This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 767–779

**Mechanical behaviour of cellular core for structural sandwich panels
**

F. Meraghni, F. Desrumaux*, M.L. Benzeggagh

´ ` ` Universite de Technologie de Compiegne, LG2mS – ‘‘Polymeres and Composites’’, CNRS-UPRES A 6606, BP 20529 60205, Compiegne, France Received 26 June 1998; accepted 15 October 1998

Abstract This paper deals with the analysis of the mechanical properties of the core materials for sandwich panels. In this work, the core is ﬁrstly a honeycomb and secondly tubular structure. This kind of core materials are extensively used, notably in automotive construction (structural components, load ﬂoors...). For this study, three approaches are developed: a ﬁnite element analysis, an analytical study and experimental tests. Structural members made up of two stiffs, strong skins separated by a lightweight core (foam, honeycomb, tube...) are known as sandwich panels. The separation of the skins by the core increases the inertia of the sandwich panel, the ﬂexure and shear stiffness. This increase is obtained with a little increase in weight, producing an efﬁcient structure to resist bending and buckling loads. A new analytical method to analyse sandwich panels core will be presented. These approaches (theoretical and experimental) are used to determine elastic properties and ultimate stress. A parameter study is carried out to determine elastic properties as a function of geometrical and mechanical characteristics of basic material. Both theoretical and experimental results are discussed and a good correlation between them is obtained. 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sandwich panels; C. Finite element analysis (FEA)

1. Introduction Structural sandwich panels with cellular core are used in aircraft and automotive construction, in load bearing structures and in sports equipment, wherever weight-saving is required [4,6,12,17]. The principal advantage of sandwich panels is that the rigidities can take any values in function of geometrical parameters (cf. Fig. 4). Thus, the designer has the choice for optimizing the material solution [10,11]. Structural sandwich panel is a structure, which is realised by two skins separated by a lightweight core. Structural sandwich represents a good compromise between stiffness and lightness. This paper deals with the analysis of the mechanical properties of the core. Two kinds of core materials are studied here; a honeycomb and a tubular core, the latter is called Tubulam . With the aim to understand the mechanical behaviour of the sandwich panel, the analogy between sandwich and IPN beam can be considered (Fig. 1). The IPN is an I-shaped beam as shown in Fig. 1(b). It is easy to see, that the skins have an in-plane behaviour (ﬂexural/membrane) whereas the core has an out-plane behaviour. In fact, the mechanical behaviour of the skin and the core is different.

* Corresponding author. 1359-835X/99/$ - see front matter PII: S1359-835 X( 98)00 182-1

Gibson and Ashby [7] show that two different transverse shear moduli characterise the out-of-plane elastic shear behaviour of a honeycomb core. Then, the elastics rigidities for the skins are E1, E2, G12 (if necessary 3-D elasticity tensor) [16], whereas those required for core materials are E3, G13, G23. The aim of this paper is then to determine these elastic properties (Fig. 2). It must be pointed out that, these properties are considered as structural rigidities and are not intrinsic to the core material. Indeed the core and more generally sandwich panels have a structural composition and cannot be considered as a homogeneous material. Thus, rigidities are function of geometrical and mechanical parameters of the basic material constituting. With the aim to characterise the core properties, it is necessary to determine the functions f1, f2, f3, f4, f5 deﬁned as following: • for honeycomb core E3 f1 E; a; h; e; u G13 f2 G; a; h; e; u G23 f3 G; a; h; e; u • and for tubular core E3 f4 E; R; h; e G13 G23 f5 G; R; h; e

1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

768

F. Meraghni et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 767–779

Fig. 1. Comparison between Sandwich and IPN beam.

where: E, G a h e u R Young’s modulus and shear modulus of the basic material (see Table 1). Cell’s parameter. Thickness of the core material. Wall’s thickness of tubes or honeycombs. Angle cell. Tube’s radius (see Fig. 5).

and constitutes aided decision software with a negligible development and give immediate and reliable results. 2. Analysis 2.1. Finite element analysis 2.1.1. Description of the analysis’s steps For ﬁnite element study [2], the steps are: • • • • Identiﬁcation of the unit cell, which is representative. Reduction of the unit cell by considering its symmetry. Meshing and applying the boundary conditions Computation or calculation: solution of equilibrium equations • Post processing It is this process which is used to analysis the honeycomb or tubular core. It is important to determine equivalent rigidities Ez *; Gxz *; Gyz *: The ﬁrst step is the most important, the unit cell must be representative of the whole honeycomb. The second step introduces a reduction in the size of the studied unit cell. This reduction is the result of different symmetries of the honeycomb or tubular core. Processing on a little volume

