Received: 10 May 2020 Revised: 5 July 2020 Accepted: 13 July 2020

DOI: 10.1002/pc.25754

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Experimental investigation of sandwich panels with hybrid

composite face sheets and embedded shape memory alloy
wires under low velocity impact

Seyed A. Masoudi Moghaddam | Mehdi Yarmohammad Tooski |

Mohsen Jabbari | Ahmad R. Khorshidvand

Department of Mechanical Engineering,

Islamic Azad University, South Tehran
Branch, Tehran, Iran
Correspondence
Mehdi Yarmohammad Tooski,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Islamic Azad University, South Tehran
Branch, Tehran, Iran.
Email: m_yarmohammad@azad.ac.ir
Abstract
This experimental study was conducted to investigate the behavior of hybrid
composite sandwich panels with superelastic shape memory alloy (SMA) wires
under low velocity impact (LVI). Square-shaped sandwich panels were made
few of a foam core and hybrid composite structures with carbon fiber and glass
fiber, in which prestrained superelastic SMA wires were embedded between
the layers. The sandwich panels had symmetrical and asymmetrical lay-ups
and SMA wires were placed between the layers with different states. LVI tests
were performed by drop weight impact testing machine. Moreover, damaged
areas of the panels were estimated using thermography. The experimental
results showed that the impact performance of the panels improved after
embedding SMA wires. The presence of the SMA within the composite sand-
wich structure prevented the full perforation of the samples and reduced the
internal delamination area. The utilization of SMA wires embedded in front
face sheet, which is subject to the direct impact, is more effective than the utili-
zation of wire in the back face layer. It was also found that increasing the
layers of the back face and asymmetrication of the structure were more effec-
tive than the use of SMA wires in the symmetric structure in improving the
panel impact resistance.

KEYWORDS
active infrared thermography, composite sandwich panel, damaged area, low velocity impact,
superelastic SMA wire

1 | INTRODUCTION structures is used in aerospace, marine, transport, and

Sandwich panels are usually used for constructing
lightweight structures with high mechanical load
capacity. Composite sandwich panels composed of
composite skins and a thick low-density core can
improve different properties of structure such as stiff-
ness, strength, sound insulation, low heat transfer, and
high impact energy absorption.[1–4] Today, this type of
civil industries.[5]
Low resistance under low velocity impact (LVI) load-
ing is one of the important weaknesses of composite
sandwich panels. Hence, in order to improve their perfor-
mance, it is necessary to comprehensively investigate the
behavior of composite sandwich panels under LVI.[6–10]
The behavior of sandwich panels and hybrid composite
structures under LVI has been extensively studied using

Polymer Composites. 2020;1–19. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pc © 2020 Society of Plastics Engineers 1

