See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260088783

Finite Element Modeling of Nomex® Honeycomb Core Carbon-Epoxy

Composite Sandwich Panels

Article  in  Journal of Computational and Theoretical Nanoscience · August 2012

DOI: 10.1166/asl.2012.4164

CITATIONS READS

0 1,206

4 authors, including:

Rene Roy Khanh-Hung Nguyen

Gyeongsang National University Gyeongsang National University
13 PUBLICATIONS   159 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   178 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Filament wound composite vessels View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rene Roy on 18 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Finite Element Modeling of Nomex®
Honeycomb Core Carbon/Epoxy
Composite Sandwich Panels
Rene Roy1, Khanh-Hung Nguyen1, Jin-Hwe Kweon1,*, Chang-Won Shul2

1 Department of Aerospace Engineering, Research Centre for Aircraft Parts Technology, Gyeongsang National
University, Jinju, Gyeongnam 660-701, South Korea
2 Agency for Defense Development, Daejeon, South Korea

This work is concerned with the finite element modeling of Nomex® honeycomb core and carbon/epoxy
composite laminate face sandwich panel structures. One objective is the identification of a material model for the
honeycomb’s constituent material by model comparison with experimental test results. A detailed model of the
panel structure, including the geometry of the honeycomb, was constructed. This model was loaded in the same
fashion as corresponding 3-point flexure, 4-point flexure and compression experimental load tests. Linear
isotropic and orthotropic Nomex® material models were evaluated by comparing simulation results with test
results. Both the isotropic and orthotropic linear material model can make the model agree reasonably well with
3-point flexion test results alone. When those 3-point flexion test identified material model parameters are used in
the 4-point flexion and compression test models, they yield about 60% and 90% stiffer results than experiment,
respectively. The modeling strategy used in this work along with the material models evaluated thus appears to
provide unsatisfactory precision. In spite of this, the orthotropic material model gave the best fit to experimental
results from the parameter sets evaluated.

Keywords: Composite, Finite Element, Sandwich Panel, Nomex, Honeycomb, Material Model, Aircraft, Structure.


1. INTRODUCTION orthotropic elastic material models will be evaluated. Laboratory
Composite sandwich panel structures are widely used in aircraft, load test experiments on sandwich panels will first be described. A
where their high stiffness-to-weight ratio is enviable. Nomex®
1 finite element model of the sandwich panels in the load test
honeycomb core sandwich panels are used for example in airplane conditions will then be presented. A procedure to evaluate the
2
floors, doors, wing flaps and rudders. The Nomex® honeycomb material models parameter sets will also be presented. Each
has attractive dielectric properties for its use close to radars and material model and their parameters will next be evaluated and
electronic equipment.
3
Under certain loading conditions and discussed.
sandwich designs, the failure mode of such panels is by local
4
shear buckling of the honeycomb core. Nomex® honeycomb
cores are composed of Nomex® paper strips first joined by 2. EXPERIMENTAL TEST DESCRIPTION
adhesive lines and later dipped into phenolic resin. Nomex® paper Laboratory load tests were performed on sandwich samples with
5
has been shown to have an orthotropic behavior. Tsujii et al. an Instron 5582 model loading press. The carbon/epoxy Nomex®
evaluated the tensile properties of twice phenolic resin coated honeycomb samples were fabricated in co-curing by vacuum bag
6
Nomex® paper. They obtained tensile modulus of 5276 MPa and molding and autoclave at 3 atm and 180°C. Table 1 contains a
4048 MPa depending on the load direction they considered. general description of the sample panels. Figures 1-2-3-4 show the
Detailed material properties of the Nomex® honeycomb set-ups of the load tests performed. Cylindrical and rectangular
7
constituent material are otherwise rare. This work focuses on finite support and load contact components were both used in different
element modeling of Nomex® Honeycomb Core Carbon/Epoxy combinations for the flexion tests. A load contact displacement rate
Composite Sandwich Panels, and particularly the Nomex® of 0.5 mm/min. was applied. Nomex® honeycomb core sandwich
honeycomb core geometry and material model. Isotropic and panel have been reported to exhibit a non negligible viscoelastic
 8 12
behavior. The displacements values recorded were from the
loading press head displacement readout, which will be considered
exact for this analysis. Table 2 contains the linear portion
load/deflection slope results for the different load tests.
Table 1. Sandwich panel sample description.
9
Toray T700SC-12K-50C , [0/90]4 plain
Face material
weave fabric, tply_measured=0.17mm
10
Honeycomb core Plascore PN2-1/8-3.0 , hnominal=17.8mm
Adhesive 3M AF191K.08, tfilm=0.20mm
Dimensions [mm] 50×190×18.9 (flexion), 81×81×18.9 (comp.)
been considered in other analysis. Considering the adhesive
thickness, and our focus to use the constructed model for static
load cases, the honeycomb/face interface is modeled with
honeycomb-to-face common nodes. The microscopic image also
shows that the faces are compressed where they contact the
honeycomb; the face thickness was averaged at 0.68 mm. Table 3
lists the model element type and material models. Contact surface
elements were used for the support and load contacts, with an
arbitrary friction coefficient of 0.3. The honeycomb geometry is
modeled perfectly hexagonal, and each hexagon wall is meshed
with 3×30 rectangular shape shells. The faces have matching
corresponding hexagon divisions which are meshed with 18
trapezoidal shape shells. Linear isotropic and linear orthotropic
honeycomb material models were evaluated, the focus being
restricted to the linear portion of loading before any failure.

