Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 267–277

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Composites: Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

The mechanical behaviour of corrugated-core sandwich panels

M.R.M. Rejab a,b,⇑, W.J. Cantwell c
a
School of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Brownlow Hill, Liverpool L69 3GH, United Kingdom
b
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, 26600 Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia
c
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Khalifa University of Science, Technology and Research (KUSTAR), PO Box 127788, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A series of experimental investigations and numerical analyses is presented into the compression
Received 23 July 2012 response, and subsequent failure modes in corrugated-core sandwich panels based on an aluminium
Received in revised form 5 October 2012 alloy, a glass fibre reinforced plastic (GFRP) and a carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP). The corru-
Accepted 25 October 2012
gated-cores were fabricated using a hot press moulding technique and then bonded to face sheets based
Available online 22 November 2012
on the same material, to produce a range of lightweight sandwich panels. The role of the number of unit
cells and the thickness of the cell walls in determining the overall deformation and local collapse behav-
Keywords:
iour of the panels is investigated. The experiments also provide an insight into the post-failure response
A. Carbon fibre
A. Glass fibre
of the sandwich panels. The results are compared with the numerical predictions offered by a finite ele-
B. Strength ment analysis (FEA) as well as those associated with an analytical model. Buckling of the cell walls has
C. Finite element analysis been found to be initial failure mode in these corrugated systems. Continued loading resulted in fracture
of the cell walls, localised delamination as well as debonding between the skins and the core. The predic-
tions of the FEA generally show reasonably good agreement with the experimental measurements.
Finally, the specific compressive properties of the corrugated structures have been compared to those
of other core materials where evidence suggests that these systems compare favourably with their more
conventional counterparts.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction showed that corrugated cores when tested in the longitudinal

Sandwich panels offer a wide range of advantages over con-
ventional monolithic materials and their use is continuously
increasing in applications in the aerospace, automotive, naval
and construction industries. Sandwich panels, with fibre rein-
forced plastic skins and a cellular core, have been shown to offer
superior specific stiffness and strength properties in flexure com-
pared to their monolithic counterparts. In recent years, various
core designs with improved quasi-static and dynamic properties
have been proposed, including those based on various foams
[1,2], honeycomb cores [3,4], origami-type cores [5,6] and truss
cores [7–11].
Typically, a corrugated-core sandwich panel is comprised of a
corrugated sheet positioned between two thin skins. A principal
feature of this type of structure is its high strength-to-weight ratio.
The corrugated-core serves to keep the skins apart as well as stabil-
ising the component by resisting vertical forces. This design en-
ables the complete structure to act as a single thick plate, by
virtue of its high shear strength [12]. For example, Côté et al. [7]
⇑ Corresponding author at: School of Engineering, University of Liverpool,
Brownlow Hill, Liverpool L69 3GH, United Kingdom.
E-mail address: ruzaimi@liv.ac.uk (M.R.M. Rejab).
direction offer shear strengths that are comparable with square
honeycombs and significantly greater than those exhibited by dia-
mond cores and more traditional foam cores. The second distinc-
tive feature of a corrugated-core is its ability to impart excellent
ventilation characteristics, avoiding problems associated with
humidity retention that is common in cellular core materials (e.g.
polymeric foams and honeycombs). Humidity-retention can be a
problem in many aerospace structures, e.g. aluminium honey-
combs, but the adoption of corrugated, origami-type and truss core
structures can minimise this problem. Additionally, the aircraft
manufacturer Airbus [13] has developed a promising sandwich
fuselage concept termed VeSCo (Ventable Shear Core), a novel de-
sign that incorporates a series of open channel structures, such as
folded cores, truss cores and corrugated-cores to form the sand-
wich core material. Corrugated-core sandwich panels, due to their
exceptionally high flexural stiffness-to-weight characteristics, are
therefore finding increasing use in aerospace, civil engineering
and other industries. For example, Yokozeki et al. [14] investigated
the properties of corrugated laminates made from carbon/epoxy
composites and suggested that they could be used in the design
of a morphing aircraft wing, since they offer high stiffness in the
corrugation direction and yet are relatively compliant in the trans-
verse direction.

1359-8368/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.10.031
268 M.R.M. Rejab, W.J. Cantwell / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 267–277

