Rep Ort: Improvement of Design Expressions

REP ORT
No .: D4.3
Improvement of Design Expressions
Publisher: Andreas Metzger, Saskia Käpplein, Thomas Misiek,

Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT), Versuchsanstalt
für Stahl, Holz und Steine
Paavo Hassinen, Aalto University School of Science and
Technology (previously TKK)
Task: 4.2 and 4.3

Object: Durability of sandwich panels
This report includes 66 pages.
Date of issue: 29.12.2011
Versuchsanstalt für Stahl, Holz und Steine, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT) Tel.: +49 (0)721 608 42215
Abt. Stahl- und Leichtmetallbau, D-76128 Karlsruhe, Deutschland Fax: +49 (0)721 608 44078
This report may only be reproduced in an unabridged version. A publication in extracts needs our written approval.
page 2
of report
No.: D4.3
Project co-funded under the European Commission Seventh Research and Technology De-
velopment Framework Programme (2007-2013)
Theme 4 NMP-Nanotechnologies, Materials and new Production Technologies
Prepared by
Andreas Metzger, Saskia Käpplein, Thomas Misiek, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT),
Versuchsanstalt für Stahl, Holz und Steine
Paavo Hassinen, Aalto University School of Science and Technology (previously TKK)
Drafting History
Draft Version 1.1 2 December 2011
Draft Version 1.2 9 December 2011
Draft Version 1.3
Draft Version 1.4
Final 29 December 2011
Dissemination Level
PU Public X
PP Restricted to the other programme participants (including the Commis-
sion Services)
RE Restricted to a group specified by the Consortium (including the Com-
mission Services)
CO Confidential, only for members of the Consortium (including the Com-
mission Services)
Verification and approval

Coordinator Verified by IsMainz / Professor Bernd Naujoks, 29.12.2011
Industrial Project Leader
Management Committee
Industrial Committee
Deliverable
D4.3: Improvement of Design Expressions Due date:
June 2010
Completed:
Dez 2011
Versuchsanstalt für Stahl, Holz und Steine, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT)
page 3
of report
No.: D4.3
Table of contents
1 Preliminary remarks 4
2 Durabilty check according to the durability parameters of EN 14509 6
2.1 Introduction and overview 6
2.2 Polyurethane-Samples (PU-1 and PU-2) 9
2.3 Expanded-Polystyrene-Samples (EPS-1 and EPS-2) 9
2.4 Rockwool-samples (RW-1, RW-2, RW-3 and RW-4) 10
3 Relations between tensile strength and other material parameters 15
3.1 Introduction of the lowest-value-analysis 15
3.2 Analogy between tensile strength and wrinkling stress 20
3.3 Analogy between tensile strength and shear strength 27
4 Comparison of the test results to existing prediction model of Pfeiffer [7] 33
4.1 Introduction to the prediction model of Pfeiffer for the wrinkling stress 33
4.2 Statistical evaluation of the tensile strength and the wrinkling stress 44
5 Summary and conclusions 59
6 Practical considerations 61
7 References 66
page 4
of report
No.: D4.3
1 Preliminary remarks
The Ensuring Advancement in Sandwich Construction through Innovation and Exploitation

(EASIE) Collaborative research project is divided into seven work packages. Work Package 4
(WP 4) of the EASIE project deals with retrofitting, durability and maintenance of sandwich
panels.
Within the scope of WP4, durability tests with artificial aged samples of different core materials
were performed by Aalto University School of Science and Technology (previously TKK), by
Technische Universität Darmstadt (TUD) and by Institut für Sandwichtechnik - FH Mainz (ISM)
(c.f. test reports [1], [2] and [3]). For each test performed within the scope of the investigations,
detailed test results can be taken from [1], [2] and [3] as well as the corresponding test curve
which normally depicts the test process as load-displacement-diagram or stress-strain dia-
gram.
The test results are summarized in Report D4.2/2 [4] including a conclusion and an assess-
ment concerning the time-dependent development of the test results and the failure modes.
Once again, an overview of the performed tests including basic information about several
panel types, the aging history according EN 14509 [5] and an anonymous assignment to the
manufacturers are given in Tab. 1.1. For further information concerning the performed tests as
well as the test arrangements, consideration of [1], [2], [3] and [4] is recommended.
In the present report, first an EN 14509-based durability-check is performed, followed by a
material-graded investigation of the development of the material parameters based on a low-
est-value-analysis. Afterwards, a comparison of the current test results to an already existing
analytical aging model including a statistical evaluation is performed.
Finally, a “Model to evaluate remaining service Life” is presented by TKK in Report D4.4.
The EASIE project has received financial support from the European Community’s Seventh
Framework Programme FP7/ NMP2-SE-2008 under grant agreement No 213302.
page 5
of report
No.: D4.3
measured mean
Sample overview Test overview
thickness [mm]
Cross Panel Tensile Test
Material Test Face Layer

Wrinkling full scale test
outer face (steel core)
inner face (steel core)
Small wrinkling test
Compression Test
Ageging History
Density of Core
complete panel
3)
Manufacturer
Shear test
Notation
Material
1)
119,4 0,54 0,55 TUD ISM TUD TUD TUD TUD ./.
PUR PU-1 Manufacturer 1 DUR1
2)
119,2 0,545 0,562 ./. TKK ./. TKK ./. TKK TKK
1)
100,5 0,42 0,41 TUD ISM TUD TUD TUD TUD ./.
PIR PU-2 Manufacturer 2 DUR1
2)
99,4 0,427 0,425 ./. TKK - TKK ./. TKK TKK
EPS TUD 1)
EPS-1 120,3 0,53 0,53 ISM TUD TUD TUD TUD ./.
(steel faces) +ISM
Manufacturer 3 DUR1
EPS 1)
EPS-2 121,3 2,0 2,0 ./. ISM TUD TUD TUD TUD ./.
(GRP faces)
2)
117,9 0,473 0,478 ./. TKK TKK TKK TKK TKK TKK
RW-1 Manufacturer 4
1)
118,3 0,47 0,46 ISM ISM ./. ISM ./. ./. ISM
2)
119,7 0,472 0,477 - TKK TKK TKK TKK TKK TKK
4)
RW-2 Manufacturer 5
4) 4) 1)
119,48 ./. ./. ./. ISM ./. ./. ./. ./. ./.
mineral wool DUR2
2)
RW-3 Manufacturer 6
1)
120,10 0,60 0,51 ISM ISM ./. ISM ./. ./. ./.
2)
RW-4 Manufacturer 5
1)
119,29 0,45 0,45 ISM ISM ./. ISM ./. ./. ./.
Tests performed by:

TUD = Technische Universität Darmstadt
ISM = Institut für Sandwichtechnik – FH Mainz
TKK = Aalto University School of Science and Technology
1)
bone-shaped sample
2)
rectangular sample
3)
For data privacy, the manufacturers are made anonymous.
4)
RW-2 test series was not completely performed because it was replaced by RW-4 during the project.
Tab. 1.1: Overview of specimens and performed tests
page 6
of report
No.: D4.3
2 Durability check according to the durability parameters of EN 14509
2.1 Introduction and overview
In appendix B, EN 14509 deals with methods for testing the durability of sandwich panels. The
durability is defined via the change of the tensile strength regarding artificially aged small-scale
samples. In dependence of the core material, the specimens are subjected to climatic testing
cycles indicated with DUR1 or DUR2, and a corresponding test program has to be performed
(cf. Fig. 2.1).
Fig. 2.1: Durability tests of EN14509 for the corresponding test cycle
The present specimens were aged in the climate chambers of TUD and TKK. Depending on
the core material of the sample, the aging history was chosen according to DUR1 (75 °C,
RH < 15 %) for the PUR-samples and EPS-samples or DUR2 (65°C, RH> 95 %) for the RW-
samples. The aging temperature for the DUR1-tested samples was chosen at 75 °C because
the external faces of all panel types could be classified to medium light colour paintings.
If the requirements for the change of the tensile strength (cf. Fig.2.2) given in EN 14509 are
kept, the durability criteria according to EN 14509 are fulfilled. If the requirements for the
change of the tensile strength given in [5] are not kept, the proof of durability according to [5] is
not fulfilled.
The additionally required investigation according to [5] of the change of thickness regarding
artificially DUR1-aged samples as well as the wedge test for the adhesive-bonded EPS-
samples and the mineral wool samples was not performed within the scope of this research
work. Within the EASIE research project, the tests were done to study the developments of the
strength and stiffness concerning the different failure modes, not to classify the specimens
according to [5]
page 7
of report
No.: D4.3
Fig. 2.2: Acceptance criteria of EN 14509 for the durability tests
In the following, the fulfilling of the durability requirements according to [5] are checked. For
this purpose, the test results sorted by the different core materials polyurethane (PUR), ex-
panded polystyrene (EPS) and rockwool (RW) are considered.
Corresponding to [6], tests at more aging moments were performed for determining the ma-
terial parameters than stipulated in [5]. These additional test result – in this case the tensile
strengths – are consequently not used for checking the durability according to [5]. Further-
more, partly smaller aging moments were used (for PU- and EPS-samples) than required in
[5]; corresponding explanations can be directly found in section 2.2 and 2.3.
In Tab. 2.1, the different specimens are listed and their durability (exclusively considering the
tensile strength) is assessed corresponding to [5].
In this context, it should be noted that the specimens EPS-2 with GFK-face sheet have also
been assessed according to [5], even if [5] is only valid for metal faced sandwich panels. As
per indications of the manufacturer, EPS sandwich panels with steel face sheets and GFK
face sheets are produced using the same bonding method and adhesives.
An explanation for each material group is given in the subsections below. At the end of this
section the relative development of the tensile strength and the tensile modulus is illustrated in
diagrams separated for different core materials.
page 8
of report
No.: D4.3
Sample overview Durability check according [5]
Cross panel tensile tests
FAIL-PASS-check
Ageging History
defining criteria
performed by:
Manufacturer
Notation
Material
fCt6=76%∙fCt0 ≥ 50%∙fCt0
TUD PASSED
fCt6=0,10 MPa ≥ 0,02 MPa
PUR PU-1 Manufacturer 1 DUR1
fCt12=82%∙fCt0 ≥ 50%∙fCt0
TKK PASSED
fCt12=0,10 MPa ≥ 0,02 MPa
fCt6=49%∙fCt0<50%∙fCt0
TUD FAILED
fCt6=0,04 MPa ≥ 0,02 MPa
PIR PU-2 Manufacturer 2 DUR1
(just) fCt12=50%∙fCt0 ≥ 50%∙fCt0
TKK
PASSED fCt12=0,05 MPa ≥ 0,02 MPa
EPS fCt12=69%∙fCt0 ≥ 50%∙fCt0
EPS-1 TUD PASSED
(steel faces) fCt12=0,13 MPa ≥ 0,02 MPa
Manufacturer 3 DUR1
EPS fCt6=64%∙fCt0 ≥ 50%∙fCt0
EPS-2 TUD PASSED
(GRP faces) fCt6=0,12 MPa ≥ 0,02 MPa
TKK FAILED fCt7,(14),28,56 < 0,018 MPa

RW-1 Manufacturer 4
fCt0,7 < 0,018 MPa
ISM FAILED
(testing stopped after 7-days ageing)
fCt7-fCt28=0,04 > 0,03=3∙(fCt0-fCt7)

fCt28=35%∙fCt0 < 40%∙fCt0
TKK FAILED fCt28-fCt56=0,00 < 0,04=fCt7-fCt28
RW-2 Manufacturer 5 fCt56=23%∙fCt0 < 40%∙fCt0
(additionally: fCt56 < 0,018 MPa)
mineral wool DUR2 ISM ./. no tests performed
fCt7-fCt28=0,03 ≤ 0,15=3∙(fCt0-fCt7)
TKK PASSED
fCt28=58%∙fCt0 ≥ 40%∙fCt0
RW-3 Manufacturer 6
fCt7-fCt28=-0,03 ≤ 0,27=3∙(fCt0-fCt7)
ISM PASSED
fCt28=72%∙fCt0 ≥ 40%∙fCt0
fCt7-fCt28=0,02 ≤ 0,06=3∙(fCt0-fCt7)
TKK PASSED
fCt28=54%∙fCt0 ≥ 40%∙fCt0
RW-4 Manufacturer 5
fCt7-fCt28=0,00 ≤ 0,06=3∙(fCt0-fCt7)
ISM PASSED
fCt28=53%∙fCt0 ≥ 40%∙fCt0
Remark: Please notice, while for DUR1 the number in the index of fCt is weeks, for DUR2 it is days.
Tab. 2.1: Durability Check of the performed tests according EN 14509
page 9
of report
No.: D4.3
2.2 Polyurethane-Samples (PU-1 and PU-2)
The relative development of the tensile strength (massive curves) and of the tensile modulus
(dashed curves) of the PU-samples is shown in Fig. 2.3.
At this, it must be still pointed out that corresponding to [6], deviations with regard to test
cycles stipulated in [5] occur. In [6] this was justified by the fact that „because of the two-
dimensional effect of aging, the time of exposure of the PU-specimens [for cross-panel tensile
and compression test] will be shorter than the time in the wrinkling and shear test.” For the
small-scale samples of the cross-panel tensile and compression test it is assumed that artifi-
cial aging takes place on all four open sides of the specimen at increased temperature, whe-
reas for specimens for the wrinkling and shear test an aging of only two sides seems to be
more realistic based on the bigger specimen dimensions.
However, to be able to compare the test results of artificially aged specimens from different
test types to each other, the aging times for the performed PU-specimens have been accor-
dingly coordinated deviating from [6]. Thus, the tensile tests (and compression tests) were
performed up to maximum aging time of 12 weeks only, the shear tests as well as the small-
scale and full-scale wrinkling tests, however, up to an aging time of 24 weeks. Consequently,
the value of the tensile strength fCt24 is not available after an aging of 24 weeks, so that as a
relevant value fCt12 in addition to fCt6 instead of fCt24 (as it is stipulated in [5], cf. Fig. 2.2) is used
for determining the durability.
In Fig. 2.3 it is clearly visible that the tensile strength for all PU-specimens decreases in the
course of aging, whereas the tensile modulus partly increases relatively strong.
The tensile strengths of the specimen PU-1 fulfill the durability requirements according to [5]
(cf. Tab. 2.1 and Fig. 2.2), and are located in the range of about 75%∙fCt0 up to 85%∙fCt0 after
showing a decline at the beginning of aging.
By comparison, the tensile strengths of the specimens PU-2 are essentially lower. The tensile
tests performed by TUD with fCt6=49% fCt0 do not fulfill the durability requirements according to
[5]. The tests performed by TKK barely fulfill the durability requirements according to [5], when
considering fCt12=50%∙fCt0 as an equivalent value for an aging after 24 weeks. It must be men-
tioned that at the beginning of artificial aging a decline of fCt2=50%∙fCt0 occurred, where the
decline stabilized again after 6 weeks (cf. fCt6=81%∙fCt0). Such a decreasing tensile strength
after ageing of 2 weeks is critical, because it is not covered by the testing plan of [5], since the
determination of fCt2 is not stipulated in [5] (c.f. Fig. 2.1).
2.3 Expanded-Polystyrene-Samples (EPS-1 and EPS-2)
The specimens with a core layer made of EPS (where EPS-1 has steel faces and EPS-2 GRP-
faces) were aged according to DUR1, however, all of them up to a maximum aging time of
only 12 weeks instead of 24 weeks, independent on the type of test.
page 10
of report
No.: D4.3
Consequently, the value of the tensile strength fCt24 is not available after an aging of 24 weeks,
so that as relevant value for determining the durability in addition to fCt6, fCt12 is used instead of
fCt24 (as it is stipulated in [5], cf. Fig. 2.2). All tensile tests were performed by TUD. In Fig. 2.4,
the relative development of the tensile strength (massive curves) and additionally that of the
tensile modulus (dashed curves) is illustrated. The tensile strength requirements from [5] are
fulfilled by EPS-1 as well as by EPS-2, where, in addition, all mean values are above 60%∙fCt0
during the process of aging (cf. Fig. 2.4 ).
2.4 Rockwool-samples (RW-1, RW-2, RW-3 and RW-4)
During the process of aging, very small values of the tensile strengths regarding the samples
RW-1 were measured, even the general aging-independent minimum requirements of fCt ≥
0,018 MPa according to [5] were not fulfilled by the mean values of the tensile strength. Based
on this shortfall, aging and performance of the tensile tests were partly interrupted.
For the samples RW-2, a strong corrosion occurred on the side facing the core layer during
artificial aging of the specimens. This is presumably the reason for the strong decrease of the
tensile strength in the course of aging resulting in the fact that the durability criteria according
to [5] are not fulfilled (cf. Tab. 2.1). In addition, the tensile strength for RW-2 falls below the
general minimum requirement of fCt ≥ 0,018 MPa according to [5] after 8 weeks. Therefore, the
samples RW-2 were replaced by new samples RW-4 of the same manufacturer, and for this
reason the tests on RW-2 were partly also interrupted. In the course of further considerations it
seems to be useful to divide the mineral wool samples into two groups, on the one side those
who not fulfilling the requirements according to [5] (RW-1 and RW-2), and on the other hand
those fulfilling the requirements according to [5] (RW-3 and RW-4).
page 11
of report
No.: D4.3
Polyurethane samples (PU-1 and PU-2)

