materials

Article
Bending Experiment and Mechanical Properties
Analysis of Composite Sandwich Laminated
Box Beams
Xiujie Zhu, Chao Xiong *, Junhui Yin, Dejun Yin and Huiyong Deng
Department of Artillery Engineering, Shijiazhuang Campus, Army Engineering University,
Shijiazhuang 050003, China; sduzxj@163.com (X.Z.); yuanzhidao@163.com (J.Y.); dj3500560897@163.com (D.Y.);
deng-124@163.com (H.D.)
* Correspondence: xiongchao@tsinghua.org.cn




Received: 23 August 2019; Accepted: 9 September 2019; Published: 12 September 2019


Abstract: The failure modes, ultimate load, stiffness performance, and their influencing factors
of a composite sandwich laminated box beam under three-point bending load are studied by an
experiment, finite element model, and analytical method. The three-point bending experiment
was carried out on three different core composite sandwich laminated box beams, and the failure
modes and bearing capacity were studied. With the use of composite progressive damage analysis
and the core elastoplastic constitutive model, the finite element model of the composite sandwich
laminated box beam was established, and the three-point bending failure process and failure modes
were analyzed. The analytical model was established based on the Timoshenko beam theory.
The overall bending stiffness and shear stiffness of the composite sandwich laminated box beam
were calculated by the internal force–displacement relationship. The results show that the composite
sandwich laminated box beam mainly suffers from local crushing failure, and the errors between
the finite element simulation and the experiment result were within 7%. The analytical model of the
composite sandwich laminated box beam can approximately predict the overall stiffness parameters,
while the maximum error between theoretic results and experimental values was 5.2%. For composite
aluminum honeycomb sandwich laminated box beams with a ratio of span to height less than 10,
the additional deflection caused by shear deformation has an error of more than 25%. With the ratio
of circumferential layers to longitudinal layers increasing, the three-point bending ultimate load
of the composite sandwich laminated box beam increases, but the ratio of the overall stiffness to
mass reduces. The use of low-density aluminum foam and smaller-wall-thickness cell aluminum
honeycombs allows for the more obvious benefits of light weight.

Keywords: composite sandwich laminated box beam; three-point bending; ultimate load; stiffness
performance; deflection analysis

1. Introduction
Sandwich structures are formed by two layers of panels and an intermediate core material
through a glue layer. The panels are generally selected from a resin-based fiber-reinforced composite
material having a high specific modulus and specific strength, and they can withstand large bending
normal stress; the core materials generally adopt lightweight materials such as a honeycomb structure,
grid structure, and low-density foam to fix, transfer load, and resist shear deformation [1,2]. A laminated
box beam with composite sandwich structure wall panels can not only exert the advantages of the
box beam such as good bending resistance, stable bearing on the side, and availability of internal
space, but also achieve the purpose of reducing weight and improving shear resistance. As a kind

Materials 2019, 12, 2959; doi:10.3390/ma12182959 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2019, 12, 2959 2 of 22

of lightweight structure with superior comprehensive performance, composite sandwich laminated