In recent years, a number of researchers have investigated the
behaviour of corrugated-core panels under lateral compression
loading. Côté et al. [7] investigated corrugated and diamond lattice
materials (prismatic cores) based on stainless steel, manufactured
by slotting and brazing methods, and then compared their re-
sponses with analytical and FE predictions. They found that the
measured strengths were below the analytical predictions, due to
the presence of imperfections. The authors concluded that corru-
gated-cores offer significant potential for applications in sandwich
beam construction, since they exhibit what they consider to be a
near optimal longitudinal shear strength and energy-absorption
capacity. The transverse shear strengths of corrugated composite
structures will clearly be lower than their longitudinal values,
although they remain well above those of diamond cores and foam
cores [7]. Recently, Kazemahvazi et al. [10,11] proposed a novel
corrugation concept where each core member is made in a sand-
wich configuration, creating a hierarchical sandwich structure to
eliminate buckling effects. The core structures were manufactured
by combining a unidirectional carbon fibre prepreg with a PMI
foam and were then modelled using both analytical and FE tech-
niques. They showed that if designed correctly, hierarchical struc-
tures can offer flexural strength to weight ratios that are up to
seven times greater than that of their monolithic counterparts.
Zhang et al. [15] discussed the crush behaviour of four types of cor-
rugated core (V-type, U-type, X-type and Y-type cores) sandwich
panels made from mild steel, in which the corrugated-cores were
connected through a double-angle welding technique. By ignoring
imperfections, the finite element models over-predicted the peak
crushing strength of most of the core designs.
The failure mechanisms observed in composites can vary greatly
from thin to thick laminates. For composites, the concept of being
thick should be defined in a different manner more than for uniform
materials. Along with the usual length-to thickness ratio of the
composites, the number of plies per unit thickness is also impor-
tant. Although the former governs the likelihood of global buckling,
the latter influences failure at a microscopic scale, which is more
unpredictable. This can be understood from the fact that failure in
thick composites often involves more complex fracture modes than
in thin composites. The reason for this is that a thick composite con-
tains a greater number of plies. Both the number of ply interfaces
and the total interfacial area are increased in proportion to the
thickness of the laminate, both increasing the possibility of interfa-
cial defects and delamination. From a statistical point of view, the
possibility of a composite containing both more and larger defects
increases with thickness. The compressive strength of a composite
tends to decrease with increasing thickness, despite the fact that
accurate experimental validation is difficult, due to the wide level
of scatter in the results [16]. Compressive failure occurs as a result
of fibre instability, due to misalignment of the reinforcement.
Thicker composites contain more layers, leading to a greater possi-
bility of fibre misalignment [17].
In this paper, the compressive properties of corrugated-core
sandwich panels based on three different materials are investi-
gated. Particular focus is placed on identifying the influence of
the number of unit cells and the thickness of the cell walls in deter-
mining the overall deformation and local collapse behaviour of the
panel. Attention also focuses on establishing the fracture modes
during compression loading. Finally, the properties are compared
to those of other more conventional core materials in order to
gauge their overall potential.
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Materials and fabrication process

The corrugated-cores investigated in this study were manufac-

tured from three types of material commonly used in aerospace
Table 1
applications, these being an aluminium alloy 2024-O (AL), a woven
Properties of the materials used to produce the corrugated-core sandwich panels for
(a) AL 2024-0, (b) GFRP and CFRP. fabric-type glass fibre reinforced plastic (GFRP), and a woven car-
bon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP). A summary of the properties
(a) Properties of an aluminium alloy 2024-O with isotropic hardening
of the materials is given in Table 1. Each material was tested in ten-
Symbol Value (AL) Property sion according to BS EN 10002-1:2001 for metallic materials, and
q 2780 kg/m3 Density tension and shear according to BS EN ISO 527-4:1997 for compos-
E 70.6 GPa Young’s modulus ites. The remaining data were taken from the manufacturer’s data
v 0.3 Poisson’s ratio
sheets. In order to obtain a repeatable and uniform corrugation, the
sheets were prepared using a 45° triangular profile with a planar
Yield stress, MPa/Plastic strain (ry/epl) surface of dimensions of 210 mm by 240 mm. Fig. 1 shows the steel
70.5/0 103.7/0.01 132.5/0.0198 151.7/0.0296 164.7/0.0392 mould used to produce corrugations with a nominal cell height of
175.2/0.0489 198.8/0.09531 210.9/0.1398 221.8/0.1823 223.9/0.1851 10 mm and a unit cell length of 20 mm. The mould was manufac-
tured to a high precision using a computer-controlled numerical
(b) Properties of the woven fabric glass-fibre reinforced plastic, (GFRP) and the
milling machine (CNC). The apex of each triangular unit in the
woven fabric carbon-fibre reinforced plastic, (CFRP)
mould was relatively sharp, having an average radius of approxi-
Symbol Value Value Property mately 0.1 mm. This does give a small region of resin enrichment
(GFRP) (CFRP)
in the corners, however, this was not deemed to be significant. A
E11 23 GPa 48 GPa Young’s modulus in longitudinal 45° corrugation angle was selected since it represents an optimum
direction
E22 23 GPa 48 GPa Young’s modulus in transverse
configuration for all combinations of bending, shear and stretching
direction stiffness [10].
E33 5 GPa 1 GPa Young’s modulus in thickness
direction
G12 5 GPa 9 GPa In-plane shear modulus 2.2. Unit cell design
G13, G23 5 GPa 9 GPa Through-thickness shear modulus
v12 0.15 0.1 In-plane Poisson’s ratio The corrugated-core geometry is defined by a repeating
v13, v23 0.15 0.1 Through-thickness Poisson’s ratio
arrangement of unit cells, which are determined by a set of
XT 320 MPa 550 MPa Longitudinal tensile strength
XC 260 MPa 150 MPa Longitudinal compressive strength
geometric parameters. In this study, the unit cell is based on a
YT 320 MPa 550 MPa Transverse tensile strength triangular profile and the corrugated specimens consist of several
YC 260 MPa 150 MPa Transverse compressive strength repetitions of an identical unit cell. The geometric parameters
ST 100 MPa 120 MPa Transverse shear strength identified in Fig. 2a are as follows: h and b are the internal angles
SL 100 MPa 120 MPa Longitudinal shear strength
of a unit cell in the corrugated-core sandwich panel; T is the height
 M.R.M. Rejab, W.J. Cantwell / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 267–277
(a)
(b)
All units in mm
Fig. 1. (a) Corrugated mould is made from steel and, (b) the profile angle of the mould.
of the core and HS is the overall height of the sandwich panel; HU
and HL are the upper and lower thicknesses of the skins, respec-
tively; H is the average thickness of inclined core member i.e. the
wall thickness; x is the length of the core; and w is the width of
a sample. For the current mould design, the value of x was
20 mm while h and b were set to 45° and 90°, respectively. During
preparation of the test specimens, the value of the width, w was
maintained constant at 25 mm. The relative density of the corru-
gated-core is given as [7]:
2H
q ¼ ð1Þ
L sin 2h
2.3. Sandwich panels
A hot press was used to produce all of the corrugated sheets for
the sandwich panels. In order to manufacture the composite corru-
gations, the composite prepreg was placed between the upper and
lower moulds, and then cured according to the manufacturer’s rec-
ommended processing cycle. Once the hot press had cooled to a
temperature below 60 °C, the sheet was removed from the mould
and visually inspected for defects. The corrugated sheet was then
269
2cm
Deetail C
bonded to the upper and lower skins using a two part epoxy adhe-
sive (Araldite 420 A/B). The corrugated sandwich panel was then
heated in an oven to a temperature of 120 °C for approximately
1 h in order to cure the adhesive. As shown Fig. 2b–d, the structure
was cut into test specimens with dimensions of 100 mm (length)
and 25 mm (width). The specimen density, q was determined by
dividing the specimen mass (including the epoxy adhesive) by
the specimen volume (Hs.w.x). Two types of rectangular test spec-
imen were prepared. Initially, the effect of increasing the number
of cells in the core was investigated for a constant cell wall thick-
ness. Here, the number of cells, n was varied between 1 and 5. Fol-
lowing this, the effect of varying the cell wall thickness, H was
investigated for a constant value of n = 5. Table 2 summarises the
various geometries and properties of the test specimens.
2.4. Compression tests
Compression tests were conducted on the corrugated-core
sandwich panels using an Instron series 4204 testing machine.
Fig. 3 shows a specimen placed between the platens of the test ma-
chine, where it was deformed by applying a uniform lateral com-
pression at a nominal displacement rate of 1 mm/min. At least
270 M.R.M. Rejab, W.J. Cantwell / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 267–277

