151 3207 Hs2015 k8 Sandwichkonstruktionen Starlinger

Sandwich Structures:
Dr. Alois Starlinger

Stadler Rail Group
Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 1

Sandwich Design Applications in
Mass Transportation
Regional Trains
Tram Structures
Overview (1/2)
 Introduction
 Sandwich Principle
 Application of Sandwich Structures
 Sandwich Features
 Face Layer Materials
 Sandwich Core
 Honeycombs
 Foam Core
 Balsa Wood
 Design Criteria
 Structural Analysis
 Mechanics
 Failure Phenomena
 Global Instability Phenomena

Overview (2/2)
 Local Instability Phenomena
Shear Buckling
Wrinkling
Dimpling
Cell Wall Buckling
Brazier Effect
 Finite Element Analysis of Sandwich Structures
 Applying Loads on Sandwich Structures
 Linking and Assembling of Sandwich Structures
 Manufacturing
 Literature

Sandwich-Principle
Thin face-layers of high stiffness and strength are
joined by a thick core layer of low density - Tensile and
shear forces are transferred. The sandwich lay-up
results in an excellent relative bending stiffness (see I-
Beam analogy).

Sandwich-Design tf
tf
Homogeneous beam: (c=0)
Unit width: b=1, t = 2 tf:
Flexural Stiffness IBeam = t3/12 = 2tf3/3
Flexural Strength WBeam = t2/6 = 2tf2/3
c/t I=tf3 / 6 + W=I / (c/2+tf) Relation to Relation to

(c+tf)2 tf / 2 IBeam WBeam
1 14 tf3 / 3 7 tf 2 / 3 7 3.5
3 74 tf3 / 3 37 tf2 / 6 37 9.25
10 662 tf3 / 3 662 tf2 / 33 331 30.1

Sandwich - Structures
Wooden
Stegkern Corrugated
Wellblechkern Honeycomb
Wabenkern
Strips Cores Cores
Massiv-Foam
Plastic oder gelochter Massiv-
Plastic Foam oder
Cores
Schaumstoffkern Schaumstoffkern
with Drilled Holes
Cores

Sandwich Structures

Stress Distribution in Sandwich Structures:
Stress Distribution for

N b  xz
x Non-Bonded Layers
z
Mb Q
N
h N b  xz Stress Distribution in
x
Perfectly Bonded Layers
z
Mb Q
N

Sandwich - Mechanical Behavior
 Due to the Large Young‘s Modulus the Face Layers Transfer the
Bending Moment, Although the Face Layers Themselves Act
Like Membranes Due to Their Small Thickness.
 The Out-of-plane Shear Forces Are Transferred by the Core

Layer. Additionally, the Core Layer Stabilizes the Face Layers
and Prevents Them From Buckling.
 The Higher the Core Stiffness, the Higher the Foundation

Support for the Face Layers - This Results Into an Increased
Buckling Stress.
 The Bonding Between the Face Layers and the Core Is Assumed
to Have a Higher Strength Than the Shear Strength and the
Tensile Strength of the Core Material (to be checked in Design
Phase).

Advantages of Sandwich Structures
 High Bending Stiffness Combined With Low
Mass
 Smooth Surfaces
 Good Fatigue Behavior
 Good Thermal Insulation
 Good Dampening Capacity
 Energy Absorption Capacity
(Important for Crash Requirements - Impact)

Disadvantages of Sandwich Structures
 Local Load Introduction
 Complex Joining with Metallic Structures
 Danger of Water Absorption in Case of
Honeycomb and of Open-cell Foam Materials
 Insufficient Fire Behavior of Certain Materials
 Bad Recyclability of Certain Core Materials
 Relatively High Manufacturing Costs for
Certain Materials

Applications of Sandwich Structures:
Nature:
Bones,
Shafts of Bird Feathers,
Stalks of Grain, ....
Technical Applications:
Aerospace
Marine Industry
Transportation
Packaging
Building Industry
Automotive Structures
Sport Equipment

Sandwich Structures in Nature:
Bamboos
Grass
Cell Structures

Porcupine Quill

Bones

Bones

Sandwich Structures – Technical Applications:
Aerospace: Floor panels
 FST behavior
 High compression strength
 Sound and thermo insulation
 Low weight
Fuselage / structural parts
 FST behavior
 High shear strength and stiffness
 Low weight
 Processing temperature
Interiors
 FST behavior
 3D formability
 Sound and thermo insulation
Radome covers
 Dielectric behavior
 Water absorption
 Low weight
Aerospace (Hexcel)
Wind Turbines – Rotor Blades

Blade leading edge

 High stiffness
 Low weight
Blade shear web

 No face wrinkling
 No shear web buckling
 High shear modulus
 High compression modulus
 Good fatigue resistance
Blade trailing edge

 High stiffness
 No buckling of the shell
 Lowest possible weight
Wind Turbines – Rotor Blades

Industry
Electronic and
communication
 Dielectric properties
 Low water absorption
 Good impact resistance
Cover
 Low weight
 Sound and thermal insulation
 Good strength and stiffness
Medical devices
 Dielectric properties
 Good stiffness
 Low water absorption

Marine: Applications
Hull bottom
 Excellent impact resistance (shear elongation)
 Good fatigue resistance
 High skin adhesion
Hull side wall
 High strength and stiffness
 Low weight
 Good impact resistance
Deck
 High compression and shear strength
 Low weight
Deck superstructure
 High stiffness and compression strength
 Low weight
 High service temperature
Interiors
 High stiffness
 Low weight
 Good FST performance
Local reinforcements
 High service temperature
 Good screw pull out strength

