In this paper, the compressive behavior of a carbon fiber composite pyramidal lattice cylinder has been predicted based on initial failure criteria and progressive damage. To this end, the 3D Hashin failure criteria have been employed with instantaneous and gradual unloading models using the user subroutine UMAT in ABAQUS/Standard. In the gradual unloading model, progressive damage has been controlled by exponential damage function. In addition, a new mold has been designed and manufactured for the experimental test of composite pyramidal lattice cylinders, which allows the use of the maximum essential strength of the fiber-reinforced composite. The predicted load-displacement curves using the finite element models are in good agreement with the experimental test results.
GibsonLJAshbyMF.Cellular solids: structure and properties. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press. Epub ahead of print 1997. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139878326
4.
AliaRAAl-AliOKumarS, et al.
The energy-absorbing characteristics of carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy honeycomb structures. J Compos Mater2019;
53: 1145–1157.
5.
YungwirthCJRadfordDDAronsonM, et al.
Experiment assessment of the ballistic response of composite pyramidal lattice truss structures. Compos Part B Eng2008;
39: 556–569.
6.
YinSWuLYangJ, et al.
Damping and low-velocity impact behavior of filled composite pyramidal lattice structures. J Compos Mater2014;
48: 1789–1800.
7.
ZhangGWangBMaL, et al.
Response of sandwich structures with pyramidal truss cores under the compression and impact loading. Compos Struct2013;
100: 451–463.
8.
YangJ-SMaLSchmidtR, et al.
Hybrid lightweight composite pyramidal truss sandwich panels with high damping and stiffness efficiency. Compos Struct2016;
148: 85–96.
9.
YangJ-SXiongJMaL, et al.
Modal response of all-composite corrugated sandwich cylindrical shells. Compos Sci Technol2015;
115: 9–20.
10.
TotaroG.Local buckling modelling of isogrid and anisogrid lattice cylindrical shells with hexagonal cells. Compos Struct2013;
95: 403–410.
11.
HaoMHuYWangB, et al.
Mechanical behavior of natural fiber-based isogrid lattice cylinder. Compos Struct2017;
176: 117–123.
12.
LopatinAVMorozovEVShatovAV.Axial deformability of the composite lattice cylindrical shell under compressive loading: application to a load-carrying spacecraft tubular body. Compos Struct2016;
146: 201–206.
13.
FadavianADavarAJamJE, et al.
Buckling strength optimization of fabrication factors of composite lattice cylinders using experimental-statistical method (Taguchi). Polym Compos2019;
40: 1850–1861.
14.
ZhangTYanYLiJ.Experiments and numerical simulations of low-velocity impact of sandwich composite panels. Polym Compos2017;
38: 646–656.
15.
YungwirthCJWadleyHNGO’ConnorJH, et al.
Impact response of sandwich plates with a pyramidal lattice core. Int J Impact Eng2008;
35: 920–936.
16.
XiongJMaLVaziriA, et al.
Mechanical behavior of carbon fiber composite lattice core sandwich panels fabricated by laser cutting. Acta Mater2012;
60: 5322–5334.
17.
LiMWuLMaL, et al.
Structural response of all-composite pyramidal truss core sandwich columns in end compression. Compos Struct2011;
93: 1964–1972.
18.
LiMWuLMaL, et al.
Torsion of carbon fiber composite pyramidal core sandwich plates. Compos Struct2011;
93: 2358–2367.
SebaeyTAMahdiE.Behavior of pyramidal lattice core sandwich CFRP composites under biaxial compression loading. Compos Struct2014;
116: 67–74.
21.
ZhangGMaLWangB, et al.
Mechanical behaviour of CFRP sandwich structures with tetrahedral lattice truss cores. Compos Part B Eng2012;
43: 471–476.
22.
MeiJLiuJLiuJ.A novel fabrication method and mechanical behavior of all-composite tetrahedral truss core sandwich panel. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2017;
102: 28–39.
23.
HwangJ-SChoiT-GLeeD, et al.
Development of a bendable pyramidal Kagome structure and its structural characteristics. Compos Struct2016;
142: 87–95.
24.
NorouziHRostamiyanY.Experimental and numerical study of flatwise compression behavior of carbon fiber composite sandwich panels with new lattice cores. Constr Build Mater2015;
100: 22–30.
25.
WangBHuJLiY, et al.
Mechanical properties and failure behavior of the sandwich structures with carbon fiber-reinforced X-type lattice truss core. Compos Struct2018;
185: 619–633.
26.
DongLWadleyH.Shear response of carbon fiber composite octet-truss lattice structures. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2016;
81: 182–192.
27.
DongLDeshpandeVWadleyH.Mechanical response of Ti–6Al–4V octet-truss lattice structures. Int J Solids Struct2015;
60-61: 107–124.
28.
HuYLiWAnX, et al.
Fabrication and mechanical behaviors of corrugated lattice truss composite sandwich panels. Compos Sci Technol2016;
125: 114–122.
29.
QiGJiBMaL.Mechanical response of pyramidal lattice truss core sandwich structures by additive manufacturing. Mech Adv Mater Struct2019;
26: 1298–1306.
MotleyMRLiuZYoungYL.Utilizing fluid–structure interactions to improve energy efficiency of composite marine propellers in spatially varying wake. Compos Struct2009;
90: 304–313.
LeeB-CLeeK-WByunJ-H, et al.
The compressive response of new composite truss cores. Compos Part B Eng2012;
43: 317–324.
34.
KimHChoBHHurH-K, et al.
A composite sandwich panel integrally woven with truss core. Mater Des2015;
65: 231–242.
35.
ZhangGWangBMaL, et al.
The residual compressive strength of impact-damaged sandwich structures with pyramidal truss cores. Compos Struct2013;
105: 188–198.
LeeC-SKimJ-HKimS, et al.
Initial and progressive failure analyses for composite laminates using Puck failure criterion and damage-coupled finite element method. Compos Struct2015;
121: 406–419.
38.
DavilaCGCamanhoPPRoseCA.Failure criteria for FRP laminates. J Compos Mater2005;
39: 323–345.
ASTM D3039/D3039M-17. Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer matrix composite materials. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2017.
41.
ASTM D3410/D3410M-16. Standard test method for compressive properties of polymer matrix composite materials with unsupported gage section by shear loading. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2016.
42.
ASTM D3518/D3518M-18. Standard test method for in-plane shear response of polymer matrix composite materials by tensile test of a ±45° laminate. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2018.
43.
AzarakhshSGhamarianA.Collapse behavior of thin-walled conical tube clamped at both ends subjected to axial and oblique loads. Thin-Walled Struct2017;
112: 1–11.
YeJYanYLiJ, et al.
3D explicit finite element analysis of tensile failure behavior in adhesive-bonded composite single-lap joints. Compos Struct2018;
201: 261–275.
49.
RaimondoLIannucciLRobinsonP, et al.
A progressive failure model for mesh-size-independent FE analysis of composite laminates subject to low-velocity impact damage. Compos Sci Technol2012;
72: 624–632.
