6 Scio Tosti Review, 2015 Vol 65No.Lpp DK: «245996950093, Design and Analysis of the Flat Honeycomb Sandwich Structures Zoran Petrovic)” Ivan Lazarevié”” Structural sandwich is #unigue form ofthe composite structure, and it finds widesprend use i the aerospace industry, where weight saving sa primary concera. The major difference between analysis procedures for sandwich construction and ‘hose for homogencous structural elements theinclsion ofcore shear effect on defeton, buclingand stress. Thedesgn [procedure given in this ariel intended to guide the designer nszing the sandwich parts for prinary leading properly. These procedures are usualy iterative, and optimus design may require the design of several face-core combinations. Comparing the results obtained through the analytical procedure and Finite Element Analysis (FEA) one can conclode their vod agreement, Differences fr most ofthe results are from 10% to 18%, whihs quite satisfactory taking nto acount that {he analytical models ae formed onthe hai of number of assumptions and approximations, ‘Keyword sandwich structure, honeycomb core, applica finite lement analy ation aircraft aircraft strcture, fae structural analysis, Notation and symbols fiz ~Maximum face stresses fo —Core shear stress at the midlength of side-b Mx —Bending moment at given section fe —Core shear sites atthe midlength of side-a PFs is fis) ~Marin of safety foreach faceshes “x ~Shear at the section “MSye Margins of safety for core shear N —Shear stiffness Sone - vy 2 “engin ofthe longer sie ofa pressure loaded pe! 5 TEShgh ofthe srr sic ofa osu nde panel Introduction ¢bitines ofthe cre sandwich pane! consists of three discrete stmcturl 4 —Disiance between th centoids ofthe faces A\ citments wo relavely th aigs bonded toa che fi Tota thikows ofthe sendwich clement A hctements trea 4h, ~Thicknesses of faces 1 and 2 Depending on the condition thet a plane or a missile is L— =Longitudinal diection, parallel othe core ribbon exnosed. to, the face material may be aluminum alloys, diseston ; Tenforeed plas, tantum alloys, heat resistant steel, et T Short iransverse direction, tough the core thickness Materials and geometric forms of the ote ean be very Iv “Haire diecton pend iotesae ne tt a ta eens mbbon direction core", which consists of a thin film formed in the hexagonal Fz —Allowable core shear stress in the LT plane Sell perpendisular tothe faces [1] s Fo ~Allowabl core shear sess ithe WT plane Gir “Core shea mals inthe LT pave Gy Core shear modulus in the WT plane front sheet Giz Core shear modulus in the XZ plane adhesive fm Gy Core shear modulus in the YZ plane Fy, Allowable core shear stress in the LT plane For ~Allowable core shear stress in the WT plane Kou —Thickness correction factor honeycomb core Kus, —Thickness correction factor back sheet f Theketiersoneneatereuataxsorihe yy Sac antic aug fom of he compos ao sa Fa ee ces fa ee tore“ etn ins, where weight sing = rma one, Mos eo T face sess woetticient forthe Peet ‘commercial airliners and helicopters (Figure 2), and almostall eo ress coefficient for the ‘a direction military air and space aircraft widely used the sandwich ke LOTS owe S my a Ka, _ —Core shear coefficient for side-a Z structural point of view, the main role of the core K; —Panel deflection coefficient From the structural point of view, th te of th is separating and keeping external faces ata given distance in, 204" Air Force Brigade RS, Pakovaika Milenka Pavlova 11273 Rates, SERBIA, Correspondence to: Zoran Perovi; email: pooran peleagmal comPETROVICZ. LAZAREVIC: DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OFTHE FLAT HONEYCOMB SANDWICH STRUCTURES, st ‘order to provide stability against buckling. Essentially, the ‘existence and the thickness ofthe core create and maintain the required moment of inertia of the eross section. ‘The major difference between the analysis procedures for sandwich construction and those for homogeneous structural clements is the inclusion of core shear effects on deflection, buckling and stress [4]. The reasons for the inclusion of this effect ate discussed below. Figure2. The aplication of acral sandwich in constcton of eilea Radome 2, Landing Gear