2 MASOUDI MOGHADDAM ET AL.
experimental, numerical, and analytical methods.[2,11–24]
Many researchers have utilized LVI tests to assess sand-
wich panels with different face sheets and core
materials.[25–32] Composite skins have a low resistance
under transverse impact loads because they endure very
low amounts of energy during impact loading. Hybridiz-
ing composites using shape memory alloys (SMA) is one
of the methods applied to improve the impact resistance
of composite skins.[33–39] Using numerical and experi-
mental methods, several researchers have recently inves-
tigated SMA-reinforced composite sandwich panel, as a
new structure with a higher impact resistance, and com-
pared it with conventional fiber composite sandwich
panels. The results suggest that SMA have a positive
effect on the maximum absorbed energy, and it also can
improve the impact performance of the hybrid composite
panels. Due to the unique characteristic like shape mem-
ory effect (SME), superelasticity and high damping capac-
ity of SMAs, many researchers have investigated the
mechanical behavior of SMAs reinforced composites.[39]
For example, some studies have examined the use of
SMA wires embedded into fiber-reinforced composites to
achieve a superelastic SMA composite with a higher
capacity against impact effects.[40–44] Although there are
many advantages embedding SMAs into the composites,
but there have limitations in some respects, such as inter-
face debonding phenomenon. As researches are found
that References [45,46], the SMA fiber will debond with
the matrix under the condition of weak interfacial bond-
ing, and this will limit the application and development
of SMA fiber in the intelligent composite materials field.
Paine and Rogers[47] have investigated the effect of the
utilization of a superelastic memory alloy on improving
the LVI resistance of conventional composites. They com-
pared the effects of superelastic SMA fibers on two types
of graphite and glass fibers in an epoxy matrix. They
found that the use of superelastic SMA fibers improved
impact resistance by about 58% in graphite fiber compos-
ites and by about 35% in glass fiber composites. Paine
and Rogers[43] analytically investigated impact resistance
of SMA hybrid composite structures and found that
superelastic SMA materials exhibited high strain energy
absorption. By Victor Birman[48] the stability of sandwich
panels subjected to the simultaneous action of a uniform
temperature and a uniaxial compression was considered.
In the presented paper, SMA fibers in sleeves were
embedded within a sandwich panel to enhance its stabil-
ity when subjected to the simultaneous action of a uni-
form thermal field and a compressive load. Abdolrahim
et al.[49] examined LVI of a composite sandwich panel
made of glass-epoxy face sheets and aluminum honey-
comb cores, the impact was examined both analytically
and numerically and the results obtained from the two
methods were compared with experimental results, they
found that upper plate failure was the most important
mode of damage observed in the experiments that could
lead to severe degradation of material characteristics,
nonetheless, core shear failure was the first mode of dam-
age that occurred in almost all the tests. Meo et al.[38,50]
evaluated the superelastic effect of SMA using a simple
numerical model. In addition,[51] experimentally and
numerically analyzed LVI of a smart hybrid thermoplas-
tic composite panel. After embedding SMA wires into
composites, the researchers observed an increased resis-
tance to damage and delamination in the composites, as
compared with conventional composite structures. In
addition, they observed a significant increase in tough-
ness and higher absorbed energy levels prior to the
failure.
Recently, many studies have investigated the mechan-
ical behavior of sandwich structures under LVI loading.
Many researchers have conducted impact tests on sand-
wich panels with different face sheets and core materials.
For instance, Zhang et al.[27] conducted an empirical
study of impact resistance in a honeycomb core sandwich
panel structure with symmetric and asymmetric hybrid
composites and investigated the effect of layer symmetry
in carbon/epoxy skinned panels. In a recent study, using
drop weight test, Ali et al.[52] examined the behavior of
engineered hybrid fiber-reinforced cement composites
consisted of hybrid fiber-reinforced engineered cementi-
tious composite and PVA fiber under impact loading. The
results showed that SMA fibers significantly increased
the tension and impact performance of engineered
cementitious composites. Furthermore, Sun et al.,[53]
experimentally investigated glass fiber/epoxy laminates
with different SMA positions under LVI. Based on the
experimental results, the effect of impact on layers was
improved after embedding SMAs, and impact resistance
was optimized when applying two SMA layers.
Although there are many studies on LVI of sandwich
panels, a few studies have been performed to investigate
the effects of embedded SMA wires between sandwich
panel skin layers and to compare them with sandwich
panels without SMA wires. It is worth noting that, the
study of the effects of symmetric or asymmetric skins on
impact resistance of panels is a new subject, and the
results of such studies can be used for developing new
lightweight sandwich panels with high impact absorption
capacity. The aim of the present study was to experimen-
tally examine LVI of foam core sandwich panel and sym-
metric and asymmetric hybrid composite structures with
unidirectional carbon and glass fiber in the presence of
pre-strained superelastic SMA wires between the layers.
The use of foam core and composite skin helps to make
the panels very light. In addition, due to the presence of
MASOUDI MOGHADDAM ET AL.
carbon laminates and glass laminates, which have a high
fracture resistance, the final resistance of the panels is
significantly enhanced. Checking the symmetric and
asymmetric nature of the skins and arrangement of layers
in the sandwich panel with the SMA wires can enhance
the knowledge about the arrangement of layers and help
to reduce damage and make the sandwich panels signifi-
cantly more damage resistant. Impact tests were
implemented using an instrumented drop-weight impact
machine, and the impact response was obtained to inves-
tigate the resistance to damage caused by impact under
different energy levels. Moreover, the damage surface
area was obtained using thermography of the damage to
the panels, furthermore, the effect of the presence of
SMA wires and the symmetric or asymmetric nature of
panel skins were investigated through comparing the
damage levels in the tested panels.
2 | EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
2.1 | Materials and fabrication
In this research, sandwich panels with three different
skin lay-ups were made of composite face sheets and
SMA wires. Sandwich panel was consisted of hybrid car-
bon and glass composite layers, foam core and SMA
wires between the skin layers. Rigid polymeric foam
(AIREX C70.55) was used as the core material. The thick-
ness of the foam core was 5 mm. The composite face
sheets were prepared by mixing the epoxy primer resin
(matrix) with 60 wt% of unidirectional carbon fiber
(UCF) and with 40 wt% of unidirectional glass fiber
(UGF), all of which were assembled by hand lay-up in
the laboratory. The amount of fibers was gradually added
to the epoxy primer resin and mixed for about 15 minutes
at room temperature to achieve a uniform dispersion of
fibers throughout the epoxy resin. It should be noted that
hand lay-up is the simplest and oldest open molding
method for fabricating composites. In this method at first,
dry fibers in the form of woven, knitted, stitched, or bond
fabrics are manually placed on the mold, and a brush is
used to uniformly spread the resin matrix on the rein-
forcing material. Subsequently, hand rollers are used to
roll the wet composite to ensure an enhanced interaction
between the reinforcement and the matrix, to facilitate a
uniform resin distribution, and to obtain the required
thickness. Finally, the laminates are left to cure under
standard atmospheric conditions. Curing is the process of
hardening the fiber-reinforced resin composite without
external heat.[54,55] The properties of fibers, superelastic
SMA wires and foam were presented in Tables 1 and 2.
The first layer of the upper surface subjected to the
3
impact was made of carbon because it was a higher
impact resistance than glass.
The epoxy resin used in the sandwich manufacturing
was Liorad.co EPR1080 mixed with a hardener of Liorad.
co EPH 1080 (mix weight ratio of 100:15) provided by
Liorad Company (Table 3). This resin can be cured at
room temperature in the presence of hardening agent.
Foam-filled sandwich panels with three kinds of face
sheets were prepared through a hand lay-up process. To
investigate the effect of SMA wires between the layers
and considering the high cost of these wires, Four super-
elastic SMA wires (Ni[55.9 wt%]-Ti) with a diameter of
0.012 in. (0.3 mm) were used in parallel, each separated
symmetrically with a distance of 5 mm from the center of
the layers, with epoxy resin embedded between the
layers.
It should be noted that the wires were pre-strained
under a stretch force and were frozen by cold spray so it
induced a pre-strain of 3% at the beginning of the test
(Figure 1A), due to the superelastic property of the SMA
wire and residual stress, this pre-strain increased the
energy absorption during the impact. Finally, using the
resin, the skins were applied to both sides of the foam
core (Figure 1C) and sandwich panels were completed.
The detailed preparation schematic diagram of the sand-
wich panels is illustrated in Figure 2. To test the mechan-
ical behavior of foam core sandwich panels with different
hybrid face sheets, cuboid samples with a dimension of
100 × 100 × 8 ± 5% mm3 were cut out of the square lami-
nates using a low speed diamond saw blade cutting
machine.
2.2 | Determination of the mechanical
properties of the layers
All of the elastic parameters and the strength of compos-
ite laminates manufactured were measured. The parame-
ters employed are listed in Table 4. The mechanical
properties of the composite laminate were measured by
Hounsfield-H25KS testing machine of 25 kN load capac-
ity at a ratio of 0.001 mm/s. According to the ASTM
D3039/D3039M-17 standard,[56] three tests were per-
formed from each type of laminate. The tensile mechani-
cal bench machine and a specimen under test are shown
in Figure 3.
2.3 | Samples preparation
The sandwich panels were made through a hand lay-up
process in three different types. The first-type sandwich
panels (Ply mode Ι) with symmetric composite face sheet
4 MASOUDI MOGHADDAM ET AL.

TABLE 1 Fibers and superelastic SMA wire properties

Property Carbon E-glass SMA wire (Ni[55.9 wt%]–Ti)

3
Density (kg/m ) 1800 2550 6500
Weave pattern 3k unidirectional Unidirectional —
Diameter of fiber (mm) 0.11 0.08 0.3
Tensile strength (MPa) 4000 3400 1200
Tensile modulus (GPa) 230 72 70
Percent elongation 1.7 4.7 4.5

TABLE 2 Average material properties of the PVC foam sandwich panel (Ply mode ΙΙ) had asymmetrical skin, in
(AIREX C70.55) which the upper skin was composed of four layers with
prestrained superelastic SMA wires embedded between
Property Value
the layers and the lower skin was consisted of six layers,
made of unidirectional 0 carbon fiber (UCF) and 90
3
Density(kg/m ) 60
Compressive strength perpendicular to the plane 0.90 unidirectional glass fiber (UGF) (Figure 4B). The third-
(MPa) type sandwich panel (Ply mode ΙΙΙ) had asymmetrical
Compressive modulus perpendicular to the plane 69 skins, in which the upper skin of six layers and the lower
(MPa) skin of four layers were made of unidirectional 0 carbon
Tensile strength in the plane (MPa) 1.3 fiber and 90 glass unidirectional fiber (Figure 4C) and
Tensile modulus in the plane (MPa) 45 there was no SMA wires between the layers. The types of
Shear strength (MPa) 0.85
the samples fabricated for the tests are presented in
Table 5. This study assessed three sandwich parameters,
Shear modulus (MPa) 22
including face-sheet configuration/thickness, and core
Shear elongation at break (%) 16
thickness. The samples underwent LVI test and the
Thickness (mm) 5 impact responses of different samples were analyzed and
reported in terms of peak load, contact time, and
absorbed energy.
T A B L E 3 Properties of epoxy resin (EPR1080-Liorad Co)
(after 1 week at 25 C)

