Accepted Manuscript

Bending response of carbon fiber composite sandwich beams with three dimen‐
sional honeycomb cores

Jian Xiong, Li Ma, Ariel Stocchi, Jinshui Yang, Linzhi Wu, Shidong Pan

PII: S0263-8223(13)00482-0
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.09.035
Reference: COST 5367

To appear in: Composite Structures

Please cite this article as: Xiong, J., Ma, L., Stocchi, A., Yang, J., Wu, L., Pan, S., Bending response of carbon fiber
composite sandwich beams with three dimensional honeycomb cores, Composite Structures (2013), doi: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.09.035

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 1 Bending response of carbon fiber composite sandwich beams with
2
3
4 three dimensional honeycomb cores
5
6 Jian Xiong a*, Li Ma a, Ariel Stocchi b, Jinshui Yang a, Linzhi Wu a, Shidong Pan a
7 a
Center for Composite Materials and Structures, Harbin Institute of Technology
8
9 Harbin 150001, China
b
10 Research Institute of Material Science and Technology (INTEMA) - National
11 University of Mar del Plata (UNMdP), Mar del Plata, Argentina
12
13
14 Abstract:
15
16 Bending properties and failure modes of carbon fiber composite Egg and
17
18
19 pyramidal honeycomb beams were studied and presented in this paper. Three point
20
21
22 bending responses of both sandwich beams were tested. Face wrinkling, face crushing,
23
24
25
core member crushing and debonding were considered, and theoretical relationships
26
27 for predicting the failure load associated with each mode were presented under three
28
29
30 point bending load. Failure mechanism maps were constructed to predict the failure of
31
32
33 composite sandwich beams with pyramidal and egg honeycomb cores subjected to
34
35
36
bending. Face wrinkling and core debonding have been investigated under three point
37
38 bending and the maximum displacement was studied using analytical and
39
40
41 experimental methods. The finite element method was employed to determine the
42
43
44 ratio (maximum displacement/applied load) of sandwich beam with two different
45
46
47 honeycomb cores. Comparisons between two kinds of honeycomb beams were also
48
49 conducted.
50
51
52 Keywords: Sandwich beam; Honeycomb; Bending; Mechanical properties; Analytical
53
54
55 modeling.
56
57 
58 Corresponding author, Tel.:+86 451 86402376; fax: +86 451 86402376.
59 E-mail address: jx@hit.edu.cn (Jian Xiong) sd6419866@sina.com (Shidong Pan)
60
61
62 1
63
64
65
 1 1. Introduction
2
3
4
Sandwich structures effectively provide lightweight stiffness and strength by
5
6 sandwiching a low-density core between stiff face sheets. The core materials were
7
8
9 traditionally manufactured using stochastic metal or polymer foams [1-3], corrugated
10
11
12 [4] honeycomb [5-6] and truss materials [7-8]. These combinations of properties are
13
14
15
very important in the development of many contemporary vehicles and structures.
16
17 Usage of fiber-reinforced composites in sandwich structures generally allows an
18
19
20 additional weight reduction without jeopardizing the strength and performance of the
21
22
23 structure. Thus, sandwich panels made of fiber-reinforced composites are attractive
24
25
26 for building ultra-light, high-strength components, specifically for the aerospace
27
28 industry and flight structures [9]. The behavior of flax and nature fiber composite
29
30
31 honeycomb cores were investigated under low velocity impact loading by Petrone et
32
33
34 al [10-11]. Han and Tsai [12] introduced interlocked grid structures with pultruded
35
36
37 glass fiber ribs. The interlocking method has been mainly used to manufacture square
38
39 honeycomb at lower cost compared to hot press [13] and laser cutting methods [14].
40
41
42 Larger-sized, mass-produced sandwich panels have many potential applications in
43
44
45 building large-scale structures and ships. In addition, they are energy absorbent [15-16]
46
47
48 and attenuate sound transmission [17-18] and heat transfer [19]. Three dimensional
49
50 honeycomb cores were developed for combining load-bearing structures with
51
52
53 multifunctional benefits. The hollow cores with interconnected void spaces can be
54
55
56 used to embed electronics and foam to carry out multifunctional applications.
57
58
59 Bending property is very important in the design of lightweight sandwich beams.
60
61
62 2
63
64
65
 1 There is much literature available pertaining to the bending behavior of sandwich
2
3
4
beams with various kinds of cores. Liu et al. [20] presented a semi-analytical method
5
6 for the bending analysis of sandwich panels with square honeycomb cores. He et al.
7
8
9 [21] then demonstrated that the stiffness performance of the corrugated core,
10
11
12 honeycomb core and X-core sandwich panels with the same structural weight are very
13
14
15
close, with that of the honeycomb core sandwich panel a little better than the other
16
17 sandwich panels. Rathbun et al. [22] have investigated the bending behavior of
18
19
20 lightweight metallic sandwich structures with tetrahedral truss cores. Zok et al [23]
21
22
23 reported a protocol for characterizing the bending performance of metal sandwich
24
25
26 panels with pyramidal truss cores. Valdevit et al [24] presented the optimized results
27
28 regarding sandwich panels with prismatic cores under bending load. Jin et al. [25]
29
30
31 conducted bending tests in order to reveal the mechanical property and the failure
32
33
34 mechanism of integrated woven corrugated sandwich composites. Liu et al [26-27]