Relative tensile test results
DUR 1 (75°C, RH<15 %)
2,5
2
Relative strength and relative modulus [ - ]
1,5
0,5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time of exposure [weeks]
PU-1: Cross panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at TUD)

PU-1: Cross-panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at TKK)
PU-1: Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at TUD)
PU-1: Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at TKK)
PU-2: Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at TUD)
PU-2: Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at TKK)
Fig. 2.3: Relative development for the tensile test results for the PU-samples
page 12
of report
No.: D4.3
Expanded polystyrene samples (EPS-1 and EPS-2)

DUR 1 (75°C, RH<15 %)
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
EPS-1: Cross-panel tensile strength
EPS-1: Elasticity modulus in tensile test
EPS-2: Elasticity modulus in tensile test
Fig. 2.4: Relative development for the tensile test results for the EPS-samples
page 13
of report
No.: D4.3
Rockwool samples (RW-1 and RW-2)

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
0 2 4 6 8
RW-1: Cross panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at ISM) [Testing was stopped after 6 tests due to low results]
RW-1: Cross-panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at TKK)
RW-1: Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at ISM) [Evaluation not possible]
RW-1: Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at TKK)
RW-2: Cross panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at ISM) [no test series performed]
RW-2: Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at ISM) [no test series performed]
Fig. 2.5: Relative development for the tensile test results for the RW-1 and RW-2-samples
page 14
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
0 2 4 6 8
RW-3: Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at ISM)
RW-3: Cross panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at ISM)
RW-4: Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at ISM)
Fig. 2.6: Relative development for the tensile test results for the RW-3 and RW-4-samples
page 15
of report
No.: D4.3
3 Relations between tensile strength and other material parameters
3.1 Introduction of the lowest-value-analysis
In this section, based on the development of the tensile strength, the investigations are made
to find analogies between tensile strength and other material parameters (especially shear
strength and wrinkling stress) are available.
For this purpose, it seems to be useful to subject the results from tensile tests to a lowest-
value analysis. Consequently, we will edit the test results so that an increase of the tensile
strength is not considered in the course of aging, i.e. the relative value of the tensile strength is
always smaller or equals 1.0. This procedure seems to be very useful for further consideration
of the tensile test, thus, also for demands on the durability in [5] the minimum value is always
considered during the course of aging (cf. DUR1 in Fig. 2.2), and it is also the only safe proce-
dure for the use of the panel in building practice. Naturally, it is not possible to consider a val-
ue for design that increases through aging, since the sandwich panel has to carry its complete
load-bearing capacity at the time t=0.
Generally, the lowest value (more exact the characteristic value instead of the lowest values)
is relevant for design expressions. Perhaps by performing the lowest-value-analysis, some
large scatter during testing is eliminated through this way.
In the following, the previously presented diagrams for the relative development of the tensile
strength (for the sake of clarity, however, without presentation of the tensile modulus), which
were subjected to a lowest-value-analysis, are presented again for a direct comparison.
In the following two sections, these edited tensile tests results are compared with the wrinkling
stress as well as with the shear strength. Then, naturally the wrinkling stress and shear
strength have also be subjected to a lowest-value-analysis in order to maintain a uniform pro-
cedure.
When regarding the test results for the PU-samples in Fig. 3.1, it can be recognized that the
test results of both test series performed at TUD and TKK come together during aging and
comply very well with each other, of course due to the lowest-value-analysis.
After performing the lowest-value-analysis for EPS-samples the tendency can be observed
that the aging course regarding tensile strength goes on similar despite of the different face
sheet material (cf. Fig. 3.2).
As already explained in the previous section, the results of the mineral rock wool samples are
divided into the two groups RW-1 and RW-2 samples as well as RW-3 and RW-4 samples. If
we consider Fig. 3.3 and Fig. 3.4, we can still more clearly recognize the considerably lower
level of the tensile strength of RW-1 and RW-2 compared to RW-3 and RW-4.
page 16
of report
No.: D4.3

