European Journal of Wood and Wood Products

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-020-01574-1

ORIGINAL

Structural analysis and strength‑to‑weight optimization

of wood‑based sandwich composite with honeycomb core
under three‑point flexural test
Jingxin Hao1,2   · Xinfeng Wu1 · Gloria Oporto2 · Wenjin Liu3 · Jingxin Wang2

Received: 3 May 2019

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Wood-based sandwich composite with a paper honeycomb core, especially for thick boards, has the advantage of high
strength-to-weight ratio for the use in lightweight furniture products, interior walls etc. Employing both theoretical and
experimental methods, this study investigated the influencing factors of various failure modes and its transition to obtain
optimized structural parameters after a quasi-static load was applied. The results reveal that the skins of MDF are too strong
for the paper honeycomb core. Both failure modes are caused by weak core properties. If the thickness or strength of the skins
could be reduced or the core strength could be reinforced, then optimal failure mode of simultaneous core and skin failure
could be reached. The intersection point of three transition lines is the best combination of structural parameters, meaning
highest strength-to-weight ratio. At this point, failure of core shear, indentation and face fracture occurs simultaneously.
The distance from a structural parameter to intersection is an effective index to express the degree of optimization for the
strength-to-weight ratio of composites. Specimens close to the intersection point have optimal structural parameters and high
strength-to-weight ratio. On application level, the optimum strength-to-weight ratio could be obtained easily by adjusting
the surface or core thickness, if the materials were fixed first.

1 Introduction

A sandwich composite is constructed of two rigid face sheets

on either side of a thick, lightweight core. Common materi-
als used for face sheets include metal, plastic, and wood,
while the core can be aluminum, plastic, or paper. A benefit
Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this of this design is that the sandwich composite has very high
article (https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0010​7-020-01574​-1) contains bending strength and stiffness relative to its weight (Gibson
supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
and Ashby 1988). Sandwich composites have been widely
* Wenjin Liu used in the space and marine fields and have spread to civil
csfulwj@163.com areas (Gibson and Ashby 1988; Carlsson and Kardomateas
* Jingxin Wang 2011).
jingxin.wang@mail.wvu.edu The overall performance of a sandwich composite
Jingxin Hao depends on the properties of its faces, its core materials
haojingxin1@163.com and their geometric dimensions, and the loading condi-
1
tions. Failure modes for these types of composites and their
College of Material Science and Engineering, Central South initiation can be predicted by conducting a thorough stress
University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha, Hunan,
China analysis and applying appropriate failure criteria. Possible
2 failure modes of sandwich beams include face fracture, face
Division of Forestry and Natural Resources, West Virginia
University, Morgantown, WV, USA wrinkling, debonding, core shear, indentation. Face frac-
3 ture includes skin tension and compression failure. This type
College of Furniture and Art Design, Central South
University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha, Hunan, of failure occurs in sandwich beams under pure bending
China with a long span or those structures with a stiff core under

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 European Journal of Wood and Wood Products

three-point bending (Daniel and Abot 2000). Face wrinkling 2 Experiments

is a common failure mode of sandwich beams under edge
compression loading (Heath 1969; Konsta-Gdoutos and 2.1 Materials
Gdoutos 2005). In some special cases, face sheet debonding
may develop because of embedded defects during fabrication Two kinds of medium density fiber board (MDF) from BaoY-
of the sandwich panels (Berggreen et al. 2007; Gdoutos and uan Wood Corporation, Jingmen, China, were used for the
Balopoulos 2008). The dominant failure modes for sandwich skin of the sandwich composites in this study. Preliminary
composites subjected to a three-point flexural central loading tests to characterize these materials in terms of their physi-
are core shear failure and surface indentation (Duarte et al. cal and mechanical properties were conducted according to
2010; Mamalis et al. 2010; Li et al. 2016). Previous theoreti- GB/T 17657 (2013) (Table 1). Paper honeycomb from Hunan
cal and experimental studies have examined the behavior of Huawang Technology Co., Ltd., Changsha, China, was used
composite sandwich beams under static three-point flexural as the core of the sandwich composites. Its compression
tests (Ashby et al. 2000; Minakuchi et al. 2008; Caprino properties were tested according to GB/T 1453 (2005) and
et al. 2015; Lim et al. 2004). shear properties were tested by the double-compress-shear
Research attention was also paid to the wood-based method according to QJ1125 (1987) (Table 2). The adhesive
sandwich composites. Negro et  al. (2011) developed a used in this research was polymer vinyl acetate (PVAc) from
novel lightweight sandwich composite with plywood skin Jinghaitian Corporation, Changsha, China. The adhesive
and corrugated cellular core for boatbuilding. Labans et al. viscosity was 13,500 mPa s and the solid content was 47%.
(2019) tested three types of wood-based sandwich compos-
ites intended for movable houses. The results showed the
sandwich structure can reach up to 43% higher specific stiff- 2.2 Specimen preparation
ness compared to a solid plywood board, at the same time
maintaining sufficient strength. Hao et al. (2018) developed The MDF was cut to the dimension of 500 mm × 500 mm.
a novel wood-based sandwich composite with “Taiji” paper The paper honeycomb core was cut to fit to the skin
honeycomb core; with a bending strength 2.5–3.5 times
higher than traditional hexagonal ones. Others paid atten-
tion to the theoretical analysis and structural optimization. “ ” direction specimen
Li et al. (2017) presented a simplified orthogonal model to
predict the mechanical properties of wood-based structural
sandwich panels. Kawasaki et al. (2006) proposed a method
to optimize elastic moduli and stiffness in four-point bend-
ing of wood-based sandwich panels for the use as structural
wall and floors. However, the optimization of wood-based
sandwich structures in terms of strength-to-weight ratio, par-
ticularly with paper cellular core, appears to be much lesser
well understood.
This study investigated the quasi-static load capabilities
and structural optimization of wood-based sandwich com-
posites with paper honeycomb core through experiments
and theoretical analysis. In the experimental section, speci-
mens with various skin thickness, core thickness, honey-
comb direction (Fig. 1), and span distance were evaluated
“ ” direction specimen
by their failure load using a quasi-static three-point bending
test. The theoretical solution was evaluated for the sandwich Fig. 1  Direction notation of the sandwich beam for test
failure, including core shear, indentation and surface frac-
ture. Finally, by applying a novel index of distance from a Table 1  Properties of the medium density fiber board (MDF) used in
point to the intersection of failure transition line, the struc- the outer layers (skins)
tural optimization for maximum strength-to-weight ratio was
Material Thickness Density Moisture Bending Bending
analyzed. (mm) (kg/m3) content strength modulus
(%) (MPa) (MPa)

