Journal Pre-proofs

Deformation and failure of hybrid composite sandwich beams with a metal

foam core under quasi-static load and low-velocity impact

Wei Zhang, Qinghua Qin, Jianfeng Li, Kaikai Li, L.H. Poh, Yan Li, Jianxun
Zhang, Shejuan Xie, Hongen Chen, Jianping Zhao

PII: S0263-8223(20)30092-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112175
Reference: COST 112175

To appear in: Composite Structures

Received Date: 9 January 2020

Revised Date: 28 February 2020
Accepted Date: 10 March 2020

Please cite this article as: Zhang, W., Qin, Q., Li, J., Li, K., Poh, L.H., Li, Y., Zhang, J., Xie, S., Chen, H., Zhao,
J., Deformation and failure of hybrid composite sandwich beams with a metal foam core under quasi-static load
and low-velocity impact, Composite Structures (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112175

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover
page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version
will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are
providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors
may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 Deformation and failure of hybrid composite sandwich beams with a metal

foam core under quasi-static load and low-velocity impact

Wei Zhanga, Qinghua Qina,b,, Jianfeng Lia, Kaikai

Lia,      Jianxun Zhanga,b,*, Shejuan Xiea,

Hongen Chena, Jianping Zhaoa

aState Key Laboratory for Strength and Vibration of Mechanical Structures, Department of
Engineering Mechanics, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China

bState Key Laboratory of Explosion Science and Technology, Beijing Institute of Technology,
Beijing 100081, China

cDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore,

Singapore 117576, Singapore

dSchool of Aerospace Engineering and Applied Mechanics, Tongji University, Shanghai

200092, China

Abstract: The deformation and failure of hybrid composite sandwich beams with an

aluminum foam core under quasi-static load and low-velocity impact are investigated. The

sandwich beams comprise of two carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP) face sheets which

have identical/unidentical thicknesses. The experimental results show that hybrid composite

sandwich beams exhibit four active failure modes: face-sheet fracture, indentation, core shear

and core shear-tension. Core shear occurs in sandwich beams with two identical face sheets,

while core shear-tension develops in sandwich beams with two unidentical face sheets. An

asymmetrical sandwich beam with a thicker top face sheet has superior load-carrying

 Corresponding authors.

E-mail: qhqin@mail.xjtu.edu.cn (Q.H. Qin); jianxunzhang@mail.xjtu.edu.cn (J. X. Zhang).

capability than those with a thinner top face sheet for the same total thickness of the top and

bottom face sheets. For the similar failure modes of hybrid composite sandwich beams under

quasi-static load and low-velocity impact, the low-velocity impact collapse load is higher than

that corresponding to quasi-static collapse. The collapse loads of hybrid composite sandwich

beams predicted by simple theoretical solutions are in good agreement with the experimental

values.

Keywords: Hybrid sandwich beam; Carbon fiber-reinforced plastic; Aluminum foam;

Asymmetrical design; Failure; Low-velocity impact.

1. Introduction

A typical sandwich structure comprises of two thin, stiff face sheets and a lightweight

core. They are widely adopted as primary load-carrying members due to their high specific

stiffness, high specific strength and multi-functionality [1, 2]. In general, metal sandwich

structures consist of metallic face sheets and metallic core, such as aluminum foam [2-4],

aluminum honeycomb [5], metallic corrugated plate [6], while composite sandwich structures

consist of fiber-reinforced composite face sheets and non-metallic core, such as polymer foam

[7, 8], composite honeycomb [9], balsa wood [10]. Carbon-fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP)

possess excellent properties such as high specific modulus, high specific strength, corrosion

resistance and design-ability [11, 12]. Aluminum foams with high porosity, exhibit properties

such as low density, high energy absorption capacity, excellent impact resistance [1, 2, 13,

14]. Hybrid sandwich structures with CFRP face sheets and aluminum foam core thus

combine the advantageous properties of the two materials, to provide more potential

applications.

In general structural applications, the bending response of a sandwich beam mainly

depends on its geometrical design and selection of matrix materials. These factors directly

influence the corresponding deformation and failure modes in a sandwich beam, which in turn

determine the load-carrying capacity. Therefore, an efficient research on the deformation and

failure behaviors of sandwich beams under bending is required.

In the past decades, the deformation and failure behaviors of metal sandwich beams and

composite sandwich beams under quasi-static bending have been investigated extensively.
Many three-point bending or four-point bending experiments have shown that the main initial

failure modes of metallic sandwich beams are face yielding, face wrinkling, core shear, and

indentation [3, 4]. Accordingly, some analytical models were established to predict the initial

failure loads for different failure modes of metal sandwich beams. Similar failure modes can

be obtained for composite sandwich beams under quasi-static bending load, and the failure

models for composite sandwich beams were established correspondingly [9, 15, 16]. In

addition to static loads, sandwich beams are also subjected to low-velocity impact loads in

critical engineering applications, such as dropped tools, hailstones, collision, etc. Therefore,

the dynamic bending behaviors of metal and composite sandwich beams have also been

widely investigated. Yu et al. [17, 18], Crupi et al. [19] and Tan et al. [20] carried out

experiments to investigate the bending behaviors of metal sandwich beams under

low-velocity impact and developed different dynamic failure models. Qin et al. [21, 22]

theoretically investigated the low-velocity impact response of metal sandwich beams with

metal foam core and corrugated plate core, and good predictions of impact load and

deformation deflection were obtained. For composite sandwich beams, a series of theoretical

models were also proposed to predict the low-velocity impact response [23, 24]. There are

some investigations in literature on the bending behaviors of hybrid sandwich beams with

fiber-reinforced composite face sheets and metal core. Styles et al. [25] investigated the effect

of core thickness on the bending deformation and failure mechanism of hybrid sandwich

beams with glass-fiber reinforced composite faces and aluminum foam core under quasi-static

three-point bending. Reyes [26] experimentally and theoretically investigated the static and

low-velocity impact response of hybrid sandwich beams with glass-fiber reinforced composite
faces and aluminum foam core. Sun et al. [27] experimentally investigated the effect of

interfacial bonding on bending behaviors of hybrid sandwich beams with carbon-fiber/epoxy

composite face sheets and aluminum foam core under quasi-static three-point bending.