Surfboards


COLEVO –
Sandwich Panels for Bridges (3A Composites)

Colevo Bridge - Installation within hours
Passerelle de Clavières, Boncourt JU

Railway Structures (Hexcel)

Development in Railway Design:
 Modular Design
 Large Modules
 Reduction of the Assembly of a Large Number of Small
Parts
 System Solution: Integration of Completion Engineering
Functions
 Hybrid Design
 Selection of the Optimum Material for Each Component:
 Metal
 Composites
 Cold Joining Techniques
 Avoiding of Welds
Lightweight Hybrid Structures /
Range of Advanced Joining
Technologies
Structural Sandwich
Composites
Aluminum
Assembling-
Extrusions
Technologies
- Elastic Bonding
- Bolting System

Hybrid Design
 Aluminum Large Scale Extrusions:
up to 800 mm
 Composites Components:
 Up to 15m x 2.4m Dimension (2D)
 Structural Foam Core Materials: PEI,
PVC, PMI, ...
 Aluminum / GRP - Face layers
 Application of new Joining Techniques:
 Corner Bolt System
 Elastic Adhesives
 Reduction of Mass
 Reduction of Overall Costs
 Fatigue Testing for 10 Million Load Cycles
successfully passed
Requirements for Structural Design
 Structural Loads
 Defined in Standards:
EN 12663-1,
EN 15227,
VDV 152 Recommendations, ...
 Based on Operating Experience
 System Engineering:
 Integration of Interior Equipment Functionality
into the Load Carrying Structure
 Lightweight Design
 Reduction of Assembly Costs
 Good LCC (for operation up to 30 years and more)
 Low Recycling Costs

Why Lightweight Design?
 Demand for Increased Performance:
 Higher Propulsion Requirements
 Larger Equipment Masses (Air Conditioning,
Converters, Transformers,...)
 Allowable Vertical Loading of Bogie Axle and of Rails
Is Limited
 Vertical Load directly influences the fee for using the
tracks  LCC
 Increased Comfort Requests by Passengers
 Complex 3D-Shape (Artistic Design Requests)
 Reduction of Material and Assembly Costs
 State-of-the-art Structural Analysis Methods
Structural Requests
 Strength:
 Compressive Longitudinal Loads:
FL = 200 kN up to 2000 kN
 Front Cab Compression: FF = 300 kN up to 700 kN
 Vertical Loading: Tare, Passenger Loads
 Lifting After Derailment / in the Workshop
 Torsion
 Stiffness Requests:
 Change in Door and Window Diagonals
 Overall Deformation
 Fatigue Loading / Endurance Testing
 Crash Energy Absorption / Rollover

Integration of Interior Functionality Into the
Roof Cantrail
Roof panel
Cabling
Cabling
Curved Cover Element Lights
Air Channel
Air Channel
Fixation Support
Side Wall Panel

Hybrid Design: Railway Vehicles
Sandwichdach
Kleben GFK-Front
geschraubte
Seitenwände
Kleben
Schrauben
geschweisste Bodengruppe
Schweissen
Hybrid Multi-Material-Approach
&
New Joining Technologies

FUTURA Metro Car Body Testing

FUTURA Metro Car Body

Transrapid TR08

Transrapid TR08

Transrapid Shanghai
Aluminum Extrusions
Sandwich Panels
Laser welded
Core 50 mm
(PEI)
Face Layer
Aluminium sheet 1mm

Lightweight Hybrid Structures /
Advanced Joining Technologies
Assembling-
Technologies
- Riveting 1mm
- Laser-welding
2mm
3mm
Aluminum
Extrusions
Structural Sandwich
Composites

Roof Joint - TR08

Cold Joining Techniques
Elastic Adhesives
Elastic Elastic
Adhesives Adhesives
Bolting Systems
Rivets

Hybrid Bus Design
Sandwich Roof
Bolted
Aluminum
Frame
Sandwich Floor
GRP-Front Mask
Side Wall Panels:

Composites, Sheets
or Profiles
Axle Modules

Modular Concept - Bus:
 Panels
 Adjustable Length
 Adjustable Position and Size
of Cutouts
 Side Wall
 Corner Bolt Systems:
 Adjustable Position of
Windows
 Adjustable Window Size
(EvoBus Mercedes Cito)

EvoBus Daimler Chrysler: ‚Cito‘

Cito Midibus

Midibus - CITO
Lowfloor Hybrid Bus

Bova ‚Magiq‘

Comfort-/Safety Aspects
 Thermal Insulation
 Acoustic Insulation
 Damage tolerant
 High Energy Absorption

Capacity
- Crash
- Rollover
 Easy Repairability:
- Corner Bolt Systems
- Thick Elastic Adhesives

Rollover Bar:

Acoustic Behavior
The Acoustic Behavior of a Structure Is Characterized

by the Acoustic Absorption Feature on the One Side
and by the Reflection Feature (Insulation) on the Other
Side.
The Acoustic Insulation Depends on the Mass and on

the Stiffness of the Structure - Due to Lightweight
Design Sandwich Structures Are Inclined to Show No
Significant Acoustic Insulation Features for the
Frequencies Common in Mass Transportation Systems.
The Acoustic Absorption Strongly Depends on the

