You are on page 1of 5

Materials and Design 31 (2010) 2659–2663

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

Short Communication

Mechanical behavior of the sandwich structures with carbon fiber-reinforced pyramidal lattice truss core
Bing Wang *, Linzhi Wu *, Li Ma, Yuguo Sun, Shanyi Du
Center for Composite Materials, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, PR China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Sandwich panel construction with carbon fiber-reinforced pyramidal lattice truss is attracting more and more attention due to its superior mechanical properties and multi-functional applications. Pyramidal lattice truss sandwich panels made from carbon fiber reinforced composites materials are manufactured by hot-pressing. The facesheets are interconnected with truss cores, the facesheets and truss cores are manufactured in one manufacturing process without bonding. The buckling and splitting of truss member is observed in the compressive and shear tests and no nodal failure is observed. The predicted results show that the mechanical behavior of the pyramidal lattice truss core sandwich panels depends on the relative density of core and the material properties of truss members. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 17 August 2009 Accepted 27 November 2009 Available online 1 December 2009

1. Introduction Sandwich panel structures consisted of low-density cores and solid facesheets are widely used in engineering applications since they offer the high stiffness/strength-to-weight ratio [1]. The low-density cores of sandwich panels are conventionally made of foams or honeycombs or other closed-cell with limited access into the core region, and these cores are attached to the facesheets using conventional joining or welding methods [2]. Recently, lattice truss structures have been explored as alternative cellular core topologies including octet-truss[3,4], tetrahedral lattice truss[5], lattice block[6,7], pyramidal lattice truss[8–11] and 3D-kagome [12,13]. They have a stiffness and strength which scales linearly with relative density. At low relative densities, the lattice structures can therefore be more than an order of magnitude stiffer and stronger than equivalent mass per unit volume foams made from the same parent materials [14]. The metal lattice truss cores were fabricated from investment cast [15,16], perforation and folding [3,17] and tri-axial weaving of wires technology [18]. Pyramidal lattice truss sandwich structures were usually fabricated using conventional joining methods such as brazing or laser welding to bond the core to the facesheets, and the core is made of highductility alloys by folding a perforated metal sheet along node rows [13–18]. Queheillalt et al. [19] developed a new method to fabricate pyramidal lattice sandwich structures by extrusion and electro discharge machining, which makes sure the nodes possessing identical properties with the trusses/facesheets. Fan et al. [20,21] manufactured a carbon fiber-reinforced three-dimensional
* Corresponding authors. Tel.: +86 451 86402376; fax: +86 451 86402386. E-mail addresses: wangbing86@hit.edu.cn (B. Wang), wlz@hit.edu.cn (L. Wu). 0261-3069/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2009.11.061

intertwined lattice sandwich panel using an intertwining method. Finnegan et al. [22] manufactured carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss cores using conventional method to bond the cores to the facesheets. The buckling and delamination failure of truss members were observed in the compressive test. Wang et al. [23] manufactured carbon fiber reinforced vertical truss core sandwich panels by hot-press process. The mechanical properties of the truss core sandwich panels were investigated under out-of-plane and inplane compression loadings. Up to now, to our knowledge, only few investigations have been done on the mechanical properties of sandwich structures with carbon fiber-reinforced pyramidal lattice truss cores. Different from Refs. [21,22], in the present work, another methodology for fabricating pyramidal lattice truss core sandwich panels with carbon fabric composite is described in details. The lattice truss cores and the facesheets were manufactured in one process without bonding. The mechanical properties of our pyramidal lattice truss core sandwich panels are tested under the out-of-plane compressive and shear loadings. Finally, the failure mechanism and mechanical properties of the new structure are also discussed.