Property Value 2.4 | Low velocity drop-weight test

3
Density (kg/m ) 1100
Using a drop-weight impact testing machine, LVI tests
Compressive strength (MPa) 95.5
were carried out on type I, II, and III rectangular sand-
Flexural strength (MPa) 94.1
wich panel samples with a dimension of 100 × 100 mm.
Tensile strength (MPa) 74.6 The drop-weight impact machine (Figure 5) was capable
Shear strength (MPa) 53.7 to adjust the height of the impactor from 0.1 to 2 m. The
Compressive modulus (GPa) 0.92 impactor had a cylindrical rod[57,58] with a pure weight of
Flexural modulus (GPa) 3.57 2.712 kg, the weight of which could be increased up to
Tensile modulus (GPa) 2.73 5 kg. The impactor tip was semispherical with a diameter
of 16 mm, further details of which are presented else-
Impact strength (kJ/m2) 7.85
where.[59] Figure 5 displays the testing machine and the
sample compatible with the testing machine used for the
LVI test. The experiments were performed at the compos-
were composed of four layers of unidirectional 0 carbon ite laboratory of the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
fiber/epoxy reinforcement and unidirectional 90 E-glass Amirkabir University of Iran. As presented in Figure 5C,
fiber/epoxy reinforcement [{UCF0  /UGF90  / the effective opening area of the samples under low
 
UGF90 /UCF0 }]2s, as shown in Figure 4A. The four velocity impact test was 60 × 60 mm2 in size and the
pre-strained superelastic SMA wires, which were set par- samples were fully clamped. The composite sandwich
allel with a distance of 5 mm from each other, under a panels were subjected to low velocity impacts at energy
prestrain condition were symmetrically embedded levels of 35 J, 45 J, and 55 J which were set in accordance
between the layers of the skins. The second-type with various mass sizes of the impactor (ie, 7.14, 9.18 and
MASOUDI MOGHADDAM ET AL. 5

FIGURE 1 Fabrication of sandwich panels [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 2 Preparation schematic diagram of the sandwich panels [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

11.22 kg, respectively). The impact energy (Eimp), height
of the falling mass (Himp), and impact velocity (V0),
together with the specifications of the impactor are pres-
ented in Table 6. Impacts were applied on the center of
the outer skin of the panels. While all specimens perfo-
rate and there is no rebounding of the impactor at all the
energy levels. After applying the impact, the acceleration
data time history was recorded by a sensor mounted on
the impactor and transmitted through the controller to a
computer connected to the device. According to the
results of the tests, disturbing signals were observed in
the output and, using an intermediate method, a curve
passed the response outputs to reduce the effect of dis-
turbing signals. In addition, a proper low pass filter was
6 MASOUDI MOGHADDAM ET AL.

TABLE 4 The measured mechanical properties of layers used to remove the high frequency signals. Afterwards,
the acceleration data were converted into contact force
Carbon- Glass-
Mechanical properties epoxy epoxy and energy. In the following step, after the successive
numerical integration of the acceleration data, the veloc-
Fiber volume in layer, Vf (%) 60 40
ity and displacement of the impact per time were
Fiber direction 0 90
obtained. Finally, to investigate the damage to the panels,
Thickness (±0.02 mm) 0.25 0.2 the post-impact damage to panels was evaluated by
Density, ρ (kg/m )3
1520 1825 means of image inspection techniques such as active
Longitudinal tensile modulus, 114 11.4 infrared thermography (AIRT). Accordingly, first, the
E1(GPa) thermal imaging of the panels was done using a thermo-
Longitudinal tensile strength 1250 11 graphic camera (Fluke-Ti25/9HZ), and then the thermal
(MPa) images were assessed using SmartView software. In addi-
Transverse tensile modulus, 8.4 35 tion, the area of damaged surfaces in panels was calcu-
E2 (GPa) lated using an image processor software (Digimizer).
Transverse tensile strength 13 520
(MPa)
In-plane shear modulus, 3.9 5.4 3 | RESULTS
G12 (GPa)
In-plane shear strength (MPa) 110 95 Sandwich panels with foam core and glass and carbon/
epoxy skins with embedded SMA wires with different
Poisson's ratio, ν12 0.3 0.29
a
lay-ups (ply modes I, II, and III) were manufactured and
Resin type EPR 1080 EPR 1080
subjected to low velocity impact at different energy levels,
Manufacture method Hand lay-up Hand lay-up including 35 J, 45 J, and 55 J. The responses of the panels
a
EPR is an abbreviation Epoxy primer resin. were represented via contact force time history curves
and contact force vs displacement curves. The results

F I G U R E 3 Tensile, compression, and shear tests by Hounsfield-H25KS testing machine [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
MASOUDI MOGHADDAM ET AL. 7

FIGURE 4 Schematic shape of different foam-core sandwich panels [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

TABLE 5 Structural configurations of sandwich panels

Stacking sequence
Face-sheet Core
Panel type material material Front face-sheet Back face-sheet
Ply Mode Ι CF/GF/EPR 1080/ Foam [C01/G902/C901/ [C01/G902/C901/
SMA (inforced by SMA wire)] (inforced by SMA wire)]
Ply Mode ΙΙ CF/GF/EPR 1080/ Foam [C01/G902/C01/ [C02/G902/C02]
SMA (inforced by SMA wire]
Ply Mode ΙΙΙ CF/GF/EPR 1080 Foam [C02/G902/C02] [C01/G902/C01]

obtained from different hybrid composite sandwich
panels were used to analyze the impact behavior of the
hybrid composite panels.
3.1 | Impact response
Figure 6A-C present the typical contact force time his-
tories measured under different impact levels of 35 J,
45 J, and 55 J on sandwich panels with the three skin
lay-ups (type Ι, ΙΙ, and ΙΙΙ). Figure 6A compares the cur-
ves of contact force-time (F-t) of the three sandwich
panels subjected to the impact energy of 35 J. As shown
in Figure 6A, all the F-t curves of the three types of
panels had almost the same trend. Under the impact of
35 J, the maximum contact forces of type Ι, ΙΙ, and ΙΙΙ
panels were 3519, 4544, and 3664 N, respectively,
which occurred at 0.0047, 0.0060, and 0.0048 second,
respectively. The contact time recorded for type I, II,
and III panels were 0.0146, 0.0135, and 0.0130 second,
respectively, and the maximum contact force of the Ι
and ΙΙΙ type panels, respectively, were 77% and 81% of
the type ΙΙ panel. Figure 6B compares the curves of
contact force-time (F-t) of different sandwich panels
subjected to the impact energy of 45 J. As shown in
Figure 6B, all the three F-t curves are mountain-like
shapes. The contact force increased sharply at the
beginning of the impact. Then, the contact force
increased slowly and reached the peak value and then
vanished. The three types of panels had the same trend
of contact force history. However, double force peaks
were observed in type Ι panel, and only a force peak
was achieved in type ΙΙ and ΙΙΙ panels. This contrastive
characteristic of F-t tendency clearly indicates the pen-
etration in the upper skin. The second force peak in F-t
curve was formed as the results of the contact between
the impactor and the lower skin. Under the impact of
45 J, the maximum contact forces of type I, II, and III
panels were 4623, 5241, and 3813 N, respectively. The
contact times of impact were 0.0148, 0.0144, and
0.0155 second, respectively. In addition, the maximum
contact forces of the type Ι and ΙΙΙ panels, respectively,
were 88% and 73% of the maximum contact force of the
type ΙΙ panel.
8 MASOUDI MOGHADDAM ET AL.