Proper Selection of the Core Material Itself.
Thermal Insulation and Fire Behavior
 In Dependence on the Selection of the Core Material Sandwich
Structures Offer a Wide Range of Insulation Properties (e.g.,
Metallic Honeycomb Materials Do Not Contribute to Any Insulation
Effect, Whereas Plastic Core Materials Provide Excellent Thermal
Insulation).
The FST Rating (FST = Fire, Smoke, Toxicity) Depends on the
Selected Materials of the Sandwich Lay-up.
The Usage of the Sandwich Structures Clearly Dominates the Fire
Rating Requirements (Metro Cars and Tunnel Vehicles Need Higher
Fire Rating). The Testing of the Sandwich Materials May Be
Performed Ply by Ply or for the Complete Sandwich Plate.
In Dependence on the Application Case (Railway, Aerospace,
Road Vehicles, Civil Engineering) Different Standards Are Required
(EN 45545, NF F 16101, DIN 5510) - The Following Parameters Are
Usually Qualified:
Fire Reaction,
Smoke Development
Emission of Toxic Gases.
FST Behavior – NF16101
 Vehicle categories
 A1 – all rolling stock travelling tunnels frequently
 A2 – urban/suburban infrequent tunnel travels
 B – mainline rolling stock infrequent tunnel travels
 Requirements/Criteria
 M-Rating: Reaction to fire (Combination of flammability, smoke
density & dripping)
 F-Rating: Smoke value (Toxicity: CO, CO2, HCl,

HBr,HCN,HF,SO2)
 I-Rating: Oxygen index and glow wire if small specimens

available only

Design of Sandwich Structures
Requirements With Respect to Stiffness, Strength, Stability,
Insulation Behavior, Fire Rating, Assembly and Manufacturing, Etc.
Have to Be Taken Into Account Right From the Beginning.
Special Focus Must Be Put on the Edge Stiffeners, the Joining

Techniques, and the Local Load Introduction, Since They Strongly
Determine the Mass of the Structure and the Costs for the
Manufacturing and for the Assembly.
Sandwich Structures Usually Trigger Larger Efforts in the Design

Phase, in the Structural Analysis As Well As in the Manufacturing
Than Conventional Engineered Structures (Like Welded Sheet
Design With Local Stiffeners).
The Increased Functionality of the Sandwich Structures As Well

As the Overall Cost Reduction Justifies the Application of Hybrid
Design.
Design Criteria for Sandwich Structures
Mass
Material Properties
Costs
Fire Rating / Thermal Resistance
Recyclability
Damage Tolerance
Machining Properties

Material Characterization
Composite Materials Sandwich-Components
 Static material properties for  Bending Test
 GRP-Layers  Structural Joints
 Core Materials  Fatigue Testing
 Tension, Compression,  Salt Spray Test
Shear and Interactions
 Adhesion between Core /
Inserts and Face Layer

Fatigue Testing
 Successful test over 107 cycles

 R = 0.1
 No stiffness reduction due to damage

Material Selection:
Face Layers:
Metals
Plastics (Composites, GRP, CFR, ...)
Paper, ....
Core Layers:
Honeycombs (Metal, Plastic, Paper, Wood)
Plastics (Eventually Foam Materials)
Balsa Wood
Resin Reinforced Paper, ....

GRP Properties

Face Layer Materials

Core Materials - Honeycomb:
Manufacturing: Over-Expansion of Alternatively Glued Strips
Advantages:
High Relative Stiffness
High Relative Strength
Constant Post-buckling Behavior When
Loaded in Thickness Direction (Impact!)
Disadvantages:
Ortho-tropic Material Properties
Hardly Suitable for 3D-Design
Adhesive Problems in Manufacturing (Small Bonding Line, ...)
Danger of Water Absorption
Requires Tight Sealing of the Edges
Increasing of Mass Due to Relatively Thick Sealing
Zones at the Edges and Between the Single Core Layer Plates
Expensive When Local Load Introduction Is Required.


Core Materials - Honeycombs:





Honeycombs: Crash Absorption Behavior

Core Materials – Structural Foam:
Materials: Linear and Cross-linked PVC Foams, PEI, PET, PS,
PA, PMI, PU
Advantages:
3D-Shapes Are Easy to Be Produced
High Energy Absorption Capacity
Easy Repair in Case of Accidents
No Danger of Water Penetration in Case of
Closed Cell Foam Core Materials
Excellent Thermal and Acoustical Insulation
Excellent Dampening Features
Disadvantages:
Higher Specific Density in Comparison
With Honeycomb Materials
Statistic Scatter of Material Properties in
Dependence on Density Variation (Depends on the
Manufacturing Method)
Partially Poor Thermal Resistance / Poor Fire Rating
Foam Material: Batch Production
e.g., AIREX® C70, C71, R63, R82

Foam Material: Continuous Production (1)
e.g., AIREX® T90, T92, C51

Foam Material: Continuous Production (2)

Foam Material: AIREX T90 PET

AIREX® T90: Applications
High speed trains
Commuter trains
Tramways
Underground
Coaches
City buses
Etc.

