Sci Eng Compos Mater 2017; aop
R.S. Jayaram*, V.A. Nagarajan and K.P. Vinod Kumar
Mechanical performance of polyester pin-reinforced
foam filled honeycomb sandwich panels
https://doi.org/10.1515/secm-2017-0039
Received January 29, 2017; accepted April 26, 2017
Abstract: Honeycomb sandwich panels entice continu-
ously enhanced attention due to its excellent mechanical
properties and multi-functional applications. However,
the principal problem of sandwich panels is failure by
face/core debond. Novel lightweight sandwich panels
with hybrid core made of honeycomb, foam and through-
thickness pin was developed. Reinforcing polyester pins
between faces and core is an effectual way to strengthen
the core and enhance the interfacial strength between the
face/core to improve the structural performance of sand-
wich panels. To provide feasibility for pin reinforcement,
honeycomb core was pre-filled with foam. Mechanical
properties enhancement due to polyester pinning were
investigated experimentally under flatwise compression,
edgewise compression and flexural test. The experimental
investigations were carried out for both “foam filled hon-
eycomb sandwich panels” (FHS) and “polyester pin-rein-
forced foam filled honeycomb sandwich panels” (PFHS).
The results show that polyester pin reinforcement in foam
filled honeycomb sandwich panel enhanced the flatwise,
edgewise compression and flexural properties consider-
ably. Moreover, increasing the pin diameter has a larger
effect on the flexural rigidity of PFHS panels. PFHS panels
have inconsequential increase in weight but appreciably
improved their structural performance.
Keywords: edgewise compression; flatwise compression;
foam filled honeycomb; polyester pins; sandwich panels.
*Corresponding author: R.S. Jayaram, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University College of Engineering Nagercoil, Anna
University Constituent College, Konam Post, Nagercoil 629004,
Tamil Nadu, India, e-mail: rsjram@gmail.com
V.A. Nagarajan: Department of Mechanical Engineering, University
College of Engineering Nagercoil, Anna University Constituent
College, Konam Post, Nagercoil 629004, Tamil Nadu, India
K.P. Vinod Kumar: Department of Chemistry, University College of
Engineering Nagercoil, Anna University Constituent College, Konam
Post, Nagercoil 629004, Tamil Nadu, India
1 Introduction
Composite sandwich panels of fibre reinforced plastic
face sheets and aluminium honeycomb cores have been
widely used in numerous applications such as civil con-
struction, marine, automobile and shipbuilding due to
their high specific stiffness and strength, low weight
and excellent energy absorbing capacity [1, 2]. It also
possesses excellent crash worthiness, thermal insula-
tion and acoustic damping. The major function of face
sheet is to protect the honeycomb core from differ-
ent mechanical loading. Under bending load, the face
sheets carry in-plane load, while the core helps to resist
shear load [3].
Several studies have been carried out on the failure
behaviour and damage characteristics of honeycomb
sandwich panels under compression, flexural, indenta-
tion and low-velocity impact [4–7]. The damage loads
and the following damage modes are closely related to
the material characteristics, structural configuration,
load distribution and face-core interface bonding [8].
The influence of cell size, core density, core material,
thickness and material of face sheet on the mechani-
cal properties of honeycomb sandwich structures was
studied [9–13]. Daniel et al. [14] investigated the failure
modes and conditions for their occurrence in sandwich
panels and found that the overall performance of sand-
wich structures depends on properties of face sheets,
core and also interfacial bonding between face/core.
Investigations regarding the failure mechanism of honey-
comb sandwich panels under flexural and compression
tests results in cell wall buckling, debonding of face-core
and crushing [15–17]. Othman and Barton [18] studied
the failure initiation and propagation of the honeycomb
sandwich panels under static and dynamic impact loads.
They presented the stages of failure; it includes top face
sheet failure, followed by core crushing and bottom face
sheet failure. Also, impact condition induces the chance
of face-core debonding. Apart from those experimen-
tal investigations of honeycomb sandwich panels, the
failure characteristics were studied numerically and the-
oretically [19–22]. From the above literature, it is evident
that strong interface bonding between the face sheets
Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/4/17 11:29 AM
2 R.S. Jayaram et al.: Mechanical performance of sandwich panels
and core is vital for the structural integrity and perfor-
mance of the sandwich panels.
Various methodologies have been reported to
enhance interfacial bonding between the face and core
of sandwich structures. The most common method com-
prises Z-pinning [23] and stitching [24], which refers to
sewing the face skin and core mutually by Z-directional
or through-thickness reinforcements. This method