2. Experiment 2.1. Design The schematic of pyramidal core is shown in Fig. 1. The relative density of the pyramidal core depends on the cross-sectional area pd2/4, inclination angle x, length of truss l, and the distance t between the two closest rods. The ratio of the material volume in a unit cell to that of the unit cell then gives the relative density

The sandwich facesheets are fabricated from 8-ply unidirectional carbon/epoxy (T700/TDE85) with the stacking sequence [0/45/–45/0]s.4.25]. The samples are cured at 170 °C under pressure of 0. Finally. 6. and made into fiber rods as truss members with fibers kept straight to ensure the strength and stiffness of truss members.2660 B. Both ends of prepreg rods were embedded into four layers of both top and bottom facesheets. diameter and angle are l. The diameter of semicircular grooves is equal to that of the lattice truss.5 mm minÀ1 in accordance with ASTM C365 and C273 [24. For the simplicity of demoulding.7 GPa and 482. Top and bottom facesheets were interconnected with truss cores. Repeating the same procedures mentioned above.5 mm3. The detailed fabricate process is as following. The molds are assembled after coated with the mold release agent. 2. both ends of prepreg rods were embedded into four layers of the facesheets. Fabrication The sandwich panels with carbon fiber-reinforced pyramidal lattice truss cores are manufactured by hot-embossing method. The experimentally measured relative density is 1. The carbon fiber samples were fixed in the nuts to ensure their vertical state in the compressive test. (b) The first layer of prepreg at the end of the rod was split into two halves to fill up the gap between the prepreg placed along axis x. The dimensions of the compressive specimens are 110 Â 110 Â 22. 2. and the theoretically relative density of this kind of core is 1. Wang et al. .5 mm3 and the shear specimens are 110 Â 220 Â 22. (b) schematic of unit cell. Schematic and photograph of the molds: (a) schematic of the molds. the unit mold was divided into four parts.5 MPa for 3 h. The lattice trusses are formed in the columnar grooves. To fabricate the lattice truss cores. d. there are four samples in each test. carbon prepregs were cut to the required size. we can get the corresponding samples. Compressive coupons of carbon fiber rods are used to determine the mechanical properties of the truss core. Compressive tests are performed according to ASTM D-695-96 [26] on the Instron 5569 universal testing machine. t = 3 mm. as shown in Fig.26°. There are many semicircular grooves on the bevels of polygonal and trapezoidal molds (Fig. The dimension of the compressive samples is shown in Fig.2 ± 0. Schematic of a pyramidal lattice truss core sandwich structure: (a) pyramidal lattice truss core sandwich panel.1%.2. 2. (a) Prepreg was placed on the surface of the molds along axis x. respectively. respectively. The sandwich panel structure was formed after the curing of resin.8 MPa. Two semicircular grooves compose one columnar groove. as shown in Fig. The geometrical parameters are taken as d = 2 mm.6 mm and x = 35. l = 34. removing the molds and cutting out the planes to the required dimensions. there are four samples in the test confirmed the reproducibility of the results. (b) pyramidal unit cell: the truss member length. 5. (c) Prepreg was placed 45° with respect to axis x. 4. as shown in Fig. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 2659–2663 Fig. and x. Molds To fabricate the pyramidal truss core sandwich structure. 1. 2. as shown in Fig. the distance between two closest rods is t. The average Young’s modulus Es and yield strength rs are 23. Mechanical test The compression and shear tests are performed on the Instron 5569 universal testing machine at room temperature with the displacement rate of 0. 2b). q¼ pd pffiffiffi sin xð 2l cos x þ tÞ2 2 ð1Þ Fig. The resin was melted and redistributed in the curing process. 2. 3. The carbon fiber rods were tested in uniaxial compression along the fiber directions in order to determine the relevant Young’s modulus and compressive strength of the parent material used to manufacture the pyramidal cores. many polygon steel plates are used as molds.18%. (d) The first layer of prepreg at the end of the rod was split into two halves to fill up the gap between the prepreg placed 45° with respect to axis x.3.