Foam Material: AIREX T92 PET

AIREX® T92: Applications
Wind blades / Nacelles
Sailing yachts
Pleasure crafts

AIREX® T92: Excellent Thermoformability
At temperatures of
155º to 175ºC
Virtually no spring
back –
part remains in its
formed shape
Compression moulding
Deep drawing

Foam Material: AIREX R82 PEI

AIREX® R82
Applications in Rail and Aerospace
R82 fulfils most stringent fire
requirements
The good FST characteristics make the foam

R82 an ideal core material in public transport
applications; road, rail and air

AIREX® R82, Radome applications
Dielectric properties under extreme conditions
Radome covers
(Air, Marine, Industry)
R82 is ideal for radome

applications thanks to its unique
combination of properties:
 Dielectric Properties
 Extreme temperature
resistance
 Thermo formability
 High impact resistance

Foam Material: AIREX C70 PVC

AIREX® C70: Applications
Excellent mechanical properties for a wide range of
applications
Wind: blade edge and
shear web
Marine: hull, deck,
superstructure, bulkhead
Road: side wall, floor, roof

Foam Material: AIREX R63 PVC

AIREX® R63, Typical applications
Where impact and damage tolerance is required
Hull bottom
Extremely high impact strength

and skin adhesion assure safety
and stability in unforeseen
conditions

AIREX® T92: Good fatigue characteristics

Foam Materials – High strains

Structural Foam Cores: Application Matrix (1/2)

Structural Foam Cores: Application Matrix (1/2)

Core Material – Balsa Wood:
Material: Continuously growing core material in controlled
production, cut orthogonally to the fiber direction.
Advantages:
High Specific Stiffness
High Specific Strength
Good Fire Rating
Operational Temperature from -210°C to +160°C
Good Fatigue Resistance
Good Adhesion for Laminate Bonding
Easy to Repair
3D-Shapes easy to be manufactured
Good Insulation Properties
Disadvantages:
Statistic Variation of Material Properties
Small Failure Strain (rel. brittle)
Small Impact Strength  Sensitivity towards Shock Loading
Sensitivity towards Water
Balsa Wood:

Balsa Wood:
Blocks are mounted

vertically on horizontal saws.
End grain balsa sheets are

cut from the glued blocks.

Balsa Wood: BALTEK® SB

BALTEK® SB, Applications
Floors in cars, buses, trucks
Wind blades (edges and shear
webs)
Decks, hulls, stringers in
boats

COLEVO: same stiffness like concrete, but 80%
savings in weight (3A Composites)
COLEVO 180-6: 71 kg/m2 Concrete: 375 kg/m2

 Plate thickness 18 cm  Plate thickness 15 cm
 GRP face layer thickness 6 mm  cover 3.5 cm
 BALTEK® VBC End Grain Core 230  reinforcement As = 3.6 cm2/m
kg/m3
 Glas fibers 80% in x-direction and
20% in direction (lateral)
 Boundary conditions: hinged,

length L 4 m, width 3 m
 Load 4 kN/m2
 Allowable Deformation L/600

Minimum Values of Material Parameters (DNV):
Compressive Shear Compressive Shear Elongation at
Foam Modulus Modulus Strength Strength Break
[MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [%]
T90.100 90 18 1.2 0.5 2
T90.150 100 25 1.8 0.7 2
T92.100 90 18 1.2 0.75 10
T92.110 100 23 1.45 0.9 10
C70.75 50 24 1.1 1.0 10
C70.90 65 34 1.7 1.4 12
C70.130 95 45 2.6 2.1 20

Failure Criteria for Sandwich Structures
Strength Problems (Stress Criteria):
Rupture of Face Layer
Shear Rupture of the Core Layer
Delaminating (Failure of the adhesive layer)
Fatigue

Stability Problems for Sandwich Structures
Global Instability: Shear Terms must be considered!
 Local Instability: (Local Buckling)
 Shear Buckling of the Core (Shear Crimping)

 Short-Wavelength Buckling of the Face Layers (Wrinkling )
 Intracell Buckling
 Cell Wall Buckling
 Local Reduction of Core Height for curved structures

(Brazier Effect)

Analytical Structural Analysis
The Introduction for the Analytical Structural Analysis of Sandwich
Design Is Derived for the Sandwich Beam:
Shear Terms Are to Be Considered For:

Timoshenko-Beam Theory resp.
Reissner-Mindlin Theory for Sandwich Shells
Typical Sandwich Structures Are Assumed: i.e.,

Sandwich Lay-Ups With Relatively Thin Face Layers
Identical Material for the Upper and Lower Face Layer.
In the Case of Complex Boundary Conditions and Loading

Configurations Numerical Engineering Methods Should Be Applied
Like Finite Element Methods, Boundary Elements Method, etc.).

Sandwich Beam
b Länge l
x
y
z EEcc ctc cc GGcc

EEff tftf f f GGf f
Ds = Df + Dc
Simplifying Assumptions: Df = Dtf + Dsteiner
Linear Elastic Material Behavior Dtf = b Ef tf3/6
Homogeneous Isotropic Core Material Dsteiner = b Ef tf d2/2
The Local Bending Stiffness of the d = c + tf
Face Layers Is Neglected
(Df<<Ds i.e. c/t>10)
Dc = Ec b c3 / 12
The Membrane Stiffness of the Core
Layer Is Neglected (Ef>>Ec) S = Gc b d2 / c
The Core Is Assumed to Be Infinitely Stiff in
the Thickness Direction (Ecz -> œ)
Symmetrical Lay-up
Sandwich Beam - Stress Distribution
Ds = Df + Dc
Df = Dtf + Dsteiner
Dtf = b Ef tf3/6
Dsteiner = b Ef tf d2/2
d = c + tf
Dc = Ec b c3 / 12
S = G c b d2 / c

Sandwich Beam - idealized
Sandwich
Membrane
Theory
Ds  Dsteiner = b Ef tf d2/2
S  Gc b c

Sandwich Beam - Basic Equations
After Introducing the Global Equilibrium of Balance Criteria a System
of Coupled Differential Equations Is Obtained for the Deformations
W(x) and (x) -
The Assumption of a Constant Force N(x)= Const. Results Into

Uncoupled Differential Equations:
(1 + N/S) . w‘‘‘‘ – N/DS . w‘‘ = q/DS – q‘‘/S

(1 + N/S) . ‘‘ – N/DS .  = -q‘/S
S = const.
DS = const.
N = const.
Where a Derivation for x Is Characterized by a ( ‘ ).