Three approaches are carried out here in order to determine the equivalent rigidities. The ﬁrst one is a ﬁnite element analysis (or numerical analysis), the second one is an analytical analysis and the last one an experimental approach performed according to normalised tests (ASTM, ISO and NF). Grediac [8] has previously developed a ﬁnite element approach for honeycomb core. Here, this method is adapted, extended and applied for tubular core, like Tubulam . Kelsey et al. [13] have given formulae to determine equivalent rigidities of honeycomb core. Two cases are considered: the honeycomb is built up from metal foil, the thickness of the inclined wall is the half-straight wall. 1 cos ueG 2asin u Gxz * 1 cos2 ueG asin u 1 cos u

Gyz *

eGsin u a 1 cos u

The thickness of the honeycomb is the same in all the walls. 1 cos ueG 3asin u Gxz * 1 2cos2 ueG 2asin u 1 cos u

Gyz *

eGsin u a 1 cos u

These formulae are perfectly valid for honeycomb core but not for tubular core. Thus as a contribution, this paper proposes a new analytical method adapted for tubular and honeycomb core. This method is based on the laminate theory modiﬁed and adapted to core materials. It is necessary to introduce a theoretical approach because experimental testing is very tedious and takes a lot of time [15], whereas theoretical approach can be a predicting tool

Fig. 2. Honeycomb core by CIBA Composites , HEXCELL.

F. Meraghni et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 767–779 Table 1 Characteristics of core materials Material Young’s Modulus (E) (Mpa) 600 70

769

Poisson’s Ratio (n ) 0.4 0.31

Polypropylene Aluminium

Fig. 3. Unit cell for honeycomb core.

Fig. 5 shows the unit cell for a tubular core. We can see that this cell is hexagonal, but the structure is tubular. It is not paradoxical, the periodicity of the structure must be considered then, it is easy to see that the unit cell is hexagonal. If the symmetries have been introduced, the volume would be reduced by height. 2.1.3. Boundary conditions and expression of rigidity M. Grediac [8] presents a ﬁnite element study to calculate shear moduli of a Honeycomb core. Now, this method is extended to determine compressive modulus Ez * and modiﬁed to consider tubular core material. 2.1.3.1. Honeycomb core. For the calculation of equivalent modulus the unit cell is depicted in Fig. 4. The top face of the honeycomb is subjected to a uniform displacement U along the x-direction for Gxz * (see Table 2), the y-direction for Gyz * (see Table 3) or the z-direction for Ez * (see Table 4) while the bottom face remains ﬁxed. Owing to the symmetry, the relative displacement between the top face and the middle face is U/2. The other displacements along the boundary can easily be found and they are described in Fig. 6. It must be pointed out that this method is only valid for small displacements. The equivalent modulus is obtained using the following method. As described above, the unit cell is subjected to a displacement, this displacement induce an equivalent shear strain g eq or compressive strain e eq. ~ 1 eq U h

can reduce the calculation time considerably, errors and gives accurate numerical results. Once the volume is meshed, boundary conditions are applied on the structure in terms of: constraints, loads and displacements. Finally, calculations are performed and the solution can be post processed in order to determine the equivalent rigidities. In fact, ﬁnite element and experimental study are similar because for both, it is necessary to impose a displacement set and the corresponding loading may be measured or computed. 2.1.2. Deﬁnition of the unit cell 2.1.2.1. Honeycomb. The unit cell for the calculation of rigidity is depicted in Fig. 3. This unit cell is a hexagonal cell. In fact, with a hexagonal cell, it’s possible to describe the entire honeycomb core. The periodicity of the structure is used here. In the second time, the unit cell is built up with one quarter of one central wall and one quarter of one inclined wall. This reduction in the size of the cell to be studied is because of the different symmetries. The area shown in Fig. 4, describes the unit cell and its parameters. 2.1.2.2. Tubular core structure. This core can be studied like the honeycomb. To identify the unit cell, we proceed with the same steps described above.

