles-Carrillo, L.; Ivorra-Martínez, J.; Balart, R.; Montanes, N.; Boronat, T. Manufacturing and
Characterization of Highly Environmentally Friendly Sandwich Composites from Polylactide Cores and Flax-Polylactide Faces.
Polymers 2021, 13, 342. [CrossRef]
27. Fatima, N.S.; Dhaliwal, G.S.; Newaz, G. Contribution of Adhesive-Reinforced Interface on the Performance of Light-Weight
Sustainable Sandwich Composites. J. Compos. Mater. 2022, 56, 1829–1849. [CrossRef]
28. Luo, H.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, B.; Lu, H. Characterization of the Compressive Behavior of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polyurethane Foam
at Different Strain Rates. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 2010, 132, 021301. [CrossRef]
29. Yakushin, V.; Stirna, U.; Bel’Kova, L.; Deme, L.; Sevastyanova, I. Properties of Rigid Polyurethane Foams Filled with Milled
Carbon Fibers. Mech. Compos. Mater. 2011, 46, 679–688. [CrossRef]
30. Merillas, B.; Villafañe, F.; Rodríguez-Pérez, M.Á. Nanoparticles Addition in PU Foams: The Dramatic Effect of Trapped-Air on
Nucleation. Polymers 2021, 13, 2952. [CrossRef]
31. Lee, D.I.; Ha, Y.H.; Jeon, H.; Kim, S.H. Preparation and Properties of Polyurethane Composite Foams with Silica-Based Fillers.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 7418. [CrossRef]
32. Smits, G.F. Effect of Cellsize Reduction on Polyurethane Foam Physical Properties. J. Therm. Insul. Build. Envel. 1994, 17, 309–329.
[CrossRef]
33. Mahfuz, H.; Islam, M.S.; Rangari, V.K.; Saha, M.C.; Jeelani, S. Response of Sandwich Composites with Nanophased Cores under
Flexural Loading. Compos. B Eng. 2004, 35, 543–550. [CrossRef]
34. Caglayan, C.; Gurkan, I.; Gungor, S.; Cebeci, H. The Effect of CNT-Reinforced Polyurethane Foam Cores to Flexural Properties of
Sandwich Composites. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2018, 115, 187–195. [CrossRef]
35. 1/32 Inch Milled Glass Fibers Product Data Sheet. Available online: https://www.fibreglast.com/product/132_inch_Milled_
Glass_Fibers_38/Fillers#documents (accessed on 27 November 2022).
36. ASTM D7249/D7249M-20; Standard Test Method for Facesheet Properties of Sandwich Constructions by Long Beam Flexure.
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2020.
37. ASTM C365/C365M-22; Standard Test Method for Flatwise Compressive Properties of Sandwich Cores. ASTM International: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2022.
38. Kim, S.H.; Park, H.C.; Jeong, H.M.; Kim, B.K. Glass Fiber Reinforced Rigid Polyurethane Foams. J. Mater. Sci. 2010, 45, 2675–2680.
[CrossRef]
39. Kumar, M.; Kaur, R. Glass Fiber Reinforced Rigid Polyurethane Foam: Synthesis and Characterization. e-Polymers 2017, 17,
517–521. [CrossRef]
40. Shin, S.R.; Lee, D.S. Nanocomposites of Rigid Polyurethane Foam and Graphene Nanoplates Obtained by Exfoliation of Natural
Graphite in Polymeric 4,40 -Diphenylmethane Diisocyanate. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 685. [CrossRef]
41. Tian, H.; Yao, Y.; Ma, S.; Fu, L.; Xiang, A.; Rajulu, A.V. Improved Mechanical, Thermal and Flame Resistant Properties of Flexible
Isocyanate-Based Polyimide Foams by Graphite Incorporation. High. Perform. Polym. 2017, 30, 1130–1138. [CrossRef]
Materials 2023, 16, 5101 13 of 13

42. Steeves, C.A.; Fleck, N.A. Collapse Mechanisms of Sandwich Beams with Composite Faces and a Foam Core, Loaded in
Three-Point Bending. Part II: Experimental Investigation and Numerical Modelling. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2004, 46, 585–608. [CrossRef]
43. Kim, M.W.; Kwon, S.H.; Park, H.; Kim, B.K. Glass Fiber and Silica Reinforced Rigid Polyurethane Foams. Express Polym. Lett.
2017, 11, 374–382. [CrossRef]
44. Subramaniyan, S.K.; Mahzan, S.; bin Ghazali, M.I.; Ismon, M.B.; Zaidi, A.M.A. Mechanical Behavior of Polyurethane Composite
Foams from Kenaf Fiber and Recycled Tire Rubber Particles. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013, 315, 861–866. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.