The honeycomb sandwiches are widely used in the transportation engineering for the realization of lightweight and crashworthy structures. However their application requires a better understanding of their impact response. Aims of this paper are the numerical investigation of aluminium honeycomb sandwiches subjected to low-velocity impact tests and the validation of finite element (FE) results. Before and after the low-velocity impact tests at different velocities, three dimensional (3D) reconstructions of the honeycomb panels have been carried out by a computed tomographic system in order to acquire exactly the dimension and the shape of the damage and to obtain information about geometry and cells defects. The FE models have been computed from CT data of the undamaged panels. The direct comparison has been done by superimposing the deformed images obtained from FE analyses and from 3D CT space reconstructions. The numerical model was also validated comparing the FE results with experimental data.
AltenbachH. Mechanics of advanced materials for lightweight structures. Proc IMechE Part C: J Mech Eng Sci2011; 225(11): 2481–2496.
2.
MeoMMorrisAJVignjevicR. Numerical simulations of low-velocity impact on an aircraft sandwich panel. Compos Struct2003; 62: 353–360.
3.
ShinKBLeeJYChoSH. An experimental study of low-velocity impact responses of sandwich panels for Korean low floor bus. Compos Struct2008; 84(3): 228–240.
4.
CrupiVEpastoGGuglielminoE. Comparison of aluminium sandwiches for lightweight ship structures: honeycomb vs. foam. Mar Struct2013; 1: 74–96.
5.
GreeneE. Marine composites. Marine Technology2013, pp. 28–37.
6.
PitarresiGCarruthersJJRobinsonAM. A comparative evaluation of crashworthy composite sandwich structures. Compos Struct2007; 78: 34–44.
HazizanMACantwellWJ. The low velocity impact response of an aluminium honeycomb sandwich structure. Compos Part B: Eng2003; 34: 679–687.
9.
IvañezISanchez-SaezS. Numerical modelling of the low-velocity impact response of composite sandwich beams with honeycomb core. Compos Struct2013; 106: 716–723.
10.
FooCCChaiGBSeahLK. Quasi-static and low-velocity impact failure of aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels. Proc. IMechE Part L: J Mater Des Appl2006; 220(2): 53–66.
11.
TanZHLuoHHLongWG. Dynamic response of clamped sandwich beam with aluminium alloy foam core subjected to impact loading. Compos Part B: Eng2013; 46: 39–45.
12.
YuJLWangELiJ. Static and low-velocity impact behavior of sandwich beams with closed-cell aluminum-foam core in three-point bending. Int J Impact Eng2008; 35(8): 885–894.
13.
QinQWangTJ. Low-velocity impact response of fully clamped metal foam core sandwich beam incorporating local denting effect. Compos Struct2013; 96: 346–356.
14.
Abrate S. Impact on composite structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp.240–214.
15.
ZhuSChaiGB. Damage and failure mode maps of composite sandwich panel subjected to quasi-static indentation and low velocity impact. Compos Struct2013; 101: 204–214.
16.
DaviesPChoqueuseDBourbouzeG. Micro-tomography to study high-performance. J Sandw Struct Mater2011; 13(1): 7–21.
17.
CrupiVEpastoGGuglielminoE. Collapse modes in aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels under bending and impact loading. Int J Impact Eng2012; 43: 6–15.
18.
ChanLCAuKMYuKM. FEM–CT integrated design for multiscale damage analysis of hydroformed magnesium-based alloy tubular product. NDT&E Int2013; 56: 38–47.
19.
YoussefSMaireEGaertnerR. Finite element modelling of the actual structure of cellular materials determined by X-ray tomography. Acta Mater2005; 53(3): 719–730.
20.
JeonIAsahinaTKangKJ. Finite element simulation of the plastic collapse of closed-cell aluminum foams with X-ray computed tomography. Mech Mater2010; 42(3): 227–236.
EpastoGFotiAGuglielminoE. Total hip arthroplasty by using a cementless ultrashort stem: a subject-specific finite element analysis for a young patient clinical case. Proc Inst Mech Eng H2013; 227(7): 757–766.
23.
BoccaccioALambertiLPappalettereC. Accuracy of finite element predictions on bone/implant interface contact pressures for models reconstructed from ct scans. J Mech Med Biol2008; 8(2): 161–182.
24.
AlghamdiAKhanAMummeryP. The characterization and modelling of manufacturing porosity of a 2-D carbon/carbon composite. J Compos Mater2013. Epub ahead of print 17 September 2013. DOI: 10.1177/0021998313502739.
25.
FerriRSankarBV. A Comparative study on the impact resistance of composite laminates and sandwich panels. J Thermoplast Compos Mater1997; 10: 304–315.
26.
ScarponiCBriottiGBarboniR. Impact testing on composites laminates and sandwich panels. J Compos Mater1996; 30: 1873–1873.
27.
WahlLMaasSWaldmannD. Shear stresses in honeycomb sandwich plates: analytical solution, finite element method and experimental verification. J Sandw Struct Mater2012; 14: 449–468.
28.
KardomateasGAPhanCN. Three-dimensional elasticity solution for sandwich beams/wide plated with orthotropic phases: the negative discriminant case. J Sandw Struct Mater2011; 13: 641–661.
29.
HudsonCWCarruthersJJRobinsonAM. A comparison of three population-based optimization techniques for the design of composite sandwich materials. J Sandw Struct Mater2011; 13: 213–235.
30.
SudhakarVVijayarajuKGopalakrishnanS. Development of a new finite element for the analysis of sandwich beams with soft core. J Sandw Struct Mater2010; 12: 649–683.
31.
KoloppAAlvaradoRARivallantS. Modeling impact on aluminium sandwich including velocity effects in honeycomb core. J Sandw Struct Mater2013; 15(6): 733–757.
32.
DarılmazK. Analysis of sandwich plates: a three-dimensional assumed stress hybrid finite element. J Sandw Struct Mater2012; 14: 487–501.
33.
JohnsonGRCookWH. Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures. Eng Fract Mech1985; 21(1): 31–48.
34.
ZhouJHaydenMGaoX. An investigation of the strain rate and temperature effects on the plastic flow stress and ductile failure strain of aluminum alloys 5083-H116, 6082-T6 and a 5183 weld metal. Proc IMechE Part C: J Mech Eng Sci2013; 227(5): 883–895.
35.
FooCCChaiGBSeahLK. A model to predict low e velocity impact response and damage in sandwich composites. Compos Sci Technol2008; 68: 1348–1356.
36.
ABAQUS Inc. Hibbitt, Karlsson, and Sorensen2004. Rhode Island, 2004.
37.
QuaresiminMRicottaMMartelloL. Energy absorption in composite laminates under impact loading. Compos Part B Eng2013; 44: 133–140.
