Full length articleLow-velocity impact resistance of composite sandwich panels with various types of auxetic and non-auxetic core structures
Graphical abstract
Introduction
Composite panels have a wide range of uses in the aerospace, marine/offshore industries and ground transportations due to their lightweight characteristics, acoustic insulation, high strength, high stiffness, corrosion resistance and wear resistance, etc. Increasing strength, energy absorption and reducing the weight of the structural components simultaneously are among the primary aims of engineering. The usage of sandwich panels has become popular in the aeronautics and aerospace industry, marine/offshore industries, ground transportations, and military applications thanks to its high specific strength, stiffness, tailorability, and stability properties against impact loading [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. They are composed of two thin stiff, and strong composite face sheets and thick lightweight core materials. They can protect structural integrity while absorbing large amounts of impact energy. Low-velocity impact protection has a particular interest in engineering applications. It induces more localized damage than quasi-static compression and less localized damage than high-velocity impact loading [9]. The deformation mechanism under high and low-velocity impact conditions is likely to be governed by localized material damage rather than global buckling.
The traditional approach is to bond composite laminates with the honeycomb or foam core. The energy absorption of the brittle composite laminates is mainly governed by elastic deformation. Deformation mechanism and transverse damage resistance are poor due to lack of reinforcement through the thickness direction [10]. Notably, carbon fiber/epoxy resin (CFRP) composites can absorb energy by material damage such as fiber breakage, matrix cracking, delamination rather than yielding [11]. The geometrical configuration has a key role in being able to absorb more energy and have more impact resistance. The interface angle, stacking sequence, ply orientation, ply thickness, and material type are the important parameters for the manufacturing composite laminates. Strait et al. [12] indicated that the stacking sequence has a significant effect on the impact resistance by comparing the energy to maximum load response of the cross-ply, quasi-isotropic, and [0/45] lay-ups. Wang et al. [13] showed composite laminates with angle-ply stacking sequences can keep greater residual tensile strength than cross-ply stacking sequences. In addition, the relatively small thickness of laminates is prone to buckling under compression loading due to elastic instabilities [14].
Foams and cellular honeycombs are extensively used as core material for sandwich structures under impact loading [3]. The impact response of the foam core sandwich constructions is mostly related to the density and modulus of foam [4]. Heavier cores increase the local rigidities, which can annihilate the potential advantages of the core under low-velocity impact. CoDyre et al. [15] have indicated that by doubling and tripling the polyisocyanurate foam core density, the flexural strength of flax fiber-reinforced polymer skinned sandwich panels increases by 82% and 213%, respectively. The ultimate impact energy of those sandwich panels increases with the core density (32, 64 and 96 kg/m3) and face thickness (1, 2 and 3 layers of flax fabric) [16]. Sharma et al. [5] noted that PU core failure was governed by shear strain and delamination between the face sheet and core. The core material increased the support surfaces for bonding with the face sheets. Sharaf and Fam [17] have also observed that the vicinity of the supports could provide a significant effect on the delamination between skin and core and on the core shear of composite sandwich panels with orthogonal GFRP ribs and polyurethane foam core. Njuguna et al. [6] examined the impact response of PU core sandwich panels by filling the core with nanoparticles. This way increased the number of PU cells with the smaller dimensions and anisotropy index and led to higher peak loads. Zhang et al. [7] used a hybrid core material with the constituents of PU foam and pyramidal truss members to enhance the impact resistance and energy absorption of composite panels. The load-carrying capacity of the foam-filled sandwich structures with truss members was developed thanks to the synergistic effects of the core constituents. Crupi et al. [18] compared the low-velocity impact response of honeycomb and foam for the aluminum sandwiches and observed different collapse mechanisms. The collapse mechanism of honeycomb sandwiches is represented by the buckling of cells, while foam core sandwiches collapsed for the foam crushing.