35
36
37 have performed analytical modeling and simulation of the structural performance of
38
39 sandwich beams with pin-reinforced foam cores and truss cores under bending.
40
41
42 Russell et al [28] manufactured carbon fiber composite square honeycombs that are
43
44
45 mainly used as load bearing structures, and the multifunctional benefit is very limited;
46
47
48 the bending behavior was then studied using analytical predictions, measurements and
49
50 finite element simulations [29]. Li et al. [30] studied the bending behavior of
51
52
53 three-dimensional pyramidal truss sandwich beams, and the failure mechanisms were
54
55
56 investigated. The interlocked cores reinforced by carbon fibers of the Kagome grid
57
58
59 were manufactured and tested by Fan et al [31]; the bending properties of Kagome
60
61
62 3
63
64
65
 1 and improved carbon fiber reinforced lattice-core sandwich beams were then
2
3
4
investigated [32]. In our previous work [33-34], the out-of-plane and in-plane
5
6 compressive properties of carbon fiber composite sandwich panels with
7
8
9 three-dimensional honeycomb cores were studied. To date, however, there is no
10
11
12 research work on the bending behaviors of sandwich beams with three-dimensional
13
14
15
honeycomb cores since this innovative core architecture appeared recently for
16
17 designing lightweight and multifunctional sandwich structures. The fabricated carbon
18
19
20 fiber composite three-dimensional honeycomb cores and sandwich panels are shown
21
22
23 in Figure 1 and 2 for egg and pyramidal honeycomb cores, respectively. The
24
25
26 properties of the parent material (T700/epoxy composite) are listed in Table 1. In the
27
28 present paper, the bending properties and failure mechanism of carbon fiber
29
30
31 composite sandwich beams with egg or pyramidal honeycomb cores have been
32
33
34 researched using analytical predictions, experimental tests and simulations. The
35
36
37 details of the analytical predictions for the egg and pyramidal honeycomb beams
38
39 under three point bending are derived in section 2. In section 3, the experiments were
40
41
42 conducted to study the bending behavior of the three-dimensional honeycomb beams
43
44
45 and compared to analytical results. In section 4, the finite element models have been
46
47
48 built in order to predict the bending behavior of sandwich beams. At last, the
49
50 conclusions are drawn in section 5.
51
52
53 2. Experimental
54
55 2.1 Fabrication
56
57 A method for fabricating carbon fiber composite egg and pyramidal honeycomb
58
59
60 cores has been developed in our previous paper [33]. In this work, the plate
61
62 4
63
64
65
 1 interlocking method has been used to form the core. First, carbon fiber composite
2
3
4
laminates with 0o/90o were made by T700/epoxy prepreg of thickness 0.15 mm
5
6 (T700/epoxy composite, Beijing Institute of Aeronautical Materials, China), the
7
8
9 properties of the unidirectional prepreg used in our experiments are provided in Table
10
11
12 1. Two pieces of honeycomb plates were cut by electronic engraving machine (Harbin
13
14
15
Weijifen Organic Glass Products Co., Ltd.), and then these plates are assembled
16
17 together basing on interlocking method. Each plate interlocked with other plate only
18
19
20 from the long caulking groove in order to form egg lattice cores and each plate
21
22
23 interlocked with other plates including both long and short caulking grooves to form
24
25
26 pyramidal honeycomb cores. The fabricated egg and pyramidal honeycomb sandwich
27
28 beams are sketched in Figure 8 (a) and (b), respectively. Finally, two face sheets will
29
30
31 be bonded on the top and bottom of the honeycomb core to form a sandwich panel.
32
33
34 The relative density of egg honeycombs core can be approximated from
35
d [(b  a  2t )( H  h)  2ah  d ]
36
 (7)
37 a2H
38
39 where the geometrical parameters, b, H, h, t, d and  are shown in the schematic
40
41
42 figure of the unit cell of the egg and pyramidal honeycomb structure shown in our
43
44
45 previous paper. The relative density of pyramidal honeycomb cores is two times of
46
47
48 that of egg honeycomb cores. In our samples, all the core relative densities have been
49
50 calculated basing on analytical parameters of specimens, ranging from 3.0% to 6.0%.
51
52
53 The pyramidal honeycomb structure shown in Fig. 2(a) has b = 12 mm, H = 20 mm,
54
55
56 h = 8 mm, d = 2 mm. These sandwich structures were fabricated by attaching the
57
58
59 pyramidal honeycomb structures to flat carbon fiber reinforced face sheets with
60
61
62 5
63
64
65
 1 adhesive (08-57, Heilongjiang Institute of Petrochemical).
2
3
4
2.2 Three point bending tests
5
6 In this section, we performed three point bending tests on sandwich panel
7
8
9 specimens with different geometries. Prior to the bending experiments, the ends of the
10
11
12 panels were first bonded to a U-shaped steel sheet (ts =0.5 mm and length S =30 mm)
13
14
15
and filled with an epoxy resin in order to prevent face sheet debonding as shown
16
17 schematically in Figure 8. In this figure, L denotes the beam span and H and hf are the
18
19
20 core thickness and face sheet thickness, respectively. Both pyramidal and egg
21
22
23 honeycomb structures with two different face sheet thicknesses were studied. In the
24
25
26 experiments, the sandwich panel was supported by two 30 mm diameter hardened
27
28 steel pins attached to a flat support base. The indenter had a flat central region 12.7
29
30