Lowest-value-analysis
Relative tensile strength
1,2 DUR 1 (75°C, RH<15 %)
1,0
0,8
Relative strength [ - ]
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Fig. 3.1: Lowest-value-Analysis of the relative tensile strength for the PU-samples
page 17
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 1 (75°C, RH<15 %)
1,2
1,0
0,8
Relative Strength [N/mm2]
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Fig. 3.2: Lowest-value-Analysis of the relative tensile strength for the EPS-samples
page 18
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
1,2
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
0 2 4 6 8
Fig. 3.3: Lowest-value-analysis of the relative tensile strength for the RW-1 and RW-2-
samples
page 19
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
1,2
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0 2 4 6 8
Fig. 3.4: Lowest-value-analysis of the relative tensile strength for the RW-3 and RW-4-
samples
page 20
of report
No.: D4.3
3.2 Analogy between tensile strength and wrinkling stress
3.2.1 General
By comparing the development of the tensile strength with the development of the wrinkling
stress in the course of artificial aging, we try to determine a relationship between wrinkling
stress as an essential rated value for the dimension of sandwich panels and the tensile
strength as a material parameter that can be easily determined.
It is well-known and was already discussed in past research projects that such a relationship
does exist, and it is also part of prediction formulas for the wrinkling stress during aging (such
as for ex. the prediction formula of Pfeiffer (cf. section 4)).
Within the scope of this project, we want to determine in how far we can tolerate a decrease of
the tensile strength and what this means for the wrinkling stress as well as for the shear
strength, e.g. whether they also show this decrease.
Furthermore, to a certain extent, there is the possibility of assessing the significance of the
three different types of tests for determining the wrinkling stress (full-scale test, small-scale
test with bone-shaped samples or rectangular samples).
In this connection, the tensile strength is presented as massive line and the wrinkling stress as
dash-dotted line in the following diagrams.
Same colors show same sample types. For the development of the wrinkling stress, the type
of test can be recognized through the marking type of the data points (circle = full-scale test,
rhomb = small-scale test with bone-shaped samples and square = small-scale test with rec-
tangular samples).
3.2.2 Polyurethane-Samples (PU-1 and PU-2)
In Fig. 3.5, the relative development of tensile strength and wrinkling stress for PU-samples is
presented during aging. It can be clearly seen that for the PU-1 sample, having an acceptable
decrease of the tensile strength and thus fulfilling also the durability criteria from [5] (cf. Tab.
2.1); the corresponding effect on the wrinkling stress is also very low.
Whereas the tensile strength is in the range of about 75%∙fCt0 to 85%∙fCt0, all wrinkling stresses
determined with the three different test types remain on a level above 80 % of their corres-
ponding initial value. The wrinkling stress determined from the full-scale test shows even no
decrease during aging compared to the initial value.
On the other hand, the PU-2 sample, for which the tensile strength shows a strong decrease
being so strong that the durability criteria according to [5] are not or only rather slightly fulfilled
(cf. Tab. 2.1), show a considerable decrease of the wrinkling stress (see Fig. 3.5).
For the full-scale test, the wrinkling stress decreases to a value of 40% of the initial value.
By comparison, the wrinkling stress obtained from small-scale tests with rectangular samples
shows absolutely no decrease, and that from small-scale test with bone-shaped samples a
page 21
of report
No.: D4.3
decrease to 77 % of the initial value only. This fact causes an inconsistency and at the same
time a great danger when using wrinkling stresses from small-scale tests.
The wrinkling stress determined from the full-scale test should rather tend to show the most
realistic values. If the different dimensions of the samples are considered, the small-scale
samples should age faster based on their much smaller size compared to the full-scale sam-
ples. This is, however, contradictory to the results that have been determined with the PU-2
samples.
For the PU-1 samples, this relation can be recognized to some extent, for if you consider the
course of the relative change of the wrinkling stress for different sample types, the full-scale
samples seem to age more slowly compared to the small-scale samples (cf. Fig. 3.5).
Finally, we can conclude, that the relationships between tensile strength and wrinkling stress
ascertained for PU-samples (when considering the test results from the full-scale test) confirm
the durability criteria defined in [5] via the tensile strength.
3.2.3 Expanded-Polystyrene-Samples (EPS-1 and EPS-2)
The comparison of the relative tensile strength with the relative wrinkling stress for the EPS-
samples is presented in Fig. 3.6. The samples of type EPS-1 show a small decrease to about
80%∙fCt0 for the tensile strength during aging, which is demonstrated for the wrinkling stress by
the fact that it also only decreases at a minimum of about 88% of the initial value.
The relative courses of wrinkling stress from full-scale tests and small-scale tests with bone-
shaped samples show a very good agreement.
The tensile strength of the EPS-2 samples decreases to about 68%∙fCt0 reflecting the fact that
the wrinkling stress (which was determined from the small-scale test with bone-shaped sam-
ples) also slightly decreases to about 81 % of the initial value at minimum.
Thus, the results of the EPS-samples clearly show that also in this case a relationship be-
tween tensile strength and wrinkling stress does exist.
3.2.4 Rockwool-samples (RW-1, RW-2, RW-3 and RW-4)
As already explained above, the consideration for rockwool samples proceeds in two groups.
The comparison of the relative development of tensile strength and wrinkling stress is pre-
sented in Fig. 3.7 for RW-1 and RW-2 and in Fig. 3.8 for RW-3 and RW-4.
When comparing both diagrams from Fig. 3.7 and Fig. 3.8, the dependence of the wrinkling
stress on the tensile strength is clearly visible. The sandwich panels from Fig. 3.7, having a
strong decreasing relative development of the tensile strength, consequently show also a
stronger decrease for the wrinkling stress compared to the sandwich panels from Fig. 3.8, hav-
ing a better relative development of the tensile strength.
page 22
of report
No.: D4.3
However, based on the very strong decrease of the tensile strength during aging for RW-1and
RW-2 samples up to a minimum value of about 23%∙fCt0, the decrease of the wrinkling stress
to about 63% of the inital value at minimum is still relatively moderate.
For the RW-4 samples it is striking that the wrinkling stress (about ca. 69 % σw0) determined
from small-scale tests with bone-shaped samples considerably decrease in the course of ag-
ing compared to the wrinkling stress, which has been determined from small-scale tests with
rectangular samples (about 86 % σw0) or rather from full-scale tests (ca. 94 % σw0). The cause
for this can only be speculated so that here we maybe have the already mentioned effect of
faster ageing of the small samples compared to the full-scale panel. But also reasons resulting
from the different sample preparation or test set-up are possible.
page 23
of report
No.: D4.3

Evaluation of the wrinkling stress on the basis of the cross panel tensile stress
1,2 DUR 1 (75°C, RH<15 %)
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

PU-1: Wrinkling stress (full scale)
PU-1: Wrinkling stress (small scale, bone-shaped sample)
PU-1: Wrinkling stress (small scale, rectangular sample)
PU-2: Wrinkling stress (full scale) [wrinkling stress for 24 weeks ageing is not avaible due to shear failure]
PU-2: Wrinkling stress (full scale) [wrinkling stress as minimum value due to shear failure]
PU-2: Wrinkling stress (small scale, bone-shaped sample)
PU-2: Wrinkling stress (small scale, rectangular sample)
Fig. 3.5: Evaluation of the wrinkling stress on the basis of the cross panel tensile stress in
terms of lowest values for the PU-samples
page 24
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 1 (75°C, RH<15 %)
1,2
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
EPS-1: Wrinkling stress (full scale)
EPS-1: Wrinkling stress (small scale, bone-shaped sample)
EPS-2: Wrinkling stress (small scale, bone-shaped sample)
terms of lowest values for the EPS-samples
page 25
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
1,2
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
0 2 4 6 8
RW-1: Wrinkling stress (full scale) [is not available because of no wrinkling failure during tests]
RW-1: Wrinkling stress (small scale, bone-shaped sample)
RW-1: Wrinkling stress (small scale, rectangular sample)
RW-2: Wrinkling stress (full scale) [no test series performed]
RW-2:Wrinkling stress (small scale, bone-shaped sample) [no complete test series performed]
RW-2:Wrinkling stress (small scale, rectangular sample)
terms of lowest values for the RW-1 and RW-2-samples
page 26
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
1,2
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0 2 4 6 8
RW-3: Wrinkling stress (full scale) [wrinkling stress for 4 weeks ageing is not avaible due to no wrinkling failure]
RW-4: Wrinkling stress (full scale)
page 27
of report
No.: D4.3
3.3 Analogy between tensile strength and shear strength
3.3.1 General
In this section the relationships between the relative development of tensile strength and shear
strength is investigated qualitatively using the same procedure as in the previous section.
On the one hand, the shear strengths are available from the standard determination using
shear tests with small-scale samples (dashed curve), and were additionally determined from
full-scale wrinkling tests (dash-dotted curve) as far as possible. The shear strengths were also
subjected to a lowest-value-analysis (cf. Chapter 3.1) in order to maintain a uniform procedure.
In the diagrams at the end of this section same colors show same sample types. The test type
used for determination of the shear strength can also be recognized by the marking type of the
data points of the curves (circle = shear stress determined from full-scale test, square = shear
stress determined from standard small-scale test).
In Fig. 3.9, the relative developments for the samples of type PU-1 and PU-2 are presented.
The samples PU-1, for which the tensile strength slightly decreases during aging (about
76%∙fCt0 at minimum), the relative shear strength determined from small-scale tests does not
show any decrease during aging. Shear strengths for PU-1 samples from full-scale tests are
not available since failure did not occur through shear fracture in the full-scale test.
The samples PU-2, for which the tensile strength shows a strong decrease, which is so in-
tense that the durability criteria according to [5] is not or only scarcely fulfilled (cf. Tab. 2.1), for
shear strengths determined from small-scale tests only a small decrease to 84%∙fCv0 exists
whereas for the shear strengths determined from full-scale tests, a considerable decrease of
the shear strength to 39%∙ fCv0 can be recognized (see Fig. 3.9).
Why for the shear strengths being determined from full-scale tests with PU-2 samples such a
big difference exists compared to the shear strengths determined from small-scale tests re-
mains unsettled at this point.
In principle, we can guess a certain dependence of the shear strength on the tensile strength
with regard to the PU-samples, where this dependence seems to be weaker than between
tensile strength and wrinkling stress, but the exact regularity is still open. It seems to be the
fact, however, that with a sufficient tensile strength according to [5] also sufficient shear
strength is to be assumed.
In Fig. 3.10, the relative development of the tensile strength together with the relative devel-
opment of the shear strength for EPS-samples is presented during aging. It can be clearly
seen that although the tensile strength of EPS-samples decreases to about 68%∙fCt0 and the
page 28
of report
No.: D4.3
tensile strength of the EPS-2 samples to about 64%∙fCt0 during aging, the shear strength only
shows a slight decrease in the course of aging.
When considering the relative development of the EPS-samples in Fig. 3.10, the assumption
can be derived that also with a decrease of the tensile strength during aging, the shear
strength does not decrease that strong.
The comparison of the relative development of tensile strength and shear strength for RW-1
and RW-2 is presented in Fig. 3.11 and for RW-3 and RW-4 in Fig. 3.12. Both in Fig. 3.11 and
in Fig. 3.12 it can be clearly seen that the decrease of the shear strength is smaller during ag-
ing compared to the decrease of the tensile strength. For the relative courses from Fig. 3.11 it
must be pointed out to the fact that the absolute values are also very small due to the general-
ly very poor properties of RW-1-samples and RW-2-samples.
page 29
of report
No.: D4.3