The force applied to generate the displacement of the unit cell is one quarter of this that will be applied on a hexagonal block of equivalent homogeneous material. The equivalent stress is computed ﬁrstly by adding the magnitude of the force on the top face of the unit cell to

Fig. 4. Reduced unit cell and its parameters.

770

F. Meraghni et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 767–779 Table 2 Boundary conditions for Gxz *-modulus, honeycomb core ux CL1 CL2 CL3 I Top face Fig. 5. Reduced unit cell for tubular core. Restrained Free Free Free U/2 uy Restrained Restrained Free Restrained Restrained uz Free Restrained Restrained Free Restrained

2.2. Original analytical study generate the displacement U. The global resulting force is called F. This later is necessary to obtain the strain on one quarter of the hexagon. The area of this hexagon is: S 2a2 sin u 1 cos u 2.2.1. Limit of the laminate theory The laminate theory [9,20] is valid only for composite materials, which are laminated in thin layers. Core materials constituting the sandwich panel have a high thickness. Hence, sandwich panel can’t be studied by using the laminate theory. Nevertheless, owing to this theory, it’s possible determine the equivalent rigidities Ez *; Gxz *; Gyz *: Indeed, laminate theory can be modiﬁed to take into account the transversal shear, in which sandwich panel can be considered using this approach. In what follows, laminate theory is brieﬂy reviewed. The objective of this theory is to describe the mechanical behaviour of laminate composite (Fig. 8). In this classical theory, layers are supposed sufﬁciently thin to neglect theirs mechanical behaviour in the out of plane direction (z-direction). This theory is based on the resolution of the following system, obtained from equilibrium equations: 52 3 2 3 4 1 N A B · k M B D [N] and [M] are respectively strength and moment resultants, [e ] are the tension and shear deformations, and [k] are the bending and torsion deformations of the midsurface of the two-dimensional homogenised plate. The coefﬁcients of the above constitutive elasticity relations A, B, D are the so-called effective stiffness moduli of the two-dimensional anisotropic homogenised plate, with: h i Aij Sk Qk hk hk 1 ij Bij 2Sk Qk h2 ij k h2 1 k

The equivalent stress s eq is then: ~ s eq 4F S

and this yields to equivalent modulus: ~ K

s eq ~ 1 eq ~

2.1.3.2. Tubular core. The method to analyse the tubular core is the same as for the honeycomb core. The unit cell of tubular core materials is depicted in Fig. 5 like the honeycomb core. The equivalent moduli are determined using the following method. The top face of the unit cell (Fig. 7) is subjected to a uniform displacement U (see Table 5–6), which generated a strain ﬁeld. To obtain this displacement, a force is applied at the top face. This force noted ‘F’ generates a stress ﬁeld on the unit cell. As described above, the area of this unit cell is a hexagon, its value is: p S 2R2 3 Given that, the force is applied on one quarter of the hexagon and the equivalent stress is then:

s eq ~

4F S

Like for the honeycomb core, the strain ﬁeld is:

Table 3 Boundary conditions for Gyz *-modulus, honeycomb core Ux CL1 CL2 CL3 I Top face Restrained Free Restrained Restrained Restrained uy Restrained Free Free Free U/2 uz Free Restrained Restrained Free Restrained

1 eq ~

U h

and the equivalent modulus is obtained by: ~ K

s eq ~ 1 eq ~

F. Meraghni et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 767–779

771

Fig. 6. Boundary conditions for honeycomb core with Gxz *-modulus (see Table 2).

Dij 3Sk Qk h3 ij k with: k Qk ij hk

h3 1 k

subscript of the layer (or ply) number k, rigidity of the layer number k, distance from x-axis to exterior of layer number k. h=2

h=2

2.2.2.1. Resolution of two layers composite material. Equilibrated, laminated composite material is considered (see Fig. 9): Owing to the symmetry inherent to the equilibrated laminate, we can write: Bij 0 and A16 A66 0 Moreover, the basic material is isotropic (see Table 1), it can be polymer or aluminium, and therefore the rigidity matrix is: Q P E nE 0U T 1 n2 1 n2 U T U T U T nE E Qij T 0U U T 2 2 1 n S R1 n 0 0 G The determination of the shear modulus requires only A66, using the following relationship: is of A66 2eQ66 2eG which yields Geq A66 eG 2 l e l e