31 mm wide, with adjacent filets of 2 mm radius, and was moved at a constant rate of
32
33
34 0.02mm/s. The applied load was recorded by an INSTRON 5569 testing machine
35
36
37 during the bending tests.
38
39 3. Theoretical Investigation of Bending Behavior
40
41
42 3.1 Analytical predictions of deflection and failure load
43
44
45 Allen [35] gives the total deflection δ at the mid-point of a sandwich beam loaded
46
47
48 in three point bending as the sum of the deflections due to bending of the face sheets
49
50 and shear of the honeycomb core:
51
52
53 PL3 PL
54   B  S   (1)
48( EI )eq 4( AG )eq
55
56
57 Where ( EI )eq is the equivalent flexural rigidity and ( AG )eq is the equivalent
58
59
60 shear rigidity
61
62 6
63
64
65
 1 ( AG)eq  wHGc (2)
2
3
Where Gc is the shear stiffness of the three-dimensional honeycomb core, which
4
5
6 can be obtained from the shear experiment. For long beams with good shear stiffness,
7
8
9 shear deformations are generally recognized as being negligible. However, when
10
11
12 beams are short and/or have very poor shear properties, shear deformation could be
13
14
15
significant or even dominant. In this paper, we will show how the low-density core
16
17 leads to low ― Gc ‖ and, therefore, reduced three point bending stiffness and increased
18
19
20 failure susceptibility.
21
22
23 Under three point bending, possible failure modes of a carbon fiber sandwich
24
25
26 panel are: (i) face sheet crushing or wrinkling, (ii) core member crushing (including
27
28 the honeycomb core’s delamination or fracture) and (iii) debonding between the face
29
30
31 sheet and honeycomb cores. The collapse of the panel is generally dictated by one of
32
33
34 the competing mechanisms that depend on the geometry of the panel and the
35
36
37 mechanical properties of the face and core materials. Fan et al [31] studied the three
38
39 point bending behavior of carbon fiber composite sandwich panels with Kagome grid
40
41
42 cores. Face buckling, debonding and core shear have been studied in three point
43
44
45 bending experiments. However, the analytical estimates of the failure force for each
46
47
48 mode were not studied well. Here, we adopted a similar method, which was used to
49
50 derive the analytical models for failure initiation of carbon fiber composite sandwich
51
52
53 beams with lattice cores presented in the papers [36], to obtain estimates of the failure
54
55
56 load for the above modes of both egg and pyramidal honeycomb cores. In our analysis,
57
58
59 we assumed that the core carries the shear load and the faces carry the applied
60
61
62 7
63
64
65
 1 moment; the cross-section method is shown in Figure 3 and 4 for egg and pyramidal
2
3
4
honeycomb sandwich beams, respectively. The results are summarized below for the
5
6 different failure modes mentioned above. Sandwich panel failure is dictated by the
7
8
9 mode with the lowest value of applied load, P. We assumed that face sheet intra-cell
10
11
12 buckling and core member buckling were not present in our experiments, with the
13
14
15
analytical models thus given below:
16
17 (i) Face sheet crushing or wrinkling: The critical loads associated with each of the
18
19
20 failure loads can be estimated from:
21
22 4 fy h f Hw
23 PFC  (face sheet crushing) (3)
L
24
25 k1E f  2h 3f ( H  h f ) w
26 PFW  (face sheet wrinkling) (4)
27 3l12 L
28
29
30
where  fy and E f are the out-of-plane compressive crushing strength and compressive
31
32
Young’s modulus of the face sheets. The parameter k1 depends on the end constraints
33
34
35 during face sheet wrinkling. The mutual coupling effect between the core and face
36
37
38 sheets was disregarded in the analytical models, and k1 =1 was assumed in above
39
40
41 equation to be a pinned connection. L is the span of the specimen under three point
42
43
bending, l1 is the wavelength between the point of two unit cells, where
44
45
46 2
47 l1  (a  b) and a  b are for pyramidal and egg honeycomb cores, respectively.
48 2
49
50 (ii) Core member crushing: The pertinent failure loads associated with each failure
51
52
53 load are:
54
55
2 c dbw
56 PCC  (core member crushing) (5)
57 l2
58
59
60 where  c and Ec are the compressive strength and stiffness of the trapezoid plate of
61
62 8
63
64
65
 1 2
2
honeycomb cores. l2 is the width of the unit cell and l2  a , 2a are for
2
3
4
5 pyramidal and egg honeycombs cores, respectively.
6
7
8 (iii) Debonding between the face sheet and honeycomb core: The debonding
9
10 between the three dimensional honeycomb core and face sheets was assumed to occur
11
12
13 at a uniform shear strength  a , and additional strength is provided by the face sheets.
14
15
16 The collapse load in three point bending with debonding failure can be expressed as:
17
18
19 P  2wH cr (6)
20
21 where  cr is the shear strength of the carbon fiber three-dimensional honeycomb
22
23
24 structures, which can be obtained from the results presented in Section 2 and
25
26
27  cr   a A / l22 .
28
29
30 3.2 Failure mechanism maps
31
32
In this section, we provide predictive failure maps for carbon fiber reinforced
33
34
35 composite pyramidal and egg honeycomb sandwich panels based on analytical
36
37
38 parameters. The approximate method is used to draw the failure mechanism map.
39
40
41 Three different stacking sequences and two types of three-dimensional honeycomb
42
43
cores have been considered in order to draw the failure mechanism map under three
44
45
46 point bending, as listed in Table 2. Face wrinkling, Face crushing, core member
47
48