Evaluation of the shear stress on the basis of the cross panel tensile stress
1,2 DUR 1 (75°C, RH<15 %)
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

PU-1: Shear Strength
PU-1: Shear strength (determined from full scale tests) [not available because all tests failed by wrinkling]
PU-2: Shear Strength
PU-2: Shear strength (determined from full scale tests)
Fig. 3.9: Evaluation of the shear stress on the basis of the cross panel tensile stress in
terms of lowest values for the PU-samples
page 30
of report
No.: D4.3
Expanded Polystyrene samples (EPS-1 and EPS-2)

DUR 1 (75°C, RH<15 %)
1,2
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
EPS-1: Shear strength
EPS-1: Shear strength (determined from full scale tests) [not available because all tests failed by wrinkling]
EPS-2: Shear strength
terms of lowest values for the EPS-samples
page 31
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
1,2
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
0 2 4 6 8
RW-1: Shear strength
RW-1: Shear strength (determined from full scale tests, l=3000 mm) [not available because no uniform shear failure]
RW-1: Shear strength (determined from full scale tests, l=4000 mm) [not available because no uniform shear failure]
page 32
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
1,2
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0 2 4 6 8
RW-3: Shear strength (determined from full scale tests) [not available because no uniform shear failure]
RW-4: Shear strength (determined from full scale tests)
page 33
of report
No.: D4.3
4 Comparison of the test results to existing prediction model of Pfeiffer [7]
4.1 Introduction to the prediction model of Pfeiffer for the wrinkling stress
Material parameters such as tensile strength fCt, foam modulus EC, shear modulus GC depend-
ing on aging and determinable through tests are integrated in the formula of Pfeifer (cf. Fig.
4.1). These material parameters can be simply determined on artificially aged samples, since
they can be investigated through small-scale tests and thus, be aged in a heating chamber
with an acceptable size. The other parameters in the formula, the length of the wrinkling wave
a, the amplitude of the initial imperfection in the face f0 and the ideal wrinkling stress σwi as
well as the aged versions of those parameters symbolized with index D can be calculated ac-
cording to the further formulas given in [7]. Furthermore, the initial wrinkling stress of the
sandwich panel is required, which can be determined conventionally by full-scale tests (maybe
also by small-scale wrinkling tests), since for this initial value no aging of the panel is neces-
sary.
(4.1)
Fig. 4.1: Prediction formula for the wrinkling stress during ageing by Pfeiffer [7]
Within the scope of this project, the experimental determination of the wrinkling stress was
realized through full-scale tests as well as through small-scale tests (cf. test reports [1], [2],
[3]). For the small-scale tests two different types of samples were used. On the one hand,
bone-shaped samples which were tested by ISM, on the other hand rectangular samples
which were tested by TKK. It must be pointed out to the fact that for bone-shaped samples no
deviation load was used, where for the rectangular sample a deviation load was applied in
mid-span of the sample before test performance.
The formula determined by Pfeiffer in [7] (see Fig. 4.1) for predicting the wrinkling stress dur-
ing aging was applied to the performed tests. For this purpose, the experimentally determined
development from small-scale tests with bone-shaped samples but also the development from
full-scale test and small-scale tests with rectangular samples were confronted with the predic-
tion model for wrinkling stress developed by Pfeiffer in 2005.
This comparison is represented graphically in the diagrams in Fig. 4.2 to Fig. 4.9 at the end of
this section. During its development, the formula of Pfeiffer in [7] was tested with PUR-
samples; in the following, however, it is also used for the prediction of the wrinkling stress re-
garding artificially aged EPS-samples as well as MW-samples.
page 34
of report
No.: D4.3
In [7], experimentally determined wrinkling stresses from small-scale tests with artificially aged
bone-shaped samples were used for comparison. In this research project this can be also
considered in a more general way using also the relative development of the wrinkling stress
during artificial aging determined from full-scale tests and small-scale tests with rectangular
samples for comparison. For the current assessment and evaluation, only those test results
which clearly show a failure by wrinkling were taken into account for the calculation or the pre-
diction of the wrinkling stress.
The wrinkling stresses obtained from the different test types (full-scale test, small-scale test
with bone-shaped sample and small-scale test with rectangular sample) can also be compared
among each other in the diagrams in Fig. 4.2 to Fig. 4.9 in order to gain statements about the
different types of test performance for the experimental determination of the wrinkling stress.
In the diagrams in Fig. 4.2 to Fig. 4.9, the experimentally determined development of the wrin-
kling stress during aging calculated from full-scale tests (magenta dash-dotted curve with cir-
cle data-points) and from small-scale tests with bone-shaped samples (red dash-dotted curve
with rhomb data-points) or with rectangular-samples (brown dash-dotted curve with rectangu-
lar data-points) is presented. The massive curves (with corresponding colours) show the pre-
dicted wrinkling stress when taking the prediction formula of Pfeiffer.
The test results for the PU-samples in Fig. 4.2 and Fig. 4.3 show that the absolute develop-
ments of the wrinkling stress determined from the different test types have the same order
regarding the values of the wrinkling stress for the PU-1 and PU-2 samples.
The maximal absolute values of the wrinkling stress are reached in the small-scale test with
bone-shaped samples, followed next by the full-scale tests, and finally we have the small-scale
tests with rectangular samples with lowest absolute values.
That order can be explained by reason of specific characteristics of the respective test. The
bone-shaped samples normally have no initial imperfection in the face under direct pressure,
and consequently, reaching the highest values for the wrinkling stress in the test. The full-
scale test samples have a initial deflection in the face under pressure due to their horizontal
testing position in combination with the corresponding loading direction leading to a decrement
of the wrinkling stress.
Before starting the small-scale tests with rectangular samples, a regular imperfection by apply-
ing a deflection force in mid span of the specimen is generated, in doing so it leads presuma-
bly to the highest imperfection in all test types and consequently to the lowest wrinkling stress.
Now, when comparing the experimental determined wrinkling stress with the prediction model,
we have the best accordance for the wrinkling stress determined from the small-scale tests
with bone-shaped samples.
page 35
of report
No.: D4.3
In Fig. 4.4 and Fig. 4.5, the relative development of the experimental wrinkling stress as well
as the predicted wrinkling stress according to [7] is presented.
For the EPS-1 samples, the wrinkling stress of the bone-shaped samples without any imper-
fections is again higher than the wrinkling stress determined by full-scale tests.
A good correlation between the experimental determined wrinkling stress and the prediction
formula of Pfeiffer was detected for the EPS-samples.
Only small-scale tests with bone-shaped samples were performed with the EPS-2-panels to
determine their wrinkling stress, finding also mostly good accordance to the prediction formula
of Pfeiffer.
The relative development of the wrinkling stress and its prediction according [7] for the mineral
rockwool samples is presented in Fig. 4.6, Fig. 4.7, Fig. 4.8 and Fig. 4.9.
Here we can clearly recognize, that the experimental results and predicted values according
[7] show the biggest deviations of all material types. Maybe that is due to the anisotropic struc-
ture of the mineral wool core material.
Partly, there are also some differences in the order of the three different types of testing in
terms of the values of the absolute wrinkling stress. The RW-3 samples have the reverse order
of the absolute wrinkling stress values than it was investigated for PU-samples und EPS-
samples. All RW-3 test results for the wrinkling stress are however close to each other, so that
maybe the reverse order of the RW-3 samples is caused by some testing influences.
page 36
of report
No.: D4.3
PU-1: Comparison of wrinkling stress