improves the bonding between face and core and in
addition strengthens the core [25]. It was proven that the
out of plane compressive properties of sandwich panel
increased by more than 100% [26]. Abdi et al. [27] inves-
tigated the mechanical behaviour of polymer pins rein-
forced foam core sandwich panel. They reported that
reinforcing foam with polymer pins increases compres-
sion and flexural properties considerably. Blok et al. [28]
compared the in-plane compression response of sand-
wich panels with different cores and face sheets and
reported that considerable enhancement was obtained
for through-thickness stitched sandwich panels. Han
et al. [29] studied the effect of through-thickness rein-
forcement on the low-velocity impact response of foam
core sandwich panel and reported that the incorporated
reinforcement increased the energy absorption capacity
and arrested the delamination growth, thus reducing the
damage area. Tufting of sandwich panel face and core
improved the in-plane compression strength; the tuft
counteracts the face sheets failure mode of peeling [30].
Since the core of honeycomb sandwich panel is
hollow metal, general through-thickness interfacial
toughening methodologies are not appropriate. To make
the through-thickness interfacial toughening methods
appropriate, the honeycomb core is filled with foam.
Besides, foam filling prevents premature bending, buck-
ling and shear failure of honeycomb cell walls [31]. In
contrast to the unfilled honeycomb cores, the foam
filled core exhibits improved resistance to the inter-
face debonding and delamination, damping properties
and specifically its bending stiffness [32]. The inter-
face strength between the face sheets and core will be
enhanced by incorporating two auxiliary materials in the
core of honeycomb sandwich panels, i.e. by filling the
honeycomb core with foam and then reinforcing foam
with circular polyester pins mutually connecting the top
and bottom face sheets of the panel.
The objective of this investigation is to study the influ-
ence of polyester pin addition in foam filled honeycomb
sandwich panels (PFHS). Two distinct diameters of pins 2
and 3 mm were used to reinforce foam filled honeycomb
core, and their effects were also studied on mechanical
characteristics including debonding.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Materials and manufacturing
Honeycomb core with cell size 6.3 mm, wall thickness
0.068 mm and height 10 mm made of aluminium alloy
3003 obtained from Honeycomb India Private Limited,
Bangalore, Karnataka, India, was used as the core material
in this study. The sandwich faces were made of two layers
of plain weave glass fabric with areal density 600 g/m2
and polyester resin. Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide as hard-
ener and cobalt naphthenate as accelerator were used. For
filling the honeycomb core, polyurethane foam of appar-
ent density 52 kg/m3 was used. Both the polyester and the
polyurethane foam were supplied by Ayiswarya Polymers,
Coimbatore, TamilNadu, India. The foam density was
determined in accordance with ASTM D-1622. To fill hon-
eycomb cells with foam, a die with required dimensions
was prepared. The foam in solution state was poured into
the die, and the honeycomb was set on it instantly with a
small space from the die bottom. At the end of solidifica-
tion, the foam fills the honeycomb cells [33].
Both FHS and PFHS panels were prepared by vacuum
infusion method. Figure 1 shows the schematic showing
the difference in fabrication of FHS and PFHS panels by
vacuum infusion process. In this method a glass plate was
employed at the base as holder and then coated on the
mold surface with a releasing agent. The dry glass fibre
is placed on both sides of the foam filled honeycomb core
and placed on the glass holder, and then covered with peel
ply. Then the laminate was closed by vacuum bagging film
and sealant tape. To confirm that the resin could flow uni-
formly, a delivery pipe was fixed at the inlet. Once infus-
ing the resin, the system was cured at room temperature at
a vacuum level of 0.6 bar for 24 h to prevent the introduc-
tion of air prematurely [34].
The schematic representation of PFHS panel is shown
in Figure 2. It also depicts the alternative (W) and adjacent
(L) arrangements of pins in the foam filled honeycomb
structure for which the enlarged view is given in Figure 3 for
PFHS panels. For the manufacturing of cylindrical pins in
PFHS panels, the foam filled honeycomb core was drilled
in the foam areas of hexagonal cells to make cylindrical
holes by using a Computer Numerical Control machine,
so that the polyester resin would flow into these holes to
form the solid cylindrical pins after curing. Figure 4 shows
the actual fabrication of PFHS panels. The purpose of poly­
ester pins is to increase the interface strength, thereby
increasing the resistance of the face sheets and foam filled
honey-comb core from debonding and delamination. The
Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/4/17 11:29 AM
 R.S. Jayaram et al.: Mechanical performance of sandwich panels 3