The efforts and moments resultants are deﬁned by: Nij

sij dz;

Mij

h=2

h=2

sij z dz

In this theory, the transverse shear (Qx,Qy) is never envisaged, whereas for sandwich panel, the transverse shear is very important [19]. Nevertheless, in this work, it is not necessary to consider this transverse shear for the modelling of honeycomb core behaviour. 2.2.2. Adaptation and modiﬁcation of the laminate theory and its application to core material In this part, an analytical method of calculation to determine core rigidities is presented. This method of calculation is based on the laminate theory. Several authors [1,5,18] to characterise woven composites materials have previously used the technique developed here.

Table 4 Boundary conditions for Ez *-modulus, honeycomb core Ux CL1 CL2 CL3 I Top face Restrained Restrained Restrained Restrained Restrained uv Restrained Restrained Restrained Restrained Restrained uz Restrained Free Free Free U/2

In the case of an inclined wall, the stiffness matrix [Q] will be transformed using transformation matrix taking into

Fig. 7. Boundary conditions for tubular core.

772

F. Meraghni et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 767–779 Table 6 Boundary conditions for Ez *-modulus, tubular core Ux CL1 CL2 CL3 Top face Restrained Free Free Restrained uv Restrained Free Free Restrained uz Restrained Free Free U/2

Fig. 8. Laminated composite material.

account the angle (u ). The transformed matrix is then noted [Q]*. This point is important to understand the calculation of the equivalent rigidities of core materials and is described in the following parts. 2.2.3. Honeycomb core materials The most important step is the following: A representative volume considered is depicted in Fig. 10. This volume is modelled as a laminate material and composed by two layers (1,2,3) and (1*,2*,3*). An isotropic material constitutes each one of these layers. Moreover, these layers are symmetrical. Consequently, we can bring some simpliﬁcations on [A], [B] and [D] matrices. This formulation is then very simple and allows us to obtain results quickly. In addition, the laminate theory method can be particularly applied here because of the small thickness of the wall (ply). Indeed, for example: e 0.0634 mm for aluminium honeycomb core e 0.3 mm for Polypropylene honeycomb core. 2.2.4. Elementary relationships in the honeycomb geometry A regular unit cell is considered, all the cell parameters are the same and their value is a. It should be noted that in the laminate theory, the Oz-axis is directed vertically downward, here it’s Oy-axis which plays this role. Oz-axis is always directed out-of-plane (see Figs. 2 and 10), for this reason, if the walls of honeycomb core is considered as a laminate composite, Oz-axis must be replaced by Oy-axis in the classical laminate theory (Section 2.2.1.). In fact, this change of axis transform Gxy * into Gxz *: Furthermore the thickness of the central wall is (e/2). In fact, it is easy to show that the calculation of honeycomb

Table 5 Boundary conditions for Gxz * and Gyz *-moduli, tubular core ux CL1 CL2 CL3 Top face Restrained Free Free U/2 uv Restrained Free Restrained Restrained uz Free Restrained Restrained Restrained

area includes only half the central wall and the neighbour walls (lower and upper) takes also the other half. This unit cell must be split into three sub areas, the ﬁrst is deﬁned for 0 x a=2; the second for a=2 x a=2 a cos
u and the third for a=2 a cos
u x a a cos
u (see Fig. 11). Considering symmetries, it’s easy to work only on a half elementary volume (0 x a a cos
u). There is a distinction between the three sub areas because inclined walls compose the third area. It is necessary to introduce the parameters u by a transformation matrix. The transformation matrix around Oz-axis is deﬁned by: Q P 2 c s2 0 0 0 2cs U T U T 2 T s c2 0 0 0 2cs U U T U T T 0 0 1 0 0 0 U U T T T U T 0 0 0 c s 0 U U T U T U T T 0 0 0 s c 0 U S R cs cs 0 0 0 c2 s2 with c cos
u and s sin
u: The relationship between [Q] and [Q]* is: Q* T 1 QRTR where [R] P 1 T T0 T T T0 T R T T T0 T T T0 R 0

1

is the Reuter matrix deﬁned by: Q 0 0 0 0 0 U 1 0 0 0 0U U U 0 1 0 0 0U U U U 0 0 2 0 0U U U 0 0 0 2 0U S 0 0 0 0 2