FIGURE 5 Low velocity drop-weight test [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

TABLE 6 Specification of low-velocity impact tests

Impact energy Mass of Impact velocity Height of impactor Head Head

(J) (Eimp) impactor (kg) (m/s) (V0) (m) (Himp) geometry diameter (mm)
35 7.14 3.13 0.5 Hemispherical 16
45 9.18
55 11.22

Figure 6C illustrates the contact force time histories
of type I, II, and III panels subjected to low velocity
impact with the energy level of 55 J. As shown in
Figure 6C, the curves of the three types of panels did not
have the same trend. The maximum contact forces in
type Ι, ΙΙ, and ΙΙΙ panels were 4252, 4800, and 5147 N,
respectively. Under the impact of 55 J, the maximum
contact forces of the type Ι and ΙΙΙ panels, respectively,
were 83% and 93% of the maximum contact force of the
type ΙΙ panel.
In general, the maximum contact force in panels was
observed under the impact energy level of 45 J. Moreover,
among the different types of panels, the maximum con-
tact force was observed in type ΙΙ panel under the energy
level of 45 J.
As observed during the impact process, all of the cur-
ves experienced an increase followed by a decrease in the
contact force. The first increase in the contact force indi-
cated the collision of impactor with the upper face sheet,
afterwards, the decrease indicated the collision of the
impactor with the foam core. Subsequently, further
increase in the contact force indicated the collision of the
impactor with the lower face sheet. Furthermore, with
increasing the collision energy, the maximum contact
MASOUDI MOGHADDAM ET AL.
F I G U R E 6 Contact force-time curves of the type Ι, ΙΙ, and ΙΙΙ panels subjected to low velocity impact [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
force of all the samples increased, indicating that the
panels can endure more contact force prior to a serious
damage. Type I and II panels had curves with the same
trend at all the energy levels, while type III panels
exhibited a different trend at higher energy levels, espe-
cially under the energy level of 55 J. The effect of SMA
wires was also more significantly evident in panels under
the impact energy of 35 J.
3.2 | Investigation of contact force vs
displacement responses of the three type
panels at different energy levels
The curves of contact force vs displacement (F-d) in type
Ι, ΙΙ, and ΙΙΙ panels subjected to low velocity impacts at
the incident energy levels of 35 J, 45 J, and 55 J are pres-
ented in Figure 7A-C, respectively. Similar to F-t curves,
9
all the three curves had a mountain-like shape.
Figure 7A presents the force-displacement (F-d) curves of
various samples subjected to the impact energy level of
35 J. As observed, the curves of the three types of panels
had almost the same trend. Under the impact of 35 J, the
maximum contact forces in type Ι, ΙΙ, and ΙΙΙ panels were
3519, 4544, and 3664 N, respectively. The maximum dis-
placement and final displacement of impact, respectively,
were 0.0165 and 0.0156 m in type Ι panel, 0.0163 and
0.0142 m in type ΙΙ panel, and 0.0151 and 0.0142 m in
type ΙΙΙ panel. The maximum displacement values in type
ΙΙ and ΙΙΙ panels, respectively, were 99% and 92% of the
maximum displacement of the type Ι panel. Type Ι and ΙΙΙ
panels had the same final displacement of 14.2 mm, in
addition, the maximum contact forces of both curves
were observed at the same displacement, that is,
12.3 mm. Moreover, the force-displacement curves of
type Ι, ΙΙ, and ΙΙΙ panels became reversed after reaching
10
F I G U R E 7 Contact force-displacement curves of the type I, II, and III panels subjected to low velocity impact [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
the maximum displacement point, and reached 95%, 87%,
and 94% of their maximum values at the end of the
impact point, respectively, which was due to the panel
resilience.
Figure 7B compares the curves of contact force-
displacement of the three panels subjected to the impact
energy of 45 J. Under low velocity impact with the energy
of 45 J, the maximum contact forces of type Ι, ΙΙ, and ΙΙΙ
panels were 4623, 5241, and 3813 N, respectively, which
occurred at 0.0123, 0.0132, and 0.0128 second, respec-
tively. The maximum displacement and final displace-
ment of impact, respectively, were 0.0177 and 0.0176 m
in type Ι panel, 0.0165 and 0.0160 m in type ΙΙ panel, and
0.0235 and 0.0235 m in type ΙΙΙ panel. The maximum dis-
placement values of type Ι and ΙΙ panels, respectively,
were 75% and 70% of the maximum displacement of type
ΙΙΙ panel. As shown, all force-displacement curves had a
mountain-like shape with a linear slope at the beginning
MASOUDI MOGHADDAM ET AL.
of the impact. Moreover, the force-displacement curves of
type Ι and ΙΙ panels became reversed after reaching the
maximum displacement point, and at the end of the
impact reached approximate values of 99% and 97% of
their maximum displacement, respectively, which was
attributed to the continuous returning force due to panel
resilience.
Figure 7C shows the typical graphs of the contact
force-displacement in type I, II, and III panels subjected
to low velocity impact with energy of 55 J. As shown in
Figure 7C, the maximum contact forces in type Ι, ΙΙ, and
ΙΙΙ panels, respectively, were 4252, 4800, and 5147 N,
which were observed at 0.0078, 0.0122, and
0.0132 second, respectively. The displacement and final
displacement of impact, respectively, were 0.0277 and
0.0277 m in type Ι panel, 0.0202 and 0.0202 m in type ΙΙ
panel, and 0.0190 and 0.0190 m in type ΙΙΙ panel. The
maximum displacement values in type I and II panels,
MASOUDI MOGHADDAM ET AL.
respectively, were 73% and 69% of the maximum dis-
placement of the type ΙΙΙ panel. In addition, none of the
curves experienced a return as the result of panel resil-
ience, which was due to the high level of impact energy.
Generally, the impact curves of panels at the energy level
of 55 J showed a larger final displacement than panels at
energy levels of 35 and 45 J, moreover, panel resilience
was lost under the high energy impact.
Figure 7A-C and observations during the tests indi-
cated that the impactor returned after the collision with
the panels under low energy levels, however, under
higher energy levels, the impactor fully penetrated into
the panels after the collision and caused more damage
and increased the final displacement of the panels.
Under all the energy levels, type ΙΙ panel showed sim-
ilar behavior in the force-displacement curves (Figure 8).
The curves had the same initial slope and two ascends
and descends were observed on the curves. The first max-
imum point on the curves indicated the impactor colli-
sion with the front face of the composite panel and the
second and larger peak represented the collision of the
impactor with the back face of the composite panel. It is
also worth noting that in both of the curves, under the
impact energy levels of 45 and 55 J, the maximum points
occurred in almost identical displacement points.
4 | I N S P E C T I O N O F T H E SA M P L E S
4.1 | Failure mode of the panels after
LVI test
Various factors (such as lay-up configuration, impactor
size and shape, constituent properties, impact velocity,
F I G U R E 8 Contact force-displacement curves of the type II
panel subjected to various impact energies [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
11
energy, etc.) can affect the impact response and damage
pattern.[60] Damage assessment analyses were performed
on the impacted panels to characterize the extent and the
nature of the major failure mechanisms occurring in the
skins. Figure 9 shows the damage patterns of three types
of hybrid composite sandwich panels under different
energy levels after the impact test. As presented in
Figure 9, in all the panels, the front face sheets were
more damaged than the back face sheets. The shapes of
damages in the front face sheets with SMA wires were
ellipsoid-shaped while in those without SMA wires they
were round-shaped.[53] Figure 9A shows the form of the
damages caused by impact on the front and back face
sheets of various sandwich panels under the energy level
of 35 J. Under this level of energy, a slight deformation
was observed on the front face sheet and a slight dome
shape on the back face sheet of type I and III panels.
Type ΙΙ panel had a smaller indentation on the front face
sheet, as compared with other panels and there were cru-
ciform cracks and the matrix failure and delamination of
the lower face sheet of the panel. Although the super-
elastic SMA wires were embedded between the layers of
type I panels, the existence of glass and, to a smaller
extent, carbon layers, resulted in brittle failure on the
back face sheet. Therefore, the type and level of damage
in the impacted front face sheet without SMA wires was
in form of a circular hole and the back face sheet toler-
ated the failure to a large extent, while delamination
occurred more frequently in skins with SMA wires. In
addition, a considerable delamination occurred on the
back face sheet of type I panel, as compared with fiber
failure. The minimum level of damage was observed on
the back face sheet of type ΙΙ panel with six layers CF02/
GF902/CF02 without SMA wires between the layers, in
addition, further damage was caused by fiber failure and
less delamination was occurred.
Figure 9B shows the damage made in various sand-
wich panels at the energy level of 45 J. Generally, under
this energy level in the type ΙΙ and ΙΙΙ panels, there was a
circular indentation that was due to the concentration of
absorbed impact. This deformation was more frequently
observed in type ΙΙΙ panel. The size and shape of the dam-
age on the upper face sheet depended on the shear
strength of the layers, the flexural strength of wires in
type Ι and ΙΙ panels, and the energy level, while the dam-
age shape depended on the failure mechanism. Under
this energy level, type ΙΙ panel with SMA wires suffered
from stalling in the upper and lower face sheets, while
type ΙΙΙ panel with a 6-layer arrangement in the upper
face sheet that was equipped with two layers of carbon
instead of one in the arrangement of layers showed an
increase in the impact resistance of the panel. The
highest impact resistance was observed in type ΙΙ panel
12 MASOUDI MOGHADDAM ET AL.