It is highlighted that the existing work done in this topic focus mainly on symmetrical

sandwich beams with two identical face sheets. Asymmetrical sandwich beams with

unidentical thicknesses for the top and bottom face sheets can deform and fail differently, and

thus further increase the design space to achieve improved performance. Kim and Swanson

[28] experimentally and theoretically investigated the effect of relative thickness of the loaded

face on the specific strength of sandwich beams with fiber-reinforced composite face sheets

and polymeric foam core. It is found that the specific strength of sandwich beams can be

improved by having dissimilar face thicknesses. Zhang et al. [29, 30] experimentally

investigated the initial failure mechanisms of simply supported and fully clamped

geometrically asymmetric metal sandwich beams, and the initial failure loads for different

initial failure modes were predicted theoretically. Wang et al. [31] theoretically and

numerically investigated the low-velocity impact response of fully clamped geometrically

asymmetric metal sandwich beams, and the large deflection responses were well predicted.

However, the effect of asymmetric design of face sheets on bending deformation process and

failure behavior for the hybrid composite sandwich beams with CFRP face sheets and

aluminum foam core under quasi-static load and low-velocity impact is not well understood.

Herein, the objective of this work is to experimentally and theoretically investigate the

deformation and failure of hybrid composite sandwich beams with symmetrical and

asymmetrical CFRP face sheets and an aluminum foam core under quasi-static load and
low-velocity impact. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the experimental details

are presented, including materials, fabrication of specimens, and experimental protocol. In

Section 3, theoretical analyses of elastic bending deformation and strength of hybrid

composite sandwich beams are carried out. In Section 4, quasi-static and low-velocity impact

experimental results and discussion on the effect of load forms, asymmetric design are

provided and compared with the theoretical predictions. Finally, conclusions are presented in

Section 5.

2. Experimental

2.1. Materials and specimens

The hybrid composite sandwich beams considered in this study each consists of two

CFRP face sheets, closed-cell aluminum foam core, and adhesive layers bonding the face

sheets to core material. The CFRP face sheets are made of T300/7901 unidirectional

laminates with density  f =1460 kg/m3, in which the fibers are laid in the longitudinal

direction of the sandwich beam. The quasi-static tensile tests (ASTM D3039 standard) and

bending tests (ASTM D7264 standard) were carried out to measure the mechanical properties

of the CFRP face sheets. From these tests, elastic modulus E f = 160 GPa , bending modulus

E fb  107 GPa , tensile strength  ft  2623 MPa , and bending strength  fb  1138 MPa of the

CFRP face sheets were obtained (Fig.1(a) and Fig.1 (b)). The density c of the selected

aluminum foam core is 262 kg/m3, and its relative density  = c 0 is about 0.1, where 0

is the density of matrix material. The mechanical properties of aluminum foam core were

measured through the quasi-static compression tests. From the tests, elastic modulus
Ec = 0.23 GPa and the nominal compressive stress-strain curve of aluminum foam core were

obtained (Fig.1(c)). Based on an energy absorption efficiency method [32], the plateau stress

 c and densification strain  d of the aluminum foam core can be obtained. The energy

absorption efficiency  is defined as the ratio of energy absorbed with a nominal strain 

to the corresponding nominal stress  ( ) , i.e.

 ( ) 
  ( )d
a (1)
 ( )

where  a is the elastic compressive strain.

When  reaches its maximum, the corresponding nominal strain is defined as the

densification strain  d , i.e.

d ( )
0 (2)
d   d

Then the plateau stress can be calculated by

d

c 
 a
 ( )d
(3)
d  a

Based on the nominal compressive stress-strain curve, the calculated plateau stress

 c  1.72 MPa and densification strain  d  0.53 of the aluminum foam core were obtained.

The hybrid composite sandwich beam specimens are fabricated using hot-press bonding

technology with a commercially available epoxy film (J-272) purchased from Institute of

Petrochemistry Heilongjiang Academy of Sciences, China. The fabrication process is

illustrated in Fig.2. The aluminum foam block and CFRP laminates were cut into the strips of

desired dimensions. The polished CFRP sheets and aluminum foam were cleaned using
alcohol, and glued together using epoxy films. According to the curing parameters of epoxy

film, the glued sandwich beam was next heated to a temperature of 120 ℃ , at an

approximate rate 2.5 ℃/min, at a pressure of 0.3 MPa maintained for 2 hours on the hot press

device.

The experiments involve a simply supported hybrid composite sandwich beam with total

length L, span l, width b and core thickness c, subjected to quasi-static load and low-velocity

impact at mid-span, as shown in Fig. 3. Two types of hybrid composite sandwich beam

specimens were fabricated: symmetrical sandwich beam with two identical face sheets, and

asymmetrical sandwich beam with two unidentical face sheets, as shown in Fig. 4. Herein, we

define an asymmetrical factor  = ht hb , based on the ratio of top face sheet thickness ht to

the bottom face sheet thickness hb . A value of   1 (   1 ) thus corresponds to an

asymmetrical sandwich beam with a thicker (thinner) top face sheet. The special case with

 1 is a symmetrical sandwich beam with identical face sheets. The geometrical

dimensions of the hybrid composite sandwich beam specimens in the present experiment are

listed in Table 1.

2.2. Quasi-static tests

Quasi-static three-point bending tests of the hybrid composite sandwich beams were

conducted using the universal testing machine, as shown in Fig. 5(a). The hybrid composite

sandwich beam was supported by two steel rollers and transversely loaded by a steel roller at

mid-span with loading rate of 1 mm/min, in which the diameter of each steel rollers is 20 mm.