Doors and Leg airings 3, Galley, Wardibes, Toes 4 Parton. Wingo Body Faring Wing Assembly lying Control erases {Passe long), Engine Noles apd Trt Reve 10. Pylon Fairings 11, Wingls 12. Keel Beam 13. Cargo Flooring 14. Fapack Figs 15. Overhead Store Bin 6. Caling and Side Wall Pant 17, Ais 8 Pesie Bulkhead 20, Ruki 1, Herzl Stabler 2. levator 23 Tall Cone [3] ‘The analysis procedures outlined in this paper are intended for use in the structural analysis of both preliminary and final designs of sandwich parts. In fac, the analytical procedure of analysis with an example, which follows, is primarily intended to guide the designer in sizing the sandwich parts for primary loading properly. These procedures are usually iterative, and optimum design may require the design of several face-core combinations [5]. Analysis of the flat honeycomb sandwich panels with isotropic faces ‘This chapter presents data and methods for the design and analysis of simply supported flat sandwich panels under uniform pressure loads. ‘The stiffness of a structure is defined as its ability to resist deformation when subjected to an applied load. The deformations of the sandwich structures, unlike those of ‘monolithic beams, are significantly affected by the contributions of shear deformation ‘The deflection of a monolithic beam or plate, according to the elementary beam theory, is governed by the solution of the follawing differential equations (4) dy My 1% de DD N\de -Mx- the bending moment at a given seetion D. = flexural stifiness Vx - shear at the section N= shear stiffness For most monolithic beams having constant cross sections and large (compared to the beam depth) spans, the second term, which accounts for the shear deformation, may be neglected, This simplifying assumption may normally be rade because the shear stiffness, N, is relatively larg. However, since sandwich materials have relatively low core shear module, the shear stiffness of most sandwich elements is not so large and this assumption does not hold, Therefore, the deflection calculations for sandwich elements must include the shear contribution [4], deb: FyeFons Farts GaGn GoGe Ribbon parallel Figure 3. Core orientation o determine Pa, Pa, Gy and Gv 4) ‘Shear module and strength allowable are based on the core ribbon direction, which may be oriented either parallel to side-a oF side-b. Typical values should be used for the core shear module (Giz, Gyz), while statistically derived allowable should be used for the core shear strengths (Fy, Foy). Both the shear modulus and shear strength must be corrected for core thickness and temperature. Core material properties, along with the appropriate correction curves can be found in the relevant literature (for example BDM-4231 through BDM-4240 (6)). Figures 3 and 4 more clearly define the terms associated with the eore ribbon, igure 4: Definition ofthe core ibbon tre Analysis Procedure The analysis procedure for the flat honeycomb sandwich panels with similar isotropic faces subjected to uniform pressure {s outlined below and i followed by an example analysis [5] ‘Figure 5. Geometry and loading conventions [5]82 PPETROVIEZ,LAZAREVIC.: DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF THE FLAT HONEYCOM SANDWICH STRUCTURES Using the data provided in Table 1, determine whether the given panel will withstand the design load, The configuration is shown in Fig 5, “Table 1. Example dat for + wiform press loaded Mat panel Environmental 70 Temperature ere Fass Materia TcBALAV (Annealed) ‘Core Material_| Aluminum Alioy Honeycomb 65-38-50, (5052) ‘Gore Orientation | Longitudinal cretion pale tox-axis GaG. (as) eee [tn TdT) [a [2 Lxample 65 | 125 [ois fours] 20 | 16 Values ‘lf oa Coa a ey NP mie |e a | amie [oi.7s [ose [osei [ sos | 406 Step 1: Determine the panel aspect ratio b/a, B16 og Step 2: Identify Grz as G; or Gyr using Fig.3 and obtain core properties, or example by using data from BDM-4231 through BDM-4240. Use typical values for the core shear modulus corrected for the applicable thickness and temperature (6) (Kar) Fetoon 266,33 psi(1,83N / mm?) Fa= Ew 0,87-306 Foy = Fi = (Kan) Fae = 0,83 -500 = 415 psi(2,861N/mm?) Gi = Gy = 49700 psi (342,67 Nima’ Gu = Gi, = 103900 psi (716,36 Nim?) step 3 Determine the faeshoet material properties ad Fy corrected for emperature (rom BDM-4143 (7). Determine the core hikes cand cseulate cm h- (nth) Yan .) Twa, ire) = 16000000 psi (110.316 Nimm’), w= 031, Fy, = 134000 psi (923.89 Nim, = 133000 psi (917 Nim) © = 1,25 im 1,75 may V=0,0615 Step 4: Determine R. Using R and V, determine Ky, and Kya from Figures 6 and 7. ir G.