Traditional sandwich composite panels consist of stiff facesheets that support bending loads and a core that bears shearing load. In this study, the core and facesheet were assembled in a single process to eliminate the possibility of delamination between the layers, and make the structure unitary in its construction. The drop tower impact test was conducted in accordance to ASTM standard D7136 to evaluate the impact strength of the panels while taking into consideration the impact velocity and the coefficient of restitution. The impact velocities used were 1 m/s and 4.6 m/s denoted as and respectively. A Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT) inspection was conducted to evaluate damage extent in the high velocity samples. At , the CoR ranged between 0.05 and 0.363, suggesting some amount of elastic collision. The displayed Energy Loss Percentage (ELP) was more than 85%, suggesting that the specimen experienced total perforation. There were mainly dents on the front side and bulges on the opposite sides of the specimens tested at while at , the specimens experienced considerable damage including perforation. Ultrasound (UT) inspection of the damaged specimens did not show delamination. Avoiding dislocation of structural members when manufacturing composite panels for intermodal containers and truck beds was achieved.
NisiniESantulliCLiveraniA. Mechanical and impact characterization of hybrid composite laminates with carbon, basalt and flax fibres. Compos B Eng2017; 127: 92–99. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.06.071.
2.
LiYAnXYiX. Comparison with low-velocity impact and quasi-staticIndentation testing of foam core sandwich composites. International Journal of Applied Physics and Mathematics2012: 058–062. DOI: 10.7763/ijapm.2012.v2.54.
3.
ZanganaSEpaarachchiJFerdousW, et al.Behaviour of continuous fibre composite sandwich core under low-velocity impact. Thin-Walled Struct2021; 158: 107157. DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2020.107157.
4.
LiZKhennaneAHazellPJ, et al.Impact behaviour of pultruded GFRP composites under low-velocity impact loading. Compos Struct2017; 168: 360–371. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.02.073.
5.
MaheshVJoladarashiSKulkarniSM. An experimental investigation on low-velocity impact response of novel jute/rubber flexible bio-composite. Compos Struct2019; 225: 111190. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111190.
6.
BabaBO. Impact response of sandwich beams with various curvatures and debonds. J Sandw Struct Mater2013; 15(2): 137–155. DOI: 10.1177/1099636212460543.
7.
ZhangZYRichardsonMOW. Low velocity impact induced damage evaluation and its effect on the residual flexural properties of pultruded GRP composites. Compos Struct2007; 81(2): 195–201. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.08.019.
8.
CessnaLCLehaneJPRalstonRH, et al.The development of an instrumented projectile impact test: data glass‐reinforced and impact‐modified polypropylene. Polym Eng Sci1976; 16(6): 419–425. DOI: 10.1002/pen.760160607.
9.
ZollerP. Instrumentation for impact testing of plastics. Polym Test1983; 3(3): 197–208. DOI: 10.1016/0142-9418(83)90005-3.
10.
RichardsonMOWWisheartMJ. Review of low-velocity impact properties of composite materials. Compos Appl Sci Manuf1996; 27(Issue 12 PART A): 1123–1131. DOI: 10.1016/1359-835X(96)00074-7.
11.
SjoblomPOHartnessJTCordellTM. On low-velocity impact testing of composite materials. J Compos Mater1988; 22(1): 30–52. DOI: 10.1177/002199838802200103.
12.
ShivakumarKNElberWIllgW. Prediction of low-velocity impact damage in thin circular laminates. AIAA J1985; 23(3): 442–449. DOI: 10.2514/3.8933.
ChotardTJBenzeggaghML. On the mechanical behaviour of pultruded sections submitted to low-velocity impact. Compos Sci Technol1998; 58(6): 839–854. DOI: 10.1016/S0266-3538(97)00188-7.
15.
BankLCGentryTR. Development of a pultruded composite material highway guardrail. Compos Appl Sci Manuf2001; 32(9): 1329–1338. DOI: 10.1016/S1359-835X(01)00086-0.
16.
Suresh KumarCArumugamVDhakalHN, et al.Effect of temperature and hybridisation on the low velocity impact behavior of hemp-basalt/epoxy composites. Compos Struct2015; 125: 407–416. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.01.037.
17.
SharmaAPKhanSHKiteyR, et al.Effect of through thickness metal layer distribution on the low velocity impact response of fiber metal laminates. Polym Test2018; 65: 301–312. DOI: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.12.001.
18.
TieYHouYLiC, et al.An insight into the low-velocity impact behavior of patch-repaired CFRP laminates using numerical and experimental approaches. Compos Struct2018; 190: 179–188. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.01.075.
19.
AryaeiAHashemniaKJafarpurK. Experimental and numerical study of ball size effect on restitution coefficient in low velocity impacts. Int J Impact Eng2010; 37(10): 1037–1044. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2010.04.005.
20.
MinamotoHKawamuraS. Effects of material strain rate sensitivity in low speed impact between two identical spheres. Int J Impact Eng2009; 36(5): 680–686. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2008.10.001.
21.
WeirGTallonS. The coefficient of restitution for normal incident, low velocity particle impacts. Chem Eng Sci2005; 60(13): 3637–3647. DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2005.01.040.
22.
Wronkowicz-KatuninAKatuninADraganK. Reconstruction of barely visible impact damage in composite structures based on non-destructive evaluation results. Sensors (Switzerland)2019; 19(21). DOI: 10.3390/s19214629.
23.