49 crushing and core debonding are studied in our maps. As shown in Figure 5, 6 and 7,
50
51
52 The stacking sequence and thickness of the face sheets can have a significant effect on
53
54
55
the overall behavior and failure of composite sandwich panels.
56
57 3.3 Model validation
58
59
60 In three point bending tests, the total deformation of the specimens was
61
62 9
63
64
65
 1 calculated from equation (1) based on experimental parameters, and the percent of
2
3
4
shear deformation and bending deformation was also calculated. Both are summarized
5
6 in Table 3.
7
8
9 It was found that when the shear stiffness is invariant, the slope of load vs.
10
11
12 displacement is larger and the percent of shear deformation in total deformation
13
14
15
becomes larger as the face sheet becomes thicker. When the shear stiffness is changed
16
17 to be smaller, shear deformation can be greater. In general, the test P/δ is in good
18
19
20 agreement with the predictive value. The first reason for the deviation between the
21
22
23 analytical calculation and the experiment is that the shear deflection was restricted by
24
25
26 the end; the second reason is that the shear deformation of the face sheet was not
27
28 considered in the analytical models. The adhesion strength between the
29
30
31 three-dimensional honeycomb cores and face sheet appeared to be the limiting factor
32
33
34 in several cases; debonding is always the last and dominant failure mode, as explained
35
36
37 below. Almost all the beams failed by the predicted dominant mode, and some failure
38
39 modes can occur at the same time due to the complex of the composite
40
41
42 three-dimensional honeycomb cores, as summarized in Table 4. The strength of the
43
44
45 three-dimensional honeycomb cores is much greater than that of the adhesive and the
46
47
48 thin face sheet since there is no failure in the honeycomb core materials.
49
50 (i) Face sheet wrinkling: Face sheet wrinkling was predicted and observed in
51
52
53 specimens 1 of both the pyramidal and egg honeycomb cores, which have a thin face
54
55
56 sheet compared to specimen 2. The load displacement response and selected deformed
57
58
59 configurations of specimen 1 of both pyramidal and egg honeycomb cores are shown
60
61
62 10
63
64
65
 1 in Figure 9. Prior to face wrinkling, the observed response is almost linear. The face
2
3
4
wrinkling reduces the stability of the sandwich panels and induces debonding to occur
5
6 between the face sheet and honeycomb cores; however, this does not result in a
7
8
9 sudden drop in the load-carrying capacity of the specimen and thus is not a
10
11
12 catastrophic event. As the deflection increased, the debonding between top face sheet
13
14
15
and the three-dimensional honeycomb core led to a sudden drop of the load at ~
16
17 1608.73 N. The calculated load by Equation (4) gives the force associated with the
18
19
20 face wrinkling. The predicted load associated with the wrinkling is much lower than
21
22
23 the peak failure load because wrinkling is not the dominant mode. The failure load
24
25
26 predicted by Equation (6) for debonding between the face sheets and the honeycomb
27
28 core is within 20% of the measured strength. This is probably due to the coupling
29
30
31 between the pyramidal truss core and the face sheets, which was not considered in the
32
33
34 analysis.
35
36
37 (ii) Debonding: Debonding is generally the dominant failure mode in the experiments
38
39 for sandwich panels with three-dimensional honeycomb cores due to the higher shear
40
41
42 strength of core materials compared to that of the adhesive. The representative load
43
44
45 versus displacement and the failure modes are shown in Figure 10. For specimen 2,
46
47
48 the top face sheet debonds from the core led to a sudden drop of the load while the
49
50 bottom face sheet was still attached to the egg or pyramidal honeycomb core. After
51
52
53 debonding, the residual loading capacity of specimen 8 was about 2000N, or 38% of
54
55
56 the peak loading. The predicted debonding failure loads for all the specimens are
57
58
59 somewhat lower than the measurements. This is probably due to the reinforcement of
60
61
62 11
63
64
65
 1 the two ends, which may have increased the peak load.
2
3
4 4. Computational Analysis
5
6 Linear-elastic analysis of the beam was conducted using finite element (FE)
7
8
9 analysis. As noted earlier, the bending behavior of sandwich beams with
10
11
12 three-dimensional honeycomb cores is very complex, and several simplifications have
13
14
15
been made for the analytical models to predict the bending properties. The FE
16
17 simulations were conducted in order to study the displacement of sandwich beams
18
19
20 with three-dimensional honeycomb cores accurately under the same applied bending
21
22
23 load, 1500 N. The adhesive strength between the honeycomb core and the face sheet
24
25
26 was assumed to be sufficiently strong to transmit the load between the core and face
27
28 sheet.
29
30
31 The sandwich beams with three-dimensional honeycomb cores were made with
32
33
34 T700/3234 composite materials and were meshed using ABAQUS software with a
35
36
37 fully integrated tetrahedron element with an ideal elastic model. The homogeneous
38
39 material properties are listed in Table 2. Surface-to-surface contact was used to model
40
41
42 the contact between the core and face sheet, as well as between the indenter and the
43
44
45 top face sheet. These FE models were used to simulate these structures in order to
46
47