Bagging film Vacuum

pump
Resin
Flow media Peel ply
trap
Resin

Sealant Foam filled

Spiral tube
honeycomb Glass fiber

B
Bagging film Vacuum
Pump
Resin
Flow media Peel ply trap
Resin

Sealant Foam filled Spiral tube

Cylindrical Glass fiber
honeycomb
pin

Figure 1: Schematic showing the difference in fabrication of (A) FHS panel and (B) PFHS panel by vacuum infusion process.

W direction
Upper face sheet

Lower face sheet

Honeycomb Foam
L
Polyester pin direction

Figure 2: Schematic of PFHS panel (face sheet partially removed

and sectioned the honeycomb core to show pins).

pins are made of the polyester matrix that is used in the

face sheets. As the manufacturing takes place together,
the face sheets, foam filled honeycomb core and polyester
pins are built in to form a single inclusive solid structure. Figure 3: Typical patterns of polymer pins in PFHS panels.

2.2 E
 xperimental tests of face sheet and
foam filled honeycomb core
The face sheet was tested for tensile and three-point
bending at a constant loading rate of 1 mm/min as per
ASTM D-638 and ASTM D-790 standards. The flexural test
samples were loaded with a recommended span ratio of
16:1. For foam filled honeycomb core, square specimen
with sides 50 mm and thickness 10 mm were prepared
according to ASTM C-365/365M standard and subjected to
compression test at a loading rate of 1 mm/min. The details
of samples and tests used to determine the mechanical
properties of face sheet and foam filled honeycomb core
are listed in Table 1.
2.3 Experimental tests of sandwich panels
Flatwise compression, edgewise compression and flexural
tests were carried out using a Kalpak Computerized Universal

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 9/4/17 11:29 AM
4 R.S. Jayaram et al.: Mechanical performance of sandwich panels

of sandwich panel and core, respectively. The face sheet

bending stress values are calculated using Equation (2)
PL
σ= (2)
2t (d + c )b


where L and t are span length and thickness of face sheet,

respectively. Three replicate samples were used for each
test to ensure the reproducibility.
To assess the flatwise compression, edgewise com-
pression and flexural performance of the sandwich panels,
Figure 4: Fabrication of PFHS panel by vacuum infusion process. a total of 9 FHS samples and 18 PFHS samples with two
distinct diameters of polyester pin 2 mm and 3 mm were
prepared. The details of sandwich panel samples includ-
Table 1: Details of samples and tests to determine the mechanical
ing weight for flatwise compression, edgewise compres-
properties of face sheet and foam filled honeycomb core.
sion and flexural test are listed in Table 2.
Samples Test type Sample size

Glass/polyester face sheet Tensile 20 mm × 100 mm

3 Results and discussion

(gauge length)
Glass/polyester face sheet Flexural 15 mm × 100 mm
Polyurethane foam filled Compression 50 mm × 50 mm
honeycomb core
3.1 M
 echanical properties of face sheet
and foam filled honeycomb core
Testing Machine in accordance with ASTM C-365/365M,
The determined mechanical properties of the face sheet
ASTM C-364/364M and ASTM C-393/393M standards, respec-
such as failure stress (σF), Young’s modulus (E), failure
tively. All tests were performed at a constant crosshead dis-
strain (εF), Poisson’s ratio (υ) and flexural failure stress
placement rate of 1 mm/min. For flexural test of both FHS
(σ Ff ) are listed in Table 3. Figures 5 and 6 show the typical
and PFHS panels, span length was set at 180 mm.
stress-strain curves of tensile tests and flexural stress-
The core shear ultimate stress values are calculated
deflection curve of face sheet. The tensile stress-strain
using Equation (1), which is given in the ASTM C-393/393M
curves of face sheet are linear and decline after reaching a
standard for both types of sandwich panels based on
maximum value due to the occurrence of failure. The flex-
experimental values.
ural stress-deflection curves of face sheet are linear in the
P elastic region. At maximum value, the face sheet delami-
τ= (1)
(d + c )b nates and failure occurs [35]. The determined tensile

and flexural strength of the face sheets are 64 MPa and
where P is the maximum force prior to failure, b is the 101 MPa. Figure 7 shows the stress-strain curves of foam
sandwich panel width and d and c represent the thickness filled honeycomb core under compression tests. After

Table 2: Detail of samples for flatwise compression, edgewise compression and flexural tests.

