Glass fabric reinforced thin sandwich panel and carbon fabric reinforced thin sandwich panel of thickness close to 2.5 mm were studied to explore an alternative skin material for the outer body of various machines and appliances. The polyester foam Coremat XM of 2 mm thickness was used as core material in the thin sandwich panels. The panels were fabricated by vacuum bagging process and characterized through two plate tests: (i) low-velocity normal impact loading under a drop weight impact test set up and (ii) transverse static loading of a plate. The damage area, indentation depth and permanent depression over damage area, energy absorption capability, load-deflection relation and failure modes were observed under the test. The impact drop test was simulated by LS-DYNA. The properties of glass fabric reinforced thin sandwich panel and carbon fabric reinforced thin sandwich panel were compared with those of 0.8-mm-thick MS sheet, a widely used skin material for the outer body of various machines and appliances.
Ryerson CC, Dutta PK and Pergantis CG. Response of polymer composite helicopter blades to thermal deicing. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth international offshore and polar engineering conference, Toulon, France, 2004, Vol. 4, pp.229.
2.
ThomsenOT. Sandwich materials for wind turbine blades – present and future. J Sandwich Panel2009; 11: 7–26.
3.
UgaleVBSinghKKMishraNM. Experimental studies on thin sandwich panels under impact and static loading. J Reinf Plast Compos2013; 32: 420–434.
4.
KumarAChandelPSKumarP. Experimental study of thin sandwich panel. J Institut Eng India2006; 87: 22–26.
5.
www.lantor.nl, Lantor BV, Verlaat 22, P.O. Box 45, 3900 AA Veenendaal, Netherland (accessed November 2013).
6.
AhmedKSVijayaranganS. Tensile, flexural and interlaminar shear properties of woven jute and jute glass fabric reinforced polyester composites. J Mater Process Technol2008; 207: 330–335.
7.
Nangia S and Biswas S. Jute composite: technology and business opportunities. In: Proceedings of international conference on advances in composites at IISc and HAL, Bangalore, India, 2000, pp.295-305.
8.
NingHJanowskiGMVaidyaUK. Thermoplastic sandwich structure design and manufacturing for the body panel of mass transit vehicle. Compos Struct2007; 80: 82–91.
9.
GaudenziPPascucciABarboniR. Analysis of a glass-fibre sandwich panel for car body constructions. Compos Struct1997; 38: 421–433.
10.
ParkJHHaSK. Impact damage resistance of sandwich structure subjected to low velocity impact. J Mater Process Technol2008, pp. 425–430.
11.
ImieliskaKGuillaumatLWojtyraR. Effects of manufacturing and face/core bonding on impact damage in glass/polyester-PVC foam core sandwich panels. Compos Part B2008; 39: 1034–1041.
12.
CoriglianoARizziEPapaE. Experimental characterization and numerical simulations of a syntactic-foam/glass-fibre composite sandwich. Compos Sci Technol2000; 60: 2169–2180.
13.
QiaoPYangM. Impact analysis of fibre reinforced polymer honeycomb composite sandwich beams. Compos Part B2007; 38: 739–750.
14.
ScarponiCBriottiGBarboniR. Impact testing on composites and sandwich panels. J Compos Mater1996; 30: 1873–1911.
15.
MinesRAWJonesN. Approximate elastic plastic analysis of static and impact behaviour of polymer composite sandwich beams. J Compos1995; 26: 803–814.
16.
AndersonTMadenciE. Experimental investigation of low velocity impact characteristics of sandwich composites. Compos Struct2000; 50: 239–247.
17.
LimTSLeeCSLeeDG. Failure modes of foam core sandwich beams under static and impact loads. J Compos Mater2004; 38: 1639–1662.
18.
SchubelPMLuoJJDanielIM. Low velocity impact behavior of composite sandwich panels. Compos Part A2005; 36: 1389–1396.
19.
CaprinoGLoprestoV. Influence of material thickness on the response carbon fabric / epoxy panels to low velocity impact. Compos Sci Technol1999; 59: 2279–2286.
20.
Lopez-puenteJZaeraRNavarroC. The effect of low temperatures on the intermediate and high velocity impact response of CFRPs. Compos Part B2002; 33: 559–566.
21.
CantwellWJMortonJ. Comparison of the low and high velocity impact response of CFRP. Composites1989; 20: 545–551.
KumarPRaiB. Delaminations of barely visible impact damage in CFRP laminates. Compos Struct1993; 23: 313–318.
24.
KumarPRaiB. Reduction of impact damage in KFRP through replacement of surface plies with glass fabric plies. Compos Mater1991; 25: 694–702.
25.
NaikNKNemaniB. Initiation of damage in composite plates under transverse central static loading. J Compos Struct2001; 52: 167–172.
26.
NaikNKChandra SekherYMeduriS. Damage in woven-fabric composites subjected to low-velocity impact. J Compos Sci Technol2000; 60: 731–744.
27.
CaprinoGLoprestoV. Influence of material thickness on the response carbon fabric / epoxy panels to low velocity impact. Compos Sci Technol1999; 59: 2279–2286.
28.
KubokiTJarYBForestTW. Influence of interlaminar fracture toughness on impact resistance of glass fibre reinforced polymers. Compos Sci Technol2003; 63: 943–953.
29.
AbrateS. Impact on composite structures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
30.
TiberkakRBacheneMRechakS. Damage prediction in composite plates subjected to low velocity impact. Compos Struct2008; 83: 73–82.
31.
AgarwalBDBroutmanLJ. Analysis and performance of fiber composites, 2nd edn. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1990, pp. 76–86. , 178, 188–198, 381.
32.
Padmaja. Characterization of woven glass fiber composites. MTech Thesis, Department of Aerospace Engineering, IIT Kanpur, India, 2000.
33.
DanielIMIshaiO. Engineering mechanics of composite materials. 2nd ednOxford University Press Inc., pp. 137–138.