48 determine the dependence of bending behavior on the span length, face thickness and
49
50 core wall thickness. The bending behaviors of egg and pyramidal honeycomb
51
52
53 sandwich beams calculated by the FE method are shown in Figure 11 (a) and (b),
54
55
56 respectively. Comparisons of both three-dimensional honeycomb cores with different
57
58
59 geometries were also carried out based on the simulation model. The effect between
60
61
62 12
63
64
65
 1 span length and the ratio of max displacement/applied load are shown in Figure 12. It
2
3
4
is assumed that hf=2 mm and d=2mm for both egg and pyramidal honeycomb cores.
5
6 The ratio increases with increasing span length, and the range between the egg and
7
8
9 pyramidal honeycomb cores becomes wider with this increment. This is due to the
10
11
12 increasing maximum displacement of the sandwich beams—the span length is greater,
13
14
15
and the contribution of the honeycomb core becomes smaller as the span increases.
16
17 Figure 13 shows the relationship between the ratio of maximum displacement/failure
18
19
20 load and the thickness of the face sheet. In this figure, the thickness of the core wall is
21
22
23 the same for both honeycomb cores; d=2 mm. L=227.5 mm and 225.26 mm are the
24
25
26 span length for the egg and pyramidal honeycomb beams, respectively.
27
28 It was discovered that the range between two curves becomes shorter with the
29
30
31 increase of the face sheet thickness due to the contribution of the face sheet in the
32
33
34 overall behavior. The relationship between the ratio of maximum displacement/failure
35
36
37 load and the core wall thickness is shown in Figure 14. In this figure, the thickness of
38
39 the face sheet is the same for both honeycomb cores, with hf=2 mm. L=227.5 mm and
40
41
42 225.26 mm for the egg and pyramidal honeycomb cores, respectively. The ratio’s
43
44
45 value will decrease as the thickness of core wall increases; however, the range
46
47
48 between the two curves will be narrower since the contribution made by the
49
50 maximum displacement is dominated by the span length, and the ratio of the core
51
52
53 wall’s contribution is very limited. It can be concluded that the bending properties of
54
55
56 pyramidal honeycomb sandwich beams are much superior to those of the egg
57
58
59 honeycomb sandwich beams.
60
61
62 13
63
64
65
 1 5. Conclusions
2
3
4
Carbon fiber composite sandwich panels with egg and pyramidal honeycomb
5
6 cores have been designed and manufactured using the interlocking method. Three
7
8
9 point bending tests were carried out to study the mechanical behaviors of the carbon
10
11
12 fiber composite sandwich beams with egg and pyramidal honeycomb cores.
13
14
15
Analytical models and failure maps were created in order to predict the mechanical
16
17 response and failure modes of all the specimens with different face sheet thicknesses.
18
19
20 Displacement at the center point was tested, and the analytical prediction for this was
21
22
23 made by considering the contribution made by the face sheet and core materials in
24
25
26 terms of bending and shear. Face wrinkling and debonding have been indicated under
27
28 three point bending. In general, the measured displacement and peak loads obtained in
29
30
31 the experiments were in good agreement with the analytical predictions. The bending
32
33
34 data is very useful for designing sandwich beams with lightweight and
35
36
37 multifunctional applications.
38
39 Acknowledgements
40
41
42 The present work was supported in part by the Major State Basic Research
43
44
45 Development Program of China (973 Program) under grant No. 2011CB610303,
46
47
48 National Science Foundation of China under grant Nos. 11222216, 11002041 and
49
50 11302060. JX also gratefully acknowledges Supported by Natural Scientific Research
51
52
53 Innovation Foundation in Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT.NSRIF.2014025) and
54
55
56 the National Key Lab of Materials and Structures in Special Environment.
57
58
59 References
60
61
62 14
63
64
65
 [1] Qin QH, Wang TJ. Low-velocity impact response of fully clamped metal foam
1
2 core sandwich beam incorporating local denting effect. Composite Structures 2013;
3
4
5 98: 346-356.
6
7 [2] Wang ZJ, Qin QH, Zhang JX, Wang TJ. Low velocity impact response of
8
9
10 geometrically asymmetric slender sandwich beams with metal foam core. Composite
11
12 Structures, 2013; 98: 1-14.
13
14
15 [3] Lu TJ, Liu T, Deng ZC. Thermoelastic properties of sandwich materials with
16
17 pin-reinforced foam cores. Science in China Series E- Technological Sciences 2008;
18
19
51(22): 2059-2074.
20
21
22 [4] Zhang JX, Qin QH, Wang TJ. Compressive strength and dynamic response of
23
24 corrugated metal sandwich plates with unfilled and foam-filled sinusoidal plate cores.
25
26
27 Acta Mechanica 2013; 224(4): 759-775.
28
29 [5] Pan SD, Wu LZ, Sun YG, Zhou ZG. Fracture test for double cantilever beam of
30
31
32 honeycomb sandwich panels. Materials Letters 2008; 62: 523-526.
33
34 [6] Hou SJ, Ren LL, Dong D, Han X. Crashworthiness optimization design of
35
36
37
honeycomb sandwich panel based on factor screening. Journal of Sandwich Structures
38
39 and Materials 2012; 14(6): 655-678.
40
41 [7] Lu TJ, Zhang QC. Novel strengthing methods for ultralightweight sandwich
42
43
44 structures with periodic lattice cores. Science in China-Technological Sciences 2010;
45
46 53(3): 875-877.
47
48
49 [8] Zhang QC, Han YJ, Chen CQ, Lu TJ. Ultralight X-type lattice sandwich structure
50
51 (I): Concept, fabrication and experimental characterization. Science in China Series