MDF 2.98 913 9.1 48.5 3300

MDF 3.78 893 9.2 45.6 3230

13
European Journal of Wood and Wood Products
Table 2  Material characteristics of middle layer of paper honeycomb
Material Thickness (mm) Moisture content Length of unit
(%) edge (mm)
Honeycomb 15/25/35 8.7 8 10.56
“∥” denotes the length direction of the specimens is parallel to the stretch direction of the paper honeycomb core; “⊥” denotes the length direc-
tion of the specimens is perpendicular to the stretch direction of the paper honeycomb core (Fig. 1)
dimension, then stretched and fixed to a wooden mold and
dried at 85 °C for 3 min to fix the shape.
As seen in Fig. 2a, the surface sheets were glued by 200 g/
m2 evenly. Then, the sandwich construction was assembled
according to sheet/core/sheet and placed in the press with
a specific thickness block (Fig. 2b). The pressure and time
were 0.2 MPa and 4 h, respectively. After the press proce-
dure, the sample was cut to a width of 60 mm and varying
lengths (span distance + 20 mm) for testing and conditioning
at 20 °C with a relative humidity of 65% for over 72 h.
2.3 Methods
Without test standard for wood-based sandwich composite
with honeycomb core, this experiment was performed for
a three-point flexural test according to GB/T17657 (2013)
as reference. However, considering the complex failure
pattern of the sandwich structure, various span distances
were employed to evaluate core and surface failure sepa-
rately (Table 3). A total of 18 test groups were completed
on sandwich specimens 60 mm wide, with two skin thick-
nesses (3 mm and 5 mm) and three core thicknesses (15 mm,
25 mm, and 35 mm), different honeycomb direction (“∥” and
“⊥”) and span distance (250 mm, 350 mm, and 450 mm)
Fig. 2  a Gluing application to
the surface sheet; b sandwich
panel pressed in the machine
Compression Compression Transverse shear Transverse shear
modulus (MPa) strength (MPa) strength “║” strength “⊥”
(MPa) (MPa)
0.21 0.073 0.151
(Table 4). Three to five replicates were tested to validate
the results using a universal testing machine. The displace-
ment of the central loading point relative to the end rollers
was monitored automatically by the control system (Fig. 3).
The loading speed was 10 mm/min, so that the maximum
loading occurred between 60 to 90 s from the beginning of
the testing.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Loading to displacement curve analysis
There are two types of deformation and failure pattern
for wood-based sandwich beams with paper honeycomb
core; one is core shear, the other one is surface indenta-
tion. For core shear, the correlation between loading and
transverse displacement was almost linear during the first
stage, which confirms Hook’s law (Fig. 4a and b). Next,
when the shear stress attainedcore material transverse
shear strength, core shear buckling occurred. The loading
level lasted for a short duration, formed a plateau, and then
declined dramatically.
The loading to displacement curve of the surface inden-
tation was different to the core shear failure. The loading
13
 European Journal of Wood and Wood Products

Table 3  Variables and test levels of sandwich beams shear buckling and surface indentation were observed in
Level Factor the experiment, while face fracture did not occur due to the
strong surface layer.
Surface sheet (A) Core thick- Direction of Span dis-
ness (B) honeycomb tance (D)
(mm) (C) (mm) 3.2.1 Core shear buckling