Samples Test type No of samples Diameter of pins (mm) Sample size (mm2) Weight (g)

FHS Flatwise compression 3 – 50 × 50 18 ± 1

PFHS2 Flatwise compression 3 2 50 × 50 20 ± 1
PFHS3 Flatwise compression 3 3 50 × 50 21 ± 1
FHS Edgewise compression 3 – 100 × 50 37 ± 1
PFHS2 Edgewise compression 3 2 100 × 50 40 ± 1
PFHS3 Edgewise compression 3 3 100 × 50 42 ± 1
FHS Flexural 3 – 240 × 30 51 ± 1
PFHS2 Flexural 3 2 240 × 30 56 ± 1
PFHS3 Flexural 3 3 240 × 30 59 ± 1

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 9/4/17 11:29 AM
 R.S. Jayaram et al.: Mechanical performance of sandwich panels 5

Table 3: Mechanical characteristics of face sheet. 3.0

σF (MPa) E (GPa) ɛF υ σFf (MPa) 2.5

Compressive stress (MPa)

64 7.5 0.0112 0.21 101
2.0

1.5
70

1.0
60
Specimen #1
50 0.5 Specimen #2
Specimen #3
Tensile stress (MPa)

40 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50

30 Compressive strain (%)

Figure 7: Compressive stress-strain curves of foam filled honey-

20
Specimen #1 comb core.
Specimen #2
10
Specimen #3

0 honeycomb core of sandwich panel, both FHS panels and

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 PFHS panels with two distinct diameters of polyester pins
Tensile strain (%)
were tested at constant strain rate of 1 mm/min. Figure 8
Figure 5: The tensile stress-strain curves of face sheet. shows the load-deflection curves of the sandwich panels
subjected to flatwise compression loading. It is observed
that the load drops after reaching maximum, and this
indicates failure initiation in the panels. In FHS panel, the
120 cause of the initial load drop is the buckling of the honey-
comb core cell walls, and in PFHS panels, it is the initia-
100
tion of cracks in the pins. It can be seen from the flatwise
Flexure stress (MPa)

80 compression response of FHS and PFHS panels that there

is a significant improvement in compression properties of
60
PFHS panel when compared to the FHS panel. The failure
40
load of FHS panel is about 8132 N, whereas for PFHS2 and
Specimen #1 PFHS3 are 13741 N and 17914 N, which are 1.69 and 2.21
20 Specimen #2 times higher than those of FHS panels, respectively. The
Specimen #3
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Deflection (mm) 20
18 FHS
Figure 6: The flexural stress-deflection curves of face sheet. PFHS2
16 PFHS3
14
load drop, it rises constantly due to the internal resistant
12
forces of foam through the cells which helps to improve
Load (kN)

10
the resistance of buckling of cell wall [36]. The compres-
8
sive strength and modulus of foam filled honeycomb core
was found to be 2.07 MPa and 82 MPa, respectively. 6
4
2
3.2 F latwise compression test for FHS and 0
PFHS panels 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Deflection (mm)

To study the influence of polyester pin reinforcement Figure 8: Load-deflection curves of the sandwich panels subjected
on the flatwise compression properties of foam filled to flatwise compression loading.