Table 2. Experimental load test average results ({sample data}).

3-point flexion
Contact config. 0 block (Fig.1) 1 block (load) 3 blocks (Fig.2)
Fig. 1. 3-point flexion test set-up with Ø10 mm cylindrical contacts. Core direction L direction L direction L direction
Load/deflection 1400 1576 1833
slope [N/mm] {1400} {1558, 1594} {1823, 1842}
4-point flexion
Contact config. 4 blocks (Fig.3)
Core direction L direction W direction Compression
2636 2238 50432
Load/deflection
{2520, 2907, {2257, 2068, {48908, 50323,
slope [N/mm]
Fig. 2. 3-point flexion test set-up with 20 mm wide block contacts. 2954, 2162} 2284, 2343} 50873, 51624}

Fig. 3. 4-point flexion test set-up and core direction definition.

Fig. 5. 100X microscopic view of the honeycomb/face interface.

Table 3. Finite element model parameters.

Section Element type Material model
Linear orthotropic
Ext=55.8GPa, Eyt=56.0GPa (lower face)
Fig. 4. Compression test set-up and compressed specimen.
Faces 4-node shell
Exc=55.0GPa, Eyc=53.4GPa (upper face)
Ȟxy=0.042, Gxy=4.2GPa
Linear isotropic and linear orthotropic:
3. FINITE ELEMENT MODEL Core 4-node shell
parameter identification
Much work has been done on modeling honeycomb cores as
11
equivalent homogeneous materials; it has also been reported that
modeling the detailed geometry of the honeycomb is required to
7
simulate higher frequency vibration modes. To seek the simulation
of local effects in the honeycomb, a model with detailed geometry
of the honeycomb is created (meso-scale modeling). Several
approaches have been used to model the
honeycomb/adhesive/face interface, from simple
honeycomb-to-face common node lock to more detailed models
8,12-13
that include the adhesive. Microscopic observation of the
honeycomb/face interface of the co-cured panels reveals a very Fig. 6. 3-point flexion test ¼ model with cylindrical support and load
small adhesive layer between the honeycomb and the face, of the contacts: XZ shear stain visualization.
order of 0.025 mm (Figure 5). This thickness magnitude as also
 have significant variability; these will not be used for model
identification. The W direction 4-point flexion test results are more
consistent and are considered for material model identification
(Figure 10). Table 5 shows the material model parameters
evaluated exclusively with the W direction 4-point flexion test
results; these parameters would now be much too stiff.

Fig. 7. 4-point flexion test ¼ model: XZ shear strain visualization.

Fig. 9. L direction 3-point flexion tests load/displacement results.

Table 4. Nomex® honeycomb material model parameter sets

evaluation for the 3-point flexion tests.