1 3 mm MDF 15 “∥” 250
2 5 mm MDF 25 “⊥” 350
3 35 450
level declined step by step after the peak (Fig. 5a). At the
end, the sandwich beam also had a potential to bear certain
loads. In Fig. 5b, an indentation is seen due to local bend-
ing failure. When normal stress attained core compression
strength, indentation occurred. After indention had initiated,
the resistance to transverse loading level declined gradually.
In this stage, the compressive skin has not yet yielded and
it can bear some stable loading level due to a locally large
stretching deformation nearby the loading roller.
3.2 Strength prediction compared with measured
results
As mentioned in the literature (Carlsson and Kardomateas
2011; Daniel and Abot 2000), common failure patterns
for sandwich beams under central loading are shear fail-
ure, indentation and face fracture. The failure modes, their
initiation, and sequence depend on the material character-
istics, structural parameters, and loading conditions. Core
Core shear failure is observed in sandwich beams with rela-
tively thick faces and small spans. A sandwich beam with
span length L, width b and thickness h, was comprised of
two identical wood-based skins of thickness ­hf, and paper
honeycomb core of thickness h­ c, as shown in Fig. 6. The
beam is loaded centrally with force P under a simple support
base. According to the Reissner sandwich theory (Reissner
1949), the shear stress along the cross-section of the soft-
core layer is almost identical. Core failure occurs when the
shear stress reaches a critical core material value.
(1)
( )
Pcr = 2b hc + hf 𝜏cr
where Pcr denotes the critical loading of sandwich structure
failure (N); and 𝜏cr refers to the shear strength of the honey-
comb core (Pa); b , hc , and hf denote width, core thickness,
and surface thickness of the sandwich beam, respectively
(m).
3.2.2 Surface indentation
Indentation is a common failure mode in flexural tests of
sandwich composites subjected to central point loading

Table 4  Experimental Group Code Surface sheet (A) Core thickness (B) Direction of Span distance (D)
combinations of sandwich beam honeycomb (C)

1 A1B1C1D2 2.95 mm ± 0.15 14.3 mm ± 0.2 “∥” 350 mm ± 0.5

2 A1B2C1D2 2.95 mm ± 0. 15 24.2 mm ± 0.2 “∥” 350 mm ± 0.5
3 A1B3C1D2 2.95 mm ± 0. 15 34.2 mm ± 0.2 “∥” 350 mm ± 0.5
4 A1B1C2D2 2.95 mm ± 0. 15 14.3 mm ± 0.2 “⊥” 350 mm ± 0.5
5 A1B2C2D2 2.95 mm ± 0. 15 24.2 mm ± 0.2 “⊥” 350 mm ± 0.5
6 A1B3C2D2 2.95 mm ± 0. 15 34.2 mm ± 0.2 “⊥” 350 mm ± 0.5
7 A2B1C1D2 3.78 mm ± 0. 15 14.3 mm ± 0.2 “∥” 350 mm ± 0.5
8 A2B2C1D2 3.78 mm ± 0. 15 24.2 mm ± 0.2 “∥” 350 mm ± 0.5
9 A2B3C1D2 3.78 mm ± 0. 15 34.2 mm ± 0.2 “∥” 350 mm ± 0.5
10 A2B1C2D2 3.78 mm ± 0. 15 14.3 mm ± 0.2 “⊥” 350 mm ± 0.5
11 A2B2C2D2 3.78 mm ± 0. 15 24.2 mm ± 0.2 “⊥” 350 mm ± 0.5
12 A2B3C2D2 3.78 mm ± 0. 15 34.2 mm ± 0.2 “⊥” 350 mm ± 0.5
13 A1B1C2D1 2.95 mm ± 0. 15 14.3 mm ± 0.2 “⊥” 250 mm ± 0.5
14 A1B2C2D1 2.95 mm ± 0. 15 24.2 mm ± 0.2 “⊥” 250 mm ± 0.5
15 A1B3C2D1 2.95 mm ± 0. 15 34.2 mm ± 0.2 “⊥” 250 mm ± 0.5
16 A1B1C2D3 2.95 mm ± 0. 15 14.3 mm ± 0.2 “⊥” 450 mm ± 0.5
17 A1B2C2D3 2.95 mm ± 0. 15 24.2 mm ± 0.2 “⊥” 450 mm ± 0.5
18 A1B3C2D3 2.95 mm ± 0. 15 34.2 mm ± 0.2 “⊥” 450 mm ± 0.5

13
European Journal of Wood and Wood Products

Loading head represents the core as a system of independent and linear

elastic springs according to Winkler’s hypothesis. Initiation
of indentation occurred when the core reached the crush
compression stress. Zenkert et al. (2004) presented the solu-
tion of critical load:
2b𝜎cr
Dial gage Pcr = (2)
𝜆
( )1∕4
E
with 𝜆 = 4E Icz h where 𝜎cr denotes the crush transverse
f f c

Fig. 3  Schematic diagram of three-point flexural test and displace-
ment measurement
stress of the core layer (Pa), EfIf, Ecz are the bending rigidity
(N·m2) of the skin and the transverse elastic modulus (Pa) of
the core.
3.2.3 Face fracture