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 9/4/17 11:29 AM
6 R.S. Jayaram et al.: Mechanical performance of sandwich panels

Figure 9: Specimens after flatwise compression test, (A) FHS panel and (B) PFHS panels.

significant improvement in the compression properties of
PFHS panels is due to the reinforced polyester pins which
carry maximum applied load, since the compression
properties of polyester pins are better than those of the
foam filled honeycomb core material alone. This is sub-
stantiated in earlier work where epoxy through-thickness
pins were incorporated in polyvinyl chloride foam core
sandwich panel [37].
After the initial failure of the FHS panel, its ability to
withstand load increases due to the densification of foam
filled honeycomb core. The resistance of cell wall buck-
ling is assisted by the foam in the honeycomb structure. In
the PFHS panels, load increases due to the densification
of the core by crushing of polyester pins and foam filled
honeycomb.
Figure 9 shows the failed FHS and PFHS specimens
under flatwise compression loading. It can be seen that
the FHS panel with the “foam filled honeycomb core” was
crushed evenly because of decreased local densification of
the core [38], whereas PFHS panel was crushed unevenly
due to the presence of reinforcing hard polyester pins.
The failure load to weight of PFHS2 and PFHS3 panels are
52% and 88.8% higher than those of the FHS panels. Also,
higher initial peak loads were obtained for PFHS panels
than for the FHS panels due to the presence of polyester
pins. Therefore, “polyester pin reinforcement” in foam
filled honeycomb core enhances the flatwise compression
properties of sandwich panels appreciably.
The FHS sandwich panel failed by the delamination
or debonding failure of the face sheet and subsequently
buckling as shown in Figure 11A. In comparison, PFHS
sandwich panels have not succumbed to delamina-
tion or debonding but undergone bending and com-
pressive damage of both face sheet and core together
under higher load, which can be observed from
Figure 11B. Similar behaviour was already reported for
sandwich panels [39]. The pin reinforcement in PFHS
panels increased the interfacial strength between the
face and core, resulting in improved structural integ-
rity and performance under edgewise compression
loading. The initial failure load of FHS panel is about
10,188 N whereas for PFHS2 and PFHS3 are 11,261 N
and 13,648 N, respectively. Overall, the improvement is
10.5% and 33.2% for PFHS panels than for FHS panels,
respectively. The failure load to weight ratio of PFHS2
and PFHS3 panels are 1.02 and 1.17 times higher than
those of FHS panels. Therefore, the edgewise compres-
sion properties of PFHS sandwich panels are more
impressive than those of FHS panels.
14
FHS
12 PFHS2
PFHS3
10

8
3.3 E
 dgewise compression test for FHS
Load (kN)

and PFHS panels 6

4
The edgewise compression response of FHS and PFHS
panels with two distinct diameters of polyester pins was 2
studied. Figure 10 shows the load-deflection curves of
both FHS and PFHS sandwich panels subjected to edge- 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
wise compression loading. For all sandwich panels, the
Deflection (mm)
load rises up to the initial failure load; after that the load
drops suddenly. Figure 11 illustrates the failures in FHS Figure 10: Load-deflection curves of the sandwich panels subjected
and PFHS panels. to edgewise compression loading.

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 9/4/17 11:29 AM
 R.S. Jayaram et al.: Mechanical performance of sandwich panels 7

Figure 11: Details of the failure in specimens under edgewise compression (A) FHS panel, (B) PFHS panels.

3.4 F lexural test for FHS and PFHS panels
Flexural tests were performed to determine the flexural
performance of FHS and PFHS panels with two distinct
diameters of polyester pins. Figure 12 shows the load-
deflection responses of sandwich panels subjected to flex-
ural loading.
For both FHS and PFHS panels, the load increases
until the initial failure load; after that the load drops
abruptly. From Figure 12 it can be seen that, by reinforc-
ing the foam filled honeycomb core with polyester pin of
2 mm and 3 mm diameter, the improvement in failure load
was 41.8% and 66.1%, for PFHS2 and PFHS3 panels, cor-
responding to FHS panel. In contrast with FHS panel, the
deflection at failure load increased by 18.2% and 25.5%,
correspondingly for PFHS2 and PFHS3 panels.
1400
FHS
1200 PFHS2
PFHS3
1000
800
Load (N)
The experimental results of flexural tests are listed in
Table 4. The assessment of flexural properties of PFHS2
and PFFS3 panels shows that the pin diameter has a major
effect on the enhancement of strengths and stiffness. The
initial failure load and its deflection of PFHS3 panel is
17.1% and 7.8% higher than those of PFHS2 panel in that
order. Likewise, the core shear stresses of PFHS2 and
PFHS3 panels are higher by 44.6% and 67% than those of
FHS panel, respectively.
From Table 4, it is observed that, for PFHS2 and PFHS3
panels, the flexural rigidity has improved to 19% and 27%,
respectively, over the FHS panels. In terms of weight, the
failure load of PFHS2 and PFHS3 panels are enhanced by
29.2% and 43.6% than those of FHS panels. The face sheet
bending stresses of PFHS2 and PFHS3 panels are 1.41 and
1.66 times higher than those of FHS panel, respectively. The
significant increase in core shear and face sheet bending
property is due to the strong interface bonding between
face/core provided by the pin reinforcement in addition
to the foam filled honeycomb core. Figure 13 shows the
failure mechanisms of sandwich panels under flexural
loading. It can be seen from Figure 13A, in FHS panel, that
the failure takes place only in the upper face sheet. The

