The M-type GFRP (Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer) foldcore was prepared by thermal pressing method, and was bonded with the panel to obtain the complete foldcore sandwich structure and filled the core with polyurethane foam. The influence of foam filling, impact energy and impact position on the damage mode and impact dynamic response under the low-velocity impact of GFRP M-type foldcore sandwich structure is studied through low-velocity experiment. The results show that the impact resistance of N-side impact is better than the B-side impact. Foam filling could effectively closing the gap between the N-side impact and B-side impact. In addition, foam filling could absorb about 15%-25% more energy than the empty core sandwich plate.
SturmRKlettYKindervaterC, et al.Failure of CFRP airframe sandwich panels under crash-relevant loading conditions. Compos Struct2014; 112: 11–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.02.001.
2.
DengYZhangWZengX, et al.Experimental study of the low-velocity impact behavior of hybrid sandwich panel with S-shaped foldcore. Thin-Walled Struct2022; 181: 110057. DOI: 10.1016/J.TWS.2022.110057.
3.
ZhangPMoDGeX, et al. Experimental investigation into the synergetic damage of foam-filled and empty corrugated core hybrid sandwich panels under combined blast and fragment loading. Compos Struct. 2022; 299: 116089. doi:10.1016/J.COMPSTRUCT.2022.116089.
4.
YangMHanBMaoY, et al.Crashworthiness of foam-filled truncated conical sandwich shells with corrugated cores. Thin-Walled Struct2022; 179: 109677. DOI: 10.1016/J.TWS.2022.109677.
5.
TaghipoorHEyvazianAMusharavatiF, et al.Experimental investigation of the three-point bending properties of sandwich beams with polyurethane foam-filled lattice cores. Structures2020; 28: 424–432. DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2020.08.082.
6.
YooSHChangSSutcliffeM. Compressive characteristics of foam-filled composite egg-box sandwich panels as energy absorbing structures. Composites Part A2009; 41: 427–434. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2009.11.010.
7.
ZhangGWangBMaL, et al.Energy absorption and low velocity impact response of polyurethane foam filled pyramidal lattice core sandwich panels. Compos Struct2014; 108: 304–310. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.09.040.
8.
MozafariHKhatamiSMolatefiH. Out of plane crushing and local stiffness determination of proposed foam filled sandwich panel for Korean Tilting Train eXpress—numerical study. Mater Des2015; 66: 400–411. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2014.07.037.
9.
YanLLYuBHanB, et al.Compressive strength and energy absorption of sandwich panels with aluminum foam-filled corrugated cores. Compos Sci Technol2013; 86: 142–148. DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2013.07.011.
10.
ZhangZLiuSTangZ. Comparisons of honeycomb sandwich and foam-filled cylindrical columns under axial crushing loads. Thin-Walled Struct2011; 49: 1071–1079. DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2011.03.017.
11.
MozafariHKhatamiSMolatefiH. Out of plane crushing and local stiffness determination of proposed foam filled sandwich panel for Korean Tilting Train eXpress—numerical study. Mater Des2015; 66: 400–411. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2014.07.037.
12.
HuoXLiuHLuoQ, et al.On low-velocity impact response of foam-core sandwich panels. Int J Mech Sci2020; 181: 105681. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.105681.
13.
ZhangGWangBMaL, et al.Energy absorption and low velocity impact response of polyurethane foam-filled pyramidal lattice core sandwich panels. Compos Struct2014; 108: 304–310. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.09.040.
14.
RenPTaoQYinL, et al. High-velocity impact response of metallic sandwich structures with PVC foam core. Int J Impact Eng. 2020; 144: 103657. doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2020.103657.
15.
VaidyaASVaidyaUKUddinN. Experimental and numerical investigation of low velocity impact on hybrid short-fiber reinforced foam core sandwich panel. J Compos Mater. 2021; 55(29): 4375–4385.
16.
HoseinlaghabSFarahaniMSafarabadiM, et al.Tension-after-impact analysis and damage mechanism evaluation in laminated composites using AE monitoring. Mech Syst Signal Process2023; 186: 109844.
ChenCFangHZhuL, et al.Low-velocity impact properties of foam-filled composite lattice sandwich beams: experimental study and numerical simulation. Compos Struct2023; 306: 116573. DOI: 10.1016/J.COMPSTRUCT.2022.116573.
19.
WangJWaasAMWangH. Experimental and numerical study on the low-velocity impact behavior of foam-core sandwich panels. Compos Struct2013; 96: 298–311. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.012.09.002.
20.
LiGChakkaVS. Isogrid stiffened syntactic foam cored sandwich structure under low velocity impact. Composites Part A2009; 41: 177–184. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2009.10.007.
21.
AminMBahmanpourESafarabadiM. Three-point bending behavior of foam‐filled conventional and auxetic 3D-printed honeycombs. Adv Eng Mater2023; 25: 17.
22.
KaoYTAminARPayneN, et al.Low-velocity impact response of 3D-printed lattice structure with foam reinforcement. Compos Struct2018; 192: 93–100. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.02.042.
23.
ZhangGWangBMaL, et al.Energy absorption and low velocity impact response of polyurethane foam-filled pyramidal lattice core sandwich panels. Compos Struct2014; 108: 304–310. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.09.040.
24.
YousefMHamedAOmidR, et al.Axial crushing responses of aluminum honeycomb structures filled with elastomeric polyurethane foam. Thin-Walled Struct2021; 164. DOI: 10.1016/J.TWS.2021.107785.
25.
HoseinlaghabSFarahaniMSafarabadiM, et al.Comparison and identification of efficient nanoparticles to improve the impact resistance of glass/epoxy laminates: experimental and numerical approaches. Mech Adv Mater Struct2023; 30(4): 694–709.
26.
KosedagE. Effect of artificial aging on 3-point bending behavior of glass fiber/epoxy composites. J Reinforc Plast Compos2023; 42(21-22): 1147–1153.
27.
KosedagEEkiciR. Low-velocity impact performance of B4C particle-reinforced Al 6061 metal matrix composites. Mater Res Express2019; 6(12): 126556.
28.
SadeghHMohammadrezaFMajidS. Improving the impact resistance of the multilayer composites using nanoparticles. Mech Base Des Struct Mach2023; 51(6): 3083–3099.
29.
EkiciRKosedagEDemirM. Repeated low-velocity impact responses of SiC particle reinforced Al metal-matrix composites. Ceram Int2022; 48(4): 5338–5351.
30.
ErtanKRecepE. Low-velocity and ballistic impact resistances of particle reinforced metal–matrix composites: an experimental study. J Compos Mater2022; 56(7): 991–1002.
31.
FatihUTürkmenHSScarpaF. High-velocity impact resistance of doubly curved sandwich panels with re-entrant honeycomb and foam core. Int J Impact Eng2022; 165. DOI: 10.1016/J.IJIMPENG.2022.104230.
32.
DengYWangY. Research on low-velocity impact resistance and damage characteristics of M-type GFRP foldcore sandwich structure. Arch Civ Mech Eng2023; 23: 3.
33.
DengYFZengXZWangYT, et al.Research on the low-velocity impact performance of composite sandwich structure with curved-crease origami foldcore. Thin-Walled Struct2022; 174: 109106. DOI: 10.1016/J.TWS.2022.109106.
34.
DuYSongCXiongJ, et al.Fabrication and mechanical behaviors of carbon fiber reinforced composite foldcore based on curved-crease origami. Compos Sci Technol2019; 174: 94–105. DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2019.02.019.
35.
GattasJMYouZ. The behaviour of curved-crease foldcores under low-velocity impact loads. Int J Solid Struct2015; 53: 80–91.