Face fracture occurs when the compressed face sheet attains

(Hao et al. 2018; Soden 1996; Navarro et al. 2013; Qin et al. crush strength under bending. Neglecting the contribution
2014; Steeves and Fleck 2004). It is theoretically assumed load associated with deflection of the core, the collapse load
that the elastic skin resting on an ideal elastic foundation

Fig. 4  a Typical loading to displacement curve of the core shear failure; b image of the core shear failure for the three-point flexural test

Fig. 5  a Typical loading to displacement curve of surface indentation; b image of indentation failure for the three-point flexural test

13
 European Journal of Wood and Wood Products

Fig. 6  Simplified distribution P

hf
of the shear stress in the cross
section of the sandwich beam.
a Construction of sandwich

hc
beam; b realistic shear stress X X

h
X
distribution of cross section; c z
shear stress distribution after
z z
simplicity
L

hf
(a) (b) (c)

Table 5  Comparison between Group Code Failure mode Average test Standard Prediction of Prediction of
theoretical models and test results (N) deviation core shear (N) indentation
values of sandwich composite (N)

1 A1B1C1D2 Core shear 156.3 11.1 151.5 –

2 A1B2C1D2 Core shear 202.3 7.3 235.6 -
3 A1B3C1D2 Core shear 301.7 17.7 321.4 –
4 A1B1C2D2 Core shear/indentation 319.2 26.7 310.0 362.2
5 A1B2C2D2 Indentation 430.6 11.7 – 404.1
6 A1B3C2D2 Indentation 451.3 32.2 – 439.9
7 A2B1C1D2 Core shear 181.3 24.0 161.5 –
8 A2B2C1D2 Core shear 243.8 35.9 251.8 -
9 A2B3C1D2 Core shear 381.3 47.0 335.3 –
10 A2B1C2D2 Core shear 348.8 17.2 331.8 –
11 A2B2C2D2 Core shear/indentation 499.5 22.7 512.3 504.3
12 A2B3C2D2 Indentation 594.7 43.3 – 523.6
13 A1B1C2D1 Core shear/indentation 324.5 25.2 317.4 359.6
14 A1B2C2D1 Indentation 437.2 19.4 – 404.7
15 A1B3C2D1 Indentation 443.9 16.8 – 441.0
16 A1B1C2D3 Core shear/indentation 315.5 13.2 317.1 359.6
17 A1B2C2D3 Indentation 392.7 28.6 – 404.5
18 A1B3C2D3 Indentation 390.3 29.6 – 441.10

of the sandwich beam is then given by Steeves and Fleck
(2004):
( )
4bhf hf + hc 𝜎tr
Pcr = (3)
L
where σtr is the strength of the surface sheets.
3.2.4 Comparison between prediction and measured
results
In Table 5, a comparison is given between the theoretical
models and test values of the sandwich composite. The fail-
ure was taken to be the maximum load carried by the speci-
men before abrupt load drop and coincides with the obser-
vation of a clearly evident failure. The theoretical models
of core shear failure (Eq. 1) and surface indentation (Eq. 2)
have good agreement with three-point bending test results
of the sandwich beam. Generally, the average difference
between predictions and test results was less than 20%.
3.3 Effect of construction parameters on failure
load
The effects of construction parameters on failure mode
and critical value, as well as the graph of failure load
versus skin thickness and failure load versus core thick-
ness are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. The solid line is the sur-
face indention failure trend, while the dotted line is the
core shear failure trending solution; the asterisks printed
in the graph are test results for specimens with different
geometric combinations of 3 mm and 5 mm skins and

13
European Journal of Wood and Wood Products

600 600
Core shear Core shear
500 500
Indentaon Indentaon
Failure load˄N˅ 400

Failure load˄N˅
400

300 300 A2B1D2

A1B1D2
200 200

100 A1B1D2 A2B1D2 100

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Skin thickness˄mm˅ Skin thickness˄mm˅
(a) (b)
700 700
Core shear Core shear
600 600
Indentaon Indentaon
A2B2D2
500

Failure load˄N˅
500
Failure load˄N˅

400 400 A1B2D2

300 300
200
A2B2D2 200
A1B2D2
100 100
0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Skin thickness˄mm˅
Skin thickness˄mm˅

(c) (d)
700 900
Core shear Core shear
800
600
Indentaon Indentaon
700
500
Failure load˄N˅

A2B3D2
Failure load˄N˅

600
400 A2B3D2 500
A1B3D2
300 400

A1B3D2 300
200
200
100 100

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Skin thickness˄mm˅ Skin thickness˄mm˅

(e) (f)

Fig. 7  Failure load versus skin thickness of sandwich beams by pre- 25 mm core with “∥” direction; d specimens of 25 mm core with “⊥”
diction and test results: a Specimens of 15 mm core with “∥” direc- direction; e specimens of 35 mm core with “∥” direction; f specimens
tion; b specimens of 15 mm core with “⊥” direction; c specimens of of 35 mm core with “⊥” direction

15 mm, 25 mm, and 35 mm cores. The failure load of the
predicted value shows an approximately linear increase
according to incremental skin or core thickness. The skin
thickness has a greater influence on indentation failure
than core shear failure. This is due to the skin bending
stiffness, which is a key factor in local flexural loading
but has less impact on shear loading. Skin bending stiff-
ness was reinforced when skin thickness increased. The
core thickness had the opposite effect and imposed more
influence on the shear failure. As a result, if the goal is
to improve the indentation failure loading level, the best
option is to increase the skin thickness, and to improve
the shear failure level, adding core thickness is a better
solution.
The test results show a positive trend with the pre-
dicted values. When skin thickness was increased from
3 to 5 mm, the maximum loading improved by 16.0%,
20.5%, and 26.4% for “∥”direction specimens and 9.3%,
16.0%, and 31.8% for “⊥” direction specimens with
15 mm, 25 mm, and 35 mm core thickness, respectively.