F I G U R E 9 The photographs of damaged

samples on the front face and back face after
impact: A-C, are the type I, II, and III panels
subjected to low velocity impact with impact
energy levels 35, 45, and 55 J, respectively. CC,
crushing core; DF, debonding fiber; DL,
delamination of the laminate; FB, fiber
breaking; S, splitting; SB, SMAs buckling
[Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

because in addition to the superelastic SMA wire rein- previously mentioned, under this level of energy, there
forcement between the layers and the asymmetry of were smaller differences between the shapes of damage
skins, six layers were used in the lower face sheet. As to the front face sheet, moreover, the tearing of carbon
MASOUDI MOGHADDAM ET AL. 13

F I G U R E 1 0 Damage morphology of panels after low-velocity impact test at energy levels of 55 J obtained by scanning electron
microscope (SEM) [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

F I G U R E 1 1 Active infrared
thermography of the back surface of
damaged panels via external
excitation thermal wave by hot air
blower on panel surfaces and
imaging with IRT camera
(in average Temp ≈ 95  F) [Color
figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

and glass fibers in the front face sheet of type ΙΙΙ panel
was more impressive than the sandwich panel with SMA
wires, in which buckling of wires before tearing resulted
in further delamination. The back face sheets of type Ι
and ΙΙ panels were delaminated in parallel with the SMA
wires. The back face sheet of type I panel experienced
more damage than other panels, but the damages were
more frequently observed in form of the separation of the
carbon fibers from the layer, and SMA wires did not bend
and were not torn. Type III panel suffered from different
damage modes including foam core squash, fiber failure
in the layers, destruction of the resin matrix and more
frequently, the separation of fibers inside the resin,[10]
however, in type Ι and ΙΙ panels, in addition to the men-
tioned damage modes, the delamination and failure of
fibers were more frequent.
Figure 9C presents the damage to the front and back
faces of the sandwich panels under the energy level of
55 J. Under the mentioned energy level, the panels were
almost stalled and the impactor largely damaged the
14 MASOUDI MOGHADDAM ET AL.

F I G U R E 1 2 Analysis of back surface thermal images to calculate the damaged surface area of the type I, II, and III panels under LVI
test at different energies by Digimizer software (A, 35 J; B, 45 J; and C, 55 J) [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

panels, except for type ΙΙ panel, accordingly, full failure
in the layers and the impaction of fibers and SMA wires
were evident. Type ΙΙΙ panel exhibited a larger stall on
the upper face sheet that was in form of a circular ring
on the outer surface and a circular or an ovular area in
the middle. The ring-shaped damage indicated that the
panel rupture was attributed to the circular damage cau-
sed by delamination, which was less dependent on the
direction. In the lower face sheet of type ΙΙΙ panel, there
was a prominent bump with cracks, matrix crack, and
failure of the fibers. Cross cracks were observed on both
the upper and lower face sheets. In order to increase the
level of damage by the impactor, cutting SMA wires was
much easier than tearing the carbon and glass fibers,
especially in the carbon layers of the back face sheet of
type ΙΙ panel, hence, the damage level in type I panel was
more than that in other panels. As shown, there was a
combination of failure modes and impact damage types
in laminates, including matrix stalling (resin), inter-
laminar matrix cracking, fiber rupture, core crushing,
MASOUDI MOGHADDAM ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 3 Comparison of, A, the total damaged area and B, the maximum damaged area of the type I, ΙΙ, and ΙΙΙ panels under
various impact energies [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
F I G U R E 1 4 Comparison of the peak contact force vs impact
energy of the type Ι, ΙΙ, and ΙΙΙ panels subjected to various levels of
impact energy [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
separation of layers from the core, matrix-fiber
debonding, matrix-SMAs debonding, delamination and
splitting of laminates, and SMA buckling.[30] In type ΙΙ
panel, the back face sheet largely suffered from delamina-
tion. This delamination was observed in form of two
ovals. Furthermore, multiple failure modes, including
face sheet cracking, delamination, debonding, complete
core crushing, and fiber rupture occurred in type Ι and ΙΙΙ
panels.[30] In all the panels, despite the presence of car-
bon layers and SMA wires, there was a resistance to
indentation and impactor penetration. When the impac-
tor was in contact with the glass layers, the panels under-
went brittle failure, and with a further movement of the
15
impactor and its penetration in the panel, carbon layers
suffered from early delamination and stalled. The delami-
nation was visible in the back area of all the panels under
the energy level of 55 J. Under the incident energy level
of 55 J, type I panel, glass and carbon layers, along with
SMA wires in the back face sheet of the panel stalled and
underwent a hectic failure, after they absorbed more
energy.
4.2 | Microscopic damage morphology
analysis using SEM
Figure 10 shows the damage morphology of panels after
low velocity impact at energy levels of 55 J, and it is
obtained by scanning electron microscope (SEM). As pre-
viously mentioned, the damage modes in composite
sandwich panels included fiber breakage, fiber
debonding, fiber buckling, matrix microcrack, matrix
cracking, core crushing, SMAs rupture or buckling, and
delamination, which were consistent with the SEM
images. Figure 10A-C display the SEM images of the
cross-sectional area of ply mode I, II, and III panels,
respectively. The overall appearance of the images shows
that the interlayer delamination occurred in the damaged
parts of the panels, also interlayer damage such as fiber
breakage and matrix cracking also occurred frequently.
Damage occurred by expanding matrix slots (cracks) in
the central region of the samples under low velocity
impact. Then, with the progress of loading, the cracks
grew in the direction of the fibers and SMA wires, and
the shear stress propagated between the fiber and the
matrix. Subsequently, with the increase in load, the shear
stress between the fiber/matrix interface contributed to
16 MASOUDI MOGHADDAM ET AL.