HU

L H
β
T

θ
HL w

x
(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)
Fig. 2. (a) Unit cell geometry of the corrugated-core sandwich panel (b) photo of an aluminium corrugation, (c) a GFRP corrugation and (d) a CFRP corrugation.

Table 2
Properties and characteristics of the corrugated-core sandwich panels.

Material Core ID No. of unit No. of Average wall thickness, H Average panel density, q(kg/ Relative core density, q
cell plies (mm) m3) (%)
Aluminium AL1 1 0.50 465 10.0
AL2 2 0.50 462 10.0
AL3 3 0.50 457 10.0
AL4 4 0.50 455 10.0
AL5 5 0.50 454 10.0
Glass fibre reinforced plastic GF2U1 1 2 0.19 228 3.8
GF2U2 2 2 0.19 218 3.8
GF2U3 3 2 0.19 213 3.8
GF2U4 4 2 0.19 210 3.8
GF2U5 5 2 0.19 202 3.8
GF3U5 5 3 0.31 220 6.2
GF4U5 5 4 0.43 238 8.6
GF5U5 5 5 0.50 261 10.0
GF7U5 5 7 0.77 292 15.4
GF10U5 5 10 0.98 363 19.6
Carbon fibre reinforced plastic CF2U1 1 2 0.45 260 9.0
CF2U2 2 2 0.45 259 9.0
CF2U3 3 2 0.45 256 9.0
CF2U4 4 2 0.45 248 9.0
CF2U5 5 2 0.45 244 9.0
CF3U5 5 3 0.89 296 17.8
CF4U5 5 4 1.03 340 20.6
CF5U5 5 5 1.10 350 22.0
CF6U5 5 6 1.25 390 25.0