Sandwich Beam - Basic Equations
For the Special Case: N(x) = O (Which Corresponds to First-order-
theory) a Further Simplification of the Equations Is Achieved:
w‘‘‘‘= q/DS – q‘‘/S

‘‘ = -q‘/S
Integration leads to:

w‘‘= -M/DS + Q‘/S
 = Q/S

Method of Partial Deflections
The method of partial deflections splits the overall deformation w(x)
into the partial deflection wM(x) for pure bending and into wQ(x) for
pure shear:
w (x) = wM(x) + wQ(x)
wM: Bending Deflection of the sandwich beam for a core with rigid
shear stiffness
wQ: Shear Deflection of the sandwich beam for a core under pure
shear deformation (rigid bending stiffness assumed)
The substitution of the section forces in the equilibrium of balance

equations leads to the following differential equations for wM and wQ:
DS . wM‘‘‘‘ + S . wQ‘ = 0
(S + N) . wQ‘‘ + N . wM‘‘ = -q

Method of Partial Deflections:
The assumption of N(x)=N=const. uncouples the equations again:
(1 + N/S) . wM‘‘‘‘ – N/DS . wQ‘‘ = q/DS

(1 + N/S) . wQ‘‘‘‘ – N/DS . wQ‘ = -q‘/S
For the special case : N = 0 a further simplification is achieved:
wM‘‘‘‘ = q/DS
wQ‘‘ = - q‘/S
Integration finally leads to:
wM‘‘ = - M/DS
wQ‘ = Q/S
Stresses:
After the deformations w(x) and (x) resp. wM(x) and wQ(x) have been
determined, the section forces and moments M(x), N(x), Q(x) are
derived (for static balanced systems the section forces and moments
are directly obtained from the equilibrium of balance equations. The
stresses are derived from:
u = (N/2 + M/d) / (b.tf)
o = (N/2 – M/d) / (b.tf)
c = Q / (b.c)
F: Cross Section of the Face Layer
h: Distance of the mid-surface of the face layers
b: width of the sandwich beam

Example: Sandwich Beam

Instability Phenomena in Sandwich Structures
Global Equilibrium Conditions for Conservative Systems
May Turn Into Global Instability Problems When
Bifurcation Buckling,
Snap Through Problems,
Plastic Effects
And by Combination of These Instability Phenomena
Are Initiated (See Literature: Kollar / Dulacska, Rammers-

torfer).
In the Derivation of the Critical Buckling Stress the Shear

Properties Must Be Taken Into Account.
In Addition to These Global Instability Phenomena Local
Phenomena Must Be Considered.
Global Instability Phenomena - Sandwich Beam
The Critical Load Pk Inducing Global Buckling of the
Sandwich Beam Is Approximated by the Following
Equation:
1 / PkB + 1 / PkS = 1 / Pk Combined Buckling Load
PkB = 2 . Ds / lk2 = Euler Buckling Load

= 2 . b . Ef . tf . d2 / (2 . lk2)
PkS = S = Gc . b . c Shear Buckling Load

Several Experiments Have Proven That This Formula
Yields an Excellent Approximation for the Overall
Buckling Load.
Local Instability Phenomena
Shear Buckling of the Core (Shear Crimping)
Wrinkling
Intracell Buckling (Dimpling)
Cell Wall Buckling
Brazier Effect

Shear Buckling
The shear buckling of the core is determined by the

following equation:
*k = S / (2 . b .tf) = Gc . (h2 / (2 . c . tf ))  Gc . c / 2tf

Wrinkling (1)
Preliminary Assumptions:
Uni-axial Compression
Symmetric Lay-Up
Isotropic Material Behavior
*k = kS . (Ef . Ec .Gc)1/3
ks: Parameter in dependence on the initial imperfection
The lower limit value of ks = 0.5 is assumed for

dimensioning.

Wrinkling (2)
In Dependence on the Properties of the Face and the Core Layer, on
the Core Height, on the Stress State (Bending- And/or Membrane
Stress State, Multi-axial), Unsymmetrical Lay-up Anti-metric or
Symmetric Wrinkling Might Be Induced.
Stamm and Witte Have Derived a Method, in Which All These Para-
meters Are Taken Into Account for the Determination of the Critical
Buckling Stress in Isotropic Materials. This Method Has Been
Introduced for Orthotropic Materials by Starlinger and for Anisotropic
Materials by Vonach.
The Determination of the Critical Buckling Stresses Is Derived From
the Basic Differential Equation of the Plate Embedded on an Elastic
Foundation (Timoshenko). Since the Characteristic Equation Still Has
to Be Minimized With Respect to the Buckling Wavelengths, a
Considerable Numerical Effort Is Necessary:

Wrinkling: Method of Stamm and Witte (3)

Wrinkling: (4)
If we consider the limit conditions, this method allows for the
determination of the critical buckling forces inducing shear buckling
(in case of small shear modulus and a thin core layer) and of the
global Euler buckling forces (in case of a stiff core).
Multi-axial stress states invoke additional stiffening effects due to
bending stresses (change from compression to tension) and due to
the influence of the core (thick or thin core effects).