DUR 1 (75°C, RH<15 %)
(Tests performed at TUD, ISM and TKK)
190
180
170
160
Wrinkling stress [N/mm²]
150
140
130
120
110
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Wrinkling stress (full scale)

Wrinkling stress (small scale, bone-shaped sample)
Wrinkling stress (small scale, rectangular sample)
Wrinkling Stress Prediction (Pfeiffer 2005) [24 week value not avaible due to missing small specimen values]
Fig. 4.2: Wrinkling test results of the PU-1 samples compared to the prediction formula for
the wrinkling stress by Pfeiffer [7]
page 37
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 1 (75°C, RH<15 %)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Wrinkling stress (full scale) [wrinkling stress for 24 weeks ageing is not avaible due to shear failure]
Wrinkling stress (full scale) [wrinkling stress as minimum value due to shear failure]
Fig. 4.3: Wrinkling test results of the PU-2 samples compared to the prediction formula for
the wrinkling stress by Pfeiffer [7]
page 38
of report
No.: D4.3
EPS-1: Comparison of wrinkling stress

DUR 1 (75°C, RH<15 %)
(Tests performed at TUD and ISM)
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Wrinkling Stress Prediction (Pfeiffer 2005)
Fig. 4.4: Wrinkling test results of the EPS-1 samples compared to the prediction formula
for the wrinkling stress by Pfeiffer [7]
page 39
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 1 (75°C, RH<15 %)
(Test performed at ISM)
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Fig. 4.5: Wrinkling test results of the EPS-2 samples compared to the prediction formula
page 40
of report
No.: D4.3
RW-1: Comparison of wrinkling stress

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
(Tests performed at ISM and TKK)
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
0 2 4 6 8
Wrinkling stress (full scale) [is not available because of no wrinkling failure during tests]
Fig. 4.6: Wrinkling test results of the RW-1 samples compared to the prediction formula
page 41
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
150
130
110
90
70
50
30
0 2 4 6 8
Wrinkling stress (full scale) [no test series performed]
Wrinkling stress (small scale, bone-shaped sample) [no complete test series performed]
page 42
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
150
130
110
90
70
50
30
0 2 4 6 8
Wrinkling stress (full scale) [wrinkling stress for 4 weeks ageing is not avaible due to no wrinkling failure]
Wrinkling stress (full scale) [wrinkling stress as minimum value due to no wrinkling failure]
page 43
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
170
150
130
110
90
70
50
30
0 2 4 6 8

page 44
of report
No.: D4.3
4.2 Statistical evaluation of the tensile strength and the wrinkling stress
For assessment of the results and maybe further discussion we have to add the standard dev-
iations of the test results of the tensile tests and the wrinkling test. Especially, for the wrinkling
stress, we need a consideration of the standard deviations when regarding the results and of
course when comparing the test results to the existing prediction model due to some large
scatter during testing. Also in the tensile tests, it is possible to get results with large scatter,
due to inhomogeneous bonding between face and core during the production.
In Fig. 4.10 to Fig. 4.23, the standard deviation - if calculation is possible depending of the
number of tests performed and having a wrinkling failure- is presented directly in the corres-
ponding diagram. For the wrinkling stress results, once again the prediction formula of Pfeiffer
[7] is implemented in the diagrams that make another comparison of the test results and the
prediction formula with special regard to the standard deviations possible.
page 45
of report
No.: D4.3
PU-1: Comparison of Cross Panel Tensile Tests

DUR 1 (75°C, RH<15 %)
(Tests performed at TUD and TKK)
5 0,3
4,5
0,25
3,5
3
Modulus [N/mm2]
Strenght [N/mm2]
2,5 0,2
1,5
0,15
0,5
0 0,1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at TUD)

Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at TKK)
Cross panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at TUD)
Cross-panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at TKK)
Fig. 4.10: Standard Deviations for the tensile tests with PU-1 samples
page 46
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 1 (75°C, RH<15 %)
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Fig. 4.11: Standard Deviations for the wrinkling stress of the PU-1 samples
page 47
of report
No.: D4.3
PU-2: Comparison of Cross Panel Tensile Tests

DUR 1 (75°C, RH<15 %)
(Tests performed at TUD and TKK)
8 0,27
0,22
6
Modulus [N/mm2]
Strenght [N/mm2]
5
0,17
0,12
3
2
0,07
0 0,02
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at TUD)

Cross panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at TUD)
Fig. 4.12: Standard Deviations for the tensile tests with PU-2 samples
page 48
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 1 (75°C, RH<15 %)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Wrinkling stress (full scale) [wrinkling stress for 24 weeks ageing is not avaible due to shear failure]
Fig. 4.13: Standard Deviations for the wrinkling stress of the PU-2 samples
page 49
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 1 (75°C, RH<15 %)
(Tests performed at TUD and ISM)
230
210
190
170
150
130
110
90
70
50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Fig. 4.14: Standard Deviations for the wrinkling stress of the EPS-1 samples
page 50
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 1 (75°C, RH<15 %)
(Test performed at ISM)
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Fig. 4.15: Standard Deviations for the wrinkling stress of the EPS-2 samples
page 51
of report
No.: D4.3
RW-1: Comparison of Cross Panel Tensile Tests

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
(Tests performed at ISM and TKK )
8 0,1
0,09
7
0,08
0,07
5
0,06
Modulus [N/mm2]
Strenght [N/mm2]
4 0,05
0,04
3
0,03
0,02
1
0,01
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at ISM) [Evaluation not possible]
Cross panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at ISM) [Testing was stopped after 6 tests because of low results]

Fig. 4.16: Standard Deviations for the tensile tests with RW-1 samples
page 52
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
0 2 4 6 8
Wrinkling stress (full scale) [is not available because of no wrinkling failure during tests]
Fig. 4.17: Standard Deviations for the wrinkling stress of the RW-1 samples
page 53
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
18 0,2
16 0,18
0,16
14
0,14
12
0,12
Modulus [N/mm2]
Strenght [N/mm2]
10
0,1
8
0,08
6
0,06
4
0,04
2 0,02
0 0
0 2 4 6 8
Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at ISM) [no test series performed]
Cross panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at ISM) [no test series performed]
page 54
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
190
170
150
130
110
90
70
50
30
0 2 4 6 8
Wrinkling stress (full scale) [no test series performed]
Wrinkling stress (small scale, bone-shaped sample) [no complete test series performed]
page 55
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
25,00 0,2
0,18
20,00 0,16
0,14
15,00 0,12
Modulus [N/mm2]
Strenght [N/mm2]
0,1
10,00 0,08
0,06
5,00 0,04
0,02
0,00 0
0 2 4 6 8
Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at ISM)

Cross panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at ISM)
page 56
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
170
150
130
110
90
70
50
30
0 2 4 6 8
Wrinkling stress (full scale) [wrinkling stress for 4 weeks ageing is not avaible due to no wrinkling failure]
page 57
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
(Tests performed at ISM or TKK)
20,00 0,12
18,00
0,1
16,00
14,00
0,08
12,00
Modulus [N/mm2]
Strenght [N/mm2]
10,00 0,06
8,00
0,04
6,00
4,00
0,02
2,00
0,00 0
0 2 4 6 8
Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at ISM)

Cross panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at ISM)
page 58
of report
No.: D4.3

