This paper experimentally and numerically investigates the free vibration, quasi-static compressive and split Hopkinson pressure bar impact responses of hybrid composite pyramidal truss sandwich panels. Such sandwich panels made of carbon fibre composite face sheets and aluminium alloy pyramidal truss cores are fabricated using an interlocking and adhesive bonding approach. Modal tests and quasi-static compression tests are conducted. A good consistency for natural frequencies, modal shapes and static stress–strain curves of the specimen with the same specification is obtained, which ensures the good repeatability of the present specimens. Considering the effect of strain rate, a series of split Hopkinson pressure bar tests combined with numerical simulations is carried out to investigate their dynamic compression responses. A good agreement between simulation results and experimental data is observed, which shows that the adopted split Hopkinson pressure bar testing device and the modified Johnson-Cook model are reasonable and reliable. Results show that the dynamic compression modulus and strength of specimen are strongly influenced by the relative density of the truss cores and much higher than the corresponding static compression modulus and strength. Furthermore, it is also revealed that all the specimens have excellent energy absorption performance, which may have greatly advantage in shock isolation application.
GibsonLJAshbyMF.Cellular solids: structure and properties.
Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
2.
VaziriAHutchinsonJW.Metal sandwich plates subject to intense air shocks. Int J Solid Struct2007;
44: 2021–2035.
3.
ZhangHSunFFFanHL, et al.
Free vibration behaviors of carbon fibre reinforced lattice-core sandwich cylinder. Compos Sci Technol2014;
100: 26–33.
4.
ZhangJQinQWangTJ.Compressive strengths and dynamic response of corrugated metal sandwich plates with unfilled and foam-filled sinusoidal plate cores. Acta Mech2013;
224: 759–775.
5.
AjdariANayeb-HashemiHVaziriA.Dynamic crushing and energy absorption of regular, irregular and functionally graded cellular structures. Int J Solids Struct2011;
48: 506–516.
6.
LiGFangYHaoP, et al.
Three-point bending deflection and failure mechanism map of sandwich beams with second-order hierarchical corrugated truss core. J Sandw Struct Mater2017;
19: 83–107.
7.
LiXLiSWangZ, et al.
Response of aluminum corrugated sandwich panels under foam projectile impact – experiment and numerical simulation. J Sandw Struct Mater2017;
19: 595–615.
8.
DongLDeshpandeVWadleyH.Mechanical response of Ti-6Al-4V octet-truss lattice structures. Int J Solid Struct2015;
60–61: 107–124.
9.
ZhangGQWangBMaL, et al.
Energy absorption and low velocity impact response of polyurethane foam filled pyramidal lattice core sandwich panels. Compos Struct2014;
108: 304–310.
10.
MaCLeiHHuaJ, et al.
Experimental and simulation investigation of the reversible bi-directional twisting response of tetra-chiral cylindrical shells. Compos Struct2018;
203: 142–152.
11.
LiuJZhuXZhouZ, et al.
Effects of thermal exposure on mechanical behavior of carbon fibre composite pyramidal truss core sandwich panel. Compos B Eng2014;
60: 82–90.
12.
YinSWuLZYangJS, et al.
Damping and low-velocity impact behavior of filled composite pyramidal lattice structures. J Compos Mater2013;
48: 1789–1800.
13.
YanLLYuBHanB, et al.
Effects of aluminum foam filling on the low-velocity impact response of sandwich panels with corrugated cores. J Sandw Struct Mater. Epub ahead of print 22 May2018. DOI: 10.1177/1099636218776585
14.
BurlayenkoVNSadowskiT.Analysis of structural performance of sandwich plates with foam-filled aluminum hexagonal honeycomb core. Comp Mater Sci2009;
45: 658–662.
15.
ArunkumarMPPitchaimaniJGangadharanKV.Bending and free vibration analysis of foam-filled truss core sandwich panel. J Sandw Struct Mater2018;
20: 617–638.
16.
XiongJMaLWuL, et al.