2.2.4.1. Calculation of Gxz *. It’s necessary to homogenise matrices (A, B, D) on the model. Consequently, the following equation must be solved: A66glob 1 acos
u acos
u a

0 a

A66 xdx:

Owing to the symmetries, the integration is performed over one half of the volume. Thus it is necessary again to separate this equation in three parts. Indeed, A66 is a function

F. Meraghni et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 767–779

773

and Ez * are given by: Gyz * 2a 1 eG e 2asin u cos u e asin u

Ez *

Fig. 9. Composite material with two layers.

eE 1 2cos u 2asin u cos u 1

of Q66 * which is also a function of x. So, we can write: 2 a=2 acos
u a=2 1 eGdx 2eQ66 *dx A66glob acos
u a 0 a=2 3 acos
u a eGdx

acos
u a=2

The technique used is the same way as in the preceding case. 2.2.5. Tubular core materials The same method is considered to study the tubular core. An elementary volume or unit cell must be ﬁrst identiﬁed as shown in Fig. 12. Owing to the curved geometry of walls, it’s necessary to consider the local orientation (u ). The stiffness matrix [Q] is replaced by [Q]*. The following formulae are then obtained: 2eG Gxz * Gyz * p 3 R e 2eE Ez * p 3 R e

A66glob

eG 1 2cos u cos u 1

Finally, equivalent shear stress (homogenised) is applied on the thickness of the cell to determine Gxz *: Gxz * A66glob eG 1 2cos u H 2asin u cos u 1

The expressions determining equivalent modulus Gyz *

Fig. 10. Unit cell for analytical approach.

774

F. Meraghni et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 767–779

Some examples on MEF-MOSAIC are presented in Figs. 13–16. 3.2. General results A parametric study is envisaged here. It is possible to predict the inﬂuence of the parameters (E, G, R, a, h, e, u ) on the equivalent rigidities. Some variables and rigidities are plotted on this part, but all of the variables can be studied in the same way. Two different materials have been studied: polymeric tubular core and aluminium honeycomb core. Materials constituting the core have the following characteristics (see Table 1): 3.2.1. Tubular core materials 3.2.1.1. Gxz *-modulus vs tube radius R. The shear modulus Gxz * computed for this material (polymeric tubular core) is reported in Fig. 17. It must be noted that Gxz * decreases when the radius increases. The curves are in a good agreement although there is a little difference between the analytical and experimental results. This difference can be explained: analytical results are less accurate than ﬁnite element and it’s necessary to adjust the analytical and the experimental results. In addition, it is important to point out that the norms have some limits. For example, the shear test is not valid for a small h because the joint between the sample and the apparatus become important (see ASTM C 273 or ISO 1922). For a large thickness h, some problems may exist because there is not a pure shear state. In this case a parasite traction ﬁeld and compression are induced during the experimental test. 3.2.1.2. Ez *-modulus vs of tube radius R. The Ez *-modulus is plotted on the Fig. 18. This curve is perfect; there is an excellent agreement between the different results. Ez *modulus decreases when the tube radius increases. 3.2.1.3. Gxz *-modulus vs radius of tube R and thickness of core h. This curve is very interesting because it shows the inﬂuence of two parameters R and h, as shown in Fig. 19 representing the data obtained using the ﬁnite element calculation. In fact, some parameters have really an inﬂuence on the rigidity. 3.2.1.4. Summary. The inﬂuence of the geometrical parameters on the rigidity are reported in the following table (see Table 7). 3.2.2. Honeycomb core materials 3.2.2.1. Gxz *-modulus vs cell parameter a. The shear modulus Gxz * is plotted on the Fig. 20, which presents the analytical, experimental and ﬁnite element results. There is

Fig. 11. Geometrical parameters for honeycomb core.

3. Results and discussion 3.1. Finite element results The numerical results are obtained using MEF MOSAIC software, developed at the U.T.C. For the solution of the problem, the cell is meshed with 4noded quadrilateral plate elements formulated in the threedimensional space. Each node has six degrees of freedom (U, V, W, u x, u y, u z). 45 elements are used to mesh the cell (see Figs. 13–15).

Fig. 12. Unit cell for analytical approach.