three tests were carried out for each sample type. A high-resolu-
tion displacement measurement system was used to record the
displacement data as well as to identify the failure modes. The
load–displacement trace was recorded until the specimen had
been fully crushed.
3. Finite element analysis
The responses of the corrugated-core sandwich panels under
compression loading were modelled using the ABAQUS/Standard
finite element software package. In these lateral compression tests,
 M.R.M. Rejab, W.J. Cantwell / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 267–277
Specimen
Recorder
Fig. 3. Photograph of the compression test set-up with the displacement measurement system.
the face sheets do not carry significant load and it is therefore suf-
ficient to model the cores without skins, whilst applying the appro-
priate boundary conditions. In Fig. 4, three-dimensional shell
elements (S4R) with six degrees of freedom were used. The core
and the platen were connected using a contact interaction formu-
lation. The nodes along the upper and lower edges were fully con-
strained, except in y-direction at the upper edge. The edges in the
corrugations were modelled as perfectly. Clearly, this can influence
both the strength and stiffness predictions, although it does result
in a more simple FE model. Displacements were applied uniformly
to the nodes at the apex of the unit cell to simulate compression of
the core. The model comprised of 24 linear shell elements across
the width direction and 14 elements along the length of the struts,
giving a total of 3360 elements. Given that the corrugated-core was
bonded to the skins, there is a softening interaction associated with
the epoxy adhesive. To account for such effects, a softened contact
pressure-overclosure formulation was employed during the initial
stage of contact between the sharp edge of the core and the platen.
For the aluminium corrugation, an isotropic hardening model, with
true stress–strain data, was used. Hashin’s damage model assum-
ing, an initial linear elastic behaviour followed by evolution of
damage, was used to predict the behaviour of the composite. The
models were used to simulate initial failure and to predict the
compression strength and stiffness of the panels.
3.1. The effect of an initial imperfection on the behaviour of the cores
Most manufacturing routes result in some form of imperfection
in the finished structure. Such flaws may be associated with geo-
metrical imperfections resulting from spring-back following
moulding, local variations in the fibre volume fraction as well as
voids introduced during the compression moulding process. Mod-
els that do not account for structural imperfections are likely to
Legend:
U = Displacement degree of freedom
UR = Rotational degree of freedom
P = Load
δ = Displacement
Platen = Analytical rigid body
Corrugated-core =
Deformable body
Bottom core = Fixed (Ux = Uy = Uz = URx = URy = URz = 0)
Fig. 4. Mesh, boundary and loading conditions used in the corrugated-core model.
271
over-estimate both the peak load and the stiffness of the panel.
Previous workers, for example Côté et al. [7] and Kazemahvazi
and Zenkert [10] introduced imperfections in their models to more
accurately predict the load–displacement behaviour of corrugated
core geometries. The initial imperfection, in the shape of a buckling
mode, was imposed on each strut. Here, the initial imperfection, a
was described according to:
  
nH 2ps
aðsÞ ¼ 1  cos ð2Þ
2 L
where n is a dimensionless imperfection parameter and s is the arc
length along the wall thickness, H measured from one end. In ABA-
QUS/Standard [18], this was achieved using the IMPERFECTION
function in an analysis step. An elastic buckling analysis was ini-
tially conducted to retrieve the eigenmodes of the core. From the
analysis, a selected eigenmode with similar behaviour of the exper-
imental was used to introduce a small imperfection in the straight-
ness of the wall, which could then be used in the step procedure. An
imperfection sensitivity analysis was then performed, during which
the imperfection amplitudes were varied systematically between 0
(a perfect corrugated geometry) and 0.5. The IMPERFECTION took
the form:
X
M
Dvi ¼ wi /i ð3Þ
i¼1
where /i is the ith mode shape and wi is the associated scale factor.
An ABAQUS non-linear analysis was then used to trace the full re-
sponse of the structure past the buckling point and into the post-
buckling regime.
Top core = Ux= Uz = URx = URy = URz = 0; Uy ≠0
P, δ
272 M.R.M. Rejab, W.J. Cantwell / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 267–277
3.0
Compression Stress (MPa)
2.5 II
2.0
1.5
I III
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Compression Strain
Fig. 5. Typical compression stress–strain curve for an aluminium corrugated-core
panel.
4. Results and discussion
Compression testing on the corrugated cores showed that there
were significant differences in the behaviour of the different panels
and their respective responses are therefore considered separately
below.
4.1. Compressive response of the aluminium alloy corrugated-core
A typical stress–strain trace following a compression test on an
aluminium corrugated-core sandwich panel is presented in Fig. 5
and associated images during the deformation process are shown
in Fig. 6. It should be noted that the numbers on the photographic
images in Fig. 6 correspond to the regions on the stress–strain
traces in Fig. 5. Upon loading, the specimen exhibits an initial
non-linear response, which is possibly associated with the initial
machine compliance and also the fact that the skins may not have
been perfectly parallel to each other. The specimen subsequently
responds in a linear fashion (Region I) up to the first peak in the
trace, with the deformation being uniform across the specimen
width. After reaching the peak stress, one of the struts in the
corrugated-core was partially bent and as a consequence, the
overall stiffness of the specimen decreased. The load required to
further deform the sample gradually decreases due to the propaga-
tion of localised buckling across the width of the corrugated-core.
The response then becomes progressively non-linear (Region II),
where the force drops rapidly as the panel loses stability due to
plastic buckling. In Region III, the corrugated-core takes on a
trapezium shape and the applied load starts to increase again
(a) I
II
III
IV
Fig. 6. (a) Photographs of progressive damage development in a five unit cell aluminium system. (b) Debonding image at an end edge of the core after process (b – Region III).
(c) Crumpling when the corrugated-core is almost completely flattened.
AL5, H=0.50mm due to interactions between the surfaces of the cell walls and the
uppermost skin. Finally, in Region IV the corrugated-core has been
completely densified, which, in certain cases resulted in debonding
between the skins and the core at the edges of the sample. The evi-
dence from these tests on the aluminium corrugations indicates
that elastic buckling, plastic deformation and the formation of
plastic hinges are the dominant failure mode in this material.
IV
4.2. Compressive response of the GFRP corrugated-core
The stress–strain traces for the GFRP corrugated-core sandwich
panel generally exhibited a more brittle type of behaviour, involv-
0.6 0.7 0.8 ing extensive crushing as shown in the stress–strain trace in Fig. 7
and the corresponding images in Fig. 8. The stress increases line-
arly up to the first peak, with deformation in the core being sym-
metrical about the axis of loading. In Region II, initial cell wall
buckling was clearly visible, followed by compressive failure at
the peak stress. The stress then progressively decreases as fibres
begin to fracture in the middle of individual cell walls. Subsequent
failure involved the formation of hinges in the middle of the cell
wall and progressive crushing at the cell wall close to lower skin,
as shown in Region III. Finally, in Region IV the corrugated-core
is completely crushed, and the core is fully flattened. An examina-
tion of the failed samples in Fig. 8b indicates that additional failure
mechanisms involved in the crushing process include delamination
between the plies and debonding of the adhesive between the core
and skin surfaces. Meanwhile, based on the observations of differ-
ent numbers of unit cells, elastic buckling was the dominant initial
failure mode for this type of material.
4.3. Compressive response of the CFRP corrugated-core
The failure processes in the CFRP corrugated-core are shown in
Fig. 9, in which initial failure was dominated by cell wall buckling.
The associated compression stress–strain plot was steeper than
that associated with the aluminium and GFRP systems, although
the damage failure modes were similar to those observed in its
glass fibre counterpart. Following an initial linear response, the cell
walls buckled and the force dropped steadily (Images I–II). Subse-
quent failure involved fibre fracture, delamination and debonding
between the core and skin (Images III–IV).
4.4. Comparison of the numerical and analytical predictions with the
experimental data
Fig. 10 compares the initial portion of the compression stress–
strain traces for the aluminium and GFRP corrugations (each based
on five unit cells) with the predictions from the finite element
(b)
1mm
(c)
1mm