DUR 2 (65°C, RH>95 %)
190
170
150
130
110
90
70
50
30
0 2 4 6 8

page 59
of report
No.: D4.3
5 Summary and conclusions
Subjects of WP4 of the EASIE project are retrofitting, durability and maintenance of sandwich
panels. This report concerns the part durability of sandwich panels. The report draws conclu-
sions for the development of design expressions on the basis of the new experimental results
created in EASIE project.
Small-scale and large-scale specimens were exposed to high temperature and high humidity
in artificial laboratory conditions for different durations of time at Aalto University (previously
TKK), Technische Universität Damstadt (TUD) and Insitut für Sandwichtechnik - FH Mainz
(ISM). The test arrangements and detailed results are given in test reports [1], [2] and [3]. Old
panels were removed from two buildings located in Karlsruhe and Traun in order to investigate
the influence of the real outdoor conditions to the properties and resistance of the wall and roof
panels. The investigations were made at Karlsruhe Institut of Technology (KIT). The results
are given in the reports [8], [9], [10] and [11]. The experimental results have been summarized
in the report D4.2/2 [4], which draws conclusions about the influence of the ageing to the
properties of sandwich panels.
In Chapter 2 of this report, a check is made if the test specimens fulfil the requirements of EN
14509 for the sandwich panels used in external applications. The check concerns the value
and development of the cross-panel tensile strength which has also been a subject of the in-
vestigations in the EASIE project. The analysis shows that the specimens PU-1, RW-1 and
RW-2 do not fulfil the durability criteria. However, the results of these specimens have been
taken into account in the further analysis because of the technical and scientific interest.
Cross-panel tensile strength has been the measure to the durability of sandwich panels. The
cross-panel tensile strength is not a direct design parameter, because it does not exist in the
design expressions. The cross-panel tensile strength has been assumed to be a sensitive pa-
rameter to the resistance because it measures the strength of the core and the bond at the
same time. The essential question is, if the development of the direct design parameters such
as the wrinkling stress, shear strength and cross-panel compression strength follow the devel-
opment of the cross-panel tensile strength during the course of the ageing.
The lowest value analysis in Chapter 3 means the selection of the lowest strength found in the
tests up to a specific point of the duration of the ageing tests to represent the strength of the
specimen in that point. The lowest value makes a lower bound curve to the test results. It ig-
nores the increase of the strength during the testing which has been discovered in the tests of
some specimens. The analysis is based on relative development of the strength and modulus
such as
ft E G
kf = , kE = t , t (5.1)
f0 E 0 G0
page 60
of report
No.: D4.3
in which fo and Eo represent the initial values and ft and Et the values in the course of the dura-
bility tests.
The lowest value can be defined as
k f ,low.t j = min{k f ,i } for 0 < t i ≤ t j (5.2)
If the lowest value is used to strengths investigated in the durability tests, the cross-panel ten-
sile strength makes with a few exceptions a lower bound curve to the wrinkling stress and to
the shear strength. There is a relationship between the development of the cross-panel tensile
strength and the wrinkling stress and the shear strength. The relationship is stronger between
the cross-panel tensile strength and wrinkling stress than between the tensile strength and the
shear strength at least for plastic foam cored specimens. Thus, the cross-panel tensile
strength can be used as a safe lower-bound value in the design, if the development of the ten-
sile strength is applied to the direct design parameter. This confirms the relevance of the cur-
rent durability tests in EN 14509. The exceptions to the rule concern some results in the full-
scale testing the reasons for those remaining unknown.
In Chapter 4 comparisons have been made between the experimental results and calculated
results on the wrinkling strength. In calculations the model derived by Pfeiffer [7] has been
used. The model presents a relationship between the wrinkling stress and the cross-panel
tensile strength and cross-panel modulus and shear modulus of elasticity of the core depend-
ing on the initial geometric imperfection. If the development of the values of the tensile
strength and modulus is taken into account, the model is assumed to show the development of
the wrinkling stress. The comparisons are based on absolute values of σ w0 and σ wt . In addi-
tion to the mean value analysis, also the influence of the scatter of the experimental results is
shown to each specimen.
On the basis of the results of the comparisons, the model describes in general well the devel-
opment of the wrinkling stress of the plastic foam cored specimens, probably because of the
more or less isotropic structure of the materials of the core layers. Because of the small initial
imperfection used in the model, f 0 = a 500 , the model describes best the development of the
results of the tests with bone-shaped specimens, in which tests no imperfection were applied
in the tests. The model describes also the development of the wrinkling stress of the mineral
wool cored specimens. However, the conclusions about the agreement are not evenly clear,
possibly because of the anisotropic nature of the core layer. Based on the results of the com-
parisons, it can be summarized that the model [7] has great potential in use to predict the
wrinkling stress on the basis of the information about the cross-panel tensile strength and the
modulus of elasticity of the core layer.
page 61
of report
No.: D4.3
No analytical models between the cross-panel tensile strength and the shear strength has
been found nor created in the study.
Full-scale tests have been made to find the possible change of the failure mode from the wrin-
kling failure mode to the shear failure mode which cannot be seen in small-scale tests. This
phenomenon has been found in some test series. However, the data base on this has re-
mained limited.
Resistance of the old sandwich panels having been in service for 23 or 30 years in walls and a
roof of building, has measured to be on a level, which corresponds the initial resistance. The
conclusion is made on the basis of the values published in the type approvals because of the
missing data of the factory production control tests. This experimental information makes a
basis to correspondence between the ageing history in the laboratory conditions and in real
outdoor conditions.
In the study, the resistance of the sandwich panels exposed to ageing in the laboratory condi-
tions and in real outdoor conditions has been investigated. In design models, the another part
of the expression is made of the stresses caused by the probable loads to the sandwich panel.
Normally, the design values of the stresses decrease with the time in service because of the
diminishing probability to the extreme loads. The diminishing of the stresses should be com-
pared to the reduction of the resistance to different failure modes with the time of ageing. The
development of the loads and stresses in the course of the service time has not been studied
in EASIE project.
6 Practical considerations
The importance of the relevant backface coating is emphasized because of the unwanted fail-
ure modes due to the corrosion on the back surface of the steel sheet face of some test
specimens. The corrosion reduces the tensile and shear resistance of the joint between the
face and the core. The failure mode due to the corrosion may develop, i.e., may reduce the
resistance faster compared to the rate of the reduction of the other failure modes, which are
accelerated by ageing. For practical solutions, the resistance of the backface coating of the
steel sheet faces to corrosion has to be verified with relevant tests.
Reduction of the tensile strength due to the ageing is in all cases of this investigation faster
than the reduction of the shear strength or the cross-panel compression strength. Thus, the
development of the cross-panel tensile strength lays a lower bound limit to the rate of the re-
duction of strength of the core and bond.
Wrinkling stress and shear strength are the dominant criteria in the design of sandwich panels.
These are classified to be direct design parameters. Development of the wrinkling stress may
be evaluated on the basis of the parametric model described in Chapter 5. The expression of
the relative change of the wrinkling stress kE = σw / σw0 can be modified in
page 62
of report
No.: D4.3
EC GC
1 + cπ
f Ct ECD GCD
k w1 = 3 (6.1)
ECD GCd EC GC
1 + cπ
f CtD
In the expression, c is an imperfection parameter expressing the relation between the depth
and length of the buckling wave. Typically, a value of c = f0 / a = 1/500 = 0.002 has been used.
EC and GC are the initial modulus of elasticity and shear modulus of the core and ECD and GCD
the values of the modulus after an exposure to ageing. fCt and fCtD is the values of the cross-
panel tensile strength in the initial state and after an exposure to ageing.
In the estimation of the development of the wrinkling stress, information is required about the
stiffness of the core. In further testing, the tensile modulus of elasticity ECt,0 and ECtD shall be
determined in addition to the tensile strength. Based on the change of the modulus in the
cross-panel direction only, the expression can be modified further as
EC
1 + c' π 2
f Ct  ECD 
k w2 = 3   (6.2)
E  EC 
1 + c' π CD
f CtD
A next simplification may be made by assuming the modulus of elasticity to remain constant
and by taking into account the change of the tensile strength, only. The expression can now be
written as
EC
1 + c' ' π
f Ct
k w3 = (6.3)
E
1 + c' ' π C
f CtD
In the last case, the information about the development of the cross-panel tensile strength
makes the basis to the estimation of the wrinkling stress.
Much concern has been given to the cross-panel tensile strength because it is the basic
measure in the current factory production control. Normally, the value of the cross-panel com-
pression strength is lower than that of the cross-panel tensile strength. Thus, the absolute
value and the development of the cross-panel compression strength may be even more sensi-
tive parameter to be used in the estimation of the wrinkling stress.
The expression (6.1) - (6.3) can also be used in adjustments of the experimental values of the
wrinkling stress to the nominal values of the cross-panel strength and modulus of elasticity. In
the case, the initial values correspond to the measured values of the tests and the new values
the nominal values to be used in design.
page 63
of report
No.: D4.3
The influence of the reduction of the cross-panel tensile strength to the wrinkling stress is
small, if the absolute value of the cross-panel strength fCt and fCc is high. But, if the absolute
value of the cross-panel strength fCt or fCc is low, i.e., < 0.1 N/mm2, the reduction of the cross-
panel strength reduces also the wrinkling stress noticeably (Fig. 6.1). Results given in Fig. 6.1
are based on the expression (6.1) in which the imperfection parameter and the value of the
initial modulus have values of c = 0.002 and ECGC = 10, 20 or 50 (N/mm2)2. The initial cross-
panel strength has in the analysis three values fCt = 0.05, 0.1 and 0.2 N/mm2.
1.1
Reduction of wrinkling stress