52
53
54 E-Technological Sciences 2009; 52(8): 2147-2154.
55
56 [9]Ashby MF. Materials selection in mechanical design (Fourth edition). Boston: A
57
58
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2010
59
60
61
62 15
63
64
65
 [10] Petrone G, Rao S, De Rosa S, Mace BR, Franco F, Bhattacharyya D. Behaviour
1
2 of fibre-reinforced honeycomb core under low velocity impact loading. Compos
3
4
5 Struct 2013; 100: 356-362.
6
7 [11] Petrone G, Rao S, De Rosa S, Mace BR, Franco F, Bhattacharyya D. Initial
8
9
10 experimental investigations on natural fibre reinforced honeycomb core panels.
11
12 Compo Part B 2013; 55: 400-406.
13
14
15 [12] Han DY, Tsai SW. Interlocked composite grids design and manufacturing. J.
16
17 Compos Mater 2003; 37: 287-316.
18
19
[13] Liu JY, Zhou ZG, Wu LZ, Ma L. A study on mechanical behavior of the carbon
20
21
22 fiber composite sandwich panel with pyramidal truss cores at different temperatures.
23
24 Science China: Physics, Mechanics and Astronomy 2012; 55(11): 2135-2142.
25
26
27 [14] Xiong J, Ma L, Vaziri A, Yang JS, Wu LZ. Mechanical behavior of carbon fiber
28
29 composite lattice core sandwich panels fabricated by laser cutting. Acta Mater 2012;
30
31
32 60: 5322-5334.
33
34 [15] Ebrahimi H, Vaziri A. Metallic sandwich panels subjected to multiple intense
35
36
37
shocks. International Journal of Solids and Structures 2013; 50: 1164-1176.
38
39 [16] Vaziri A, Hutchinson JW. Metallic sandwich plates subject to intense air shocks.
40
41 Int J Solids Struct 2007; 44(1): 2021–2035.
42
43
44 [17] Xin FX, Lu TJ. Analytical modeling of fluid loaded orthogonally rib-stiffened
45
46 sandwich structures: Sound transmission. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of
47
48
49 Solids 2010; 58: 1374-1396.
50
51 [18] Xin FX, Lu TJ. Sound radiation of orthogonally rib-stiffened sandwich structures
52
53
54 with cavity absorption. Composites Science and Technology 2010; 70: 2198-2206.
55
56 [19] Kim T, Zhao CY, Lu TJ, Hodson HP. Convective heat dissipation with lattice
57
58
frame materials. Mech Mater 2004; 36: 767-780.
59
60
61
62 16
63
64
65
 [20] Liu J, Cheng YS, Li RF, Au FTK. A semi-analytical method for bending,
1
2 buckling, and free vibration analyses of sandwich panels with square-honeycomb
3
4
5 cores. Int J Struct Stab Dyn 2010; 10: 127-151.
6
7 [21] He L, Cheng YS, Liu J. Precise bending stress analysis of corugated-core,
8
9
10 honeycomb core and X-core sandwich panels. Composite Structures 2012; 94:
11
12 1656-1668.
13
14
15 [22] Rathbun HJ, Wei Z, He MY, Zok FW, Evans AG, Sypeck DJ, Wadley HNG.
16
17 Measurement and simulation of the performance of a lightweight metallic sandwich
18
19
structure with a tetrahedral truss core. J Appl Mech 2004; 71: 368-374.
20
21
22 [23] Zok FW, Waltner SA, Wei Z, Rathbun HJ, McMeeking RM, Evans AG. A
23
24 protocol for characterizing the structural performance of metallic sandwich panels:
25
26
27 application to pyramidal truss cores. Int J Solids Struct 2004; 41(22-23): 6249-6271.
28
29 [24] Valdevit L, Hutchinson JW, Evans AG. Structurally optimized sandwich panels
30
31
32 with prismatic cores. Int J Solids Struct 2004; 41(18-19): 5105-5124.
33
34 [25] Jin FN, Chen HL, Zhao L, Fan HL, Cai CG, Kuang N. Failure mechanisms of
35
36
37
sandwich composites with orthotropic integrated woven corrugated cores:
38
39 Experiments. Compos Struct 2013; 98: 53-58.
40
41 [26] Liu T, Deng ZC, Lu TJ. Analytical modeling and finite element simulation of the
42
43
44 plastic collapse of sandwich beams with pin-reinforced foam cores. Int J Solids Struct
45
46 2008; 45(18-19): 5127-5151.
47
48
49 [27] Liu T, Deng ZC, Lu TJ. Design optimization of truss-cored sandwiches with
50
51 homogenization. Int J Solids Struct 2006; 43(25-26): 7891-7918.
52
53
54 [28]Russell BP, Deshpande VS, Wadley HNG. Quasistatic deformation and failure
55
56 modes of composite square honeycomb. J Mech Mater Struct 2008; 3:1315–1340.
57
58
[29] Russell BP, Liu T, Fleck NA, Deshpande VS. Quasi-static three-point bending of
59
60
61
62 17
63
64
65
 carbon fiber sandwich beams with square honeycomb cores. J Appl Mech 2011; 78:
1
2 031008-1-031008-15.
3
4
5 [30] Li M, Wu LZ, Ma L, Wang B, Guan ZX. Structural design of pyramidal truss
6
7 core sandwich beams loaded in 3-point bending. J Mech Mater Struct 2011; 6:
8
9
10 1255-1266
11
12 [31] Fan HL, Meng FH, Yang W. Sandwich panels with Kagome lattice cores
13
14
15 reinforced by carbon fibers. Compos Struct 2007; 81: 533-539.
16
17 [32] Fan HL, Yang L, Sun FF, Fang DN. Compression and bending performances of
18
19
carbon fiber reinforced lattice-core sandwich composites. Compos part A 2013; 52:
20
21
22 118-125.
23
24 [33] Xiong J, Hu H, Zhang M, Zhang Z, Ma L, Wu LZ. Compression behavior and
25
26
27 energy absorption of carbon fiber reinforced composite sandwich panels made of
28
29 three -dimensional grid cores. submitted.
30
31
32
[34] Xiong J, Zhang M, Stocchi A, Hu H, Ma L, Wu LZ, Zhang Z. Mechanical
33
34
35 behaviors of carbon fiber composite sandwich columns with three dimensional
36
37
38 honeycomb cores under in-plane compression. Submitted.
39
40 [35] Allen HG. Analysis and design of structural sandwich panels. New York:
41
42 Pergamon Press, 1969.
43
44
45 [36] Xiong J, Ma L, Pan SD, Wu LZ, Papadopoulos J, Vaziri A. Shear and bending
46
47 performance of carbon fiber composite sandwich panels with pyramidal truss cores.
48
49
50 Acta Mater 2012; 60: 1455-1466.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 18
63
64
65
Figure