= Gy and G,> Gy R= 04 if Ge Gy and G, > Gy: R= 25 i Ge= Gi R=10 K,=max (Ky, Kia) R=045Ky 0518, 20,0642; near Step 5: Calculate the distance between facing centroids d and determine the maximum face stresses. pb? fis=kv FO 1) = t= fi = fi= 56300 psi (388,17 Nim?) (Note that since p is positive, is compressive and fs is tensile, Fy is used (o calculate the MS for face-1 and Fis used for face-2) Step 6: Determine the margin of safety for each faceshect MS, = 1,362 MS; = 1,380 Step 7: Determine the coefficients Ko, and K,, from Fig.8 and calculate the maximum core shear stresses joy and fi 0.3819; Ky, =0,3819 From figure 8=> Ky, = fa Kur () fork) fin = 289,3 psi (1,994. Nimm frg= 314,0 psi (2.164 Nima?) Step 8: Determine the margins of safety forthe core shear; the orientation of the core will determine how F,, and Fay correspond tothe core shear allowable Fy, and Fyy, see Fig.3 MSuy~ Fb E, MS,,~H8-1 Tru MS MS =~ 0,152 Step 9: Determine the deflection coefficient K; from Fig,9 and check the maximum deflection of the panel 5 (at the center of the panel), Ky pt d-18)] (nt Ea lan) (§=-0,1384 in 3.5 mm)PETROVICZ, LAZAREVIC.: DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF THE FLAT HONEYCOMR SANDWICH STRUCTURES, 33 Step 10: Check the compressive face for local instability failure by consulting the appropriate BDM-6716 (intracell buckling of the honeycomb sandwich structures), BDM-6718 (Face wrinkling of the flat honeycomb sandwich panels with isotropic faces) and BDM-6720 (Shear erimping of the honeycomb sandwich structures). ‘The obtained maximum stresses in the faces and the ‘maximum core shear stresses on the side b are below the allowable limit stresses. However, the maximum shear stress ‘on the side ais above the limit stress, due to which designed honeycomb sandwich beams do not provide the required level ‘of security. In order to ensure the appropriate level of security the plates will increase the thickness of faces. Figure 6, Face tess oefiien! Ky forthe "W"direton [5] Figure 9, Pane deflection cetficen [6] RTE > Over rigea tie “4 iene Figure 7. Face sess coefficient Ky forthe "2" erection (R04) (5) 1nd Gr > Gus R04 Gyan Gi > Gi RDS Gin ROL leeuee ‘igure 10, Static mechanical properties ofthe aluminum honeycomb core— 5082 ahuminum (6). As already mentioned, these procedures are usually iterative and optimum design may require the design of several face-core combinations Itis evident that increasing the thickness of faces resulting in increased margins of safety for faces and core. However, ‘nereasing the thickness of faces does not significantly affect the increase in the margins of safety for core shear. Therefore, ‘we will increase the thickness of the core. ‘By increasing the thickness of the faces and thickness of the core we got an acceptable combination of face-core (thickness of the faces ¢,:=0,035in and thickness of the core ¢=1, bin) which can support the design load. The maximum deflection of the panel dis -0,0502 in (-1,28 mm).54 PETROVICZ, LAZAREVIC.: DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF THE FLAT HONEYCOMR SANDWICH STRUCTURES, Figure 11 fet ofthethickneson shear and compression properties 5052 sino [6] ‘Table 2. Comparative analysis ofthe honeycomb sandwich panels eal 12 1 inl | 615 | 0025 [ ons [ vo1s | 0925 | ams ha ‘ox [os [ox [ox [os 7 ox FaPow pa) [26678 [6.2 [2662 [257,08 [757.04 57.09 FooFulpal| | als | als | als | 400 | 400 | 400 Ger Getpet [0700 [e700 | ron | Ton [9706 | aoT0G Gp) 109007 103900 103999] 103909] 039001103900 ¥ Toes .i0n5 [1435 [ors 0.1250 10.1722 R04 [oa | 08 | oa [oa | 08 Enea) [Hoste |0,0629| hos [H063R [Hoe [aoe Ki (hur) [0051800551 | 0,054 | 0.0502] 00557 [90583 “Rrsoax (Kin Rin) [00642 [0.0679 [0.0617 [0.0638 [0.0623 70,0608 Tia) | 1280 1.300, | 1320 1.350 | 