Material Model ǻ slope [N/mm] Penalty

Fig. 8. Compression test model: Von Mises strain visualization. model parameters S0-1400 S1-1576 S3-1833 (P3P)
E [MPa] Ȟ
isotropic

6500 0.14 -46 -5 16 0.0479

Linear

4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 6800 0.22 -75 -23 -6 0.0743

Figure 9 shows the load/deflection results for the 3-point flexion 7100 0.3 -87 -46 -23 0.1114
tests. As could be expected, the flexural rigidity increases with the 7400 0.3 -46 0 29 0.0536
use of the 20 mm wide block contact component. This can be
Ex=8000, Ey=6154 -93 -29 10 0.0943
orthotropic

explained by a wider load distribution (load contact block) and a

Linear

shorter effective span (two support contact blocks, 120 mm Ex=8200, Ey=6308 -70 -1 45 0.0829
effective span). To identify any material model to these 3-point
Ex=8400, Ey=6462 -46 26 79 0.1079
flexion test results, a normalized penalty coefficient minimization
approach is used:
Pn=Ȉ(|Si-Sxi|/Sxi) (1)
where Si and Sxi are the simulated and experimental
load/deflection slopes for load case i, respectively. For the 3-point
flexion load tests, S0, S1 and S3 will be the simulated
load/deflection slope results for the tests using 0, 1 and 3 contact
blocks, respectively. This form gives equal percentage weight to
any of the test contact conditions. Simulations are executed with a
discrete variation of the material model parameters. In the case of
the isotropic material model, this involves varying the Young’s
modulus (E) and Poisson ration (Ȟ), the shear modulus being set
by G=E/2(1+Ȟ). The orthotropic material model used in a thin shell
Fig. 10. W direction 4-point flexion test load/displacement results.
element involves parameters Ex, Ey, Ȟxy and Gxy. To limit the
number of parameter sets, an orthotropic ratio Ex/Ey of 1.3 is used Table 5. Nomex® honeycomb material model parameter sets
along with a Poisson ratio of 0.3, inspired by the tests of Tsujii et evaluation for the W direction 4-point flexion test.
6 6
al. The shear modulus Gxy is calculated as follows: ǻ slope [N/mm] Penalty
Material model Model parameters
0.7 S4P-2238 (P4P)
G= (2)
1.3(0.4/Ey + 1/Ex) E [MPa] Ȟ
With no clear definitions of the material orthotropic directions in the 6500 0.14 1403 0.6270
honeycomb, we assume a honeycomb in-plane stiffer x direction (y Linear isotropic 6800 0.22 1367 0.6110
is always in the honeycomb height direction); this is coherent with 7100 0.3 1297 0.5796
14 7400 0.3 1459 0.6518
previous Nomex® honeycomb modeling work. Table 4 presents
the material model parameter sets evaluated with the 3-point Ex=8000, Ey=6154 1382 0.6174
flexion tests. In the case of isotropic model, the calculated shear Linear orthotropic Ex=8200, Ey=6308 1447 0.6466
modulus stays in a relatively narrow range of ~{2731, 2881} for
Ex=8400, Ey=6462 1532 0.6845
potential parameter sets. The L direction 4-point flexion test results
With assumed negligible compression deformation of the faces
and adhesive layers, the measured stabilized compression
modulus Ezz can be evaluated as:
Ezz= ı/İ = (ǻF/Asand) / (ǻh/h) = Slope · h/Asand
With an average load/displacement slope of 50432 N/mm,
2
specimen area of 6561 mm and honeycomb height of 17.8 mm,
this yields an average Ezz modulus of 136.8 MPa. This compares
to manufacturer Hexcel’s listed 128 MPa compression modulus for
15
a similar honeycomb type. Table 6 presents the material model
parameters evaluated exclusively with the compression test. The
parameter sets in relatively close agreement with the 3-point
flexion tests results are all much too stiff compared to the
compression test results. If all the test comparisons are taken into
account with equal weight, the compression and 4-point flexion
tests comparison contributions dominates the penalty coefficient by
an order of magnitude. Nonetheless, the orthotropic material
models perform better due to their better match in the compression
test (Table 7).
5. CONCLUSION
A finite element model of a Nomex® honeycomb core composite
face sandwich structure has been constructed. This model was
(3) subjected to matching experimental load tests: 3-point flexion,
4-point flexion and compression. Linear isotropic and orthotropic
Nomex® material models have been evaluated based on
accordance with experimental results. The isotropic material model
had its best match to 3-point flexion test results with evaluated
parameter set E=6500 MPa and Ȟ=0.14. The model gives
reasonably close correlation to experimental results in that case.
The compression and 4-point flexion test models gave much stiffer
results than experiment when the identified 3-point flexion test
material model parameters where used. A review of the modeling
approach is thus relevant; modeling the honeycomb as perfect
straight hexagons could induce some weakness in flexion loading,
as in reality some radius are present in the corners. Additionally,
the identified material modulus for the 3-point flexion test are
6
significantly higher than the test results from Tsujii et al.
Regardless of this, the orthotropic material model gives the best
overall performance and lowest penalty coefficient, with best
evaluated parameter set Ex=8000, Ey=6154, Ȟxy=0.3, Gxy=2834.
The penalty coefficient evaluation approach can further be applied
to a more complete range of the material model parameters.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the Priority