2.3. Low-velocity impact tests

 Low-velocity impact tests of the hybrid composite sandwich beams at mid-span were

conducted using the drop-hammer system, as shown in Fig. 5(b). The selected total weight

G S of the hammer including counterweight, load cell and indenter is 33.85kg, with a drop

height of 0.2 m. The corresponding initial impact velocity V I is thus about 2 m/s, and the

total initial impact energy is about 67.7 J. The hammer indenter and support rollers have the

same diameters as the rollers in the quasi-static tests (20 mm). Elastic ropes were used to

restrain the two ends of a specimen, to prevent it from jumping up in the impact tests.

The load cell and laser displacement sensor were used to record the impact load and

displacement history of the hammer, respectively. In parallel, the deformation and failure

process of the sandwich beams were recorded using the high-speed camera.

3. Theoretical

3.1 Elastic bending

The mid-span deflection comprising of bending and shear components of the

symmetrical/asymmetrical sandwich beams subjected to a concentrated load P , can be

expressed as [33],

Pl 3 Pl
  , (4)
48  EI eq 4  AG eq

where  EI eq and  AG eq are the equivalent flexural rigidity and the equivalent shear

rigidity of the symmetrical/asymmetrical sandwich beams, respectively. If the core is weaker

than the face, i.e. Ec  E f ,  EI eq and  AG eq can be written as [34]
 E f bht3 E f bhb3 E f ht hbbd 2
 EI eq    , (5)
12 12 ht  hb

bd 2
 AG eq  Gc , (6)
c

where d  c  ht 2  hb 2 and Gc  Ec 2(1  c )  3Ec 8 with the Poisson’s ratio c of

the aluminum foam core assumed to be 0.33.

3.2 Strength of composite sandwich beams

Three active failure modes: face-sheet fracture, indentation and core shear are considered

for the simply supported symmetrical/asymmetrical composite sandwich beams, as shown in

Fig. 6. Similar failure modes for simply supported symmetrical composite sandwich beams

under quasi-static load have been summarized by Steeves and Fleck [15]. Herein, the

extended formulae for three active failure modes of the simply supported

symmetrical/asymmetrical hybrid composite sandwich beams are given as follows.

3.2.1 Face-sheet fracture

Considering the local deformation of the face sheet attached to a crushable foundation,

which is assumed to be rigid-perfectly plastic, Soden [35] derived an expression for the

face-sheet fracture failure load PFF due to local bending, given as

4
PFF  bht  fb c . (7)
3

3.2.2 Indentation

Earlier studies on indentation in three-point bending of composite sandwich beams

neglected the effect of axial compression of top face sheet due to sandwich beam bending.
Considering the combined effect of compressive axial load and transversely concentrated

load, Steeves and Fleck [15] obtained the failure load of indentation PIn in three-point

bending of composite sandwich beam as

 2dE fb c2
PIn  bht 3 . (8)
3l

3.2.3 Core shear

When the sandwich beam is loaded by a transverse shear force, the resulting shear force

is transmitted mainly to the sandwich core. Assuming that sandwich core collapses at a

uniform shear strength, and neglecting any additional strength contributions from the face

sheets, the failure load of the core shear PCS can be expressed as [36],

PCS  2 bd  c , (9)

where  c  2  c [37] is the shear strength of the foam core.

3

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Three-point bending

Four typical failure modes observed in the quasi-static three-point bending tests:

face-sheet fracture, indentation, core shear and core shear-tension, are shown in Fig. 7. There

is no obvious debonding phenomenon between face sheet and core occurring in the present

experimental samples. When loaded under three-point bending, the symmetrical and

asymmetrical hybrid composite sandwich beam with thin top face sheet ( ht  0.7 mm ) fails

by the face-sheet fracture due to the local bending action of the top face sheet. In contrast, an

indentation mode occurs first during the local bending deformation of the thicker top face
sheet ( ht  1.3 mm ). For the thick top face sheet ( ht  2.6 mm ,  =1), the hybrid composite

sandwich beam fails by the core shear due to the global bending deformation of the sandwich

beam. Specially, for the hybrid composite sandwich beam with the thick top face sheet and

thin bottom face sheet ( ht  2.6 mm ,   1), a new core shear-tension mode (Fig. 7(d)) is

observed, which is a mixed failure mode with foam core shear and tension failure between the

top face sheet and the foam core. CT scans for the quasi-static failure modes of face-sheet

fracture and indentation of the symmetrical and asymmetrical sandwich beams are shown in

Fig. 8. The local core crushing develops beneath the loading roller and the indentation mode

results in face-sheet delamination.

Fig. 9 shows the load-deflection curves and corresponding deformation and damage

processes for the four failure modes under quasi-static load. The deformation process of a

sandwich beam can be divided into three stages: global bending (Stage Ⅰ ), initial failure

(StageⅡ), and post-failure (Stage Ⅲ). The load on a sandwich beam increases rapidly with

deflection from the initial stage at point A, until a failure load associated with the operative

failure mechanism from structural bending is attained. The peak load is marked as point B.

Once the initial failure load is reached, a corresponding failure mechanism will develop. For

hybrid composite sandwich beams with different geometries, four typical failure modes are

identified: face-sheet fracture, indentation, core shear and core shear-tension. At the

post-failure stage, the sandwich beams continue to bend globally with local foam crushing

following the initial failure of face-sheet fracture (Fig. 9(a)) or indentation (Fig. 9(b)). In

contrast, when the initial failure mode is that of core shear (Fig. 9(c)) or core shear-tension

(Fig. 9(d)), the sandwich beams continue to bend globally with the propagation of core shear
crack. For all types of failure modes, the loads become stable from point C onwards.

4.2. Low-velocity impact

For the low-velocity impact tests, the four failure modes as observed in the quasi-static

three-point bending tests are also presented here. Specifically, the failure modes of face-sheet

fracture, indentation, core shear and core shear-tension for low-velocity impact tests are

shown in Fig. 10.

