This work presents a numerical modelling study on the bending response and failure mechanisms of aramid skin/aluminium honeycomb core sandwich panels under quasi-static bending loads. These composite sandwich panels are widely used in aerospace and automotive industries, in spite of the limitations for their use in complex structures, such as the extensive experimental testing needed at the component and full-size structural levels, which are expensive and time-consuming. The aim of this study was to capture the initiation of different failure mechanisms and their multiple interactions, which are known to strongly influence the observed microscopic behaviour of the material. Furthermore, a series of detailed Finite Element models were built and analysed in an attempt to replicate the complex damage mechanisms observed experimentally. The results show good correlation between numerical models and experimental results, both in terms of the global load–displacement behaviour and the observed damage mechanisms, including skin in-plane shear and compression damage, intralaminar fracture, delamination within the skin and core crushing. No debonding between the core and the skins was evidenced. It is proposed that this modelling approach can become a feasible alternative to component-level experimental testing when designing complex sandwich structures.
ZhangFMohmmedRSunB, et al.
Damage behaviors of foam sandwiched composite materials under quasi-static three-point bending. Appl Compos Mater2013;
20: 1231–1246.
6.
RussellBPLiuTFleckNA, et al.
Quasi-static three-point bending of carbon fiber sandwich beams with square honeycomb cores. J Appl Mech2011;
78: 031008.
7.
YanCSongXZhuH, et al.
Flexural response of carbon fiber reinforced aluminum foam sandwich. J Compos Mater2018;
52: 1887–1897.
8.
VitaleJPFrancucciGXiongJ, et al.
Failure mode maps of natural and synthetic fiber reinforced composite sandwich panels. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2017;
94: 217–225.
9.
PaczosPWichniarekRMagnuckiK.Three-point bending of sandwich beam with special structure of the core. Compos Struct2018;
201: 676–682.
10.
PaczosPWasilewiczPMagnucka-BlandziE.Experimental and numerical investigations of five-layered trapezoidal beams. Compos Struct2016;
145: 129–141.
11.
SmyczynskiMJMagnucka-BlandziE.The three-point bending of a sandwich beam with two binding layers – comparison of two nonlinear hypotheses. Compos Struct2018;
183: 96–102.
12.
SinghAKDavidsonBDEisenbergDP, et al.
Damage characterization of quasi-statically indented composite sandwich structures. J Compos Mater2013;
47: 1211–1229.
13.
YanLAnXFCaiJL, et al.
Damage behavior of foam core sandwich composites subjected to quasi-static indentation testing. Appl Mech Mater2012;
182–183: 57–64.
14.
KurşunAŞenelMEnginsoyHM, et al.
Effect of impactor shapes on the low velocity impact damage of sandwich composite plate: experimental study and modelling. Compos Part B Eng2016;
86: 143–151.
15.
MoradaGOuaddayRVadeanA, et al.
Low-velocity impact resistance of ATH/epoxy core sandwich composite panels: experimental and numerical analyses. Compos Part B Eng2017;
114: 418–431.
16.
WuXYuHGuoL, et al.
Experimental and numerical investigation of static and fatigue behaviors of composites honeycomb sandwich structure. Compos Struct2019;
213: 165–172.
17.
VelecelaOJ.Energy absorption capability of GRP composite sandwich structures.
Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2006.
18.
EADS Deutschland GmbH. The research requirements of the transport sectors to facilitate an increased usage of composite materials part I: the composite material research requirements of the aerospace industry. München, Germany: EADS, 2004.
19.
NewRail. The research requirements of the transport sectors to facilitate an increased usage of composite materials part I: the composite material research requirements of the rail industry. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: NewRail, 2004.
20.
CarruthersJJ.Some aspects of the energy absorption of composite materials.
Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1997.
21.
GibsonLJAshbyMF.Cellular solids: structure and properties.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
22.
FooCCChaiGBSeahLK.A model to predict low-velocity impact response and damage in sandwich composites. Compos Sci Technol2008;
68: 1348–1356.
23.
AllegriGLecciUMarchettiM, et al.
FEM simulation of the mechanical behaviour of sandwich materials for aerospace structures. Key Eng Mater2002;
221–222: 209–220.
24.
HeimbsS.Virtual testing of sandwich core structures using dynamic finite element simulations. Comput Mater Sci2009;
45: 205–216.
25.
LambAJ.Experimental investigation and numerical modelling of composite-honeycomb materials used in formula 1 crash structures.
Bedford:
Cranfield University, 2007.
26.
TrylandT. Alternative models of the offset and side impact deformable barriers. In: 9th international LS-DYNA users conference, Dearborn, Michigan, USA, 4–6 June 2006, pp.9–16. LSTC.
27.
LiuLFengHTangH, et al.
Impact resistance of Nomex honeycomb sandwich structures with thin fibre reinforced polymer facesheets. J Sandw Struct Mater2016;
20: 531–552.
28.
SunGHuoXChenD, et al.
Experimental and numerical study on honeycomb sandwich panels under bending and in-panel compression. Mater Des2017;
133: 154–168.
29.
WangZLiuJ.Mechanical performance of honeycomb filled with circular CFRP tubes. Compos Part B Eng2018;
135: 232–241.
30.
GunesRArslanK.Development of numerical realistic model for predicting low-velocity impact response of aluminium honeycomb sandwich structures. J Sandw Struct Mater2016;
18: 95–112.
31.
GiglioMGilioliAManesA.Numerical investigation of a three point bending test on sandwich panels with aluminum skins and Nomex™ honeycomb core. Comput Mater Sci2012;
56: 69–78.
32.
AnandanSDhaliwalGGangulyS, et al. Investigation of sandwich composite failure under three-point bending: Simulation and experimental validation. J Sandw Struct Mater. Epub ahead of print 2018; DOI: 10.1177/1099636218791162.
33.
LiuYLiuWGaoW, et al.
Mechanical responses of a composite sandwich structure with Nomex honeycomb core. J Reinf Plast Compos2019;
38: 601–615.
34.
KrejaI.A literature review on computational models for laminated composite and sandwich panels. Open Eng2011;
1: 59–80.
SchweizerhofKWalzMRustWJH, et al. Quasi-static analyses using explicit time integration – applications of LS-DYNA. In: 2nd European LS-DYNA conference. Gothenburg, Sweden, July 1999, pp.1–18. LSTC.
MuflahiSAMohamedGHallettSR. Investigation of delamination modeling capabilities for thin composite structures in LS-DYNA®. In: 13th international LS-DYNA users conference. Dearborn, Michigan, USA, 8-10 June 2014, pp. 1–14. LSTC.
41.
Marcus AnderssonPL.Crash behavior of composite structures – a CAE benchmarking study.
Gothenburg:
Chalmers University of Technology, 2014.
42.
PinhoSTIannucciLRobinsonP.Physically-based failure models and criteria for laminated fibre-reinforced composites with emphasis on fibre kinking: part I: development. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2006;
37: 63–73.
43.
PinhoSTIannucciLRobinsonP.Physically based failure models and criteria for laminated fibre-reinforced composites with emphasis on fibre kinking. Part II: FE implementation. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2006;
37: 766–777.
44.
PinhoSTRobinsonPIannucciL.Fracture toughness of the tensile and compressive fibre failure modes in laminated composites. Compos Sci Technol 2006; 66: 2069–2079.
45.
KaufmanJG.Properties of aluminum alloys: tensile, creep, and fatigue data at high and low temperatures.
Cleveland:
ASM International, 1999.