The impact resistance and energy absorption capacity of the foam core were strongly related to foam quality, while the mechanical performance of the honeycomb core tended to cell size. Geometric configurations of corrugated cores had a significant influence on the energy absorption capability of the composite sandwich panels under low-velocity impact, unlike high-velocity impact where the sinusoidal and arc-shaped cores possessed lower energy absorption due to lower out-of-plane stiffness [19]. Jiang and Hu [20] fabricated a novel multilayer orthogonal structural composite with auxetic effect consisting of PU foam and reinforcement structures and then compared low-velocity impact performance with the non-auxetic one. They exhibited auxetic composite could provide better energy absorption. Xiong et al. [21] have presented a comprehensive review of the current state of the art on sandwich structures with foam-based and prismatic core constructions.
The polylactic acid (PLA) used here as core material of the cellular honeycombs is most common among polymers used in FDM 3D printing because of its low melting temperature, easy printing, good mechanical properties and biodegradability [22]. However, its equivalent mechanical properties are strongly dependent on the parameters of the manufacturing process (infill ratio, tool path and speed). Manufacturing conditions such as room temperature and melting temperature also affect its crystallization history [23], [24]. Subramaniam et al. [25] indicated that the yield strength, ultimate tensile strength and elastic modulus of the PLA they studied were 26.1, 32.9 and 807.5 MPa for optimum raster angle and infill density, respectively. Kain et al. [26] showed that the infill orientation and mechanical properties of the specimen printed with the angle of 0°, 15° crossed, 30° crossed, 45° crossed, 60° crossed and 75° had a direct interaction but no exclusive correlation. Yao et al. [27] found that the tensile strength of the PLA samples increased with the infill orientations by comparing the specimens printed with the seven different angles in the range of 0° to 90°. The ultimate tensile strength of the specimens changed between 26.6 and 55.9 MPa for the layer thickness of 0.1 mm. Therefore, the printing parameters should be taken into account to increase the mechanical properties of a 3D printed part.
Cellular honeycombs can be classified as auxetic and non-auxetic according to the sign of Poisson’s ratio. Auxetic materials that have a negative Poisson’s ratio (NPR) under tensile or compressive loading could improve resilience, shear resistance, heat insulation, vibration damping, energy absorption, indentation, and impact resistance. Here we focus on re-entrant [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], arrowhead [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51] and chiral honeycombs [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], which are the typical unit cell configurations of auxetic materials. The re-entrant configuration possesses the butterfly shape morphology [28]. Sarvestani et al. [37] presented the re-entrant configurations could get higher energy absorption capacity over hexagonal and rectangular cellular cores. Yang et al. [38] exhibited the re-entrant auxetic sandwich panels could achieve higher impact performance considering the combination of the reduction in peak load and increase in energy absorption capacity comparing to the hexagonal, rhombic and octahedral sandwich panels. The material of the re-entrant honeycomb core flowed into the impact region. It caused material concentration due to the negative Poisson’s ratio effect, which increased the impact resistance of the sandwich panels [39], [40].
Larsen et al. [47] first proposed the auxeticity of the double arrow-head (DAH) honeycombs. The interest in DAH honeycomb has increased thanks to its auxetic properties remarkably. Wang et al. [48] indicated that the stiffness and auxeticity of DAH auxetic structure increased with the increase of compression strain. The deformation pattern of the DAH configuration was governed by bending of the ribs rather than axial and shear deformation [49], [50]. Lim [51] exhibited the Poisson’s ratio of DAHs could be controlled by changing linkage lengths or half angles. Similar to the re-entrant and DAH configurations, hexachiral auxetic structures have also drawn increasing attention in recent years [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]. Prall and Lakes [52] first proposed hexachiral honeycomb on the basis of the theoretical expressions under small deformation. The deformation mechanism of the chiral honeycombs could be identified by rotation of cylinders and flexing of ligaments [53].