The CT scans for failure modes of face-sheet fracture and indentation of the symmetrical

and asymmetrical hybrid composite sandwich beams under the low-velocity impact are shown

in Fig. 11. Both face-sheet delamination and local core crushing beneath the hammer indenter

were also observed. It should be noted that the debonding phenomenon of specimen

DA1.3-20-2.6 occurs due to the elastic recovery action after impact, as shown in Fig. 11(d).

Fig. 12 shows the impact load-deflection curves and corresponding deformation and

damage processes for face-sheet fracture of the hybrid composite sandwich beams under

low-velocity impact. For the hybrid composite sandwich beam specimen DA0.7-20-2.6 (Fig.

12(a)), the deformation process of sandwich beam can be divided into three stages: elastic

bending (StageⅠ), failure (Stage Ⅱ), and post-failure (Stage Ⅲ), which are similar to the

quasi-static deformation process and contact load curves. The impact load of sandwich beam

increases rapidly with the deflection until attains the peak load (Point A) at the elastic bending

stage. Once the failure load is reached, face-sheet fracture would occur and impact load will

drop rapidly to a relatively low value (Point B). At the post-failure stage, the sandwich beam

would continue to bend globally with local foam crushing (Point C), and an almost stabilized
impact load is obtained. For the hybrid composite sandwich beam specimen DA1.3-20-0.7

(Fig. 12(b)), the deformation process of sandwich beam can be divided into four stages:

elastic bending (Stage Ⅰ), large deformation (Stage Ⅱ), failure (Stage Ⅲ), and post-failure

(Stage Ⅳ). At the elastic bending stage, the impact load of sandwich beam increases rapidly

with deflection. Subsequently, at the large deformation stage, the impact load increases much

slower with deflection, with violent oscillation. Once the failure load has been attained at the

point B, face-sheet fracture would occur. The subsequent deformation process and impact

load curve are similar to those of the specimen of DA0.7-20-2.6 (Fig. 12(a)). The springback

of the sandwich beam leads to the repeated impact of the hammer after the first impact.

However, no obvious failure and deflection increasing were found in the high-speed camera

records. Similarly, the deformation processes for indentation of the hybrid composite

sandwich beam specimens, as depicted in Fig.13, can also be divided into three and four

stages, respectively.

Fig. 14 shows the impact load-deflection curves and corresponding deformation and

damage processes for core shear and core shear-tension of the hybrid composite sandwich

beams under low-velocity impact. For the hybrid composite sandwich beam specimens

DS2.6-20-2.6 (Fig. 14(a)) and DA2.6-20-1.3 (Fig. 14(b)), the deformation process of

sandwich beams can be divided into three stages: elastic bending (StageⅠ), large deformation

(Stage Ⅱ) and failure (Stage Ⅲ). At the elastic bending stage, the impact load of sandwich

beam increases rapidly to an initial peak value (Point A). Subsequently, the impact load will

increases slowly from initial peak load at the large deformation stage. With the increase of

deflection, core shear or core shear-tension cracking occurs (Point B) and the impact loads
decrease to a relatively low value (Point C) at the failure stage.

4.3. Comparisons between quasi-static load and low-velocity impact

Comparisons of experimental results from the three-point bending experiment of the

hybrid composite sandwich beams under quasi-static load and low-velocity impact are

provided in Table 2. It can be seen that the failure modes of the hybrid composite sandwich

beams under low-velocity impact are similar to those under quasi-static load. The failure

loads of the hybrid composite sandwich beams under low-velocity impact are higher than

those under quasi-static load for the similar failure modes. It may be due to the effect of

inertia. The different asymmetrical forms (   1 and   1 ) of the hybrid composite

sandwich beams with the same geometric dimensions may result in different failure modes.

For the asymmetrical composite sandwich beams with thick top face sheet and thin bottom

face sheet (   1 ), their failure loads are higher than those of the opposite configurations

(   1 ).

The measured maximum deflections at mid-span of the top and bottom face sheets for

two kinds of asymmetrical sandwich beams under low-velocity impact are summarized at

Table 3. As observed in each row, all measured maximum deflections of the top and bottom

face sheets for the asymmetrical composite sandwich beams with thicker top face sheets

(   1 ) are smaller than those of the opposite configurations (   1 ). The smaller deformation

deflections under low-velocity impact for   1 are consistent with the results in Table 2 that

such hybrid composite sandwich beams have better load-carrying capability.

The comparisons of failure modes for hybrid composite sandwich beams with the same
geometries under quasi-static load and low-velocity impact are shown in Fig. 15. The failure

modes of the hybrid composite sandwich beams under quasi-static load are core shear

(SS2.6-40-2.6) and indentation (SS1.3-20-1.3, SA1.3-20-0.7), while the failure modes of the

hybrid sandwich beams under low-velocity impact are face-sheet fracture (DS2.6-40-2.6,

DS1.3-20-1.3, DA1.3-20-0.7) with an obvious face-sheet delamination. It should be noted that

the specimen SS2.6-40-2.6 fails by core shear and face-sheet fracture subsequently with

increasing quasi-static load. For the specimens SS0.7-40-0.7 and DS0.7-40-0.7 with the

face-sheet fracture, the core crushing area under low-velocity impact is smaller than that

under quasi-static load. Moreover, the face sheet of the hybrid composite sandwich beam

under low-velocity impact has an obvious delamination.

Comparisons between the core shear and core shear-tension failure modes of the

symmetrical and asymmetrical hybrid composite sandwich beams under quasi-static load and

low-velocity impact are shown in Fig. 16. The failure modes of the symmetrical hybrid

composite sandwich beams are core shear, while the failure modes of asymmetrical hybrid

composite sandwich beams are core shear-tension.