Wrinkling (5)

Dimpling of the Face Layers
In Honeycomb Core Layers the Hexagon Shape of the Honeycomb
Provides the Boundary Conditions for the Face Layer.
The Hexagon Shapes Are Idealized As Rectangular Plates for the

Stability Analysis (Conservative Approach).
*k = 1/3 . Ef . tf . (2 . tf / s)3/2

ts s
s
s s
tc
t
f
einzelnes Feld idealisiertes Feld

Buckling of the Honeycomb Cell Walls
The buckling of the honeycomb cell walls is evaluated according to
plate stability theory. The buckling stress is determined from:
* = k . E . (t/b)2
The buckling factor k is derived from the following diagram (see
Hertel):

Core Height Reduction for Curved Sandwich
Structures: Brazier Effect
In the Case of Curved Sandwich Structures Bending Moments Induce
a Significant Normal Stress in the Thickness Direction of the Core
Material (Similar to the Brazier Effect for Tube Bending). For Low
Density Core Materials These Normal Stresses Might Induce Either a
Reduction of the Core Height (for Compressive Stresses) or an
Additional Stress on the Adhesive Layer (Danger of Delaminating).
Due to a Height Reduction the Overall Bending Stiffness of the
Sandwich Structure Might Be Considerably Reduced and Trigger
Failure (Even Combined With Different Failure Phenomena).
The Normal Stress in the Core Layer May Be Approximated by the

Following Equations:

Finite Element Analysis of Sandwich Structures
For Complex Load and / or Boundary Conditions the Application of

Numerical Engineering Methods Is Highly Recommended, Like the
Finite Element Method (FE) (See: Bathe).
As Explained Above, the Low Shear Stiffness of the Core Layer,

Typical for Sandwich Structures, Has to Be Taken Into Account:
Timoshenko-Beam Theory or
Shell Elements of the Reissner-Mindlin Type
Have to Be Available When Analyzing Sandwich Structures. Only This

Way, the Out-of-plane Shear Stresses Are Correctly Represented.

Finite Element Analysis of Sandwich Structures
In Case That the FE Code Applied Offers the Feature of

Modeling the Composite Materials As Thick Shells the
Properties Are Entered Ply by Ply. Commercial Codes Like
ABAQUS, MSC/NASTRAN, ANSYS, MARC, etc., Provide
This Functionality.
If the FE Code Does Not Offer Any Composites Features,
the Material Parameters of the Sandwich Shell Must Be
Smeared Over an Equivalent Orthotropic Shell. Under the
Assumption of Equivalent Membrane, Bending and Shear
Stiffness the Substitute Parameters of the Shell Are
Determined (see Starlinger).

Selection of Material Parameters
When Modeling Sandwich Structures the Scatter of the Mechanical

Properties of the Several Layers Has to Be Taken Into Account, e.g.,
The Density Variation of the Foam Core Materials Triggers This
Scatter.
This Scatter Might Reach up to 40%. For That Reason the Parameters
Provided in Catalogues by the Foam Manufacturers Must Be Reduced
Accordingly, Since Usually the Values for Nominal Density Are Given.
In the Case of New Materials Simplified Benchmarks Are Strongly

Recommended to Check the Overall Stiffness Parameters (e.g., Four-
Point-Bending Samples Should Be Tested and Compared With the
Analysis Results). Special Emphasis Should Be Put on the Shear
Modulus of the Core, Since This Parameter Has a High Impact on the
Stiffness Results of the Sandwich Structure.

Modeling of Composites-Shells
 Reissner-Mindlin Shells: Take Into Account the Shear
Effects
 Anisotropic / Orthotropic
 Significant Statistical Scatter
 Manufacturing Tolerances (Direction of Layers)
 Degradation:
Aging, UV-Radiation, Cleaning Detergents
Water Absorption
Temperature
 Fatigue
 Load Introduction / Joints

Typical Composites - Material Parameters
 GRP-Randomly oriented fiber mat (quasi-isotropic):
 El = Eq = 10000 MPa, Tensile Strength: 70 MPa
 Fatigue :
 Allowable GRP-Tensile Strain: 0.35%
 Allowable GRP-Compressive Strain: 0.25%
 Uni-directional GRP-Plies
 El = 42000 MPa
 Eq = 12000 MPa
 Sandwich-Core Material AIREX C70.75:

 Stiffness: E= 50 MPa, G = 24 MPa
 Shear Strength: τ = 1.0 MPa
 Allowable strain in the elastic adhesive layer: 25 %

Structural Analysis: FEM
 Composites Shells:
 Reissner-Mindlin Shells
 Special Routines for Local Instability
Phenomena Check
 Special Modeling of
 Elastic Adhesives
 Nonlinear Bolt Systems
 Rivets
 Geometric and Material Non-Linearity
 Large Complex Finite Element Models:
 Up to 6.000.000 DOFs and More
 Non-linear Buckling Analyses
 Eigenfrequency Analyses

Structural Design Criteria - Composites:
 Stress Criteria:
 Rupture of Fiber
 Rupture of Resin
 Shear Strength of the Core
 Interlaminar Failure / Delaminating
 Local Instability Phenomena
 Deformation Criteria:
 Overall Deformations
 Deformation of the Window Diagonals and of the
Door Diagonals
 Strains in the Elastic Adhesive Layer