13
 European Journal of Wood and Wood Products

600 800
Core shear Core shear
700
500
Indentaon Indentaon
600
Failure load˄N˅

Failure load˄N˅
400
500 A1B3D2
300
A1B2D2
400
A1B3D2
200 300
A1B2D2 A1B1D2
200
100 A1B1D2
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Core thickness˄mm˅
Core thickness˄mm˅

(a)
(b)
600 800
Core shear Core shear
700
500 Indentaon Indentaon
600 A2B3D2

Failure load˄N˅
Failure load˄N˅

400 A2B2D2
A2B3D2 500

300 400
A2B2D2 A2B1D2
300
200 A2B1D2
200
100
100
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Core thickness˄mm˅ Core thickness˄mm˅

(c) (d)

Fig. 8  Failure load versus core thickness of sandwich beams by prediction and test results: a specimens of 3 mm skin with “∥” direction; b speci-
mens of 3 mm skin with “⊥”direction; c specimens of 5 mm skin with “∥” direction; d specimens of 5 mm skin with “⊥”direction

Fig. 9  Failure load versus speci- 700

men direction of sandwich beam
with 350 mm span distance Specimens withĀ̴ādirecon
600
Specimens withĀĵādirecon
Failure load (N)

500

400

300

200

100

0
A1B1 A1B2 A1B3 A2B1 A2B2 A2B3

This demonstrated that loading resistance was greater specimens and 41.4% and 71.5% for “⊥” direction speci-
as core thickness increased. Similarly, as the core thick- mens with 3 mm, 5 mm skin thickness, respectively. It
ness increased from 15 to 35 mm, the maximum load- became clear the increased loading resistance of the
ing improved by 93.0% and 110.3% for “∥”direction

13
European Journal of Wood and Wood Products

thicker skin specimens was more significant than that of 3.6 Optimal analysis of structural parameters
the thinner specimens.
3.6.1 Correlation between failure mode and structural
3.4 Effect of specimen direction on failure load parameters

Laminate characteristics contributed to the composite
strength (Fig.  9). The specimens loaded in the parallel
direction (“∥”) could only sustain the lower loading level.
However, specimens with “⊥”direction have, on average,
an approximately 1.8 times higher loading level than speci-
mens with “∥” direction. The main reason is that the shear
strength of honeycomb in the core decides on the critical
loading of the composite structure as a whole, but its shear
strength in “⊥”direction is 2 times higher than in “∥”direc-
tion (Table 2). Wang et al. (2007) found the shear resist-
ance area of a hexagonal honeycomb in “⊥”direction is 3
√
The purpose of an optimal analysis is to coordinate surface
sheets and core material so that outer and internal layer can
get simultaneously to the failure loading. By equating Eqs. (1)
with (2), Eqs. (1) with (3), and Eqs. (2) with (3) to eliminate
critical loading ( Pcr ), three theoretical curves that delimit the
experimental regions of the three types of failure modes are
obtained,
hf 1 𝜏cr
= (4)
L 2 𝜎tr

times the size of specimen in “∥” direction, therefore, the hf

(
h f + hc
)4 ( )4
Ef
1 𝜎cr
honeycomb in “⊥”direction can bear higher shear strength. = (5)
hc L 48 𝜎tr Ecz
If the composite is used as a component in products such as
furniture etc., its longitudinal direction could be along with
the “⊥” direction of honeycomb.
)3 )4
hf
( (
hc 𝜏cr Ecz
=3 (6)
hf + hc hf + hc 𝜎cr Ef

3.5 Effect of span distance on failure load By defining non-dimensional indexes, hf + hc = f L c  ,

h +h
hf
h +h
= hf  , combinations of these indexes were given as
The effect of span distance under the three-point bending f
hf +hc
c
h hf hf
test on failure load is demonstrated in Fig. 10. The loading = 1
 , f =  , = hf hf + hc  . Therefore, Eqs. (4),
hc 1−hf hc 1−hf L
level goes slightly down with rising span distance. As the (5) and (6) can be expressed as
span distance increased from 250 to 450 mm, the maximum
1 𝜏cr
loading declined by 2.8%, 10.2%, and 12.1% for “⊥” direc- hf (hf + hc ) = (7)
tion specimens with 15 mm, 25 mm and 35 mm core thick- 2 𝜎tr
ness, respectively.