Fabrication and crushing behavior of low density carbon fibre composite pyramidal truss structures. Compos Struct2010;
92: 2695–2702.
17.
HopkinsonBX.A method of measuring the pressure produced in the detonation of high, explosives or by the impact of bullets. Containing papers of a mathematical or physical character. Philos Trans R Soc Lond1914;
213: 437–456.
18.
DaviesRM.A critical study of the Hopkinson pressure bar. Philos T R Soc A1948;
240: 375–457.
19.
KolskyH.An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials at very high rates of loading. Proc Phys Soc B1949;
62: 676–700.
20.
QinQZhangWLiuS, et al.
On dynamic response of corrugated sandwich beams with metal foam-filled folded plate core subjected to low-velocity impact. Compos Part A-Appl S2018;
114: 107–116.
21.
LiSWangZWuG, et al.
Dynamic response of sandwich spherical shell with graded metallic foam cores subjected to blast loading. Compos Part A-Appl S2014;
56: 262–271.
22.
JingLZhaoL.Blast resistance and energy absorption of sandwich panels with layered gradient metallic foam cores. J Sandw Struct Mater2019;
21: 464–482.
23.
ZhangLHebertRWrightJT, et al.
Dynamic response of corrugated sandwich steel plates with graded cores. Int J Impact Eng2014;
65: 185–194.
24.
XueZHutchinsonJW.A comparative study of impulse-resistant metal sandwich plates. Int J Impact Eng2004;
30: 1283–1305.
25.
FleckNADeshpandeVS.The resistance of clamped sandwich beams to shock loading. J Appl Mech2004;
71: 386–401.
26.
RadfordDDFleckNADeshpandeVS.The response of clamped sandwich beams subjected to shock loading. Int J Impact Eng2006;
32: 968–987.
27.
WangEGardnerNShuklaA.The blast resistance of sandwich composites with stepwise graded cores. Int J Solids and Struct2009;
46: 3492–3502.
28.
YangBTangLLiuY, et al.
Localized deformation in aluminium foam during middle speed Hopkinson bar impact tests. Mater Sci Eng A Struct2013;
560: 734–743.
29.
LiuJSalettiDPattofattoS, et al.
Impact testing of polymeric foam using Hopkinson bars and digital image analysis. Polym Test2014;
36: 101–109.
30.
Tancogne-DejeanTSpieringsABMohrD.Additively-manufactured metallic micro-lattice materials for high specific energy absorption under static and dynamic loading. Acta Mater2016;
116: 14–28.
31.
CaoBTHouBLiYL, et al.
An experimental study on the impact behavior of multilayer sandwich with corrugated cores. Int J Solids Struct2017;
109: 33–45.
32.
FílaTZlámalPJiroušekO, et al.
Impact testing of polymer-filled auxetics using split Hopkinson pressure bar. Adv Eng Mater2017;
19: 1700076.
33.
WuXXiaoKYinQ, et al.
Experimental study on dynamic compressive behaviour of sandwich panel with shear thickening fluid filled pyramidal lattice truss core. Int J Mech Sci2018;
138: 467–475.
34.
YangJSXiongJMaL, et al.
Vibration and damping characteristics of hybrid carbon fibre composite pyramidal truss sandwich panels with viscoelastic layers. Compos Struct2013;
106: 570–580.
35.
ASTM C365/C365M-05. Standard test method for flatwise compressive properties of sandwich cores.
West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM Int, 2006.
36.
LopatnikovSLGamaBAKrauthouserK, et al.
Applicability of the classical analysis of experiments with split Hopkins pressure bar. Tech Phys Lett2004;
30: 102–105.
37.
SongLHuSS.Stress uniformity and constant strain rate in SHPB test. Explo Shock Waves2005;
25: 207–216.
38.
QuJJuDGaoS, et al.
Research on the dynamic mechanical properties of polymethacrylimide foam sandwich structure. Compos Struct2018;
204: 22–30.
39.
WangXShiJ.Validation of Johnson-Cook plasticity and damage model using impact experiment. Int J Impact Eng2013;
60: 67–75.
