This paper aims to study the failure response of carbon fiber–reinforced polymers (CFRP)/aluminum honeycomb sandwich structures facing three-point bending test by combining the experiments and numerical models. The theoretical model of three-point bending is established by the finite element software ABAQUS to predict the damage, and then verified by experiments. In order to study the bending performance of sandwich structures made by different forming processes, the test was carried out on sandwich panels with two different molding processes, which are secondary bonding and co-curing. The failure mode and failure mechanism of sandwich structures were also studied by testing specimens with different panel thicknesses and core heights. The results shows that the specimens of the secondary bonding molding process are more prone to damage, most of the samples were observed to be debonded after the test, and the peak load is lower than that of the co-curing. Three different failure modes, closely related to the damage length of the core, which are greatly influenced by different parameters, were observed for the co-cured specimens during the test and parametric studies were carried out for the co-cured specimens. The results showed that small damage length makes it easier to form type I failure mode, while the type II failure mode is more likely to form in situations when the damage length is larger.
HarrisMQureshiMAMSaleemMQ, et al.Carbon fiber-reinforced polymer composite drilling via aluminum chromium nitride-coated tools: Hole quality and tool wear assessment. J Reinf Plast Compos2017; 36(19): 1403–1420.
2.
AamirMTolouei-RadMGiasinK, et al.Recent advances in drilling of carbon fiber–reinforced polymers for aerospace applications: a review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2019; 105(5–6): 2289–2308.
3.
DasS. The cost of automotive polymer composites: a review and assessment of DOE’s lightweight materials research. Oak Ridge, TN: Energy Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2001.
4.
WitikRAPayetJMichaudV, et al.Assessing the life cycle costs and environmental performance of lightweight materials in automobile applications, Compos A Appl Sci Manuf2011; 42:1694–1709.
5.
HelmsHLambrechtU. The potential contribution of light-weighting to reduce transport energy consumption. Int J Life Cycle Assess2007; 12(1): 58–64.
6.
CenteaTGrunenfelderLKNuttSR. A review of out-of-autoclave prepregs – material properties, process phenomena, and manufacturing considerations. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf2015; 70: 132–154.
7.
WangGDMellySK. Three-dimensional finite element modeling of drilling CFRP composites using abaqus/CAE: a review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2018; 94: 599–614.
8.
ZhangQCYangXHLiP, et al.Bioinspired engineering of honeycomb structure – using nature to inspire human innovation. Prog Mater Sci2015; 74: 332–400.
9.
HuangZRLiJLAnQL. Layup structures of CFRP grinding wheel matrix and an optimal design of combined multi-layup structures. J Reinf Plast Comp2022; 0(0), In press.
10.
JuJSummersJD. Compliant hexagonal periodic lattice structures having both high shear strength and high shear strain. Mater Des2011; 32: 512–524.
11.
JuJSummersJDZiegertJ, et al.Design of honeycomb meta-materials for high shear flexure. In: ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, San Diego, CA, 30 August–2 Septemper 2009. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection, pp. 805–813.
12.
OlympioKRGandhiF. Zero-v cellular honeycomb flexible skins for one-dimensional wing morphing. In: Proceedings of the 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, AIAA2007-1735, Honolulu, HI, 2007.
13.
BubertEWoodsKSKotheraCS, et al.Design and fabrication of a passive 1-D morphing aircraft skin. In: Proceedings of the 49th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, AIAA2008-2045, Schaumburg, IL, 2008.
14.
SpadoniARuzzeneM. Static aeroelastic response of chiral-core airfoils. J Intell Mater Syst Struct2007; 18: 1067–1075.
15.
StarnesJHJrMarkJS. An assessment of the state-of-the-art in the design and manufacturing of large composite structures for aerospace vehicles. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2001.
16.
MetschkowB. Sandwich panels in shipbuilding. Polish Marit Res2006; 5–8.
17.
AllenHG. Analysis and design of structural sandwich panels. The commonwealth and international library: structures and solid body mechanics division. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 2013.
18.
McCormackTMMillerRKeslerO, et al.Failure of sandwich beams with metallic foam cores. Int J Solids Struct2001; 38: 4901–4920.
19.
QinQHWangTJ. An analytical solution for the large deflections of a slender sandwich beam with a metallic foam core under transverse loading by a flat punch. Compos Struct2009; 88: 509–518.
20.
YuJLWangEHLiJR, et al.Static and low-velocity impact behavior of sandwich beams with closed-cell aluminum-foam core in three-point bending. Int J Impact Eng2008; 35: 885–894.
21.
BanghaiJZhibinLFangyunL. Failure mechanism of sandwich beams subjected to three-point bending. Compos Struct2015; 133: 739–745.
22.
DengJHongZYinQ, et al.A physically-based failure analysis framework for fiber-reinforced composite laminates under multiaxial loading. Compos Struct2020; 241: 112125.
23.
ShenYYangFCantwellW, et al.Geometrical effects in the impact response of the aluminium honeycomb sandwich structures. J Reinf Plast Compos2014; 33(12): 1148–1157.
24.
KlausMReimerdesHGGuptaNK. Experimental and numerical investigations of residual strength after impact of sandwich panels. Int J Impact Eng2012; 44: 50–58.
25.
HeWTLiuJXWangSQ, et al.Low-velocity impact response and post-impact flexural behaviour of composite sandwich structures with corrugated cores. Compos Struct2018; 189: 37–53.
26.
HeWLuSYiK, et al.Residual flexural properties of CFRP sandwich structures with aluminum honeycomb cores after low-velocity impact. Int J Mech Sci2019; 161-162: 105026.
27.
Shahverdi MoghaddamHKeshavanarayanaSRIvanovD, et al.In-plane shear response of a composite hexagonal honeycomb core under large deformation – a numerical and experimental study. Compos Struct2021; 268: 113984.
28.
KolanuNRRajuGRamjiM. A unified numerical approach for the simulation of intra and inter laminar damage evolution in stiffened CFRP panels under compression. Compos B Eng2020; 190: 107931.
29.
KermaniNNSimacekPAdvaniSG. Porosity predictions during co-cure of honeycomb core prepreg sandwich structures. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf2020; 132: 105824.
30.
KumbhareNMoheimaniRDalirH. Analysis of composite structures in curing process for shape deformations and shear stress: basis for advanced optimization. J Compos Sci2021; 5: 63.
HuCHouYYingT, et al.Influence of different bonding parameters on structural strength of single-lap bonding of CFRP laminates and optimization design. J. Mech. Eng2021; 8: 154–165.
33.
XiaFDurandetYTanPJ, et al. Three-point bending performance of sandwich panels with various types of cores. Thin-Walled Struct2022; 179: 109723.
34.
XiaFDurandetYYuTX, et al.Large deformation of corrugated sandwich panels under three-point bending. J of Sandw Struct Mater2020; 23: 3336–3367.
35.
SunGHuoXChenD, et al.Experimental and numerical study on honeycomb sandwich panels under bending and in-panel compression. Mater Des2017; 133:154–168.
36.
CrupiVEpastoGGuglielminoE. Collapse modes in aluminium honeycomb sandwichpanels under bending and impact loading, Int J Impact Eng. 2012; 43: 6–15.