This work presented here examines the low-velocity impact response of composite sandwich panels with a series of auxetic and non-auxetic core structures. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the concepts evaluated in this work are not present in the open literature. We describe the design, manufacturing, characterization, drop weight tests, and Finite Element Analyses (FEA) of the sandwich structures with the constituents of carbon fiber face sheets and polyurethane rigid foam core or PLA plastic cellular core. The cellular cores here possessing different honeycomb topologies (hexagonal, re-entrant, DAH and hexachiral) were 3D printed with the same core thickness, cell wall thickness, and number of cells. Drop tests were carried out at the speed of 2.62 m/s with an impact energy of 76 J. Then, the FEA results were validated by comparing with the experimental results, and then impact the performance of the same models were analyzed at the different impact energies. Their response to localized impact loading was assessed in terms of dent depth, damaged surface, and impact resistance at different impact energy levels. The impact response of the structures with different cores was likely to be completely different. The results showed that using auxetic core structures improved the impact performance of composite sandwich panels. The auxetic designs used in this work provide an increase of the impact resistance of the specific sandwich panels developed here. Moreover, we provide a first in terms of comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the selected common auxetic cores over the non-auxetic ones by evaluating deformation patterns and crash efficiencies of the associated sandwich structures under the low-velocity impact.
Section snippets
Cellular core designs
Here, four types of open cellular core topologies (hexagonal, re-entrant, arrowhead, and hexachiral lattice) and semi-reticulated cellular foam core structures were studied. This work proposes to indicate how they affect the low-velocity impact resistance of the CFRP sandwich panels. Open cellular core topologies were fixed to have the same dimension of wall thickness and number of cells (39 × 4 except hexachiral topology). 3D CAD models and unit cell designs with the topology parameters of the
Drop weight test set up
The low-velocity impact tests were performed by using INSTRON 9340 Drop Test Machine shown in Fig. 5. Either the impacting mass or the dropping height was arranged to obtain the necessary amount of kinetic energy. The sandwich panels manufactured in this study have different damage tolerances for full perforation that are determined by performing the samples at various impact energies. The FE results showed that the impact energy of 76 J is quite enough to investigate the impact resistance of
Finite element simulations
The FE models were developed by using the LS-DYNA software to simulate the low-velocity impact behavior of the specimens. The dimensions of the FE models were designed to be identical to those of the experimental ones shown in Fig. 6a. A rigid mass with a hemispherical head was dropped on the specimens with a speed of 2.6 m/s. Boundary conditions could significantly affect the impact performance of the sandwich panel. Amaro et al. [68] indicated that the size of the damage in clamped
Validation of the numerical models
The FE models were validated by comparing the load–displacement responses with the experimental results for each sample. The impact force measured experimentally by using the sensor mounted on the impactor and the numerical force value is calculated using boundary conditions of the finite element model. The load vs. displacement and load vs. time histories from the FE simulation and experimental results of sandwich panels with auxetic and non-auxetic core are shown in Fig. 7, Fig. 8. There is a
Conclusion
In this work, we have presented the low-velocity impact resistance of composite sandwich panels with different types of auxetic and non-auxetic cellular prismatic lattices in experimental and numerical view. The results were compared with the impact resistance of a foam core sandwich panel. CFRP composite face sheets, PUR foam and PLA-made cellular cores with the hexagonal, re-entrant, DAH and hexachiral unit cell topologies have been manufactured, and their material properties determined by
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
The work has been supported by Istanbul Technical University, Turkey under Grant No. MGA-2018-41414 and MDK-2019-41879.
References (81)
- et al.
Low velocity impact of combination kevlar/carbon fiber sandwich composites
Compos. Struct.
(2005) - et al.
Impact performance of nanophased foam core sandwich composites
Mater. Sci. Eng. A
(2008) - et al.
Impact and post-impact behavior of foam core sandwich structures
Compos. Struct.
(1994) - et al.
Energy absorption and low velocity impact response of polyurethane foam filled pyramidal lattice core sandwich panels
Compos. Struct.
(2014) - et al.
Optimal design of multi-cellular cores for sandwich panels under harmonic excitation
Compos. Struct.
(2020) - et al.
Comparison of the low and high velocity impact response of CFRP
Composites
(1989) - et al.
Review of low-velocity impact properties of composite materials
Composites A
(1996) - et al.
Finite element modelling of low velocity impact of composite sandwich panels
Compos. Part A: Appl. Sci. Manuf.
(2001) - et al.
