Numerical and experimental investigations on sandwich panels made with eco-friendly components under low-velocity impact

Abstract

A low-velocity impact characterisation of a sustainable sandwich panel based on upcycled bottle caps as circular honeycomb is conducted. The recycled core aims to develop an alternative route of reusing waste bottle caps disposed in landfills. Ecological alternatives to skin (recycled PET foil) and adhesive (bio-polyurethane) are also compared with classic components (aluminium skin and epoxy polymer). A low-cost reinforcement (cement particles) is also proposed to enhance the mechanical strength of the panel. The samples are tested at several levels of impact energy, according to the type of skin, to observe their effect on mechanical behaviour. Metal skins achieve higher impact loads and energy absorption compared to PET foil. The bio-adhesive leads to a similar or enhanced maximum impact load and energy absorption compared to the epoxy adhesive. Specific properties highlight the promising performance of the bio-based adhesive with aluminium skins, reaching increments of up to 378%. The cement increases the maximum load and reduces the duration of the impact event, leading to lower energy absorption. The unreinforced epoxy polymer shows a visible adhesive peeling off from aluminium skin, while particle inclusions lead to reduced overall delamination. Biopolymer exhibits marginal adhesive debonding and stable deformation, revealing a progressive failure. In general, PET samples show core shear failure due to rupture of the skin. Crack propagation in PET samples made with biopolymer adhesive is reduced at lower energy levels. The results evidence the promising application of bottle caps in a more sustainable honeycomb core to build eco-friendly structures.

Keywords

Sandwich panel recyclability bio-polymer low-velocity impact design of experiment FEA

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Moongkhamklang

Deshpande

Wadley

The compressive and shear response of titanium matrix composite lattice structures. Acta Materialia 2010; 58: 2822–2835.

Wang

Waas

Wang

Experimental and numerical study on the low-velocity impact behavior of foam-core sandwich panels. Compos Struct 2013; 96: 298–311.

Bernard

Lagace

PA.

Impact resistance of composite sandwich plates. J Reinf Plast Compos 1989; 8: 432–445.

May

Hesebeck

Assessment of experimental methods for calibrating rate-dependent cohesive zone models for predicting failure in adhesively bonded metallic structures. Eng Fail Anal 2015; 56: 441–453.

Riccio

Raimondo

Saputo

, et al. A numerical study on the impact behaviour of natural fibres made honeycomb cores. Compos Struct 2018; 202: 909–916.

Susainathan

Eyma

Luycker

, et al. Experimental investigation of impact behavior of wood-based sandwich structures. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf 2018; 109: 10–19.

Walsh

Kim

H-I

Suhr

Low velocity impact resistance and energy absorption of environmentally friendly expanded Cork core-carbon fiber sandwich composites. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf 2017; 101: 290–296.

Sarasini

Tirillò

Lampani

, et al. Dynamic response of green sandwich structures. Proc Eng 2016; 167: 237–244.

Filho

SLMR

Oliveira

Panzera

, et al. Impact of hybrid composites based on rubber tyres particles and sugarcane bagasse fibres. Compos Part B: Eng 2019; 159: 157–164.

10.

Oliveira

Bonaccorsi

AMS

Panzera

, et al. Sustainable sandwich composite structures made from aluminium sheets and disposed bottle caps. Thin-Walled Struct 2017; 120: 38–45.

11.

Oliveira

Panzera

Freire

, et al. Sustainable sandwich structures made from bottle caps core and aluminium skins: a statistical approach. Thin-Walled Struct 2018; 130: 362–371.

12.

Oliveira

May

Panzera

, et al. Improved sustainable sandwich panels based on bottle caps core. Compos Part B: Eng 2020; 199: 108165.

13.

Recycling

NJ.

Bottle cap recycling (plastic and metal) in New Jersey, www.recyclingnj.com/recycle/caps.html (2016, accessed 7 June 2019).

14.

Boonstra

Van Hest

The findings of the first survey into plastic bottle cap pollution on beaches in the Netherlands. The North Sea Foundation - Netherlands, www.noordzee.nl/. project/userfiles/SDN_Doppenrapport_EN_2017_DEF_small.pdf (2017, accessed 7 June 2019).

15.