Fig. 17 shows the comparisons between the theoretical predictions and the experimental

results of the hybrid composite sandwich beams with symmetrical and asymmetrical face

sheets under quasi-static load and low-velocity impact. The loads of hybrid composite

sandwich beams under low-velocity impact oscillate more violently and are higher than those

under quasi-static load. The predictions of the elastic bending deformation for both

symmetrical and asymmetrical hybrid composite sandwich beams agree well with the

experimental results under quasi-static load and low-velocity impact. The predictions of the
failure loads for the symmetrical and asymmetrical hybrid composite sandwich beams agree

well with the quasi-static experimental results, except for the core shear-tension failure

modes. For all cases, the predicted failure loads are lower than the initial peak loads of hybrid

composite sandwich beams under low-velocity impact. In particular, for the mixed failure

mode of core shear-tension, the theoretical prediction (Eq. 9) is lower than the quasi-static

experimental results. This discrepancy is likely due to the fact that the theoretical predictions

neglect the effect of tension failure within the metal foam.

5. Concluding remarks

Deformation and failure of hybrid composite sandwich beams with CFRP face sheets

and aluminum foam core under the quasi-static load and low-velocity impact were

investigated. The face sheets of hybrid composite sandwich beams have identical and

unidentical thicknesses. The experimental results show that hybrid composite sandwich

beams have four active failure modes: face-sheet facture, indentation, core shear and core

shear-tensile. Core shear occurs in sandwich beams with two identical face sheets, while core

shear-tension occurs in sandwich beams with two unidentical face sheets. The deformation

processes for four failure modes of the hybrid composite sandwich beam can be divided into

three or four stages. Some failure modes of hybrid composite sandwich beams under

low-velocity impact are similar to those under quasi-static load. For the similar failure modes,

the low-velocity impact collapse load is higher than that of quasi-static collapse. The mass

distribution of the top and bottom face sheets of sandwich beam has significant effect on the

failure mode and load-carrying capacity. The failure modes of the asymmetrical sandwich

beams with the thicker top face sheet are different from those with the thinner top face sheet.
The asymmetrical sandwich beams with the thicker top face sheet have superior load-carrying

capability compared to those with the thinner top face sheet for the same total thickness of the

top and bottom face sheets. The elastic bending deformation and the collapse loads predicted

by the simple theoretical solutions agree well with the quasi-static experimental values of the

hybrid composite sandwich beams, while the theoretical predictions are lower than the

low-velocity impact collapse loads.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for financial support from NSFC (11972281 and 11872291),

opening project of State Key Laboratory of Explosion Science and Technology (Beijing

Institute of Technology, KFJJ18-07M, KFJJ19-15M), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation

funded project (2018M643621), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central

Universities.

References

[1] Gibson LJ, Ashby MF. Cellular solids: structure and properties: Cambridge University

Press, 1997.

[2] Ashby MF, Evans A, Fleck NA, Gibson LJ, Hutchinson JW, Wadley H, et al. Metal

foams: a design guide: Boston:Butterworth Heinemann, 2000.

[3] Mccormack TM, Miller R, Kesler O, Gibson LJ. Failure of sandwich beams with metallic
foam cores. International Journal of Solids and Structures. 2001;38(28):4901-4920.

[4] Bart-Smith H, Hutchinson JW, Evans AG. Measurement and analysis of the structural

performance of cellular metal sandwich construction. International Journal of Mechanical

Sciences. 2001;43(8):1945-1963.

[5] Crupi V, Epasto G, Guglielmino E. Collapse modes in aluminium honeycomb sandwich

panels under bending and impact loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering.

2012;43(5):6-15.

[6] Zhang JX, Qin QH, Wang TJ. Compressive strengths and dynamic response of corrugated

metal sandwich plates with unfilled and foam-filled sinusoidal plate cores. Acta Mechanica.

2013;224(4):759-775.

[7] Zhou J, Hassan MZ, Guan Z, Cantwell WJ. The low velocity impact response of

foam-based sandwich panels. Composites Science and Technology. 2012;72(14):1781-1790.

[8] Chen Q, Ting L, Gao Y, Wang Z, Liu Y, Du R, et al. Mechanical properties in glass fiber

PVC-foam sandwich structures from different chopped fiber interfacial reinforcement through

vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM) processing. Composites Science and

Technology. 2017;144:202-207.

[9] Russell BP, Liu T, Fleck NA, Deshpande VS. Quasi-Static three-point bending of carbon

fiber sandwich beams with square honeycomb cores. Journal of Applied Mechanics.

2011;78(3):2388-2399.

[10] Shi H, Liu W, Fang H. Damage characteristics analysis of GFRP-Balsa sandwich beams
under Four-point fatigue bending. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing.

2018;109:564-577.

[11] Bunsell AR, Renard J. Fundamentals of fibre reinforced composite materials. Materials

Today. 2005;8(9):51.

[12] Jia Z, Li T, Chiang F-p, Wang L. An experimental investigation of the temperature effect

on the mechanics of carbon fiber reinforced polymer composites. Composites Science and

Technology. 2018;154:53-63.

[13] Banhart J. Manufacture, characterisation and application of cellular metals and metal

foams. Progress in Materials Science. 2001;46(6):559-632.

[14] Sun Y, Li QM. Dynamic compressive behaviour of cellular materials: A review of

phenomenon, mechanism and modelling. International Journal of Impact Engineering.

2018;112:74-115.

[15] Steeves CA, Fleck NA. Collapse mechanisms of sandwich beams with composite faces

and a foam core, loaded in three-point bending. Part Ⅰ : analytical models and minimum

weight design. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences. 2004;46(4):561-583.

[16] Steeves CA, Fleck NA. Collapse mechanisms of sandwich beams with composite faces

and a foam core, loaded in three-point bending. Part Ⅱ : experimental investigation and

numerical modelling. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences. 2004;46(4):585-608.

[17] Yu JL, Wang X, Wei ZG, Wang EH. Deformation and failure mechanism of dynamically

loaded sandwich beams with aluminum-foam core. International Journal of Impact

Engineering. 2003;28(28):331-347.

[18] Yu JL, Wang EH, Li JR, Zheng ZJ. Static and low-velocity impact behavior of sandwich

beams with closed-cell aluminum-foam core in three-point bending. International Journal of

Impact Engineering. 2008;35(8):885-894.