0.20
Compression Stress (MPa)
II
0.15
0.10
I A comparison of the Figs. 11a and b indicate that the strengths of
0.05
0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Compression Strain
Fig. 7. Typical compression stress–strain curve for a GFRP sandwich corrugated-
core panel.
model. It should be noted that the initial FE predictions, based on
imperfection-free corrugations, grossly over-estimated both the
strength and stiffness of all three types of corrugation. Following
a detailed imperfection sensitivity analysis, the FE predictions
were modified to introduce initial imperfections of amplitude
n = 0.01, for the aluminium corrugation and n = 0.05 and n = 0.1
for the GFRP and CFRP corrugations, respectively. The appropriate
scale factor was obtained through an imperfection sensitivity pro-
cedure whereby the factor was varied until the predicted maxi-
mum force agreed with the experimental value. Applying these
initial imperfections yields reasonably good predictions between
the numerical and experimental data, especially for the all-metal
system. It is evident that the FE model of the GFRP corrugation fails
to predict the early instabilities in the load–displacement trace and
subsequently over-predicts the softening phase of the deformation
process.
4.5. The effect of varying the number of unit cells
Clearly, one would intuitively expect the performance of multi-
ple unit cell corrugations to accurately reflect that of a single cell
system. However, difficulties associated with the manufacture of
small single cell samples as well as problems with test alignment
may introduce unwanted anomalies into the test data. In order
to establish more accurately, tests were undertaken on samples
based on between one and five cells. The effect of varying the num-
ber of unit cells on the compression strength of the aluminium and
GFRP sandwich panels is shown in Fig. 11a. A comparison of the
finite element predictions and the experimental measurements
(a) I (b)
II
III
IV
Fig. 8. (a) Photographs of progressive damage development in a five unit cell GFRP corrugation. (b) Failure mode images after crushing process completed from fibre breaking
in the middle of the core after buckling load, delamination occurred at the apex and debonding at both ends.
M.R.M. Rejab, W.J. Cantwell / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 267–277 273
GF2U5, H=0.19mm indicates that the influence of the cell number is accurately
predicted. Clearly, the compression strength of the aluminium cor-
rugation is much higher than that of the GFRP structure, due to the
fact that the aluminium alloy is significantly thicker than its com-
posite counterpart. Fig. 11b shows the variation of the strength and
III stiffness of the CFRP-based corrugations as a function of cell num-
ber. Here, the model over-estimates the experimental strength and
stiffness values, particularly at intermediate values of cell number.
the aluminium and carbon fibre corrugations (HAL = 0.5 mm and
IV HCFRP = 0.45 mm) are similar, in spite of the fact that the density
of the composite is significantly lower than that of the alloy.
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Fig. 12 shows the deformed shapes of GFRP structures based on be-
tween one and five unit cells. All of the structures have been sub-
jected to a similar level of crosshead displacement. An examination
of the images indicates that the failure modes are similar in all five
samples, will buckling and subsequent fracture of the cell walls
being in evidence.
4.6. The effect of cell wall thickness
The final part of this study investigated the influence of varying
the thickness of the cell wall on the compressive properties of the
corrugations. Fig. 13 shows the variation of strength and stiffness
of the GFRP and CFRP corrugations as a function of wall thickness.
As expected, the strength increases in a highly non-linear fashion
with wall thickness. The compression strength of the CFRP corru-
gation with a wall thickness of 1.25 mm is impressive, with a value
in excess of 18 MPa being recorded. The stiffness properties of the
corrugations also increase rapidly with wall thickness. Closer
examination of Fig. 13a and b indicates that the properties associ-
ated with the thickest cores tend to be lower than expected. These
discrepancies are associated with difficulties in manufacturing
thicker corrugations. It was observed that once the wall thickness
of the GFRP system exceeded 1 mm, the apexes became progres-
sively rounded and defects were introduced at the bends in the
corrugation. This is shown schematically in the top right hand cor-
ner of the figures. The presence of these manufacturing defects
greatly reduced both the strength and stiffness of the corrugations.
In order to facilitate a fairer comparison of the compression prop-
erties of the corrugations, the data in Fig. 13 were normalised by
the density of the core to yield specific compression strength
properties, rsp, and these values are shown as a function of cell
wall thicknesses in Fig. 14. An examination of the figure indicates
that the specific strength increases rapidly with wall thickness
with the specific strength of the 1.2 mm panel being roughly three
times that of the 0.4 mm thick structure. The figure suggests that
the CFRP composites out-perform their GFRP and aluminium
Delamination
Fibre
breaking
Debonding
0.5mm
274 M.R.M. Rejab, W.J. Cantwell / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 267–277

