Subcritical damage in sandwich panels refers to damage that occurs in the skins or core of the panel due to loading below the ultimate strength of the materials, and it can reduce the strength and durability of sandwich panels, leading to premature and unpredicted failure. In this work, a computational tool was developed for designing sandwich structures and optimizing their subcritical impact response. The model was validated experimentally on sandwich panels comprising an aluminium honeycomb core with carbon fiber reinforced epoxy skins. The study investigates subcritical damage in aluminium honeycomb and CFRP sandwich panels through mechanical experiments and finite element simulations. A novel computational tool was developed to optimize the impact response of these structures. Experimental validation was performed using standardized tests, and numerical simulations were conducted using Abaqus. Key findings indicate that the developed tool accurately predicts damage and stiffness reduction, offering significant potential for optimizing sandwich panel designs.
MeraghniFDesrumauxFBenzeggaghML. Mechanical behaviour of cellular core for structural sandwich panels. Compos Appl Sci Manuf1999; 30: 767–779. DOI: 10.1016/S1359-835X(98)00182-1.
2.
KarsandikYSabuncuogluBYildirimB, et al.Impact behavior of sandwich composites for aviation applications: a review. Compos Struct2023; 314: 116941. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.116941.
3.
LiYXiaoYYuL, et al.A review on the tooling technologies for composites manufacturing of aerospace structures: materials, structures and processes. Compos Appl Sci Manuf2022; 154: 106762. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2021.106762.
4.
SutherlandL. A review of impact testing on marine composite materials: Part I–Marine impacts on marine composites. Compos Struct2018; 188: 197–208.
5.
CrupiVEpastoGGuglielminoE. Impact response of aluminum foam sandwiches for light-weight ship structures. Metals2011; 1: 98–112. DOI: 10.3390/met1010098.
6.
BaetensRJelleBPThueJV, et al.Vacuum insulation panels for building applications: a review and beyond. Energy Build2010; 42: 147–172. DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.09.005.
7.
AmranYMEl-ZeadaniMLeeYH, et al.Design innovation, efficiency and applications of structural insulated panels: a review. Structures2020; 27: 1358–1379.
8.
PavlovićASintoniDMinakG, et al.On the modal behaviour of ultralight composite sandwich automotive panels. Compos Struct2020; 248: 112523.
9.
MaQRejabMSiregarJ, et al.A review of the recent trends on core structures and impact response of sandwich panels. J Compos Mater2021; 55: 2513–2555.
10.
WangJWaasAMWangH. Experimental and numerical study on the low-velocity impact behavior of foam-core sandwich panels. Compos Struct2013; 96: 298–311.
11.
SutherlandLS. A review of impact testing on marine composite materials: Part II – impact event and material parameters. Compos Struct2018; 188: 503–511. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.01.041.
12.
SongSXiongCYinJ, et al.Cell-filling reinforced materials for improving the low-velocity impact performance of composite square honeycomb sandwiches: polymethacrylimide foam vs. aluminum foam. Alex Eng J2023; 78: 543–560. DOI: 10.1016/j.aej.2023.07.034.
13.
ShipshaAHallströmSZenkertD. Failure mechanisms and modelling of impact damage in sandwich beams - a 2D approach: Part I - experimental investigation. Jnl of Sandwich Structures Materials2003; 5: 7–31. DOI: 10.1177/1099636203005001584.
14.
LiZZhengZYuJ. Low-velocity perforation behavior of composite sandwich panels with aluminum foam core. Jnl of Sandwich Structures Materials2012; 15: 92–109. DOI: 10.1177/1099636212454538.
15.
Al-ShamaryAKarakuzuROzdemirO. Low-velocity impact response of sandwich composites with different foam core configurations. Jnl of Sandwich Structures Materials2016; 18: 754–768. DOI: 10.1177/1099636216653267.
16.
DamghaniMAGonabadiAM. Numerical study of energy absorption in aluminum foam sandwich panel structures using drop hammer test. J Sandw Struct Mater2017; 21(1). DOI: 10.1177/1099636216685315.
17.
AtasCPotoğluU. The effect of face-sheet thickness on low-velocity impact response of sandwich composites with foam cores. Jnl of Sandwich Structures Materials2015; 18: 215–228. DOI: 10.1177/1099636215613775.
18.
DoganA. Low-velocity impact, bending, and compression response of carbon fiber/epoxy-based sandwich composites with different types of core materials. Jnl of Sandwich Structures Materials2020; 23: 1956–1971. DOI: 10.1177/1099636220908862.
19.
VignjevicRCampbellJHughesKS, et al.Soft body impact resistance of composite foam core sandwich panels with unidirectional corrugated and tubular reinforcements. Int J Impact Eng2019; 132: 103320. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2019.103320.
20.
FanJBLiPGuoW, et al.Experimental investigation on the low-velocity impact response of tandem Nomex honeycomb sandwich panels. Polymers2023; 15: 456. DOI: 10.3390/polym15020456.
21.
GaoGTangEYangG, et al.Energy absorption performance and optimization of combination modes for carbon fiber reinforced plastics/aluminum honeycomb sandwich panels. Polym Compos2021; 43: 52–67. DOI: 10.1002/pc.26356.
22.
MeoMMorrisAJVignjevicR, et al.Numerical simulations of low-velocity impact on an aircraft sandwich panel. Compos Struct2003; 62: 353–360. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2003.09.035.
23.
ZhuYSunY. Low-velocity impact response of multilayer foam core sandwich panels with composite face sheets. Int J Mech Sci2021; 209: 106704. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2021.106704.
24.
FengDAymerichF. Damage prediction in composite sandwich panels subjected to low-velocity impact. Compos Appl Sci Manuf2013; 52: 12–22. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2013.04.010.
25.
Ait MohammedMTarfaouiM. A progressive damage modelling of glass/epoxy cylindrical structure subjected to low-velocity impact. Eng Fail Anal2022; 134: 106036. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106036.
26.
LiDLiaoWDaiN, et al.Comparison of mechanical properties and energy absorption of sheet-based and strut-based gyroid cellular structures with graded densities. Materials2019; 12: 2183.
27.
Standard test methods for density and specific gravity (relative density) of plastics by displacement. West Conshohocken: ASTM, 2020.
28.
Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer matrix composite materials. West Conshohocken: ASTM, 2014.
29.
Standard test methods for flexural properties of unreinforced and reinforced plastics and electrical insulating materials. West Conshohocken: ASTM, 2017.
30.
WanYYangBJinP, et al.Impact and compression-after-impact behavior of sandwich panel comprised of foam core and wire nets/glass fiber reinforced epoxy hybrid facesheets. Jnl of Sandwich Structures Materials2020; 23: 2614–2637. DOI: 10.1177/1099636220912785.
31.
Standard practice for determining sandwich beam flexural and shear stiffness. West Conshohocken: ASTM, 2020.
32.
WierzbickiT. Crushing analysis of metal honeycombs. Int J Impact Eng1983; 1: 157–174. DOI: 10.1016/0734-743X(83)90004-0.
33.
WangZMaoJYuanK, et al.Investigation on impact damage and residual in-plane compression strength of FML laminates. Int J Impact Eng2024; 189: 104956. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2024.104956.
34.
PadhyeNKaliaS. Isogeometric analysis of elastic sheets exhibiting combined bending and stretching using dynamic relaxation, 2022. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.10406.
35.
FranciosaPPalitAGerbinoS, et al.A novel hybrid shell element formulation (QUAD+ and TRIA+): a benchmarking and comparative study. Finite Elem Anal Des2019; 166: 103319. DOI: 10.1016/j.finel.2019.103319.31.