[19] Crupi V, Montanini R. Aluminium foam sandwiches collapse modes under static and

dynamic three-point bending. International Journal of Impact Engineering.

2007;34(3):509-521.

[20] Tan ZH, Luo HH, Long WG, Han X. Dynamic response of clamped sandwich beam with

aluminium alloy foam core subjected to impact loading. Composites Part B: Engineering.

2013;46:39-45.

[21] Qin Q, Xiang C, Zhang J, Wang M, Wang TJ, Poh LH. On low-velocity impact response

of metal foam core sandwich beam: A dual beam model. Composite Structures.

2017;176:1039-1049.

[22] Qin QH, Zhang W, Liu SY, Li JF, Zhang JX, Poh LH. On dynamic response of

corrugated sandwich beams with metal foam-filled folded plate core subjected to low-velocity

impact. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing. 2018;114:107-116.

[23] Li QM, Ma GW, Ye ZQ. An elastic–plastic model on the dynamic response of composite

sandwich beams subjected to mass impact. Composite Structures. 2006;72(1):1-9.

[24] Zhang J, Ye Y, Qin Q, Wang T. Low-velocity impact of sandwich beams with

fibre-metal laminate face-sheets. Composites Science and Technology. 2018;168:152-159.

[25] Styles M, Compston P, Kalyanasundaram S. The effect of core thickness on the flexural

behaviour of aluminium foam sandwich structures. Composite Structures.

2007;80(4):532-538.

[26] Reyes G. Static and Low velocity impact behavior of composite sandwich panels with an

aluminum foam core. Journal of Composite Materials. 2008;42(16):1659-1670.

[27] Sun Z, Hu X, Sun S, Chen H. Energy-absorption enhancement in carbon-fiber

aluminum-foam sandwich structures from short aramid-fiber interfacial reinforcement.

Composites Science and Technology. 2013;77(4):14-21.

[28] Kim J, Swanson SR. Effect of unequal face thickness on load resistance of sandwich

beams. Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials. 2004;6(2):145-166.

[29] Zhang J, Qin Q, Ai W, Li H, Wang TJ. The failure behavior of geometrically asymmetric

metal foam core sandwich beams under three-point bending. ASME Journal of Applied

Mechanics. 2014;81(7):071008.

[30] Zhang J, Qin Q, Han X, Ai W. The initial plastic failure of fully clamped geometrical

asymmetric metal foam core sandwich beams. Composites Part B: Engineering.

2016;87:233-244.

[31] Wang ZJ, Qin QH, Zhang JX, Wang TJ. Low-velocity impact response of geometrically

asymmetric slender sandwich beams with metal foam core. Composite Structures.

2013;98(3):1-14.

[32] Li QM, Magkiriadis I, Harrigan JJ. Compressive strain at the onset of densification of
cellular solids. Journal of Cellular Plastics. 2006;42:371-392.

[33] Allen HG, Neal BG. Analysis and Design of Structural Sandwich Panels: Pergamon

Press, Oxford, 1969.

[34] Zenkert D. An Introduction to Sandwich Construction: Sheffield UK: Engineering

Materials Advisory Services Ltd, 1995.

[35] Soden PD. Indentation of composite sandwich beams. Journal of Strain Analysis for

Engineering Design. 1996;31(5):353-360.

[36] Tagarielli VL, Fleck NA, Deshpande VS. Collapse of clamped and simply supported

composite sandwich beams in three-point bending. Composites Part B: Engineering.

2004;35(6-8):523-534.

[37] Tagarielli VL, Fleck NA. A comparison of the structural response of clamped and simply

supported sandwich beams with aluminium faces and a metal foam core. Journal of Applied

Mechanics. 2004;72(3):408-417.
 Figure captions

Fig. 1. Material properties. (a) Nominal tensile stress-strain curves of CFRP face sheets. (b)

Nominal bending stress-strain curves of CFRP face sheets. (c) Nominal compressive

stress-strain curves of aluminum foam.

Fig. 2. Fabrication process of hybrid composite sandwich beam specimen.

Fig. 3. Schematic of geometric dimensions of hybrid composite sandwich beams under (a)

quasi-static three-point bending, and (b) low-velocity impact.

Fig. 4. Symmetrical and asymmetrical hybrid composite sandwich beams. (a) Cross-section

schematic of sandwich beams with three kinds of asymmetrical factor  = ht hb , and (b)

three kinds of sandwich beam specimens.

Fig. 5. Experimental apparatus of hybrid composite sandwich beams under (a) quasi-static

load and (b) low-velocity impact at mid-span.

Fig. 6. Sketches of typical failure modes for simply supported symmetrical and asymmetrical

composite sandwich beams under quasi-static load.

Fig. 7. Typical failure modes of quasi-static three-point bending tests for the symmetrical and

asymmetrical hybrid composite sandwich beams. (a) Face-sheet fracture, (b) indentation, (c)

core shear, and (d) core shear-tension.

Fig. 8. CT scans for the face-sheet fracture and indentation of the symmetrical and

asymmetrical sandwich beams under quasi-static load. (a) Face-sheet fracture of the

symmetrical sandwich beam, (b) indentation of the symmetrical sandwich beam, (c) face
fracture of the asymmetrical sandwich beam, and (d) indentation of the asymmetrical

sandwich beam.

Fig. 9. Load-deflection curves and corresponding deformation and damage processes for four

failure modes of hybrid composite sandwich beams under quasi-static load. (a) Face-sheet

fracture (SS0.7-20-0.7), (b) indentation (SS1.3-20-1.3), (c) core shear (SS2.6-20-2.6), and (d)

core shear-tension (SA2.6-20-0.7).

Fig. 10. Typical failure modes of low-velocity impact tests for the symmetrical and

asymmetrical hybrid composite sandwich beams. (a) Face-sheet fracture, (b) indentation, (c)

core shear, and (d) core shear-tension.