FeraboliPMillerM. Damage resistance and tolerance of carbon/epoxy composite coupons subjected to simulated lightning strike. Compos Appl Sci Manuf2009; 40(6–7): 954–967. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2009.04.025.
24.
KumarVYeolePSHiremathN, et al.Internal arcing and lightning strike damage in short carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites. Compos Sci Technol2021; 201: 108525. DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2020.108525.
25.
RocheJ-MPassillyFBeauchêneP, et al. IR thermography for lightning-strike damage monitoring in composite materials, 14th Quantitative InfraRed Thermography Conference, Berlin, Germany. June 25. 2018. DOI: 10.21611/qirt.2018.092.
26.
FengBPasadasDJRibeiroAL, et al.Eddy current testing of the lightning strike protection layer in aerospace composite structures. Studies in Applied Electromagnetics and Mechanics2020; 45. DOI: 10.3233/SAEM200004.
27.
YamashitaSSoneharaTTakahashiJ, et al.Effect of thin-ply on damage behaviour of continuous and discontinuous carbon fibre reinforced thermoplastics subjected to simulated lightning strike. Compos Appl Sci Manuf2017; 95: 132–140. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2017.01.010.
28.
HemaSKDasguptaS. Non-destructive evaluation of lightning strike induced damages in sandwich composites for unmanned air vehicle structures (2015). https://www.ndt.net/?id=17886
29.
ChenJBiXLiuJ, et al.Damage investigation of carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic laminates with fasteners subjected to lightning current components c and d. Appl Sci2020; 10(6): 2147. DOI: 10.3390/app10062147.
30.
RavandiMTeoWSTranLQN, et al.Low velocity impact performance of stitched flax/epoxy composite laminates. Compos B Eng2017; 117: 89–100. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.02.003.
SchneiderCARasbandWSEliceiriKW, et al.NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods2012; 9(7): 671–675. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.2089.
33.
ASTM. Practice for ultrasonic testing of flat panel composites and sandwich core materials used in aerospace applications. Pennsylvania, USA: ASTM International, 2012. DOI: 10.1520/E2580-17.
34.
WangHRamakrishnanKRShankarK. Experimental study of the medium velocity impact response of sandwich panels with different cores. Mater Des2016; 99: 68–82. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2016.03.048.
35.
HebertMRousseauCEShuklaA. Shock loading and drop weight impact response of glass reinforced polymer composites. Compos Struct2008; 84(3): 199–208. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2007.07.002.
36.
BarouniAKDhakalHN. Damage investigation and assessment due to low-velocity impact on flax/glass hybrid composite plates. Compos Struct2019; 226: 111224. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111224.
37.
LiaoBWangPZhengJ, et al.Effect of double impact positions on the low velocity impact behaviors and damage interference mechanism for composite laminates. Compos Appl Sci Manuf2020; 136: 105964. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2020.105964.
38.
RahmanASMathurVAsmatuluR. Effect of nanoclay and graphene inclusions on the low-velocity impact resistance of Kevlar-epoxy laminated composites. Compos Struct2018; 187: 481–488. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.12.054.
39.
GoS-HKimH-GShinH-J, et al.The impact fracture behaviors of CFRP/EVA composites by drop-weight impact test. Carbon Lett2017; 21: 23–32. DOI: 10.5714/CL.2017.21.023.
40.
GaoSZhangYWangZ, et al.Effect of woven yarn angle on the low-velocity impact damage response of fibre woven thermoplastic composites. Strain2024; 60(2). DOI: 10.1111/str.12464.
41.
HazellPJAppleby-ThomasG. A study on the energy dissipation of several different CFRP-based targets completely penetrated by a high velocity projectile. Compos Struct2009; 91(1): 103–109. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.04.036.
42.
PerkinsWG. Polymer toughness and impact resistance. Polym Eng Sci1999; 39(12): 2445–2460. DOI: 10.1002/pen.11632.
43.
PandyarajVRajaduraiA. Experimental investigation on low-velocity impact response of spherical core sandwich structure. J Compos Mater2023; 57(3): 425–442. DOI: 10.1177/00219983221146265.
44.
GreenI. The prediction of the coefficient of restitution between impacting spheres and finite thickness plates undergoing elastoplastic deformations and wave propagation. Nonlinear Dyn2022; 109(4): 2443–2458. DOI: 10.1007/s11071-022-07522-3.
45.
Vu-QuocLZhangXLesburgL. Normal and tangential force-displacement relations for frictional elasto-plastic contact of spheres. Int J Solid Struct2001; 38: 6455–6489. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-7683(01)00065-8.
46.
FeraboliPKedwardKT. A new composite structure impact performance assessment program. Compos Sci Technol2006; 66(10): 1336–1347. DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2005.09.009.
47.
Wronkowicz-KatuninADraganK. Evaluation of impact damage in composite structures using ultrasonic testing. Fatigue of Aircraft Structures2018; 2018(10): 82–92. DOI: 10.2478/fas-2018-0008.
48.
CaoHMaMJiangM, et al.Experimental investigation of impactor diameter effect on low-velocity impact response of CFRP laminates in a drop-weight impact event. Materials2020; 13(18). DOI: 10.3390/ma13184131.
49.
HosseinzadehRShokriehMMLessardL. Damage behavior of fiber reinforced composite plates subjected to drop weight impacts. Compos Sci Technol2006; 66(1): 61–68. DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2005.05.025.