(a) I
(b)
Debonding

II Fibre
breaking
Delamination
III

IV
1mm

Fig. 9. (a) Photographs of progressive damage development in five unit cell CFRP corrugation. (b) Failure mode images after crushing process completed from formation of
hinges in the middle of the cell wall after fibre fracture, delamination and debonding at both ends.

Expt. AL5 σmax (AL5)

Expt. Fmax
Expt. (AL5)
(a) 3.0
FE, ξ= 0.01
(a) 3 σmax (GF2U5)
Expt. Fmax
Expt. (GF2U5)
0.3

FE- σ max (AL5)

Compression Stress (MPa)

Compression Strength (MPa)

Compression Strength (MPa)

FE-Fmax (AL5)
2.5
FE- σ max (GF2U5)
FE_Fmax (GF2U5)

2.0
2 0.2

1.5

1.0
1 0.1
0.5

0.0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0 0
Compression Strain 0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of unit cells

(b) 0.20 Expt. GF2U5

σmax
Expt.Fmax
Expt.
FE, ξ=0.05
(b) 3 140
Compression Stress (MPa)

Expt.k k
Expt.
FE- σ max
FE-Fmax
Compression Strength (MPa)

0.15 120
FE- k
FE-k

Stiffness, k (MPa)
100
2
0.10
80

60
0.05
1
40

0.00 20
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Compression Strain 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Fig. 10. The measured and predicted responses for (a) a five unit cell aluminium
Number of unit cells
corrugation with H = 0.5 mm n = 0.01 and (b) a five unit cell glass fibre/epoxy
corrugation with H = 0.19 mm n = 0.05.
Fig. 11. Comparison between measured and FE predictions for compression
strength for (a) AL5 corrugated-core sandwich panels (H = 0.50 mm) with GF2U5
corrugated-core sandwich panels (H = 0.19 mm), and compression strength and
counterparts at low wall thicknesses, whereas there appears to be stiffness responses to the different number of unit cells for (b) CF2U5 corrugated-
little difference between the two composite systems as the wall core sandwich panels (H = 0.45 mm).
thickness increases.
Considering equilibrium of loads in y-direction, it can be shown
that:
4.7. Prediction of the compression strength of the corrugations
P
N sin h þ R cos h ¼ ð4Þ
Consider the model of the corrugated-core structure with an ap- 2
plied vertical load as shown in Fig. 15. If the sandwich panel is sub- and the bending moment M and the shear load R are related
jected to a compressive load 5P, then a single cell is subjected to a through:
load P as shown in Fig. 15b. Due to the symmetry of the triangular
RL
profile, each of the core members can be considered as a cantilever M¼ ð5Þ
beam subjected to the same axial stretching load N, bending mo- 2
ment M and shear load R as shown in Fig. 15c. Here, the lower The deformation d then can be written in terms of the displace-
end of each core member is fixed. ment parameters of U1 and U2 as:
 M.R.M. Rejab, W.J. Cantwell / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 267–277 275

n=20mm 20mm

2n=40mm

3n=60mm

4n=80mm

5n=100mm

Fig. 12. Photographs of damage in GFRP samples based on an increasing number of units cells.