Figures

Fig.1 Photographs of (a) pyramidal honeycomb cores and (b) sandwich panels with

  6.0%

Fig.2 Photographs of (a) egg honeycomb cores and (b) sandwich panels with

  3.0%

Fig. 3. Force analysis model of sandwich beams with egg honeycomb cores (a) under

three point bending, (b) top view, (c) section method for egg honeycomb cores under

three point bending, (d) typical unit cell of egg honeycomb cores bearing shear load V

(absent the top face sheet). The decomposition of force for sandwich panels with egg

honeycomb cores under three point bending are similar with above section method.

Fig. 4. Force analysis model of sandwich panels with pyramidal honeycomb cores (a)

under three point bending, (b) top view, (c) section method for pyramidal honeycomb

cores under three point bending, (d) typical unit cell of pyramidal honeycomb cores

bearing shear load V (absent the top face sheet). The decomposition of force for

sandwich panels with pyramidal honeycomb cores under three point bending are

similar with above section method.

Fig. 5. Failure mechanism maps for carbon fiber composite sandwich beams with egg

and pyramidal honeycomb cores under three point bending. Face sheets with [0 o /0 o

/0 o /0o]n were considered in both maps.

Fig.6. Failure mechanism maps for carbon fiber composite sandwich beams with egg

and pyramidal honeycomb cores under three point bending: FW = face sheet

wrinkling; FC = face sheet crushing; CC = core member crushing; CD = core

debonding. Face sheets with [0 o /90 o /90 o /0o]n were considered and both mechanism

maps were used to design the specimens.

Fig. 7. Failure mechanism maps for carbon fiber composite sandwich beams with egg

1 / 16
and pyramidal honeycomb cores under three point bending. Face sheets with [90 o /90
o
/90 o /90o]n were considered for drawing above mechanism maps.

Fig.8 Fabrication of sandwich beams with 3D honeycomb cores for three point

bending tests by using cut carbon fiber reinforced composite sheets and interlock

method: (a) Egg honeycomb cores; (b) Pyramidal honeycomb cores.

Fig. 9. (a) Bending response and deformed configurations of egg-specimen 1 and

pyramidal-specimen 1. (b) and (c) are the failure modes of egg and pyramidal

honeycomb cores, respectively. Both face wrinkling and debonding modes were

observed during the bending experiments. The sudden drop in the panel peak strength

is mainly due to the core debonding.

Fig. 10. (a) Bending response and deformed configurations of egg-specimen 2 and

pyramidal-specimen 2. Debonding modes were observed during the bending

experiments for (b) egg honeycomb cores and (c) pyramidal honeycomb cores.

Fig.11 Bending behaviors for (a) Egg and (b) pyramidal honeycomb sandwich beams

done by simulation.

Fig. 12 The relationship between the ratio (Max displacement / Applied load) of 3D

honeycomb sandwich beams and span length

Fig. 13 The relationship between the ratio (Max displacement / Applied load) of 3D

honeycomb sandwich beams and thickness of face sheet, hf

Fig. 14 The relationship between the ratio (Max displacement / Applied load) of 3D

honeycomb sandwich beams and the thickness of core wall, d

2 / 16
 (a)

(b)

Fig.1 Photographs of (a) egg honeycomb cores and (b) sandwich panels with
  3.0%

3 / 16
(a)

(b)

Fig.2 Photographs of (a) pyramidal honeycomb cores and (b) sandwich panels with
  6.0%

4 / 16
(a)

(b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 3. Force analysis model of sandwich beams with egg honeycomb cores (a) under
three point bending, (b) top view, (c) section method for egg honeycomb cores under
three point bending, (d) typical unit cell of egg honeycomb cores bearing shear load V
(absent the top face sheet). The decomposition of force for sandwich panels with egg
honeycomb cores under three point bending are similar with above section method.

5 / 16
(a)

(b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 4. Force analysis model of sandwich panels with pyramidal honeycomb cores (a)
under three point bending, (b) top view, (c) section method for pyramidal honeycomb
cores under three point bending, (d) typical unit cell of pyramidal honeycomb cores
bearing shear load V (absent the top face sheet). The decomposition of force for
sandwich panels with pyramidal honeycomb cores under three point bending are
similar with above section method.

6 / 16
(a)

(b)

Fig. 5. Failure mechanism maps for carbon fiber composite sandwich beams with egg

and pyramidal honeycomb cores under three point bending. Face sheets with [0 o /0 o

/0 o /0o]n were considered in both maps.

7 / 16
 (a)

(b)

Fig.6. Failure mechanism maps for carbon fiber composite sandwich beams with egg

and pyramidal honeycomb cores under three point bending: FW = face sheet

wrinkling; FC = face sheet crushing; CC = core member crushing; CD = core

debonding. Face sheets with [0 o /90 o /90 o /0o]n were considered and both mechanism

maps were used to design the specimens.

8 / 16
(a)

(b)

Fig. 7. Failure mechanism maps for carbon fiber composite sandwich beams with egg

and pyramidal honeycomb cores under three point bending. Face sheets with [90 o /90

o
/90 o /90o]n were considered for drawing above mechanism maps.