Evaluation of Composites-Stresses
 Evaluation Directly in the Integration Points
 Determination of the v.Mises Stress
 Comparison With Material Strength
 Determination of the Principal Stresses
 Checking for Local Instability Phenomena:
 Method of Stamm/Witte (Specialized by
Rammerstorfer/Starlinger/Stiftinger/Vonach)
 Face Layer Considered As Plate on an Elastic
Foundation (Timoshenko-Differential Equation)
 Shear Buckling and Wrinkling Are Captured
 Determination and Graphical Post-Processing of
the Margins of Safety in Each Integration Point

Glacier Express – Lightweight Engineering

Glacier Express - Finite Element Modeling

Joining Technologies Applied
 Riveting / Bolts
 Thick Elastic Adhesive Layers
 Welding

Thick Elastic Adhesives:
Smooth Load Transfer
 Optical Stress Analysis  Finite Element Analysis

Bolted Joint:
Local load Introduction
 Optical Stress Analysis  Finite Element Analysis

Joining Technology - Thick Elastic Adhesive
Layer
For the joining of large sandwich plates with metallic
structures (e.g., sandwich roof of a sub-urban train) thick
elastic adhesives are preferred, e.G., SIKA - SIKAFLEX254,
Gurit-Essex, etc.
In contrast to riveted joints or to thin high strength
adhesives (as used in aerospace applications) the load
transfer is smoother - local stress concentrations are
avoided.
The thickness range lies between 5 and 20 mm - for that
reason any tolerance mismatch inherent to large modules
can easily be compensated.
Additionally the thick elastic layer acts as dampening
element with a high absorption capacity. Thus, local
vibrations induced by aggregates are uncoupled from the
rest of the load bearing structure.
Sandwich Composites Roof - Assembly
folded edge foam core

finish elastic aluminum facing
adhesive
sealant
aluminum
cantrail
aluminum
facing
elastic adhesive aluminum
spacer extrusion with
fixation rail

Elastic Bonding - Advantages
 Thickness Range: 3 to 25 mm
 Continuous Load Transfer
 Compensation of Production Tolerances
 Compensation of Differential Thermal
Expansion
 Air- and Pressure-Tight Bond
 Additional Acoustic Dampening Potential
 Uncoupling of Local Vibrations

Adhesive Joining of Transrapid Front Cab Module

Adhesive Joining of Transrapid Front Cab Module

Testing of Thick Elastic Adhesive Joints
Test Configurations
Lap Shear Test
Tension Test

Thick Elastic Adhesives: Lap Shear Test

Shear-Strain-Curves for Thick Elastic PU
Adhesives
Failure Strain > 400%

Strain Rate Dependence of Thick Elastic PU
Adhesives

Temperature Behavior of Thick Elastic Adhesives

Dependence on Geometry / Dimension - Thick
Elastic PU Adhesives

Deformations for Tensile Loading

Force Deflection Curve for
Adhesive Thickness of 10 mm
t=10 b={20, 25, 30, 35}
600
500 t=10 b=20, Linear

t=10 b=20, Non linear
400
t=10 b=25, Linear
Force [N]

300
t=10 b=30, Linear
200
t=10 b=35, Linear
100 t=10 b=35, Non linear
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deformation [mm]

Sikaflex-254 Booster: Stiffness Parameters
Messwerte Schub (-modul) Zug Druck
Mittelwert (Mw) und Standardabweichung (Sd ) Mw Sd Mw Sd Mw Sd
Quasistatisch, 10 mm/min (0-10%) 0.78 0.042 (MPa) 6.42 0.122 (MPa)
Quasistatisch, 10 mm/min (0-20%) 0.71 0.037 (MPa) 5.20 0.112 (MPa)
Dynamisch, 10 Hz mit ± 1% Verformungsamplitude 1.47 0.034 (MPa) 12.96 0.387 (MPa) 13.05 0.366 (MPa)
Dynamisch, 0.1 Hz mit ± 1% Verformungsamplitude 1.20 0.029 (MPa) 8.51 0.378 (MPa) 10.65 0.239 (MPa)
Charakteristische Kennwerte
Mittelwerte mit zweiseitiger Abgrenzung für Koeffizient k Schub (-modul) Zug Druck
Quasistatisch, 10 mm/min (0-10%) 0.78 ± 0.18 (MPa) 6.42 ± 0.52 (MPa)
Quasistatisch, 10 mm/min (0-20%) 0.71 ± 0.16 (MPa) 5.20 ± 0.48 (MPa)
Dynamisch, 10 Hz mit ± 1% Verformungsamplitude 1.47 ± 0.14 (MPa) 12.96 ± 1.66 (MPa) 13.05 ± 1.57 (MPa)
Dynamisch, 0.1 Hz mit ± 1% Verformungsamplitude 1.20 ± 0.12 (MPa) 8.51 ± 1.62 (MPa) 10.65 ± 1.02 (MPa)
Verwendeter Koeffizient k 4.28 Charakteri stischer Kennwert :

RC  M W  S d  k
Vorhersagewahrscheinlichkeit P 0.975 0.90 0.95
M W Mittelwert
Vertrauensniveau 1- a 0.75 0.95 0.95
Sd Standardab weichung
Anzahl Messwerte n 5 5 5
Koeffzient k (DIN 55303-5) 3.64 4.28 5.08 k Koeffizien t

Sikaflex-265: Stiffness Parameters

Sikaflex-265, Creep Behavior
Belastung:
100
10% (0.45MPa)
80
8% (0.36MPa)
Schubgleitung [%]
60
6% (0.27MPa)
40
3% (0.135MPa)
20
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Versuchsdauer [h]

Sikaflex-265, Fatigue Behavior

Thick Elastic Adhesive SIKAFLEX 265:

Modeling of Thick Elastic Adhesive Joints via Solid
Elements

Structural Analysis of Elastic
Adhesives
 Substitute Model: Equivalent Set of Springs
 Stiffness Non-linearly Dependent on
 Temperature
 Loading Rate
 Cross Section Geometry
 Loading Type
 Size of Element Mesh
3
b
1
Equivalent Stiffness:
2
kshear = G.b.l/h
h l kten/compr = E . b . l / h

Structural Adhesive Layers
Highly Loaded Adhesive

Layer in Corner Region
Compression test:
ET 424 test at SIEMENS
Krefeld facility -
F = 300 kN on front cab
Local Load Introduction
Due to the Low Density of the Core Material, Which Results in Rather
Low Strength Values As Well, Local Load Introductions Into Sandwich
Shells Must Be Carefully Prepared.
Sandwich Structures Require an Additional Edge Stiffener (Extrusion).
Honeycomb Core Materials and Foam Core Materials With Open Cells
Need Additional Sealing to Avoid Water Penetration.
Single Forces Have to Be Avoided, Since the Sandwich Structure Is

Ideally Suitable to Transfer Pressure Distributions. Single Forces Can
Be Introduced Into the Structure by Using Special Insert Types, e.g.,
SHUR-LOK,
Internal Stiffener Profiles,
Local Core Reinforcements,
Metallic Inserts, Etc.

Sandwich - Local Load Introductions (HEXCEL)

Sandwich - Local Load Introductions (SHUR-LOK)



Sandwich - Edge Stiffeners

Sandwich - Edge Stiffeners (Hexcel)



Sandwich - Edge Stiffeners

Manufacturing of Sandwich Structures
The manufacturing of sandwich structures is

discussed for certain application cases. The
following methods are covered:
Vacuum Membrane Method

Press Method
RTM Method
Vacuum Method
Extruding-/Rolling Method.

Vacuum Membrane Method

Aluminum Coil
Adhesive Sandwich – Core Material
Foam, Balsa, etc.
Vacuum bag process
Assembly
Aluminum Profiles
Finished Roof Module for Railway and Bus Application


Vacuum Resin Injection
Vacuum
Vacuum
Resin
Sandwich Design
Core Material
(PVC, PEI, Balsa, ...)
Outer Skin
GRP

Vacuum Resin Injection
Sandwich – Core Material
Structural Foams
Resin
GRP mats etc. Injection Mould with Inner

And Outer Mould
Assembly Line
Interior Equipment /
Completion
GRP Sandwich Front Module

RTM Method

RTM (Resin Transfer Moulding)
Thermo ShapableCore Material
Or Prefabricated PUR-foam-components
Resin
Hardener
Fiber
Material
Preform
Tool
Prefrom
Closed
Position
Open
Position.
Finished
Components

Alucopan Manufacturing

AlucoBond Manufacturing

Literature
1) Stamm, K., Witte, H.: Sandwichkonstruktionen - Berechnung, Fertigung, Ausführung;
Springer Verlag, Wien 1974
2) Wiedemann, Johannes: Leichtbau, Band 1 & 2, Springer Verlag, Berlin 1986
3) Plantema, F.J.: Sandwich Construction - The Bending and Buckling of Sandwich
Beams, Plates and Shells; John Wiley & Sons, New York 1966
4) Rammerstorfer, F.G.: Repetitorium Leichtbau, Oldenbourg Verlag, München, 1992
5) Allen, H.G.: Analysis and Design of Stuctural Sandwich Panels, Pergamon Press,
Oxford 1969
6) Pflüger, A.: Stabilitätsprobleme der Elastostatik, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1975
7) Kollar, L.; Dulacska, E.: Buckling of Shells For Engineers, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1984.
8) Starlinger, A.: Development of Efficient Finite Shell Elements for the Analysis of
Sandwich Shell Structures under Large Deformations and Global as well as
Local Instabilities, VDI Forschungsberichte 18/93, VDI Verlag, Düsseldorf,
1991.
9) Bathe, K.J.: Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1982

151 3207 Hs2015 k8 Sandwichkonstruktionen Starlinger

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

151 3207 Hs2015 k8 Sandwichkonstruktionen Starlinger

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sandwich Structures:

Dr. Alois Starlinger

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 1

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 3

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 4

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 5

c/t I=tf3 / 6 + W=I / (c/2+tf) Relation to Relation to

3 74 tf3 / 3 37 tf2 / 6 37 9.25

10 662 tf3 / 3 662 tf2 / 33 331 30.1

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 6

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 7

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 8

Stress Distribution for

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 9

 The Out-of-plane Shear Forces Are Transferred by the Core

 The Higher the Core Stiffness, the Higher the Foundation

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 10

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 11

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 12

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 13

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 15

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 16

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 17

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 18

Wind Turbines – Rotor Blades

Blade leading edge

Blade shear web

Blade trailing edge

Wind Turbines – Rotor Blades

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 23

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 24

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 25

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 26

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 27

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 28

Railway Structures (Hexcel)

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 31

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 33

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 35

Curved Cover Element Lights

Side Wall Panel

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 36

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 37

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 38

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 39

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 40

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 41

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 42

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 43

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 44

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 46

Side Wall Panels:

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 47

(EvoBus Mercedes Cito)

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 48

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 49

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 50

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 51

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 52

 High Energy Absorption

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 53

Sandwich Structures - ETH Zürich STA_ETH_V1/ 54

The Acoustic Behavior of a Structure Is Characterized

The Acoustic Insulation Depends on the Mass and on