U1 sin h þ U2 cos h ¼ d ð6Þ Eq 2

Gc ¼ sin 2h ð13Þ
4
where the relationship between the U1 and U2 is:
Substituting Eq. (1) into Eq. (13) gives:
U1 ¼ U2 tan h ð7Þ
and based on classical beam theory, the relationship between the EH
Gc ¼ sin 2h ð14Þ
displacement parameters and the loads acting on the core member 2L
can be written as follows: Thus,
NL RL
U1 ¼ ; U2 ¼ ð8Þ xwEH
EA 12EI PS ¼ sin 2h sin h ð15Þ
2L
where A is the cross-sectional area (= wH), I is the second moment
If the two buckling loads associated with macro-buckling of the
of area (= wH3/12) and E is the Young’s modulus of the core. Substi-
sandwich panel, PE and PS differ greatly, then Eqs. (12) and (15) can
tuting Eqs. (7) and (8) into Eq. (6), and then solving using Eq. (4), the
be used to estimate the critical buckling load, Pcr (i.e. if PS > PE, then
relationship between the load P and the deformation d can be
Pcr  PE, and vice versa). However, if the Euler and core shear buck-
shown to be:
ling loads are of similar magnitude, interaction between buckling
2
2EHwðL2 sin h þ H2 cos2 hÞ modes should be considered. For this case, the critical buckling
P¼ d ð9Þ load can be estimated from [22]:
L3
In predicting the strength of the model, Euler buckling and core 1 1 1
¼ þ ð16Þ
shear buckling are two possible modes of local elastic buckling in Pcr PE PS
the inclined cell wall under lateral compression load. Here, the Eu-
Given that buckling represents the initial mode of failure in
ler buckling load PE, can be estimated from classical buckling the-
these corrugated sandwich structures, it should be possible to pre-
ory [19,20] as:
dict analytically the critical load required to buckle the inclined cell
k2 p2 EI walls. In this case, the critical loading is Pcr = PE where the values
PE ¼ ð10Þ PS > PE based on analytical calculations. Here, the value of k re-
L2
quired to force the model to fit the experimental data was found
where k is a factor dependant on the boundary conditions. Assum- to be dependent on the corrugation type, with values of k = 1.0,
ing perfect bonding between the core and the skins, the value of PE 1.5 and 0.87 being required to predict the trends in the critical
for a corrugated structure here can be expressed as: loads of the aluminium, GFRP and CFRP corrugations respectively.
It is worth noting that a value of k = 1.0 corresponds to a structure
2
nk2 p2 EwH3 ðL2 sin h þ H2 cos2 hÞ that is acting as if the apexes of the core are simply-supported,
PE ¼ 4
ð11Þ
6L sin h whereas a value of k = 1.5 indicates that the core is acting as if it
is responding as if one end of the cell is clamped and the other is
Since h = 45° in this study, Eq. (11) can be simplified as:
perfectly built in.
 2 (  2 )
nEwH3 kp H Finally, Fig. 16 compares the compression strength of the corru-
PE ¼ pffiffiffi 1þ ð12Þ gated-cores investigated in this study with other commercial core
6 2 L L
types, including corrugated aluminium [23], aluminium honey-
When considering core shear buckling, Xiong et. al. [21] stated combs [24], polymer foams [25] and a metal foam [26]. Clearly,
that it is reasonable to neglect the shear stiffness of the skins and the aluminium honeycombs out-perform the remaining cores
assume that the shear rigidity of the sandwich panel is approxi- including the corrugated structures discussed herein. However,
mately equal to that of the corrugated-core. Therefore, the core closer inspection suggests that the thickest CFRP corrugation
shear buckling load, Ps  Gcwxsinh, where Gc is the effective shear should offer compressive properties that are comparable to those
modulus of the corrugated-core, can be approximated by [7]: of the honeycomb systems. It is also interesting to note that the
276 M.R.M. Rejab, W.J. Cantwell / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 267–277

(a)
Expt. σmax
Fmax
11 700
kExpt. k
10
FE - σmax
FE-Fmax

Compression Strength (MPa)

9 600
FE - k
FE-k
8

Stiffness, k (MPa)
500
7
6 400
5
300
4
3 200
2
100
1
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Wall thickness (mm)

(b)
Expt. σmax
Fmax
kExpt. k
18 600
FE - σmax
FE-Fmax
Compression Strength (MPa)

16 FE-k
FE - k
500
14

Stiffness, k (MPa)
12 400
10
300
8
6 200
4
100
2
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Wall thickness (mm)

Fig. 13. Comparison of the experimental data and FE predictions for compression strength with stiffness as a function of cell wall thicknesses of (a) GFRP sandwich panels and
(b) CFRP sandwich panels.

composite corrugations out-perform the metal corrugations as

well as the aluminium foam.
80
CFRP
70
Specific Strength (kN.m/kg)

GFRP ρ *= 25 5. Conclusions
60 AL
Triangular corrugated-cores, manufactured using a 45° profiled
50
mould, have been used to produce a range of lightweight sandwich
40 structures. The compressive behaviour and resulting failure mech-
anisms in structures based on three different materials have been
30
investigated both experimentally and numerically. An examination
20 of the corrugations during testing indicated that initial failure was
ρ *= 3.8 ρ *= 10 dominated by instabilities as the cell walls begin to buckle. Beyond
10
this buckling threshold, the aluminium corrugations deformed
0 plastically, resulting in the formation of localised plastic hinges.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
In contrast, the composite corrugations exhibited zones of fibre
Wall thickness (mm)
fracture, delamination and debonding.
Fig. 14. Comparison of the specific strength as a function of cell wall thicknesses of The predictions offered by the numerical models were found to
the GFRP, CFRP and aluminium cores. be in reasonably good agreement with the experimental data,