kE = 1.0 ECGC = 10 (N/mm2)2
1.0 kE = 0.9
kE = 0.8
Relative wrinkling stress
0.9
0.8
Simplified model (6.3)
0.7 2
fCt = 0.2 N/mm
fCt = 0.1 N/mm2

0.6
2
fCt = 0.05 N/mm
0.5
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
relative cross-panel strength of core
Fig. 6.1: Calculated example about the change of the wrinkling stress due to the change of
the cross-panel strength and modulus of elasticity, ECGC = 10 (N/mm²)²
page 64
of report
No.: D4.3
1.1

2 2
1.0 kE = 1.0 ECGC = 20 (N/mm )
kE = 0.9
kE = 0.8
0.9
0.8
0.7
fCt = 0.2 N/mm2
2
0.6 fCt = 0.1 N/mm
2
fCt = 0.05 N/mm
0.5
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
1.1

2 2
1.0 ECGC = 50 (N/mm )
kE = 1.0
kE = 0.9
0.9 kE = 0.8
0.8
0.7
fCt = 0.2 N/mm2
0.6 fCt = 0.1 N/mm2
fCt = 0.05 N/mm2

0.5
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
page 65
of report
No.: D4.3
There are no general models available to the shear strength depending on the cross-panel
tensile strength. The shear strength of the core material may be derived from the material
model of the specific core material. A first and a safe approximation may be to assume the
relative reduction of the shear strength to be a half of the relative reduction of the tensile
strength. The same concern the reduction of the cross-panel compression strength. However,
the connection is strongly product dependent and shall be fixed case by case. Further, it is not
only the failure in the core but also the failure in the bond has to be taken into account in the
analysis.
Test results of the old sandwich panels and old specimens having been in service on walls of
buildings and on test fields show that the resistance has remained on the level of the initial
characteristic strength after an exposure to real natural conditions for 23 ... 30 years. For this
reason, no further decisions or actions about the changes of the design expressions shall be
made, before the connection between the accelerated ageing history used in the durability
testing in the laboratory and the real ageing history in natural climate has been found.
If modifications in the available standards and design guidelines are made, the available mod-
els concerning the long-term strength have to be taken into account at the same time to avoid
overlapping modelling of the same physical failure mode.
page 66
of report
No.: D4.3
7 References
[1] Durability Tests performed at Aalto University School of Science and Technology,
Test report - Part 1.1, 2011, Paavo Hassinen, Janne Mononen, EASIE
[2] Durability Tests performed at Technische Universität Darmstadt, Test report -
Part 1.2, 2011, Aneta Kurpiela, Jörg Lange, EASIE
[3] Durability Tests performed at Institut für Sandwichtechnik - FH Mainz, Test report -
Part 1.3, Jessica Kochenbach 2011, EASIE
[4] Model for effect of ageing, Report No.: D4.2/2, Andreas Metzger, Saskia Käpplein,
Thomas Misiek, Paavo Hassinen, Janne Mononen, Aneta Kurpiela, Jörg Lange, Jes-
sica Kochenbach, 2011, EASIE
[5] European Standard EN 14509, 2006. Self-supporting double skin metal faced insu-
lating panels. Factory made products. Specifications
[6] Retrofitting, Durability and Maintenance, Experimental programme, WP4 doc 2 rev 4,
EASIE
[7] Pfeifer, L. (2005) Durability Assessment of Sandwich Panel Construction, Doctor
Thesis, University of Surrey and Fachhochschule Mainz
[8] Testing of used panels, Test Report 4.2, Part 1, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
(KIT), Versuchsanstalt für Stahl, Holz und Steine, Andreas Metzger, Saskia Käp-
plein, Thomas Misiek, EASIE
(KIT), Versuchsanstalt für Stahl, Holz und Steine, Andreas Metzger, Saskia
Käpplein, Thomas Misiek, EASIE

Rep Ort: Improvement of Design Expressions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rep Ort: Improvement of Design Expressions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REP ORT

Improvement of Design Expressions

Publisher: Andreas Metzger, Saskia Käpplein, Thomas Misiek,

Task: 4.2 and 4.3

This report includes 66 pages.

Date of issue: 29.12.2011

Verification and approval

2 Durabilty check according to the durability parameters of EN 14509 6

2.1 Introduction and overview 6

2.2 Polyurethane-Samples (PU-1 and PU-2) 9

2.3 Expanded-Polystyrene-Samples (EPS-1 and EPS-2) 9

2.4 Rockwool-samples (RW-1, RW-2, RW-3 and RW-4) 10

3 Relations between tensile strength and other material parameters 15

3.1 Introduction of the lowest-value-analysis 15

3.2 Analogy between tensile strength and wrinkling stress 20

3.3 Analogy between tensile strength and shear strength 27

4 Comparison of the test results to existing prediction model of Pfeiffer [7] 33

5 Summary and conclusions 59

The Ensuring Advancement in Sandwich Construction through Innovation and Exploitation

Cross Panel Tensile Test

Material Test Face Layer

inner face (steel core)

Small wrinkling test

Tests performed by:

2 Durability check according to the durability parameters of EN 14509

2.1 Introduction and overview

Fig. 2.2: Acceptance criteria of EN 14509 for the durability tests

Sample overview Durability check according [5]

Cross panel tensile tests

TKK FAILED fCt7,(14),28,56 < 0,018 MPa

fCt7-fCt28=0,04 > 0,03=3∙(fCt0-fCt7)

mineral wool DUR2 ISM ./. no tests performed

Tab. 2.1: Durability Check of the performed tests according EN 14509

2.2 Polyurethane-Samples (PU-1 and PU-2)

2.3 Expanded-Polystyrene-Samples (EPS-1 and EPS-2)

2.4 Rockwool-samples (RW-1, RW-2, RW-3 and RW-4)

Polyurethane samples (PU-1 and PU-2)

PU-1: Cross panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at TUD)

Expanded polystyrene samples (EPS-1 and EPS-2)

EPS-1: Cross-panel tensile strength

EPS-1: Elasticity modulus in tensile test

EPS-2: Cross-panel tensile strength

EPS-2: Elasticity modulus in tensile test

Rockwool samples (RW-1 and RW-2)

RW-1: Cross-panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at TKK)

RW-1: Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at TKK)

RW-2: Cross-panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at TKK)

RW-2: Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at TKK)

Rockwool samples (RW-3 and RW-4)

RW-3: Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at ISM)

RW-3: Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at TKK)

RW-3: Cross panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at ISM)

RW-3: Cross-panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at TKK)

RW-4: Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at ISM)

RW-4: Elasticity modulus in tensile test (Tests perfomed at TKK)

RW-4: Cross panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at ISM)

RW-4: Cross-panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at TKK)

3 Relations between tensile strength and other material parameters

3.1 Introduction of the lowest-value-analysis

Polyurethane samples (PU-1 and PU-2)

PU-1: Cross panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at TUD)

PU-1: Cross-panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at TKK)

PU-2: Cross panel tensile strength (Tests perfomed at TUD)