Research Centers Program through the National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education,
Science and Technology (2010-0029689). The authors also
Fig. 11. Compression test load/displacement results. gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Defence
Acquisition Program Administration and Agency for Defence
Table 6. Nomex® honeycomb material model parameter sets
Development under the Contract UD100048JD.
evaluation for the compression test.
ǻ slope [N/mm] Penalty
Material model Model parameters References and Notes
SC-50432 (PC)
E [MPa] Ȟ 1. E.I. du Pont de Nemours, Wilmington, Delaware, USA (2011).
6500 0.14 45175 0.8958 2. A. S. Herrmann, P. Zahlen and I. Zuardy, Proceedings of ICSS-7,
Linear isotropic 6800 0.22 50757 1.0064 (2005) August 29-31; Aalborg, Denmark.
7100 0.3 57304 1.1363 3. J. Tripp, Aircraft Maintenance Technology, May/June (2001).
7400 0.3 61260 1.2147 4. A. Petras and M. P. F. Sutcliffe, Compos. Struct. 44 (1999).
Ex=8000, Ey=6154 43262 0.8578 5. C.C. Foo, G. B. Chai and L. K. Seah, Compos. Struct. 80 (2007).
Linear orthotropic Ex=8200, Ey=6308 45344 0.8991 6. Y. Tsujii, K. Tanaka and Y. Nishida, T. Japan Soc. Mech. Eng. 61
Ex=8400, Ey=6462 47414 0.9401 (1995).
7. R. A. Spoonire, Thesis, Purdue University, Indiana (2010).
Table 7. Nomex® honeycomb material model parameter sets 8. C. Florens, E. Balmes, F. Clero and M. Corus, Proceedings of
evaluation with the five different load tests. ISMA, (2006) September 18-20; Leuven, Belgium.
Material model Model parameters Penalty (P5) 9. J. Tomblin, J. Sherraden, W. Seneviratne and K. S. Raju,
E [MPa] Ȟ AGATE WP3.3-033051-134, (2002) October; Wichita, KS, USA.
6500 0.14 1.5706 10. Plascore Inc., Zeeland, Michigan, USA (2011).
Linear isotropic 6800 0.22 1.6917 11. C. W. Schwingshackl, G. S. Aglietti, and P. R. Cunningham, J.
7100 0.3 1.8273 Aerosp. Eng. 19 (2006).
7400 0.3 1.9201 12. W. S. Burton and A.K. Noor, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 26 (1997).
Ex=8000, Ey=6154 1.5696 13. M. O. Kaman, M. Y. Solmaz and K. Turan, J. Compos. Mater.
Linear orthotropic Ex=8200, Ey=6308 1.6286 44 (2010).
Ex=8400, Ey=6462 1.7325 14. Y. Aminanda, B. Castanie, J.-J. Barrau and P. Thevenet, Appl.
Compos. Mater. 12 (2005).
15. HexWeb™, Hexcel Corp., Stamford, CT, USA (1999).

View publication stats