Low-velocity impact and residual tensile strength analysis to carbon fiber composite laminates
Mater. Des.
(2010) - et al.
Low velocity impact and compression after impact tests on thin carbon/epoxy laminates
Composites B
(2011)
Comparison of aluminium sandwiches for lightweight ship structures: Honeycomb vs. foam
Mar. Struct.
Effects of geometric configurations of corrugated cores on the local impact and planar compression of sandwich panels
Composites B
Low-velocity impact response of multilayer orthogonal structural composite with auxetic effect
Compos. Struct.
Mechanical properties of 3-D printed truss-like lattice biopolymer non-stochastic structures for sandwich panels with natural fibre composite skins
Compos. Struct.
A method to predict the ultimate tensile strength of 3D printing polylactic acid (PLA) materials with different printing orientations
Composites B
Edgewise compression of novel hexagonal hierarchical and asymmetric unit cells honeycomb metamaterials
Mater. Today Commun.
Design and modeling of auxetic and hybrid honeycomb structures for in-plane property enhancement
Mater. Des.
Transverse shear stiffness of thickness gradient honeycombs
Compos. Sci. Technol.
Impact and close-in blast response of auxetic honeycomb-cored sandwich panels: experimental tests and numerical simulations
Compos. Struct.
The structure response of sandwich beams with metallic auxetic honeycomb cores under localized impulsive loading-experiments and finite element analysis
Mater. Des.
Graded conventional-auxetic Kirigami sandwich structures: Flatwise compression and edgewise loading
Composites B
Mechanical properties of sandwich composites with 3d-printed auxetic and non-auxetic lattice cores under low velocity impact
Mater. Des.
Additively-manufactured lightweight metamaterials for energy absorption
Mater. Des.
Fabrication and mechanical properties of CFRP composite three-dimensional double-arrow-head auxetic structures
Compos. Sci. Technol.
Theoretical, numerical and experimental analysis of three-dimensional double-V honeycomb
Mater. Des.
Properties of a chiral honeycomb with a Poisson’s ratio of-1
Int. J. Mech. Sci.
Elastic constants of 3-, 4-and 6-connected chiral and anti-chiral honeycombs subject to uniaxial in-plane loading
Compos. Sci. Technol.
Elastic buckling of hexagonal chiral cell honeycombs
Composites A
Smart tetrachiral and hexachiral honeycomb: Sensing and impact detection
Compos. Sci. Technol.
Elastoplasticity of auxetic materials
Comput. Mater. Sci.
The transverse elastic properties of chiral honeycombs
Compos. Sci. Technol.
Models for the elastic deformation of honeycombs
Compos. Struct.
Experimental and numerical study on the low-velocity impact behavior of foam-core sandwich panels
Compos. Struct.
The low velocity impact response of foam-based sandwich panels
Compos. Sci. Technol.
Low-velocity impact response of composite sandwich structures: modelling and experiment
Compos. Struct.
A model to predict low-velocity impact response and damage in sandwich composites
Compos. Sci. Technol.
Experimental investigation of low-velocity impact characteristics of sandwich composites
Compos. Struct.
Crashworthiness analysis of double-arrowed auxetic structure under axial impact loading
Mater. Des.
Dynamic models for low-velocity impact damage of composite sandwich panels–Part A: Deformation
Compos. Struct.
Low-velocity impact response of polyurethane foam composite sandwich structures
J. Reinforced Plast. Compos.
Cited by (117)
Auxetic lattice structures consisting of an enhanced trigram frame unit cell with superior stiffness
2024, Composite StructuresA unified impact response analysis for FG-CNTRC and 3D-GrF sandwich composite sector- rectangular coupled plates
2024, Thin-Walled StructuresCompressive and flexural behaviour of engineered cementitious composites based auxetic structures: An experimental and numerical study
2024, Journal of Building EngineeringEnergy absorption and mechanical performance of 3D printed Menger fractal structures
2024, Engineering StructuresMicrostructure and compression performance of novel AlSi10Mg composite auxetic structures fabricated by additive manufacturing
2024, Materials Science and Engineering: A