Fig. 10  Failure load versus span 500

distance of sandwich beams
with “⊥” direction of specimen 450
400
350
Failure load (N)

300
250
200 Core thickness=15mm

150 Core thickness=25mm

100 Core thickness=35mm

50
0
250 350 450
Span distance (mm)

13
 European Journal of Wood and Wood Products

Fig. 11  Failure map based on 0.30

construction parameters a “∥”
specimens and b“⊥” specimens 0.27
0.24
0.21 A2B1D2
0.18 Core shear

hf/(hc+hf)
A1B1D2
0.15
A2B2D2
0.12
A1B2D2 A2B3D2

Face fracture
0.09
A1B3D2
0.06
0.03 Intersecon point Indentaon
0.00
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
(hc+hf)/L

(a)

0.30
0.27
0.24
0.21 A2B1D2
0.18 A1B1D3
Core shear
hf/(hc+hf)

A1B1D1
0.15 A1B1D2
A2B2D2
0.12 A1B2D2 A1B2D1
Face fracture

A1B2D3
A2B3D2
0.09 Intersecon
0.06 point A1B3D3 A1B3D2 A1B3D1
0.03 Indentaon
0.00
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
(hc+hf)/L

(b)

hf
( )4
Ef constructing a two-dimensional coordinate system, that
1 𝜎cr
( )4
hf + hc = (8) is (hc + hf)/L for horizontal axis and hf/(hc + hf) for verti-
1 − hf 48 𝜎tr Ecz
cal axis (Fig.11a and b). Thus, all possible beam geom-
etries are graphed for a given material combination. In
( ) 3 ( )4
𝜏 Ecz this study, the experiments concentrate on wood-based
1 − hf hf = 3 cr (9) sandwich composites with paper honeycomb core.
𝜎cr Ef
These material properties are given in Tables 1 and 2.
Setting 𝜏cr  , 𝜎cr  , 𝜎tr  , Ef  , Ecz fixed as constants, the cor- The wood-based skin properties are Ef = 3300 MPa for
relation among structural parameters can be given by 3 mm MDF, and Ef = 3230 MPa for 5 mm MDF, while

13
European Journal of Wood and Wood Products

Table 6  Summary of the Group Code hf/(hf + hc) (hf + hc)/L Density (kg/m3) Strength-weight Distance to
distance from structural ratio (N m/kg) intersection
parameters to intersection point
1 A1B1C1D2 0.17 0.05 281.03 11,926.46 0.12
2 A1B2C1D2 0.11 0.08 195.95 9970.50 0.08
3 A1B3C1D2 0.08 0.11 152.36 10,775.26 0.09
4 A1B1C2D2 0.17 0.05 281.63 24,304.51 0.04
5 A1B2C2D2 0.11 0.08 195.95 21,222.44 0.07
6 A1B3C2D2 0.08 0.11 152.36 16,118.24 0.11
7 A2B1C1D2 0.21 0.05 322.66 10,288.71 0.16
8 A2B2C1D2 0.14 0.08 228.67 9248.46 0.10
9 A2B3C1D2 0.10 0.11 179.67 10,648.25 0.10
10 A2B1C2D2 0.21 0.05 322.66 19,794.28 0.08
11 A2B2C2D2 0.14 0.08 228.67 18,948.35 0.07
12 A2B3C2D2 0.10 0.11 179.67 16,607.70 0.10
13 A1B1C2D1 0.17 0.07 281.03 17,686.39 0.06
14 A1B2C2D1 0.11 0.11 196.64 15,337.76 0.10
15 A1B3C2D1 0.08 0.15 153.08 11,270.64 0.15
16 A1B1C2D3 0.17 0.04 281.03 30,952.55 0.04
17 A1B2C2D3 0.11 0.06 196.64 24,797.92 0.06
18 A1B3C2D3 0.08 0.08 153.08 17,837.52 0.09

Fig. 12  Correlation between 35000

strength-to-weight ratio of the
Strength-to-weight-rao (N·m/kg)

composite and distance from a

30000
point of structural parameters to
intersection
25000

20000

15000
R² = 0.60
10000

5000

0
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
Distance to intersecon point

the core properties are Ecz = 10.56 MPa , 𝜎cr = 0.21MPa ,
𝜏cr = 0.073 in“║”direction and 𝜏cr = 0.151 in“⊥”direction.
The diagram is divided into three fields that are sepa-
rated by three transition lines. Shear indentation decided
by hf/(hc + hf) is the straight line, while shear-face fracture
and indentation-face fracture are curved lines. All combi-
nations of structural parameters are located in the failure
area of indentation and core shear, which is in accordance
with above experiments. The shear failure takes predomi-
nant position when the core has lower shear strength with
“∥” direction specimens of A1B1D2, A1B2D2, A1B3D2,
A2B1D2, A2B2D2 and A2B3D2, while “⊥” direction speci-
mens have core shear or indentation failure depending on
their structural geometries. For sandwich beams with thick
surface sheets, core shear failure occurs first (A2B1D2),
otherwise, indentation can occur before any core shear
failure (A1B2D2, A1B3D2, A2B3D2, A1B2D1, A1B3D1,
A1B2D3, A1B3D3). However, it is possible to have two fail-
ure modes (A1B1D2, A2B2D2, A1B1D1, A1B1D3), which
demonstrates that those types of composites are at failure
mode transition area.