1.570, aia) 1265127 [2s sas 1535 Festi) [34500 Ts25se [Daman [aati [27191 TTaNST ‘MS 11.362 | 3050 [ane | 807 [3991 | 6068 ‘MS, [ 1.380 | 3081 [4670 [1,868 [3926 | 6.116 Kahan) [0351903499] 05479 [0.3575 [0.48 0464 a (Ghat) [03819] 05799 [0,778 [0.3615 [03TaR [05764 ata! [28955 | 24.4 [2an6 [2012 [2979 [2547 folrsi) [1180.7 09 | 3058 | 208 | 25853 1255.0 MS, | 034 | 0454 | 074 | 0.659 | 0682 | 0.708 MSx__| 0182 | 0,141 | -0129| 018 | 0005 | 0.008 B 71.0069 70,0075 [0082 [00073 [0,007 T,0086 Bin) Fossa-0.0585-00083}-0.009)- 064s] 0502 Analysis of the flat honeycomb sandwich plates by the Finite Element Method ‘The modem design processes of the new, as well as ‘exploitation conditions, is unthinkable outside the environment of ‘computer mechanics. Specific enginecring problems are being solved by using numerical methods implemented on computers. ‘One of the main advantages of the computer designing is short time and inexpensive simulation of behavior of the model of a real object observed. "At an early stage of design, these programs provide an ‘opportunity to obtain reliable information about the validity ofthe assumed size and accuracy of the provided constructive solutions. ‘The advantage of using these packages in the design is primarily reflected in the ease of making mode! and its correction. Most software packages that have the ability of structural analysis are based on the Finite Klement Method - FEM (Finite Element Analysis - FEA). The basic idea of this method is division ofthe structure into the finite number of small elements that constitute the basis forall considerations [8] Analysis of the flat honeycomb sandwich panels under uniform load using the ALGOR software package To this ease, the subject ofthe analysis isa at honeycomb sandwich plate under the uniform load, whose dimensions and rargins of safety for provided constructive solutions are previously analyzed analytically ‘twas found thatthe honeycomb sandwich panel with the faces of titanium, Ti-GAI-4V, the thickness of 0.035 in (0.889 mm) and aluminum honeycomb infil 6.5-3/8-50 (5052), the thickness of 1.5 in (38.1 myn) will withstand the design foad (of 65 psi (0.448159 Nimm. Fig.13 shows the model ofthe flat honeycomb sandwich panel with a realistic uniform load, Considering that sandwich plate and load are axially symmetric, we can model and analyze one ‘quarter of the plate Figure 12. Honeycomb core modPETROVICZ, LAZAREVIC.: DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF THE FLAT HONEYCOMR SANDWICH STRUCTURES, 8 ¥ face per | ote igure 16. The resulting deflections of te honeycombsanvich panel under ‘uniform oad By using the ALGOR software package, following results were obtained, f= 150,57 Nimm’ and 3=-1,454 mm (Fig. 17). ‘Comparing the results obtained through analytical and computer procedures, one can conclude their good agreement. Differences for most of the results are from 10% to 15%, which is quite satisfactory, aking into account that the analytical models are formed on the basis of a number of assumptions and approximations. Figure 17. Local vals of stress and deflection in he seater pant onthe upper fice Figure 1, Local values of sess and deflestion in the seater pans onthe Tower fae Conclusion Structural sandwich is a unique form of the composite structure, and it finds a widespread use in the aerospace industry, where weight saving is a primary concer. Most ‘commercial airliners and helicopters, and nearly all military air and space vehicles, make the extensive usage of the sandwich construction. ‘The major difference between the analysis procedures for sandwich construction and those for homogeneous structural clements is the inclusion of core shear effects on deflection, buckling and stress ‘The design procedure given in this article is intended to ‘guide the designer in sizing the sandwich parts for primary loading properly. These procedures are usually iterative, and ‘optimum design may require the design of several face-core combinations ‘Comparing the results obtained through analytical and ‘computer procedures, one can conclude their good agreement. Differences for most of the results are from 10% to 15%, which is quite satisfactory, taking