T A B L E 7 Comparison of the impact key parameters obtained at the charts of type Ι, ΙΙ, and ΙΙΙ panels during the low-velocity impact
event under various impact energies

Max
Structure of Incident Contact Absorbed energy (J) displacement Max contact Damage
the specimen energy (J) time (s) (%Eabsorb /Eincident) (mm) force (KN) area (mm2)
Ply mode Ι 35 0.0146 34.61565 (98.90%) 1.5624535 3519.95 97.345
Ply mode Ι 45 0.0144 44.93503 (99.85%) 1.7562471 4623.756 198.508
Ply mode Ι 55 0.0198 52.74411 (95.89%) 2.5592664 4252.328 436.126
Ply mode ΙΙ 35 0.0135 33.45039 (95.57%) 1.415955 4544.397 34.3
Ply mode ΙΙ 45 0.0148 44.79349 (99.54%) 1.6039078 5241.396 156.396
Ply mode ΙΙ 55 0.0145 54.94415 (99.89%) 1.8975581 4800.21 241.718
Ply mode ΙΙΙ 35 0.013 34.3191 (98.05%) 1.4170912 3664.065 42.072
Ply mode ΙΙΙ 45 0.0154 44.0163 (97.81%) 2.346842 3813.03 171.762
Ply mode ΙΙΙ 55 0.0090 44.07204 (80.13%) 2.0194324 5147.145 361.316