F. Meraghni et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 767–779

775

Fig. 13. Meshing of a honeycomb core.

Fig. 14. Strain and Von-Mises stress in honeycomb core.

776

F. Meraghni et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 767–779

Fig. 15. Meshing of a tubular core.

a good agreement between the different results. In fact, geometrical and mechanical parameters for aluminium are better than those obtained for polymeric core: they are constant in the case of aluminium core. For example, the thickness of the wall e is the same as the thickness of the core h. For this reason, the module predicted here is better. Comparison between test values and Kelsey [13] min and

max values shows that the results of Kelsey formulae are in agreement. For a 20, the method proposed is more accurate to determine the shear modulus. 3.2.2.2. Ez *-modulus vs cell parameter a. Ez * modulus is plotted on Fig. 21. As for the other graphics, the curves are in good agreement. But, there is a small difference between theoretical prediction and experimental results for a 15

Fig. 16. Strain and Von-Mises stress in tubular core.

**F. Meraghni et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 767–779 Table 7 Resume table for tubular core h Gxz * Gyz * Ez *
**

a a

777

R

ep

indicates no inﬂuence; moderate inﬂuence; inﬂuence; very large inﬂuence.

large

3.2.2.3. Summary. Finally, the following table summarises the parametric study for the Honeycomb core (see Table 8).

4. Conclusion

Fig. 17. Gxz * Gyz * f on
R with, E 600 MPa; e 0:15 mm; h 30 mm:

and 22 mm. The model is less accurate in the interval (10 a 22). Concerning the compression, the anticipated occurrence of buckling may perturb the experimental procedure on the cellular core. Therefore, the model does not take into account this phenomena and gives necessarily not accurate results. In fact, there are two opposed phenomena, the cell buckling and the structure effect. If ‘a’ increases, structure effect decrease and the cell buckling occurs. As expected, it is for this reason that there is test-theory discrepancy (for a 22). No test results are given for a 22 because the standard dimensions provided by the manufacturer are limited to 7:2 a 22:

The aim of this work was to determine tubular and honeycomb cores rigidities by several complementary investigations: numerical, analytical and experimental approach. Experimental study is difﬁcult to perform and is costly. Numerical approach is less expensive but require computer and software whereas analytical investigation is the best method. For these reasons, numerical and analytical approaches are very interesting. An original analytical approach has been presented. This approach is based on the classical laminate theory applied on a unit cell which is representative of the structure. It is a very simple method. These three complementary approaches allow us to carry out a parametric study. In others terms, the inﬂuence of each structural parameter is analysed. The inﬂuence of wall thickness on the rigidity is vital whereas the total thickness of the core is not very important on the equivalent rigidities. In addition, the designer can solve the reverse problem to optimise the structure, in other word, he can start with the equivalents rigidities (E3, G13, G23) and ﬁnd the geometrical parameters (E, a, h, e, u ) to optimise his problem. Finally, we can assert that the results are in good agreement whit theoretical expectations. In practice, the knowledge of these rigidities allows us to apply the plate and beam theory, which take into account the shear out plane effect [2–4,14] to predict the behaviour of complex sandwich panels structures.

**Table 8 Summary table for honeycomb core h Gxz * Gyz * Ez *
**

a a

a

ep

u

**Fig. 18. Ez * f
R with; E 600 MPa; e 0:15 mm; h 30 mm:
**

on

indicates no inﬂuence; moderate inﬂuence; inﬂuence; very large inﬂuence.

large

778

F. Meraghni et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 767–779

Fig. 19. Gxz * f on h; R with; E 600 MPa; e 0:15 mm:

Fig. 20. Gxz * f on a with; E 70 GPa; e 0:0634 mm; h 80 mm; u 30 :

