Sandwich structures have a high capacity for stiffness, strength, and energy absorption, and are frequently used as lightweight composite components in shipbuilding and aeronautical engineering. In this work, mechanical characterisation of aluminium honeycomb and 3D-woven Kevlar honeycomb composite sandwich panels with respect to their flatwise, edgewise compression, and three-point bending tests was carried out. The experimental results show that the 3D-woven Kevlar honeycomb is better than the aluminium honeycomb for flatwise and three-point bending behaviour. In the case of edgewise compression, aluminium honeycomb shows significant results. Aluminium honeycomb cores show the plastic collapse mechanism, while Kevlar honeycomb indicates the occurrence of buckling before failure.
NoorAKBurtonWSBertCW.Computational models for sandwich panels and shells. Appl Mech Rev. 1996;49:155–199.
2.
AbrateS.Impact engineering of composite structures. Carbondale USA: Springer science and business media; 2011.
3.
LiuPFLiXKLiZB.Finite element analysis of dynamic mechanical responses of aluminum honeycomb sandwich structures under low-velocity impact. J Fail Anal Prev. 2017;17:1202–1207.
4.
TripathiLBeheraBK.Review: 3D woven honeycomb composites. J Mater Sci. 2021;56:15609–15652.
5.
CrupiVMontaniniR.Aluminium foam sandwiches collapse modes under static and dynamic three-point bending. Int J Impact Eng. 2007;34:509–521.
6.
TripathiLChowdhurySBeheraBK.Modelling and simulation of compression behaviour of 3D woven hollow composite structures using FEM analysis. Text Leather Rev. 2020;3:6–18.
7.
JayanVRTripathiLBeheraPKPrediction of internal geometry and tensile behavior of 3D woven solid structures by mathematical coding. J Ind Text. 2021;51:7034S–7055S.
8.
TripathiLChowdhurySBeheraB.Modeling and simulation of impact behavior of 3D woven solid structure for ballistic application. J Ind Text. 2022;51:6065S–6086S.
TripathiLNejeGBeheraBK.Geometrical modeling of 3D woven honeycomb fabric for manufacturing of lightweight sandwich composite material. J Ind Text. 2022;51:4372S–4389S.
11.
RajaneeshASridharIRajendranS.Impact modeling of foam cored sandwich plates with ductile or brittle faceplates. Compos Struct. 2012;94:1745–1754.
12.
ChenYHouSFuKLow-velocity impact response of composite sandwich structures: modelling and experiment. Compos Struct. 2017;168:322–334.
MukaiTKanahashiHMiyoshiTExperimental study of energy absorption in a close-celled aluminum foam under dynamic loading. Scr Mater. 1999;40:921–927.
17.
DannemannKALankfordJ.High strain rate compression of closed-cell aluminum foams. Mater Sci Eng, A. 2000;293:157–164.
18.
DeshpandeVSFleckNA.High strain rate compressive behaviour of aluminum alloy foams. Int J Impact Eng. 2000;24:277–298.
19.
HallIWGudenMYuCJ.Crushing of aluminum closed cell foams: density and strain rate effects. Scr Mater. 2000;43:515–521.
20.
PaulARamamurtyU.Strain rate sensitivity of a closed-cell aluminum foam. Mater Sci Eng, A. 2000;281:1–7.
21.
AvalleMBelingardiGMontaniniR.Characterization of polymeric structural foams under compressive impact loading by means of energy-absorption diagram. Int J Impact Eng. 2001;25:455–472.
22.
ShinKBLeeJYChoSH.An experimental study of low-velocity impact responses of sandwich panels for Korean low floor bus. Compos Struct. 2008;84:228–240.
23.
DemirciMT.Investigation of low-velocity impact behavior of aluminum honeycomb composite sandwiches with GNPs doped BFR laminated face-sheets and interfacial adhesive for aircraft structures. Polym Compos. 2022;43:5675–5689.
24.
Bart-SmithHHutchinsonJWEvansAG.Measurement and analysis of the structural performance of cellular metal sandwich construction. Int J Mech Sci. 2001;43:1945–1963.
25.
KeslerOGibsonLJ.Size effects in metallic foam core sandwich beams. Mater Sci Eng, A. 2002;326:228–234.
26.
McCormackTMMillerRKeslerOFailure of sandwich beams with metallic foam cores. Int J Solids Struct. 2001;38:4901–4920.
27.
Bart-SmithHHutchinsonJWFleckNAInfluence of imperfections on the performance of metal foam core sandwich panels. Int J Solids Struct. 2002;39:4999–5012.
28.
ChenCHarteAMFleckNA.Plastic collapse of sandwich beams with a metallic foam core. Int J Mech Sci. 2001;43:1483–1506.
29.
ThamCYTanVBCLeeHP.Ballistic impact of a KEVLAR® helmet: experiment and simulations. Int J Impact Eng. 2008;35:304–318.
30.
KumarAAngraSChandaAK.Analysis of the effects of varying core thicknesses of Kevlar honeycomb sandwich structures under different regimes of testing. Mater Today Proc. 2020;21:1615–1623.
SchwaberDM.Impact behavior of polymeric foams: a review. Polym-Plast Technol Eng. 1973;2:231–249.
33.
GibsonLJAshbyMF.Cellular solids. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
34.
WierzbickiT.Crushing analysis of metal honeycombs. Int J Impact Eng. 1983;1:157–174.
35.
ZhangJAshbyMF.The out-of-plane properties of honeycombs. Int J Mech Sci. 1992;34:475–489.
36.
FengJYaoLLyuZMechanical properties and damage failure of 3D-printed continuous carbon fiber-reinforced composite honeycomb sandwich structures with fiber-interleaved core. Polym Compos. 2022.
37.
TripathiLBeheraSKBeheraBK.Numerical modeling of flatwise energy absorption behavior of 3D woven honeycomb composites with different cell structures. J Sandw Struct Mater. 2022;24:2047–2064.
38.
TripathiLBeheraBK.Flatwise compression behavior of 3D woven honeycomb composites. J Ind Text. 2022;52:1–24.
MamalisAGManolakosDEIoannidisMBOn the crushing response of composite sandwich panels subjected to edgewise compression: experimental. Compos Struct. 2005;71:246–257.
41.
AbbadiAKoutsawaYCarmasolAExperimental and numerical characterization of honeycomb sandwich composite panels. Simul Model Pract Theory. 2009;17:1533–1547.
42.
YuanHZhangJSunH.The failure behavior of double-layer metal foam sandwich beams under three-point bending. Thin-Walled Struct. 2022;180:1–9.
43.
XiaFDurandetYTanPJThree-point bending performance of sandwich panels with various types of cores. Thin-Walled Struct. 2022;179:1–17.