Subsequently. the diameter d = 2 mm. The representative shear stress vs. The peak stress occurs at the point while the splitting of the trusses is observed as marked by the arrow in Fig. the stresses decrease with increasing strain with the serrations in the stress vs. Wang et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 2659–2663 2661 (a) (b) (c) z y x Truss members gaps Plies of top facesheet molds Fig. The dimension of compressive specimen. The sandwich panel with carbon fiber-reinforced pyramidal lattice truss cores. 6. strain curve associated with a series of failure events in the pyramidal truss members. The peak strength . 5. the stress increases with the increasing of strain and there are serrations in the stress vs. The failure occurring near the center of the truss members is caused by micro-defects. 4. 2) in the manufacturing process. 8b. as shown in Fig. strain response is shown in Fig. Results and discussion The representative compressive stress–strain response is shown in Fig. 3. (c) method for embedding truss members into facesheet. 7a.B. the peak compressive stress occurs at the point when the failure of the truss mem- bers is first observed as shown in Fig. (b) made the prepreg into fiber rods. The failure modes were observed in the compression tests: buckling and splitting of the truss members. Fig. d Composite column l h Fig. which is caused by micro-defects due to the relative displacements on the interface of the closest molds (shown in Fig. The failure occurs in the middle of the truss members. Schematic of the manufacturing process of the pyramidal lattice truss core sandwich structure: (a) carbon fiber prepreg. which is caused by the relative displacements on the interfaces of the closest molds in the manufacturing process. The photo of carbon fiber rod specimen for compressive test. 7b. 3. so the manufacture process investigated in the present paper improved the interface properties of the lattice truss core sandwich structures. strain curves associated with a series of failure events in the truss members. Subsequently. 8a. An initial linear response is observed. The analytical results according to Deshpande’s expression [27] and experimental results are listed in Table 1.4 mm. 7a. No nodal failure modes were observed in the shear tests. Fig. the length l = 36. Following an initial linear response.

4 0. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 2659–2663 Table 1 Analytical expressions and experimental results for the compressive and shear stiffness and strength of the pyramidal lattice truss core sandwich structure (MPa).52(14):4229–37.5 0. But these defects are not considered in the analytical models.00 Fig. Valdevit L.0 0. Compos Struct 1999. 8. Conclusion A preliminary investigation of pyramidal lattice truss core sandwich structures fabricated form carbon fiber reinforced composites has been conducted.0 0. Rasin AF.00 0. Acta Mater 2004.15 0. Effective elastic properties of hexagonal and quadrilateral grid structures.25 0. Prog Mater Sci 2005.9 0. Hutchinson JW.0 0.8 C-1 Mechanical property Compressive modulus Analytical expression 4 Analytical results 31. Compos Struct 2001. (a) Compressive stress (MPa) 1. Anisogrid lattice structures-survey of development and application.2662 B.25 0. Shear behavior of the pyramidal truss core sandwich structure: (a) stress vs. Evans AG.46(3–4):309–27. 10872059 and 10972069. Wadley HNG.54:361–70.4 0.2 C-3 0.93 Experimental data 25.6 1.10 0. [6] Hohe J. The failure is initiated at defects generated during the panel-to-core bonding process.93 31. Queheillalt DT. strain curve and (b) the shear failure modes. The manufacturing process investigated in the present paper improved the interface properties of the lattice truss core sandwich structures.6 1.6 0. [2] Evans AG. The mechanical behaviors of the composite pyramidal lattice truss core sandwich panels depend on the relative density of the core and the properties of truss member material. Active cooling by metallic sandwich structures with periodic cores. 7. The modulus and strength of analytical results are larger than that of the experimen- . and stiffness of the pyramidal lattice truss core sandwich structure under compressive and shear loadings depend on the cell geometry and material properties of the truss members.05 0. and no nodal failure modes are observed during these tests for these samples. Barynin VA.46:73–89. [4] Lu TJ. Out-of-plane compressive behavior: (a) stress vs.15 0. Becker W. Ashby MF. 2006CB601206 and the Program of Excellent Team in Harbin Institute of Technology.8 C-1 C-2 Shear stress (MPa) 0. Fig.20 0.10 0. (b) Buckling and splitting 4. The topological multifunctional cellular metals.87 0. 90816024.1 0. strain curve and (b) the compressive failure modes. the Major State Basic Research Development Program of China (973 Program) under Grant No. References [1] Gibson LJ. 1997. and there are micro-defects caused by the relative displacements on the interface of the closest molds in the manufacturing process. The pressure along the radial direction in the molding of composite structures doesn’t reach the enough high value. Wang et al.20 0. Compressive behavior of age hardenable tetrahedral lattice truss structures made from aluminum. [5] Kooistra GW. Acknowledgement 0.7 0. Most metallic lattice sandwich panel structures suffer from nodal failure during static and dynamic testing [10–18]. Fleck NA. [3] Vasiliev VV.3 0. Cambridge University Press.77  Ec ¼ Es Á sin x Á q  rc ¼ rs Á sin2 x Á q  Gs ¼ 1 Es Á sin2 2x Á q 8 1  r31 ¼ 2pffiffi rs Á sin 2x Á q 2 0. This is because that the trusses and the facesheets are manufactured in one manufacturing process.84 22. (a) 0.50(7):789–815. Prog Mater Sci 2001. NCET-08-0152. Different from the failures occurring in these conventional sandwich structures. LM acknowledges the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University under Grant No. and the core-facesheet nodes of the lattice sandwich panels have identical properties to those of the trusses and facesheets. et al.2 0.1 0.30 Strain (b) Buckling and splitting The present work is supported by National Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. Beschorner C.30 Strain tal data. the failure mode of strut buckling and splitting is observed in the compression and shear tests. The composite pyramidal lattice truss core sandwich structures are manufactured by hot-press process technology. This is because that the truss members are not compacted by the manufacturing conditions.05 0.6 C-2 C--3 C-4 Compressive strength Shear modulus Shear strength 0. Cellular solids: structure and properties.