13

3.6.2 Optimization index of structural parameters
Specimens close to the transition line have optimized con-
struction parameters due to simultaneous failure level of skin
and core layer, which means no extra material wasted in
the sandwich structure. Thus the intersection point of three
transition lines is the best. Solving Eqs. (7), (8) and (9), the
solutions are hf = 0.053 , hf + hc = 0.018 for “∥” specimens
and hf = 0.144 , hf + hc = 0.014 for “⊥” specimens.
The distance from a structural parameter to intersection
point was set up to express the degree of optimization for
strength-to-weight ratio. It was obtained by the formula for
calculating the distance between two points in the plane.
The distances of all combinations of structural parameters
to intersection are summarized in Table 6. The strength-to-
weight ratio of the composite was calculated by the follow-
ing equation,
1 3Pcr L
𝜎b = (10)
𝜌 2bh2
where 𝜎b denotes strength-to-weight ratio for bending test
of the composite (Pa), and 𝜌 is the density of the composite
as a whole (kg/m3).
Taking A1B1C1D2 as an example, Pcr = 156.3 N ,
𝜌 = 281.03 kg/m3   , b = 0.06 m   , L = 0.35 m  ,
h = 0.0202 m , therefore 𝜎b = 11926.46 N m∕kg is given
by Eq. (10).
Figure 12 exhibits a clear trend that strength-to-weight
ratio of sandwich composites decreases gradually with
increasing distance from point of structural parameters
to intersection of failure transition line. The specimen of
A1B1C2D3 with hf = 0.17 and hf + hc = 0.04 has the
best strength-to-weight ratio and closest distance to inter-
section point. On the contrary, specimens of A1B2C1D2
and A2B2C1D2 double the distance from point of struc-
tural parameter to intersection, which has the lower level
of strength-to-weight ratio. Specimen in “⊥”direction has
better strength-to-weight ratio than in parallel (“∥”). The rea-
son is the former one has higher core shear strength, which
is close to the shear indentation transition line. As the test
span distance increases, the point of structural parameters
moves to intersection, giving higher strength-to-weight ratio
of the composite.
3.6.3 Optimization process of structural parameters
On the basis of optimization index and failure transition
analysis, the general process for optimal structural geom-
etries of composites is given in the following steps.
1. Obtaining the mechanical properties of surface sheets
𝜎tr , Ef and core materials 𝜎cr , Ecz , 𝜏cr.
13
European Journal of Wood and Wood Products
2. Calculating the intersection point of three failure mode
using Eqs. (7) and (8).
3. Calculating the distance from structural parameters of a
composite to intersection point.
4. Adjusting skin and core thickness to realize the optimal
structural parameters.
Taking specimen A2B3C2D2 as an example, the follow-
ing steps illustrate the optimization process of structural
parameters.
1. The composite with code A2B3C1D2 was comprised
of MDF skin and honeycomb core; its mechani-
cal properties are σtr = 48.5 Mpa   , Ef = 3300 Mpa  ,
σcr = 0.21 Mpa , Ecz = 10.56 Mpa , τcr = 0.151.
2. The intersection point of failure modes is hf = 0.144 and
hf + hc = 0.014.
3. The structural parameter of A2B3C2D2 is hf = 0.100
and hf + hc = 0.108 , thus, its distance to intersection
point is 0.10.
4. The distance was optimized to 0.07 by adjusting the core
thickness to 25 from 35 mm. Therefore, the strength-
to-weight ratio of the composite was improved to
18,948.35 N m/kg from 16,607.70 N m/kg.
4 Conclusion
Specimens in “⊥”direction have better loading resistance
than in “∥” direction. The skins of MDF are too strong for
paper honeycomb core. Both failure modes are caused by
weak core properties. If the thickness or strength of the skins
could be reduced or the core strength could be reinforced,
then optimal failure mode of simultaneous core and skin
failure could be reached.
The intersection point of three transition lines is the best
combination of structural parameters, meaning highest
strength-to-weight ratio. At this point, failure of core shear,
indentation and face fracture occur simultaneously. For a
wood-based sandwich beam with paper honeycomb core, it
is hf = 0.144 and hf + hc = 0.014 for specimens in “⊥”direc-
tion. The distance from a structural parameter to intersection
is an effective index to express the degree of optimization for
the strength-to-weight ratio of a composite. Specimens close
to intersection point have optimized structural parameters.
For application purposes, the optimum strength-to-weight
ratio could be obtained easily by adjusting the surface or
core thickness, if the materials were fixed first.
Acknowledgements  This project was supported by Key projects of
Education Department of Hunan Province (18A156) and China Schol-
arship Council (CSC). The authors also thank Dr. Jinqi Qin for his
valuable suggestions.
European Journal of Wood and Wood Products