the cracking and delamination of the matrix, and when
the applied load exceeded the bending strength of the
fiber, the fiber broke. This damage behavior was
predicted by both failure initiation criteria and evaluation
laws of both intralayer and delamination damage models.
Delamination was the major damage mode under the
low velocity impact.[53,61]
4.3 | Damage quantification through
thermography
The area of damaged surfaces of sandwich panels sub-
jected to low velocity impact was investigated using
active infrared thermography,[62–65] it can be a helpful
method for comparing the impact resistance of panels.
Active infrared thermography is a technique based on a
thermal excitation and an observing of a material
response by an infrared camera. Active thermography
uses an external source for measured object excitation,
that means introducing an energy into the object. Various
excitation sources can be used for the active thermogra-
phy and nondestructive testing, for example laser
heating, flash lamps, halogen lamps, electrical heating,
ultrasonic excitation, eddy currents, microwaves, and
others. The measured object can be heated by an external
source directly, for example, by halogen lamps or hot air.
The material inhomogeneities or defects cause then a dis-
tortion of temperature field. In the present experimental
process, active infrared thermography of the surface of
the panels was done via external excitation thermal wave
by hot air blower,[65] to an average heating temperature
of 95  F using an uncooled infrared camera (Fluke-
Ti25/9HZ) and then thermal images were presented
using Smart View software. In addition, the affected
surface area of the back surface of the panels was calcu-
lated using the Digimizer software, which is an image
analyzer. The comparison of the area of damaged sur-
faces helped to investigate the effect of the presence of
SMA wires and the symmetry or asymmetry of panel
skins on strengthening the sandwich panel and reducing
the level of damage caused by low velocity impact.
Figure 11 shows the thermal images of the back surfaces
of the panels subjected to low velocity impact (under dif-
ferent levels of energy). The area of damaged back sur-
face of panels under the low velocity impact with energy
levels of 35, 45, and 55 J were computed using Digimizer
software. The results of thermographic images and sur-
face area calculation are presented in Figure 12.
As shown in Figure 13A,B, after the comparison of
the thermograms of the damaged samples, the largest
area of damage was generally observed under the impact
energy of 55 J, moreover, the highest level of damage was
observed in the panel that was made of SMA wires
between composite plates on both sides of the panels.
Overall, under all the energy levels, the lowest level of
damage in the surfaces of panels were observed in type II
panels with 4-layered front face sheet, in which SMA
wires were embedded between the layers and had an
asymmetric 6-layered back face sheet, the results indi-
cated the high impact resistance of this type panel design.
It is also worth mentioning that, under an energy level of
45 J, the panels had an almost identical damaged area.
5 | A N A L Y S I S O F T H E RE S U L T S
AND DISCUSSIONS
Based on the results obtained from the assessment of
contact force time history curves, which are shown in
MASOUDI MOGHADDAM ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 5 Comparison of the maximum absorbed energy of
the type Ι, ΙΙ, and ΙΙΙ panels subjected to various levels of impact
energy [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 6A-C, and the assessment of displacement vs con-
tact force curves, which are shown in Figure 7A-C, and
comparing the maximum absorbed energy and damage
areas, which are shown in Figure 14, a summary of low
velocity impact performance in type Ι, ΙΙ and ΙΙΙ panels
under different energy levels are presented in Table 7.
Values of the peak force, maximum displacement, maxi-
mum absorbed energy, and maximum damaged areas
under all the energy levels are tabulated. As shown in
Table 7, the maximum contact force of type Ι panel was
observed under the energy level of 35 J (Table 7).
Finally, impact response parameters including peak
contact force and absorbed energy for the three types of
panels under the different energy levels were compared
to evaluate the effect of the type of composite layers and
the arrangement of the layers. Figures 14 and 15 compare
the values of the maximum force and the maximum
energy absorption in the three types of panels under dif-
ferent energy levels.
5.1 | Comparison of maximum contact
force vs impact energy in panel types I, II,
and III
Comparison of maximum contact force in the three types
of panels, which is presented in Figure 14, indicates that
the highest contact force was observed in type ΙΙΙ panel
under the energy level of 55 J. In addition, the maximum
contact forces under the three levels of energy were
closer in type ΙΙ panel, as compared with other panels,
which indicated that because of the structure and layout
17
of the layers in type ΙΙ panel, with an increase in impact
energy level up to 55 J, the structure resistance did not
significantly change. Furthermore, the maximum contact
force in type ΙΙ panel was observed under the energy level
of 35 J, type Ι and ΙΙΙ panels had almost similar values. It
is also worth noting that, the peak force under the energy
level of 45 J in the three types of panels was approxi-
mately the same, which indicated that under the men-
tioned energy level, the panels had the same impact
resistance. This comparison showed that the use of SMA
superelastic wires as reinforce and glass and carbon com-
posite layers together and the presence of asymmetric
faces on both sides of the core had a significant effect on
increasing the maximum contact force, consequently, the
increase in strength of the structures indicated an
improvement in the impact performance under all the
impact energy levels.
5.2 | Comparison of maximum absorbed
impact energy in type Ι, ΙΙ, and ΙΙΙ panels
under the various energy impacts
The energy absorbed by the structures represented
the higher level of resistance of the structure against the
impact. Among the panels undergoing impact test, the
panels with superelastic SMA wires embedded between
the layers showed a higher level of energy consumption,
as compared with panels without SMA wires, which is
due to the high energy absorption of the SMA wires.
However, as shown in Figure 14, type I panel showed a
higher level of energy absorption, as compared with type
ΙΙ and ΙΙΙ panels under the impact energy levels of
35 and 45 J.
When applying an energy level of 45 J and lower, type
Ι panel with two wired face sheets showed higher levels
of energy absorption, as compared with type ΙΙ and ΙΙΙ
panels, but under an energy level of above 45 J, only type
ΙΙ panel with a wired front face sheet showed a high level
of energy absorption. Under the energy level of 55 J, type
ΙΙ panel had a better level of energy absorption (by 4%),
as compared with type I panel. When the impactor was
in contact with the superelastic SMA wires, the panels
with a high strength wire were deformed and the
absorbed energy increased during the contact time. It
should be noted that the increase in the duration of con-
tact time resulted in an increase in energy absorption.
Figure 15 presents the absorbed energy time histories
under the impact energy of 35 J, as shown, the duration
of contact in type Ι panel with symmetric superelastic
SMA-reinforced panels was more than that in other
panels. This type of panel absorbed more energy than
other panels, especially under low energy levels.
18
6 | C ON C L U S I ON
This study was conducted to investigate low velocity
transverse impact on sandwich panels with foam core
and hybrid layers of glass, carbon, and embedded SMAs
wires. Three different types of sandwich panels with dif-
ferent face sheets and arrangements were made through
hand lay-up to undergo LVI test via utilizing a drop-
weight test machine. SMA hybridization effect was evalu-
ated while applying impact on panels at various energy
levels, meanwhile, peak force, displacement, and energy
absorption were analyzed, and panel damage area was
assessed through thermography. The effects of the pres-
ence of pre-strained superelastic SMA wires and the sym-
metry or asymmetry of panel faces on the strength of the
sandwich panel and damage resistance were investigated
under low velocity impact. The results showed that, as
compared with a conventional panel, the presence of
SMA within the composite sandwich structure prevented
the samples from full perforation and reduced the inter-
nal delamination area. Moreover, panels with SMA wire
between their composite layers showed higher levels of
energy absorption, and consequently, were more impact
resistant than panels without SMA wires. The use of
SMA wires and embedding them in front face sheet,
which is subject to direct impact, is more effective than
the use of wires in the back face layers. In addition,