[11] Zok FW. Wei Z. Yang W. McMeeking RM. [24] ASTM.43:5228–46. J Mater Sci Technol 2009. Structural response of pyramidal core sandwich columns. [10] Queheillalt DT. Bréchet YJM. Fang DN. Pyramidal lattice truss structures with hollow trusses. 2006. [14] Wadley HNG. Mechanical properties of an extruded pyramidal lattice truss sandwich structure.44:3533–56. Meng FH. Mater Design 2009. [16] Wallach JC.58:66–79. [23] Wang B.51(19):5801–21. Int J Mater Res 2007. The compressive response of carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss sandwich cores. Fabrication and structural performance of periodic cellular metal. Yang W. Fleck NA. Waltner SA.. Adv Eng Mater 2002.63:2331–43.30(6):1966–75. [8] Queheillalt DT. Designing hybrid materials. Int J Solids Struct 2006. Fabrication and testing of carbon fiber reinforced truss core sandwich panels.98:1264–72. Imprefection sensitivity of pyramidal core sandwich structures. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 2659–2663 [7] Kim TD. Fabrication and testing of thin composite isogrid stiffened panel. [9] Biagi R. Wadley HNG. Compos Sci Technol 2003.38(36–37):6275–305. Sandwich panels with Kagome lattice cores reinforced by carbon fibers. Wu LZ. [26] ASTM D695-96 standard test method for compressive properties of rigid plastics. Zhuang Z. Smith HB. Fu Q. Evans AG.11:515–22. [13] Cote F. Murty Y. Gibson LJ. Int J Solids Struct 2004. [15] Ashby MF. [27] Deshpande VS. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM Int. Wang et al. Collapse of truss core sandwich beams in 3-point bending. [19] Queheillalt DT. Ma L. Evans AG. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM Int.397:132–7. Mechanical behavior of sandwich panels with tetrahedral and Kagome truss cores fabricated from wires. Yan Y. Tsinghua Sci Technol 2006. Mechanical behavior of a three-dimensional truss material. Koositra G. Wang Q. Wadley HNG. Smith HB. Acta Mater 2003.44:4690–706. Compos Struct 2007. Biagi R. Fleck NA. C365 standard test method for flatwise compressive properties of sandwich cores.49:21–5.81(4):533–9.. Int J Solids Struct 2007. . Design and manufacturing of a composite lattice structure reinforced by continuous carbon fibers. [17] Kooistra GW.41:6249–71. [12] Wadley HNG. [20] Fan HL.25(4):547–50. Rathbun HJ. [25] ASTM. [21] Fan HL. 2663 [18] Lim JH. Int J Solids Struct 2007. Du SY. Kang KJ. A protocol for characterizing the structural performance of metallic sandwich panels: application to pyramidal truss cores. Scripta Mater 2008.28(2):507–14. Wadley HNG. Dshpande VS. C273 standard test method for shear properties of sandwich core materials. 2006. Titanium alloy lattice truss structures. Wadley HNG. Int J Solids Struct 2001. Lattice truss structures from expanded metal sheet. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM Int.38:7181–96. Wadley HNG. Mater Sci Eng A 2005. [22] Finnegan K.14(10):726–33. Cellular metals manufacturing. Deshpande VS. 1996. Compos Struct 2000. Mater Design 2007. Int J Solids Struct 2001..B.