into account that the analytical models are formed on the basis of a number of assumptions and approximations.PPETROVIEZ,LAZAREVIC: DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF THE ia a a a 3) References Sandwich toctre wih Isotopic Faces, Rev, A, May 2000 | BOLING: Hocing Design Manual, BDM-4235, $052. Aluminum BRUHN. Anabsis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures, Ti honeysomb coe, Rev, Org 1 de 1989 fale Ofet Commpany, USA, 1973 "T] HOEING: Bocing Design Manual BDM.4143, T-SAI-V, Rev, B01 LUBIN(G: Handizat of compasites, Springer Science & Business dee 1964 Media, 2013 | JOVANOVIC.M, FILIPOVICZ:Primena sofvershogpakta Catia EXCEL: Chat Aircraft Ihupovr excl con Marketa Acrospace/Civi. BOEING: Boeing Design Manual, BDM-6700, troduction to Sandvich Stuctre, Rev. Org. pal 1989, BOEING: Boeing Design Manual. BDS redvidani moguihoitecena reanihvasduhoplovih Ronski, NOC Boog Received: 08012015 Accepted: 24022015, 6710, Flat Honeycomb Projektovanje i analiza raynih saéastih sendvi¢ struktura Strukturalaisendvie kao jedinstvens forma Kompocitaestruktare je raspostranjen a vazdaboplovao-hoamiko} industri, ide je smanjenje tine primarn interes, Osnovnarazikaizmedu postupaka anaize 22 sendsiéhonstrukj fonih 7 homogene strukturaine elementejeukljutenj ticaj micanjajergra na uibane, ivijanjeinapreranje Postopakanalie, ‘oj sled, prventveno je mamenjen 2 vodenje projektantaw pravilnom dimenzionianjsendviedelova a primarno eptereenje. Ovakylpostpel su obifao ierativall optimal projekat moe zabtevalprjektovanjeackolike kombinacla, ‘oplat-jexgro, Poredenjem rezulata dbijnih analiekim | raéunarskim putem, moe se Konsatovatiajthovo dobro poklapanje,Ravike za vednu rezaltata se kredu od 10% do 15% ito je ssvim radovoljavajuce, hada te maw vd da su ‘aveden analidhi model formirani ma baz nizapretpstaki i aproksmacj. _Ajuéne rei sendvt clement sata struts, primena uyazduboplovstvu,letelicasruktura lees oplats sruktu analiza, metoda Konan lemenata, TipoekTuponanue 4 anasu3 nsl0ckHX CoTORDIX COHABHY - CTpyKTYP ‘Conmas-crpyerypa eax yucatan open koxmosiollcxpyIYPA pacupoerpamen n anuauonEo-KocMmTecKoi ponsuuaeauocru, re cuuaceueneca aactea ocHoRubs aHTepecoM. OcuoRwON peMAue MEXAY MeTORNH AHA -woerpyhabit 2 eanpeuNEXeFpYRTYpULIDeMEHTOR HRAINETER MIOENME ROME TRUM OTOH ‘2p a npora6, wira6 a wanpencenne,Tponece anti, woTopull eneayer, b mepaye ovepete Mpeumanaaven a spansein aaiiiepa x nparnsnsion onpexeexin pancpor tamaxouotenTon 8 Hepeianod Harpy H-Iet Wey, KAK NPAENIG, ATEPATABNGIE W ONTANULTANGH NPOCKT MOACT NOTPCGORATS poeKTUPORANKE H cONETAIIE ecxoantrs kowGunasoGumueka-azpo, Cpeninas ponyaeraTat, Moy HUHK ANRHTHMCKONI WE BSNNETESUING, ‘ocoGasey, Moastoetexa7s meas, 10 mt xopout corsacyorea. Panui » oruomet Gstunuwerea pexya.TaTOR oryr woaeéarnen oF 10% 10 15%, 410 amneten muoite yaonIeTROpHTEMLM, HME H Ral, 10 Upumendunie uacnernecine watean gopmnupyreren na Sevlone pas peace pws [Kwowwowe croc: eonnan sneer events COPED, mesa, eTpYeTyPHH ana, WeTox NOWeTHEEE31eMENT. oir, koncrpy a cae Conception et analyse des structures sandwich plates alvéolées Le sandwich strctural comme une forme unique de strcture composite est ripand dans Vindutre aérospainte ot a iniution du poids présente Vitért primordial La difeence principale entrele procédé analyse pour kscomsruction sandwich et celles pour les Glémentsstructuraux homogines et Vlacuslon de Vnfluence de défleton du noyau quant au Aehissement , tarsion et tension. Le procédé dPanalyse qul sult est desing avant tout pour gulder le dessinateur dans ‘conception adéquate da dceasiouneaieat des parties sandvich pour la charge primuire. Ces procédés wat glaéralemeat iterate a conceptionoptimale peut exiger pliers combinaivon revéement-noyat En faiant a cormparsvon etre les sultatsobtenus parla ve anastique et mimérigue on peut constater bon accord entree. Ls iffrences pos a plupart desrCaultae vot de 109% 418% ce quiet satsalsant l'on lent compte dufatqu es models anaytiquesciészon formes a base d'une série d'hypothiss ou approximations. ou clés: iments sandwich, structure lvl, emplol dans Pavaton, afronef,structuredéronet,revitement analyse de Hructure méthode des cement fini