Wang

Ramakrishnan

Shankar

Experimental study of the medium velocity impact response of sandwich panels with different cores. Mater Des 2016; 99: 68–82.

16.

Damghani

Gonabadi

AM.

and Numerical Study of energy absorption in aluminum foam sandwich panel structures using drop hammer test. J Sandw Struct Mater 21: 3–18.

17.

Shitta-Bey

Carruthers

Soutis

, et al. The localized low-velocity impact response of aluminium honeycombs and sandwich panels for occupant head protection: experimental characterization and analytical modelling. Int J Crashworthiness 2007; 12: 549–558.

18.

Zhang

Fei

Zhang

Drop-weight impact behavior of honeycomb sandwich panels under a spherical impactor. Compos Struct 2017; 168: 633–645.

19.

Ozdemir

Karakuzu

Al-Shamary

AKJ.

Core-thickness effect on the impact response of sandwich composites with poly(vinyl chloride) and poly(ethylene terephthalate) foam cores. J Compos Mater 2015; 49: 1315–1329.

20.

Mocian

Constantinescu

Sandu

, et al. Impact response of polyurethane and polystyrene sandwich panels. Proc Struct Integrity 2017; 5: 653–658.

21.

Beharic

Egui

Yang

Drop-weight impact characteristics of additively manufactured sandwich structures with different cellular designs. Mater Des 2018; 145: 122–134.

22.

Palomba

Epasto

Crupi

, et al. Single and double-layer honeycomb sandwich panels under impact loading. Int J Impact Eng 2018; 121: 77–90.

23.

, et al. Dynamic crushing of the circular-celled honeycombs under out-of-plane impact. Int J Impact Eng 2015; 75: 150–161.

24.

Cai

, et al. Influence of internal pressure on the out-of-plane dynamic behavior of circular-celled honeycombs. Int J Impact Eng 2017; 104: 64–74.

25.

Nilsson

Wave propagation in and sound transmission through sandwich plates. J Sound Vibr 1990; 138: 73–94.

26.

Sargianis

Suhr

Core material effect on wave number and vibrational damping characteristics in carbon fiber sandwich composites. Compos Sci Technol 2012; 72: 1493–1499.

27.

Bagheri

Marouf

Pearson

RA.

Rubber-toughened epoxies: a critical review. Polym Rev 2009; 49: 201–225.

28.

Garg

Mai

Y-W.

Failure mechanisms in toughened epoxy resins – a review. Compos Sci Technol 1988; 31: 179–223.

29.

Malik

Kaur

Mechanical and thermal properties of castor Oil-Based polyurethane adhesive: effect of TiO2 filler. Adv Polym Technol 2018; 37: 24–30.

30.

Panchireddy

Grignard

Thomassin

J-M

, et al. Bio-based poly(hydroxyurethane) glues for metal substrates. Polym Chem 2018; 9: 2650–2659.

31.

Oliveira

May

Panzera

, et al. Reinforced biobased adhesive for eco-friendly sandwich panels. Int J Adhes Adhes 2020; 98: 102550.

32.

Ramakrishnan

Guérard

Viot

, et al. Effect of block copolymer nano-reinforcements on the low velocity impact response of sandwich structures. Compos Struct 2014; 110: 174–182.

33.

Oliveira PR,

Kilchert S,

May

, et al. Eco-friendly sandwich panel based on bottle caps core and sustainable components: Static and dynamic characterisation. Composites Part C: Open Access 2020; 3: 100069DOI: 10.1016/j.jcomc.2020.100069.

34.

Montgomery

DC.

Design and analysis of experiments. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2020.

35.

Minitab 18 Statistical Software. State College, PA, 2017.

36.

ASTM D7136 2015. Standard test method for measuring the damage resistance of a fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composite to a drop-weight impact event.

37.

ASTM D77662016. Standard practice for damage resistance testing of sandwich constructions.

38.

Borsellino

Bella

Ruisi

Adhesive joining of aluminium AA6082: the effects of resin and surface treatment. Int J Adhes Adhes 2009; 29: 36–44.

39.

ASTM C20 2015. Standard test methods for apparent porosity, water absorption, apparent specific gravity, and bulk density of burned refractory brick and shapes by boiling water.