(a)
(b)
Fig. 15. Free-body diagram of (a) a five unit cells, (b) a single unit cell and (c) a cell wall under compression loading.
AL_Corrugated GF_Corrugated
Metawell_Corrugated AL_Honeycomb
Cross-PVC_Foam Linear-PVC_Foam
20
Compression Strength (MPa)
15
10
5 2006;43:6220–42.
0 2006;43(17):5228–46.
0 50 100 150 200
Equivalent core density
Fig. 16. Comparison of compression strength of the corrugated-cores with other
core types design, as a function of equivalent core density.
providing that an appropriate value for the initial imperfection was
employed during the analysis. Conversely, a simple analytical
model based on the buckling response of the cell walls over-esti-
mated the load-bearing capability of the corrugations, due to fact
that the model assumes perfect bonding between the apex of the
corrugated core and the skin and also since it did not include the
effect of initial imperfections along the cell walls.
A study to compare the specific compressive properties of the
various composite corrugations with those offered by more conven-
tional honeycomb and foam materials has indicated that thick CFRP
corrugations offer properties that are similar to those exhibited by
aluminium honeycombs. Further, the evidence suggests that the
composite core materials significantly out-perform more conven-
tional core structures, such as polymer and metal foams. Further
work will investigate the use of ABAQUS/Explicit in order to more
accurately capture the crushing response of the composite core.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the Government of Malaysia and the
Universiti Malaysia Pahang for funding this study.
References
[1] Cantwell WJ, Compston P, Reyes G. The fracture properties of novel aluminium
foam sandwich structures. J Mater Sci Lett 2000;19(14):2205–8.
M.R.M. Rejab, W.J. Cantwell / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 267–277 277
Applied load, 5P
Unit cell
H
θ
P N
(c) R
M
Φ2
δ
δ L
Φ1
CF_Corrugated
[2] Cui L, Kiernan S, Gilchrist MD. Designing the energy absorption capacity of
ALPORAS_Foam
functionally graded foam materials. Mater Sci Eng A 2009;509:215–25.
PET_Foam
[3] Rathbun HJ, Radford DD, Xue Z, He MY, Yang J, Deshpande VS, et al.
Performance of metallic honeycomb-core sandwich beam under shock
loading. Int J Solids Struct 2006;43(6):1746–63.
[4] Aktay L, Johnson AF, Kröplin BH. Numerical modelling of honeycomb core
crush behaviour. Eng Fract Mech 2008;75:2616–30.
[5] Fischer S, Drechsler K, Kilchert S, Johnson A. Mechanical tests for foldcore base
material properties. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manu 2009;40(12):1941–52.
[6] Yeop B, Shoji D, Hansen CJ, Hong E, Dunand DC, Lewis JA. Printed origami
structures. Adv Mater 2010;22(20):2251–4.
[7] Côté F, Deshpande VS, Fleck NA, Evans AG. The compressive and shear
responses of corrugated and diamond lattice materials. Int J Solids Struct
[8] Lim HJ, Kang KJ. Mechanical behaviour of sandwich panels with tetrahedral
and Kagome truss cores fabricated from wires. Int J Solids Struct
250 300 350 400 [9] Smith M, Cantwell WJ, Guan Z, Tsopanos S, Theobald ND, Nurick GN, et al. The
quasi-static and blast response of steel lattice structures. J Sandwich Struct
(kg/m3) Mater 2010(00):1–23.
[10] Kazemahvazi S, Zenkert D. Corrugated all-composite sandwich structures. Part
1: Modeling. Compos Sci Technol 2009;69:913–9.
[11] Kazemahvazi S, Tanner D, Zenkert D. Corrugated all-composite sandwich
structures. Part 2: Failure mechanism and experimental program. Compos Sci
Technol 2009;69:920–5.
[12] Allen HG. Analysis and design of structural sandwich panels. Oxford: Pergamon;
1969.
[13] Herrmann AS, Zahlen PC, Zuardy I. Sandwich structures technology in
commercial aviation: Present application and future trends. In: Proceedings
of the 7th Int. Conf. on Sandwich Structures, Aalborg, Denmark, 2005;p. 3–26.
[14] Yokozeki T, Takeda S-I, Ogasawara T, Ishikawa T. Mechanical properties of
corrugated composites for candidate materials of flexible wing structures.
Composites: Part A 2006;37:1578–86.
[15] Zhang Y, Zhang S, Wang Z. Crush behavior of corrugated cores sandwich
panels. Adv Mater Res 2011;217–218:1584–9.
[16] Lee J, Soutis C. Thickness effect on the compressive strength of T800/924C
carbon fibre-epoxy laminates. Composites: Part A 2005;36:213–27.
[17] Lin Y, Lin H, Kuo W, Chen Y. Fracture evolution in thick composites under
compression. Polym Compos 2007;28(4):425–36.
[18] Abaqus 6.9 Analysis User’s Manual, Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp.,
Providence, RI, USA; 2009.
[19] Bleich E. Buckling strength of metal structures. London: McGraw-Hill Book
Company; 1952.
[20] Turvey GJ, Marshal IH. Buckling and postbuckling of composite
plates. London: Chapman and Hall; 1995.
[21] Xiong J, Ma L, Wu L, Liu J, Vaziri A. Mechanical behavior and failure of
composite pyramidal truss core sandwich columns. Compos Part B: Eng
2011;42:938–45.
[22] Zenkert D. An introduction to sandwich construction: Engineering Materials
Advisory Services Limited; 1995.
[23] Metal Sandwich Technology – www.metawell.de.
[24] HexWeb Honeycombs Cores – www.hexcel.com.
[25] Hassan MZ, Cantwell WJ. Strain rate effects in the mechanical properties of
polymer foams. Int J Polym Technol 2011;3(1):27–34.
[26] ALPORAS – Superlight weight materials. Brochure of Shinko Wire Co. Ltd.,
Osaka, Japan 1999.