Fig. 11. CT scans for face-sheet fracture and indentation of the symmetrical and asymmetrical

sandwich beams under low-velocity impact. (a) Face-sheet fracture of the symmetrical

sandwich beam, (b) indentation of the symmetrical sandwich beam, (c) face fracture of the

asymmetrical sandwich beam, and (d) indentation of the asymmetrical sandwich beam.

Fig. 12. Load-deflection curves and corresponding deformation and damage processes for the

face-sheet fracture failure mode of hybrid composite sandwich beams under low-velocity

impact. (a) Specimen DA0.7-20-2.6, and (b) specimen DA1.3-20-0.7.

Fig. 13. Load-deflection curves and corresponding deformation and damage processes for

indentation failure mode of hybrid composite sandwich beams under low-velocity impact. (a)

Specimen DS1.3-40-1.3, and (b) specimen DA1.3-20-2.6.

Fig. 14. Load-deflection curves and corresponding deformation and damage processes for the

core shear and core shear-tension failure modes of hybrid composite sandwich beams under
low-velocity impact. (a) Specimen DS2.6-20-2.6, and (b) specimen DA2.6-20-1.3.

Fig. 15. Comparisons of failure modes for the hybrid composite sandwich beams under

quasi-static load and low-velocity impact with the same geometries.

Fig. 16. Comparisons between core shear and core shear-tension failure modes of hybrid

composite sandwich beams under (a) quasi-static load and (b) low-velocity impact.

Fig. 17. Comparisons between the theoretical predictions and the experimental results of

hybrid composite sandwich beams under quasi-static load and low-velocity impact. (a)

Face-sheet fracture, (b) indentation, and (c) core shear failure modes of the symmetrical

sandwich beams; (d) face-sheet fracture, (e) indentation, and (f) core shear-tension failure

modes of the asymmetrical sandwich beams.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Fig. 1. Material properties. (a) Nominal tensile stress-strain curves of CFRP face sheets. (b)

Nominal bending stress-strain curves of CFRP face sheets. (c) Nominal compressive

stress-strain curves of aluminum foam.

Fig. 2. Fabrication process of hybrid composite sandwich beam specimen.

 (a)

(b)

Fig. 3. Schematic of geometric dimensions of hybrid composite sandwich beams under (a)

quasi-static three-point bending, and (b) low-velocity impact.

 (a)

(b)

Fig. 4. Symmetrical and asymmetrical hybrid composite sandwich beams. (a) Cross-section

schematic of sandwich beams with three kinds of asymmetrical factor  = ht hb , and (b)

three kinds of sandwich beam specimens.

 (a) (b)

Fig. 5. Experimental apparatus of hybrid composite sandwich beams under (a) quasi-static

load and (b) low-velocity impact at mid-span.

Fig. 6. Sketches of typical failure modes for simply supported symmetrical and asymmetrical

composite sandwich beams under quasi-static load.

 (a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 7. Typical failure modes of quasi-static three-point bending tests for the symmetrical and
asymmetrical hybrid composite sandwich beams. (a) Face-sheet fracture, (b) indentation, (c)

core shear, and (d) core shear-tension.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 8. CT scans for the face-sheet fracture and indentation of the symmetrical and

asymmetrical sandwich beams under quasi-static load. (a) Face-sheet fracture of the

symmetrical sandwich beam, (b) indentation of the symmetrical sandwich beam, (c) face

fracture of the asymmetrical sandwich beam, and (d) indentation of the asymmetrical

sandwich beam.
(a)

(b)
 (c)

(d)

Fig. 9. Load-deflection curves and corresponding deformation and damage processes for four

failure modes of hybrid composite sandwich beams under quasi-static load. (a) Face-sheet

fracture (SS0.7-20-0.7), (b) indentation (SS1.3-20-1.3), (c) core shear (SS2.6-20-2.6), and (d)

core shear-tension (SA2.6-20-0.7).

 (a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 10. Typical failure modes of low-velocity impact tests for the symmetrical and
asymmetrical hybrid composite sandwich beams. (a) Face-sheet fracture, (b) indentation, (c)

core shear, and (d) core shear-tension.

 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 11. CT scans for face-sheet fracture and indentation of the symmetrical and asymmetrical

sandwich beams under low-velocity impact. (a) Face-sheet fracture of the symmetrical

sandwich beam, (b) indentation of the symmetrical sandwich beam, (c) face fracture of the

asymmetrical sandwich beam, and (d) indentation of the asymmetrical sandwich beam.
 2000
Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ A
1600
A
Impact load (N)

1200
B

800 C Face-sheet fracture

B C
400

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Deflection (mm)

(a)

3500
Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ A
3000 B
B
Impact load (N)

2500 A
2000
1500 C
1000 C D Face-sheet fracture
D
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Deflection (mm)

(b)

Fig. 12. Load-deflection curves and corresponding deformation and damage processes for the

face-sheet fracture failure mode of hybrid composite sandwich beams under low-velocity

impact. (a) Specimen DA0.7-20-2.6, and (b) specimen DA1.3-20-0.7.

 5000
ⅠⅡ Ⅲ A
4000 A
Impact load (N)

3000 B
Indentation
2000
B C C
1000

0
0 5 10 15 20
Deflection (mm)

(a)

3500
Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ A
3000 B
A
Impact load (N)

2500 B
2000
1500 C
C D
1000 Indentation
D
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Deflection (mm)

(b)

Fig. 13. Load-deflection curves and corresponding deformation and damage processes for

indentation failure mode of hybrid composite sandwich beams under low-velocity impact. (a)

Specimen DS1.3-40-1.3, and (b) specimen DA1.3-20-2.6.

 5000
Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ A
4000
B
Impact load (N)

B
3000 A
C
2000
C Core shear
1000

0
0 5 10 15 20
Deflection (mm)

(a)

4000
Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ A
3200
B
Impact load (N)

A
2400 B

1600 C
800
C Core shear-tension

0
0 5 10 15 20
Deflection (mm)

(b)

Fig. 14. Load-deflection curves and corresponding deformation and damage processes for the

core shear and core shear-tension failure modes of hybrid composite sandwich beams under

low-velocity impact. (a) Specimen DS2.6-20-2.6, and (b) specimen DA2.6-20-1.3.