References Li ZB, Chen XG, Jiang BH, Lu FY (2016) Local indentation of alu-
minum foam core sandwich beams at elevated temperatures. Com-
pos Struct 145:142–148
Ashby MF, Evans AG, Fleck NA, Gibson LJ, Hutchinson JW, Wadley
Li J, Hunt JF, Gong S, Cai Z (2017) Orthogonal model and experimen-
HNG (2000) Metal foams: a design guide. Butterworth-Heine-
tal data for analyzing wood-fiber-based tri-axial ribbed structural
mann, London
panels in bending. Eur J Wood Prod 75:5–15
Berggreen C, Simonsen BC, Borum KK (2007) Experimental and
Lim TS, Lee CS, Lee DG (2004) Failure modes of foam core sand-
numerical study of interface crack propagation in foam-cored
wich beams under static and impact loads. J Compos Mater
sandwich beams. J Comp Mats 41:493–520
38:1936–1662
Caprino G, Durante M, Leone C, Lopresto V (2015) The effect of
Mamalis AG, Spentzas KN, Manolakos DE, Innidis MB, Papapos-
shear on the local indentation and failure of sandwich beams with
tolou DP (2010) Failure modes and influence of the quasi-static
polymeric foam core loaded in flexure. Compos B Eng 71:45–51
deformation rate on the mechanical behavior of sandwich panels
Carlsson LA, Kardomateas GA (2011) Structural and failure mechanics
with Aluminum foam cores. Mech Adv Mater Struct 17:335–342
of sandwich composites. Springer Science and Business Media
Minakuchi S, Okabe Y, Takeda N (2008) Segment-wise model for
B. V, New York
theoretical simulation of barely visible indentation damage in
Daniel IM, Abot JL (2000) Fabrication, testing and analysis of compos-
composite sandwich beams: Part 1-Formulation. Compos A Appl
ite sandwich beams. Compos Sci Technol 60:2455–2463
Sci Manuf 39:133–144
Duarte I, Teixeira-Dias F, Graca A, Ferreira AJM (2010) Failure
Navarro P, Abrate S, Aubry J, Maguet S, Ferrero JF (2013) Analytical
modes and influence of the quasi-static deformation rate on the
modeling of indentation of composite sandwich beam. Compos
mechanical behavior of sandwich panels with Aluminum foam
Struct 100:79–88
cores. Mech Adv Mater Struct 17:335–342
Negro F, Cremonini C, Zanuttini R, Properzi M, Pichelin F (2011) A
GB/T 1453(2005), Test methods for flatwise compression properties
new wood-based lightweight composite for boatbuilding. Wood
of sandwich construction or cores, General Administration of
Res 56:257–266
Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s
Qin QH, Zhang JX, Wang ZJ, Li HM, Guo D (2014) Indentation of
Republic of China, Beijing, 2005
sandwich beams with metal foam core. Trans Nonferrous met Soc
GB/T 17657 (2013) Test methods of evaluating the properties of wood-
24:2440–2446
based panels and surface decorated wood-based panels, Standardi-
QJ1125 (1987) Test method of plane shear properties for sandwich
zation Administration of China, Beijing, 2013
structure glued with honeycomb, Ministry of Aerospace Industry
Gdoutos EE, Balopoulos V (2008) Kinking of interfacial cracks in
of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing, 1987
sandwich beams. In: Proc Eighth Int Conf Sand Struct (ICSS8),
Reissner E (1949) Finite deflections of sandwich plates. J Aeronaut
Porto, Portugal
Sci 15:430–448
Gibson LJ, Ashby MF (1988) Cellular solids, structure and properties,
Soden PD (1996) Indentation of composite sandwich beams. J Strain
vol 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Anal 31:353–360
Hao JX, Wu XF, Oporto G, Wang JX, Dahle G, Nan N (2018) Defor-
Steeves CA, Fleck NA (2004) Collapse mechanisms of sandwich beams
mation and failure behavior of wooden sandwich composite
with composite faces and a foam core, loaded in three-point bend-
with Taiji honeycomb core under three-point bending. Materials
ing. Part 1: Analytical models and minimum weight design. Int J
11(2325):1–22
Mech Sci 46:561–583
Heath WG (1969) Sandwich construction, part 2: the optimum design
Wang XY, Wang FB, Zeng JC, Xiao JY (2007) Design principle and
of flat sandwich panels. Aircr Eng 32:230–235
application of sandwich composite. Chemical Industry Press,
Kawasaki T, Zhang M, Wang Q, Komatsu K, Kawai S (2006) Elastic
Beijing
moduli and stiffness optimization in four-point bending of wood-
Zenkert D, Shipsha A, Persson K (2004) Static indentation and unload-
based sandwich panel for use as structural insulated walls and
ing response of sandwich beams. Compos Part B 35:511–522
floors. J Wood Sci 52:302–310
Konsta-Gdoutos MS, Gdoutos EE (2005) The effect of load and geom-
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
etry on the failure modes of sandwich beams. Appl Compos Mater
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
12:165–176
Labans E, Kalnins K, Bisagni C (2019) Flexural behavior of sandwich
panels with cellular wood, plywood stiffener/foam and thermo-
plastic composite core. J Sandw Struct Mater 21:784–805

13