because of the rupture and low resistance of SMA wires
under high-energy impacts, the presence of SMA wires
under low velocity impacts with low energy levels is
much more effective than that with high energy levels.
Given the behavior of the back surface of type I and II
panels under low velocity impact, it could be concluded
that the increase in layers (asymmetrication) of the back
face sheet, that is, the use of six layers, was more effective
than the use of wires between four layers in improving
the impact resistance of the panel. Moreover, the
asymmetrication (with six layers) of front face sheet was
less effective in absorbing energy, as compared with the
use of wire between four layers, but it was more effective
in reducing the damage area. According to Table 7,
impact parameters, including absorbed energy/impact
energy ratio, damage area, and contact duration
increased with the changes in impact energy, while the
peak load increased simultaneously. Considering impact
parameters obtained from the tests conducted on type ΙΙ
panel with four carbon layers in the back face sheet, it
can be concluded that the use of face sheets with four
carbon layers resulted in an increase in low velocity
impact resistance in type ΙΙ panel under different impact
energy levels. Generally, as compared with conventional
composite structures, an increase in damage resistance
MASOUDI MOGHADDAM ET AL.
along with the delamination of composite structures was
observed after embedding SMA wires in composites. In
addition, a significant increase in the composite tough-
ness and higher levels of energy absorption before failure
was observed. Also, macroscopic analyzing of damage
behavior under the low velocity impact, and the investi-
gation of the dominant forms of damage, demonstrated
that the delamination was the primary damage mode
under lower impact energy. As the impact energy
increases, fiber fracture induced by indentation and
bending will become the dominant damage mode.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are particularly thankful to the technicians
at the composite laboratory of the Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, for
their assistance in the fabrication of the test specimens.
The authors also gratefully acknowledge the support of
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Islamic Azad
University, South Tehran Branch.
ORCID
Mehdi Yarmohammad Tooski https://orcid.org/0000-
0001-9712-5472
RE FER EN CES
[1] J. Bowman, B. Sanders, B. Cannon, J. Kudva, S. Joshi, T.
Weisshaar, 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Number
2007-1730, 2012.
[2] B. Yang, Z. Wang, L. Zhou, J. Zhang, L. Tong, W. Liang, Com-
pos. Struct. 2015, 132, 1129.
[3] A. K. Bandaru, S. Patel, S. Ahmad, N. Bhatnagar, J. Compos.
Mater. 2017, 0, 1.
[4] S. Feli, S. Khodadadian, M. Safari, J. Sandwich Struct. Mater.
2016, 18, 552.
[5] K. B. Shin, J. Y. Lee, S. H. Cho, Compos. Struct. 2008, 84, 228.
[6] T. Anderson, E. Madenci, Compos. Struct. 2000, 50, 239.
[7] M. Akil Hazizan, W. J. Cantwell, Compos. B: Eng. 2002,
33, 193.
[8] J. H. Roh, J. H. Kim, Compos. B: Eng. 2003, 34, 117.
[9] R. Petrucci, C. Santulli, D. Puglia, E. Nisini, F. Sarasini, J.
Tirillò, L. Torre, G. Minak, J. M. Kenny, Compos. B: Eng. 2015,
69, 507.
[10] Z. Xie, Q. Yan, X. Li, Steel Compos. Struct. 2014, 17, 159.
[11] F. Caputo, A. de Luca, G. Lamanna, V. Lopresto, A. Riccio,
Compos. B: Eng. 2015, 68, 385.
[12] M. M. Shokrieh, M. N. Fakhar, Mech. Compos. Mater. 2012,
47, 643.
[13] S. A. Hosseini, M. Sadighi, R. Maleki Moghadam, J. Compos.
Mater. 2014, 49, 3285.
[14] T. Mandys, V. Laš, T. Kroupa, R. Zemčík, AMM 2015,
732, 239.
[15] D. Zhang, D. Jiang, Q. Fei, S. Wu, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 2016,
117-118, 21.
MASOUDI MOGHADDAM ET AL.
[16] D. Morin, B. L. Kaarstad, B. Skajaa, O. S. Hopperstad, M.
Langseth, Int. J. Impact Eng. 2017, 110, 97.
[17] K. M. A. Sohel, J. Y. Richard Liew, W. A. M. Alwis, P.
Paramasivam, Steel Compos. Struct. 2003, 3, 289.
[18] S. Jedari Salami, S. Dariushi, Steel Compos. Struct. 2018, 27, 273.
[19] L. Yang, Y. Yan, N. Kuang, Polym. Test. 2013, 32, 1163.
[20] A. Meram, Polym. Test. 2019, 79, 106013.
[21] M. A. Caminero, I. García-Moreno, G. P. Rodríguez, Polym.
Test. 2017, 63, 530.
[22] S. W. F. Spronk, M. Kersemans, J. C. A. de Baerdemaeker,
F. A. Gilabert, R. D. B. Sevenois, D. Garoz, C. Kassapoglou, W.
van Paepegem, Polym. Test. 2018, 65, 231.
[23] F. Han, Y. Yan, J. Ma, Polym. Compos. 2018, 39, 624. https://
doi.org/10.1002/pc.23976.
[24] J. Njuguna, S. Michałowski, K. Pielichowski, K. Kayvantash,
A. C. Walton, Polym. Compos. 2011, 32, 6.
[25] U. K. Vaidyaa, M. V. Hosurb, D. Earlb, S. Jeelanib, Compos. A:
Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2000, 31, 761.
[26] F. A. Dianshi Feng, Struct. Monit. Mainten. 2017, 19, 133.
[27] T. Zhang, Y. Yan, J. Li, Polym. Compos. 2017, 38, 646.
[28] P. Nash, Experimental impact damage resistance and toler-
ance study of symmetrical and unsymmetrical composite
sandwich panels. Doctoral Thesis, Department of Aeronautical
and Automotive Engineering Loughborough University,
Leicestershire United Kingdom, 2016.
[29] W. He, J. Liu, B. Tao, D. Xie, J. Liu, M. Zhang, Compos. Struct.
2016, 158, 30.
[30] J. Wang, A. M. Waas, H. Wang, Compos. Struct. 2013, 96, 298.
[31] S. Zhu, G. B. Chai, Compos. Struct. 2013, 101, 284.
[32] G. Morada, R. Ouadday, A. Vadean, R. Boukhili, Compos. B:
Eng. 2017, 114, 418.
[33] V. Birman, K. Chandrashekhara, S. Sain, Compos. B: Eng.
1996, 27, 439.
[34] M. S. Rim, E. H. Kim, J. H. Roh, J. Theor. Appl. Mech. 2011,
49, 841.
[35] E. H. Kim, I. Lee, J. H. Roh, J. S. Bae, I. H. Choi, K. N. Koo,
Compos. Struct. 2011, 93, 2903.
[36] J. Aurrekoetxea, J. Zurbitu, I. Ortiz de Mendibil, A.
Agirregomezkorta, M. Sánchez-Soto, M. Sarrionandia, Mater.
Lett. 2011, 65, 863.
[37] S. L. Angioni, M. Meo, A. Foreman, Smart Mater. Struct. 2011,
20, 13001.
[38] M. Meo, F. Marulo, M. Guida, S. Russo, Compos. Struct. 2013,
95, 756.
[39] A. Sellitto, A. Riccio, Materials (Basel, Switzerland) 2019,
12, 708.
[40] S. Pappadà, R. Rametta, A. Largo, A. Maffezzoli, Polym. Com-
pos. 2012, 33, 655.
[41] A. Saeedi, M. M. Shokrieh, Polym. Test. 2017, 64, 221.
[42] K. A. Tsoi, R. Stalmans, J. Schrooten, M. Wevers, Y. W. Mai,
Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2003, 342, 207.
[43] J. S. Paine, C. A. Rogers, Conference-Proceedings-of-SPIE,
402-409, 1994.
[44] H. Jia, Impact Damage Resistance of Shape Memory Alloy
Hybrid Compos. Struct. Doctor of Philosophy, the Faculty of
the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacks-
burg, VA, 1998.
19
[45] Y. Yang, J. Chen, Z. Huang, Int. J. Damage Mech. 2020, 29, 67.
[46] K. T. Lau, A. W. L. Chan, S. Q. Shi, L. M. Zhou, Mater. Des.
2002, 23, 265.
[47] J. S. N. Paine, C. A. Rogers, J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 2016,
5, 530.
[48] V. Birman, Smart Mater. Struct. 1997, 6, 278.
[49] N. Abdolrahim, G. Liaghat, H. Askari, Department of Mechan-
ical Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, 111, 2013.
[50] M. Meo, E. Antonucci, P. Duclaux, M. Giordano, Compos.
Struct. 2005, 71, 337.
[51] F. Pinto, M. Meo, J. Compos. Mater. 2014, 49, 2713.
[52] M. A. E. M. Ali, A. M. Soliman, M. L. Nehdi, Mater. Des. 2017,
117, 139.
[53] M. Sun, Z. Wang, B. Yang, X. Sun, Compos. Struct. 2017,
171, 170.
[54] J. Wanberg, Composite Materials: Fabrication Handbook# 1,
Wolfgang Publications, Rome, 2009.
[55] M. R. M. Jamir, M. S. A. Majid, A. Khasri, Sustainable Com-
posites for Aerospace Applications, Elsevier, 1st Edition, Malay-
sia, 2018, 155–170.
[56] ASTM D3039/D3039M-17: Standard Test Method for Tensile
Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials, Modified
2017.
[57] J. Liu, W. He, D. Xie, B. Tao, Compos. B: Eng. 2017, 111, 315.
[58] A. Kurşun, M. Şenel, H. M. Enginsoy, E. Bayraktar, Compos. B:
Eng. 2016, 86, 143.
[59] A. Arjangpay, A. Darvizeh, M. Yarmohammad Tooski, R.
Ansari, Compos. Struct. 2018, 184, 327.
[60] E. Sevkat, B. Liaw, F. Delale, B. B. Raju, Compos. A: Appl. Sci.
Manuf. 2009, 40, 1090.
[61] Y. Chen, S. Hou, K. Fu, X. Han, L. Ye, Compos. Struct. 2017,
168, 322.
[62] H. Zhang, S. Sfarra, F. Sarasini, C. Ibarra-Castanedo, S. Perilli,
H. Fernandes, Y. Duan, J. Peeters, N. P. Avdelidis, X.
Maldague, IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 2018, 14, 514.
[63] V. Antonucci, F. Caputo, P. Ferraro, A. Langella, V. Lopresto,
V. Pagliarulo, M. R. Ricciardi, A. Riccio, C. Toscano, Prog.
Aerospace Sci. 2016, 81, 26.
[64] C. Ibarra-Castanedo, J. M. Piau, S. Guilbert, N. P. Avdelidis,
M. Genest, A. Bendada, X. P. V. Maldague, Res. Nondestruct.
Eval. 2009, 20, 1.
[65] R. Sultan, S. Guirguis, M. Younes, E. El-Soaly, Int. J. Mech.
Eng. Robot. Res. 2012, 1, 131.
How to cite this article: Masoudi
Moghaddam SA, Yarmohammad Tooski M,
Jabbari M, Khorshidvand AR. Experimental
investigation of sandwich panels with hybrid
composite face sheets and embedded shape
memory alloy wires under low velocity impact.
Polymer Composites. 2020;1–19. https://doi.org/10.
1002/pc.25754