Fig. 15. Comparisons of failure modes for the hybrid composite sandwich beams under

quasi-static load and low-velocity impact with the same geometries.

 (a)

(b)

Fig. 16. Comparisons between core shear and core shear-tension failure modes of hybrid

composite sandwich beams under (a) quasi-static load and (b) low-velocity impact.
 (a) (d)

(b) (e)

(c) (f)

Fig. 17. Comparisons between the theoretical predictions and experimental results of hybrid

composite sandwich beams under quasi-static load and low-velocity impact. (a) Face-sheet

fracture, (b) indentation, and (c) core shear failure modes of symmetrical sandwich beams; (d)

face-sheet fracture, (e) indentation, and (f) core shear-tension failure modes of asymmetrical
sandwich beams.

Table captions

Table 1. The geometric parameters of the hybrid composite sandwich beam specimens.

Table 2. Comparisons of experimental results of hybrid composite sandwich beams under

quasi-static load and low-velocity impact.

Table 3. Measured maximum deflections of the top and bottom face sheets for asymmetrical

hybrid composite sandwich beams under low-velocity impact.

 Table 1. The geometric parameters of the hybrid composite sandwich beam specimens.

Case Specimens b (mm) ht (mm) hb (mm) c (mm) L (mm) l (mm)

SS0.7-20-0.7 DS0.7-20-0.7 40 0.7 0.7 20 300 240

SS0.7-40-0.7 DS0.7-40-0.7 40 0.7 0.7 40 300 240

SS1.3-20-1.3 DS1.3-20-1.3 40 1.3 1.3 20 300 240

 1
SS1.3-40-1.3 DS1.3-40-1.3 40 1.3 1.3 40 300 240

SS2.6-20-2.6 DS2.6-20-2.6 40 2.6 2.6 20 300 240

SS2.6-40-2.6 DS2.6-40-2.6 40 2.6 2.6 40 300 240

SA0.7-20-1.3 DA0.7-20-1.3 40 0.7 1.3 20 300 240

 1 SA0.7-20-2.6 DA0.7-20-2.6 40 0.7 2.6 20 300 240

SA1.3-20-2.6 DA1.3-20-2.6 40 1.3 2.6 20 300 240

SA1.3-20-0.7 DA1.3-20-0.7 40 1.3 0.7 20 300 240

 1 SA2.6-20-0.7 DA2.6-20-0.7 40 2.6 0.7 20 300 240

SA2.6-20-1.3 DA2.6-20-1.3 40 2.6 1.3 20 300 240

 = ht hb ht hb
Note: denotes asymmetrical factor; and denote the thickness of the top face sheet and

the bottom face sheet; b and L denote the width and total length of sandwich beam; c denotes the core

thickness; l denotes the span of sandwich beam; in the naming convention of specimens, SS and DS

denote symmetrical sandwich beam under quasi-static load and low-velocity impact, respectively, SA and

DA denote asymmetrical sandwich beam under quasi-static load and low-velocity impact, respectively, the

last three number items denote the thickness of the top face sheet, core and bottom face sheet, respectively.
 Table 2. Comparisons of experimental results of hybrid composite sandwich beams under

quasi-static load and low-velocity impact.

Measured peak Failure Measured Failure

Case Specimens Specimen
load (kN) modes peak load (kN) modes

SS0.7-20-0.7 1.60 FF DS0.7-20-0.7 2.02 FF

SS0.7-40-0.7 1.62 FF DS0.7-40-0.7 2.79 FF

SS1.3-20-1.3 2.22 IN DS1.3-20-1.3 3.34 FF

 1
SS1.3-40-1.3 2.32 IN DS1.3-40-1.3 4.54 IN

SS2.6-20-2.6 2.23 CS DS2.6-20-2.6 3.78 CS

SS2.6-40-2.6 3.94 FF, CS DS2.6-40-2.6 7.57 FF

SA0.7-20-1.3 1.60 FF DA0.7-20-1.3 1.67 FF

 1 SA0.7-20-2.6 1.63 FF DA0.7-20-2.6 1.86 FF

SA1.3-20-2.6 2.49 IN DA1.3-20-2.6 3.11 IN

SA1.3-20-0.7 2.24 IN DA1.3-20-0.7 3.11 FF

 1 SA2.6-20-0.7 2.65 CS-T DA2.6-20-0.7 2.94 CS-T

SA2.6-20-1.3 3.15 CS-T DA2.6-20-1.3 3.23 CS-T

Note: FF denotes face-sheet fracture; IN denotes indentation; CS denotes core shear; CS-T denotes core

shear-tension.
 Table 3. Measured maximum deflections of the top and bottom face sheets for asymmetrical

hybrid composite sandwich beams under low-velocity impact.

 1 tf , max (mm)  bf , max (mm)  1 tf , max (mm)  bf , max (mm)

DA0.7-20-1.3 58.46 55.50 DA1.3-20-0.7 42.46 41.91

DA0.7-20-2.6 49.23 40.23 DA2.6-20-0.7 25.72 25.14

DA1.3-20-2.6 33.72 25.76 DA2.6-20-1.3 22.57 22.34

Note: tf , max denotes the maximum deflection at mid-span of the top face sheet,  bf , max denotes the

maximum deflection at mid-span of the bottom face sheet.

Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be
considered as potential competing interests:
 Author Statement

Wei Zhang: Conceptualization,Methodology,Investigation,Writing - Original Draft

Qinghua Qin: Conceptualization,Writing - Review & Editing,Project administration,Funding

acquisition

Jianfeng Li:Investigation

Kaikai Li:Investigation

  Writing - Review & Editing

 Writing - Review & Editing

Jianxun Zhang:Writing - Review & Editing,Funding acquisition

Shejuan Xie:Resources

Hongen Chen:Resources

Jianping Zhao:Resources