References

[1] Aboura Z, Chouchaoui CS, Benzeggagh ML. Analytical model of woven composite laminate superposition effect of two plies, ECCM6 Bordeaux, 1993. ´ ´´ [2] Batoz J-L, Dhatt G. Modelisation des structures par elements ﬁnis. ` Poutres et plaques, 2. Paris: Hermes, 1990. [3] Benjamin BS. Structural design with plastics. 2. NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1982. ´ ´ [4] Berthelot JM. Materiaux composites, comportement mecanique et analyse des structures. Paris: Masson, 1992. ´ ´ ´ [5] Chouchaoui CS. Modelisation du comportement mecanique de mate` ´ ` riaux composites a renforts tisses et matrices organiques, These de ´ ` l’universite de technologie de Compiegne, France, 1995. ´ ´ ´ [6] Gay D. Materiaux composites. Traite des nouvelles technologies serie ´ ` mecanique. Paris: Hermes, 1991. [7] Gibson LJ, Ashby MF. Cellular solids structure and properties. England: Pergamon press, 1988. [8] Grediac M. A ﬁnite element study of the transverse shear in honeycomb cores. Int Journal Solids Structures 1993;30(13): 1777–1788. [9] Jones. Mechanics of composites materials. McGraw Hill, 1980.

Fig. 21. Ez * f on a; with E 70 GPa; e 0:0634 mm; h 80 mm; u 30 :

F. Meraghni et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 767–779 [10] Kalamkarov AL, Kolpakov AG. Numerical design of thin-walled structural members on account of their strength. Int Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1993;36:3441–3449. [11] Kalamkarov AL. Composite and reinforced elements of construction. Winchester, NY: Wiley, 1992. ¨ [12] Karlsson KF, Astrom BT. Manufacturing and applications of structural sandwich components Part A. Composites, 28A. Great Britain: Elsevier Science Limited, 1997, p. 97–111. [13] Kelsey S, Gellatly RA, Clark BW. The shear modulus of foil honeycomb core. Aircraft Engn 1958;294–302. [14] Matheron G. Progiciels de calcul de structures composites, exemples ´ ´ ´ de references et de validation No. hors serie. Revue des composites et ´ ´ ´ des materiaux avances, 5. Hermes, 1995. [15] Mekhaldi O, Meraghni F, Benzeggagh ML. Etude des performances ´ ´ `ˆ mecaniques d’un materiau sandwich thermoformable a ame tubulaire

779

[16]

[17] [18]

[19] [20]

´ ´ ´ en thermoplastique, Proc. Journees Europeennes des materiaux dans ´ l’automobile. JEMA, le Havre 7-8 fevrier, 1996. ´ ´ Meraghni F. Identiﬁcation experimentale des mecanismes ` ´ ´ d’endommagement contribuant a la modelisation micromecanique ´ ` du comportement elastique-endommageable des composites a ﬁbres ´ ´ ` discontinues orientees aleatoirement (C.F.D.O.A.), These de l’univer´ ` site de technologie de Compiegne, France, 1994. ` Reyne M. Technologie des composites, ed. Hermes, Paris, ISBN 286601-455-3, 1995, 1990. Scida D, Aboura Z, Benzeggagh ML, Bocherens E. Prediction of the elastic behaviour of hybrid and non-hybrid woven composites. Comp Sc Tech 1997;57:1727–1740. Seide P. On the torsion of rectangular sandwich plates. ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics 1956;23:191–194. Tsai SW. Composites design, USA, 1986.

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- A Study on Composite Honeycomb Sandwich Panel Structure
- 1-s2.0-S0266353815301330-main
- Reversibly Assembled Cellular Composite Materials
- Homework 6
- Maged Elhajal, Benjamin Canals and Claudine Lacroix- Comparison of several tetrahedra-based lattices
- 1205.4849
- Periodic Systems
- Topic 03
- Lecture+2+MAK Crystal+Structure1
- Smith et al
- Dariush Heidarian and Kedar Damle- Persistent Supersolid Phase of Hard-Core Bosons on the Triangular Lattice
- #Nonlinear Optics 2005
- SO8 Diffless Transform 5
- symm_handout2
- D. van Oosten, P. van der Straten and H.T.C. Stoof- Quantum phases in an optical lattice
- Assignment 1 - Chapter 3 Answer
- Yunfei Chen et al- Minimum superlattice thermal conductivity from molecular dynamics
- L'Ancien d'Algérie, Jan 2011
- 03 Miller Indices 3
- Homework 1
- Physics of Graphene
- Crystalline Lattice
- vg4-7
- Metaelectron New Metals from Old Atoms
- 05 Metals Cry
- Lecture 7
- Homework 2
- Capitulo 6 y 7
- Presentation Inorg
- Didier Poilblanc- The physics of doped Quantum Dimer Models
- 3.pdf