9 / 16
(a)

Interlocking
Epoxy resin reinforcement

U shaped steel sheet

(b)
Interlocking Epoxy resin reinforcement

Fig.8 Fabrication of sandwich beams with 3D honeycomb cores for three point
bending tests by using cut carbon fiber reinforced composite sheets and interlock
method: (a) Egg honeycomb cores; (b) Pyramidal honeycomb cores.

10 / 16
 (a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 9. (a) Bending response and deformed configurations of egg-specimen 1 and

pyramidal-specimen 1. (b) and (c) are the failure modes of egg and pyramidal
honeycomb cores, respectively. Both face wrinkling and debonding modes were
observed during the bending experiments. The sudden drop in the panel peak strength
is mainly due to the core debonding.

11 / 16
 (a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 10. (a) Bending response and deformed configurations of egg-specimen 2 and

pyramidal-specimen 2. Debonding modes were observed during the bending

experiments for (b) egg honeycomb cores and (c) pyramidal honeycomb cores.

12 / 16
(a)

(b)

Fig.11 Bending behaviors for (a) Egg and (b) pyramidal honeycomb sandwich beams
done by simulation.

13 / 16
 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Max displacement/ Applied load (mm/kN) 2.0 2.0
1.8
Egg honeycomb beams 1.8
Pyramidal honeycomb beams
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Span Length, L (mm)
Fig. 12 The relationship between the ratio (Max displacement / Applied load) of 3D
honeycomb sandwich beams and span length

14 / 16
 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Max displacement/ Applied load (mm/kN) 0.6 0.6
Egg honeycomb beams
Pyramidal honeycomb beams
0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Face thickness, hf (mm)
Fig. 13 The relationship between the ratio (Max displacement / Applied load) of 3D
honeycomb sandwich beams and thickness of face sheet, hf

15 / 16
 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Max displacement/ Applied load (mm/kN)
0.45 0.45
Egg honeycomb beams
0.40 Pyramidal honeycomb beams 0.40

0.35 0.35

0.30 0.30

0.25 0.25

0.20 0.20

0.15 0.15

0.10 0.10
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Thickness of core wall, d (mm)
Fig. 14 The relationship between the ratio (Max displacement / Applied load) of 3D
honeycomb sandwich beams and the thickness of core wall, d

16 / 16
Table

Tables
Table 1 Properties of unidirectional lamella (T700/epoxy composites).
Table 2 Mechanical properties of carbon fiber composite face-sheets and slender
laminate sheets of honeycomb cores
Table 3 Three point bending deformation of 3D honeycomb cores along with
predicted and measured P/δ (N/mm) and the center deflection δ (mm)
Table 4 Summary of the geometries employed in three point bending tests along with
the predicted and measured failure loads and collapse modes

Table 1
Properties of unidirectional lamella (T700/epoxy composites).

Properties Value

0°Tensile strength (MPa) 1400

0°Tensile modulus (GPa) 123

90°Tensile strength (MPa) 18

90°Tensile modulus (GPa) 8.3

0°Compression strength (MPa) 850

0°Compression modulus (GPa) 100

90°Compression strength (MPa) 96

90°Compression modulus (GPa) 8.4

In-plane shear strength (MPa) 16.0
In-plane shear modulus (GPa) 4.8

1
Interlayer shear strength (Mpa) 60
Poisson’s ratio 0.3

Volume fraction of fibers 57%±3

Density( kg/m3) 1550

2
Table 2 Mechanical properties of carbon fiber composite face-sheets and slender

laminate sheets of honeycomb cores

No. Stack sequence E f (GPa)  fy (MPa) Ec (GPa)  c (MPa)

a) (0°/0°/0°/0°)s 100 850 54.504 473
b) (0°/90°/90°/0°)s 54.504 473 54.504 473
c) (90°/90°/90°/90°)s 8.4 96 54.504 473

3
Table 3 Three point bending deformation of 3D honeycomb cores along with
predicted and measured P/δ (N/mm) and the center deflection δ (mm)

δB and Analy. Analy. Percent Test P/δ Test Fail. load

Specimen δS total δ P/δ (%) (N/mm) δ(mm) P (N)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm)
0.73 61.97
Egg 1 1.18 1360.24 1491.53 1.57 1608.73
0.45 38.03
honeycom
b cores 0.26 29.79
2 0.86 2507.37 2547.31 1.03 2146.70
0.60 70.21
1.15 72.03
Pyramidal 1 1.60 1787.72 1802.71 1.92 2862.77
0.45 27.97
honeycom
0.35 40.99
b cores 2 0.85 3774.29 3981.14 1.12 3222.87
0.50 59.01

4
Table 4 Summary of the geometries employed in three point bending tests along with
the predicted and measured failure loads and collapse modes

Analy. Analy. Obs. Obs.

w L hf
Topologies No Fail Fail Fail Fail
(mm) (mm) (mm)
Mode force (N) mode force (N)
FW 322.2
FC 7937.8 FW＆
1 90.21 223.6 0.52 1608.73
CC 35665.6 CD
Egg
CD 1292.8
honeycomb
FW 20994.9
cores
FC 30973.1
2 90.07 225.6 2.05 CD 2146.70
CC 35610.3
CD 1290.8
FW 398.0
FC 8751.9 FW＆
1 92.86 220.8 0.55 2862.77
CC 36713.3 CD
Pyramidal
CD 2661.7
honeycomb
FW 22461.3
cores
FC 32800.7
2 93.39 221.9 2.06 CD 3222.87
CC 36922.9
CD 2676.8