failure mode is indentation over the loading line which

600
is a main failure mode in circumstances of highly local-
400 ized external loads, such as point or line loads. Also, the
core crushed beneath the loading line, and no failure is
200
observed in the bottom face sheet as shown in Figure 13B.
0 The failure mode and location for PFHS panels
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 differs from the FHS panels. Owing to the strong interface
Deflection (mm)
bonding between the face sheet and core through polyes-
Figure 12: Load-deflection curves of sandwich panels subjected to ter pins, the applied maximum load is passed to the lower
flexural loading. face sheet via the polyester pins and honeycomb core.

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 9/4/17 11:29 AM
8 R.S. Jayaram et al.: Mechanical performance of sandwich panels

Table 4: The experimental results of FHS and PFHS sandwich panels subjected to flexural tests.

Sample Failure Failure load/ Deflection at Core shear Face sheet bending Bending stiffness
type load (N) weight (N/N) failure load (mm) stress (MPa) stress (MPa) (M N mm2)

FHS 736.27 1471.62 2.91 1.06 64.01 1024.43

PFHS2 1044.53 1901.35 3.44 1.51 90.82 1229.23
PFHS3 1223.73 2114.29 3.71 1.77 106.41 1306.85

Figure 13: Failure mechanisms of sandwich panels under flexural loading (A, B) FHS panel, and (C, D) PFHS panels.

In PFHS panels, at maximum load the failure initiates
through the breaking of pin near to the loading point and
passes towards support fixtures as shown in Figure 13C.
Also, failure occurs only in the core as a result of tough
bridging between faces and core through the incorpo-
rated through-thickness reinforcement [40], and no visual
damage is viewed in the face sheets as shown in Figure
13D. At last, failure takes place at different interface
between core and face sheets in PFHS panels, but at much
higher load than FHS panels.
panels. In contrast to the low load bearing capacity of FHS
panels under flatwise, edgewise and flexural loading con-
figuration, the polyester pinned PFHS2 and PFHS3 panels
have better properties with the latter more pronounced
than the former. The work clearly reveals that, only with
a slight increase in weight, the resulting structural perfor-
mance of PFHS sandwich panel is appreciably better than
that of FHS panels, which presents itself as a potential
material for high performance structural applications.

4 Conclusions
The polyester pin reinforcement in foam filled honeycomb
core sandwich panel enhanced the flatwise, edgewise
compression and flexural properties considerably. The
low initial peak load of honeycomb based sandwich panel
under compression loading drawback is overcome by this
pin reinforcement. The pin reinforcement effect is more
reflected in the case of flatwise compression properties of
PFHS panels. Also, increasing the pin diameter results in
improved properties of PFHS3 panels than those of PFHS2
References
[1] Karlsson KF, Tomas Astrom B. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf.
1997, 28, 97–111.
[2] He M, Hu W. Mater. Des. 2008, 29, 709–713.
[3] Prakash AA, Mohan B, Rajadurai A, Jaswin A. Sci. Eng. Compos.
Mater. 2015, 22, 525–538.
[4] Kee Paik J, Thayamballi AK, Sung Kim G. Thin-Walled Struct.
1999, 35, 205–231.
[5] Petras A, Sutcliffe MPF. Compos. Struct. 2000, 50, 311–318.
[6] Akil Hazizan M, Cantwell WJ. Compos. Part B Eng. 2003, 34,
679–687.
[7] Crupi V, Epasto G, Guglielmino E. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2012, 43,
6–15.

Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 9/4/17 11:29 AM
 R.S. Jayaram et al.: Mechanical performance of sandwich panels
[8] Shi SS, Sun Z, Hu XZ, Chen HR. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci.
Manuf. 2014, 67, 102–110.
[9] Kaman MO, Solmaz MY, Turan K. J. Compos. Mater. 2010, 44,
2819–2831.
[10] Sezgin FE, Tanoglu M, Egilmez OO, Donmez C. J. Reinf. Plast.
Compos. 2010, 29, 1569–1579.
[11] Chen Z, Yan N, Sam-Brew S, Smith G, Deng J. Eur. J. Wood Wood
Prod. 2014, 72, 311–319.
[12] Jen YM, Chang LY. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2009, 16, 1282–1293.
[13] Kong CW, Nam GW, Jang YS, Yi YM. Adv. Compos. Mater. 2014,
23, 43–52.
[14] Daniel IM, Gdoutos EE, Wang KA, Abot JL. Int. J. Damage Mech.
2002, 11, 309–334.
[15] Crupi V, Montanini R. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2007, 34, 509–521.
[16] Zhou G, Hill M, Loughlan J, Hookham N. J. Sandw. Struct. Mater.
2006, 8, 55–90.
[17] Hong S-T, Pan J, Tyan T, Prasad P. Int. J. Plast. 2006, 22, 73–109.
[18] Othman AR, Barton DC. Compos. Struct. 2008, 85, 126–138.
[19] Abbadi A, Koutsawa Y, Carmasol A, Belouettar S, Azari Z. Simul.
Model Pract. Theory 2009, 17, 1533–1547.
[20] Giglio M, Gilioli A, Manes A. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2012, 56,
69–78.
[21] Zhu S, Chai GB. Compos. Struct. 2013, 101, 204–214.
[22] Vitale JP, Francucci G, Xiong J, Stocchi A. Compos. Part A Appl.
Sci. Manuf. 2017, 94, 217–225.
[23] Rice MC, Fleischer CA, Zupan M. Exp. Mech. 2006, 46,
197–204.
[24] Lascoup B, Aboura Z, Khellil K, Benzeggagh M. Compos. Sci.
Technol. 2006, 66, 1385–1398.
9
[25] Shi H, Liu W, Fang H, Bai Y, Hui D. Compos. Part B Eng. 2017,
108, 364–376.
[26] Nanayakkara A, Feih S, Mouritz AP. J. Sandw. Struct. Mater.
2012, 14, 469–486.
[27] Abdi B, Azwan S, Abdullah MR, Ayob A, Yahya Y, Xin L. Int. J.
Mech. Sci. 2014, 88, 138–144.
[28] Blok LG, Kratz J, Lukaszewicz D, Hesse S, Ward C, Kassapoglou C.
Compos. Struct. 2017, 161, 15–22.
[29] Han F, Yan Y, Ma J. Polym. Compos. 2016. doi: 10.1002/pc.23976.
[30] Hartley JW, Kratz J, Ward C, Partridge IK. Compos. Part B Eng.
2017, 112, 49–56.
[31] Zhang G, Wang B, Ma L, Wu L, Pan S, Yang J. Compos. Struct.
2014, 108, 304–310.
[32] Sadowski T, Bec J. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2011, 50, 1269–1275.
[33] Zhang G, Wang B, Ma L, Wu L, Pan S, Yang J. Compos. Struct.
2014, 108, 304–310.
[34] Yang B, Wang Z, Zhou L, Zhang J, Tong L, Liang W. Compos.
Struct. 2015, 132, 1129–1140.
[35] Anbusagar NRR, Palanikumar K, Giridharan PK. Compos. Struct.
2015, 125, 336–342.
[36] Nia AA, Sadeghi MZ. Mater. Des. 2013, 52, 748–756.
[37] Yalkin HE, Icten BM, Alpyildiz T. Compos. Part B Eng. 2015, 79,
383–391.
[38] Mozafari H, Molatefi H, Crupi V, Epasto G, Guglielmino E.
J. Compos. Mater. 2015, 49, 3215–3228.
[39] Lei H, Yao K, Wen W, Zhou H, Fang D. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016,
94, 34–44.
[40] Henao A, Carrera M, Miravete A, Castejon L. Compos. Struct.
2010, 92, 2052–2059.
Brought to you by | Stockholm University Library
Authenticated
Download Date | 9/4/17 11:29 AM