box beam structures are widely used in aircraft wings, helicopter rotors, wind turbine blades, bridges,
and many other large structures. Studying the stiffness performance, ultimate load, and bending
failure mechanism of the composite sandwich laminated box beam structure can provide guidance for
structural design and engineering applications of composite sandwich laminated box beams.
A large number of studies were carried out by scholars on the mechanical properties of composite
sandwich laminated box beams. Mai et al. [3] established an analytical model for the overall stiffness
of a three-point bending laminated box beam considering shear deformation, analyzing the structural
response of a composite box beam with a wall filled by aluminum square honeycomb, corrugated
board, and foam; the relationship between mass and overall stiffness was studied. Wenming et al. [4]
calculated the bending stiffness of a composite aluminum honeycomb sandwich laminated box beam
using Euler–Bernoulli classical beam theory, and analyzed the shear lag effects of flanges through finite
element analysis. Qiang et al. [5] studied the bending response and failure process of a carbon fiber
reinforced plastic square tube filled with aluminum honeycomb by three-point bending experiment
and finite element analysis.
In summary, the existing analytical models of composite sandwich laminated box beams are based
on classical beam theory, without considering non-classical effects such as lateral shear deformation,
warping, and three-dimensional strain. There is no overall force analysis in this method, which reduces
the accuracy of calculation. It is also rare to study the three-point bending ultimate load and failure
modes of composite sandwich laminated box beams using finite element simulations. In this paper,
three-point bending experiments were carried out on composite sandwich laminated box beams of
three different core materials. The failure process, overall bending stiffness, and ultimate load of the
three different core composite sandwich laminated box beams were compared. The progressive damage
analysis model of the composite material and the elastoplastic constitutive model of core material were
introduced, and the three-point bending finite element models of the composite sandwich laminated
box beam with a wall filled with aluminum honeycomb and aluminum foam was established to
predict the ultimate load. Then, an analytical model of a composite sandwich laminated box beam was
established based on the Timoshenko beam theory. The analytical formulas of the overall stiffnesses
of the composite sandwich laminated box beams were derived from internal force–displacement
equations. Finally, the analytical model and the finite element model were used to study the effects of
the ratio of circumferential layers to longitudinal layers and the ply angle on the ultimate load and
on the maximum deflection at the mid-span. The effects of aluminum foam density and aluminum
honeycomb cell wall thickness on the ratio of the overall stiffness to mass and the ratio of ultimate load
to mass were also studied.

2. Experimental Study

2.1. Introduction of Specimens and Experimental Methods

In this paper, composite sandwich laminated box beams with cores of aluminum honeycomb,
aluminum foam, and polyurethane elastomer were designed. The cross-sections of the specimens are
shown in Figure 1. The inner and outer laminates of the sandwich panel were made of T300/QY8911
grade carbon-fiber composite material; the order of the layup was [04 /90]s , the thickness of the prepreg
single layer was 0.15 mm, and the length of all three specimens, l, was 200 mm. The cross-sectional
geometric dimensions are shown in Figure 2. The composite specimens adopted an overall secondary
solidification molding process. The core material was bonded to the prepreg placed on the steel inner
layer by layer, and then the first solidification was performed by vacuum bag pressing. After the first
molding, the prepreg was rolled on the outside of the core material, and then subjected to secondary
solidification. The composite sandwich laminated box beam specimens had better integrity and higher
geometric dimensional accuracy. The specimen numbers and parameters are shown in Table 1.
Materials 2019, 12, 2959 3 of 22

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 22

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 22
Table 1. The number and mass of the three different composite sandwich laminated box beams.
B1 Aluminum honeycomb 109.4
B1 Aluminum Typehoneycomb 109.4
Mass m (g)
B2No. Aluminum of foam
Core Total197.6
B2 Aluminum foam 197.6
B3B1 Polyurethane elastomer
Aluminum honeycomb 349.8
109.4
B3B2 Polyurethane elastomer
Aluminum foam 349.8
197.6
B3 Polyurethane elastomer 349.8

(a)
(a)

(b) (c)
(b) (c)

(d)
(d)
Figure 1. Composite sandwich laminated box beams with three different core materials: (a) composite
Composite sandwich
Figure 1. Composite sandwich laminated box beams with three different core materials:
materials: (a) composite
sandwich laminated box beam specimens; (b) aluminum honeycomb core; (c) aluminum foam core;
sandwich laminated box beam specimens;
specimens; (b) aluminum
aluminum honeycomb
honeycomb core;
core; (c)
(c) aluminum
aluminum foam
foam core;
core;
(d) polyurethane elastomer core.
(d) polyurethane elastomer
elastomer core.
core.
38
38

10
10
15 15
38 38

1.51.5

15
15
1.51.5

Figure 2.
Figure Geometricdimensions
2. Geometric dimensions of
of composite
composite sandwich
sandwich laminated
laminated box
box beams.
beams.
Figure 2. Geometric dimensions of composite sandwich laminated box beams.
2.2. Three-Point Bending Experiment Process and Results
2.2. Three-Point Bending Experiment Process and Results
The three-point bending experiment was carried out on an INSTRON 5982 universal
The three-point bending experiment was carried out on an INSTRON 5982 universal
experimenting machine (Instron (Shanghai) Testing Equipment Trading Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China)
experimenting machine (Instron (Shanghai) Testing Equipment Trading Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China)
with a load range of 100 kN. The strain gauge was attached to the bottom of the mid-span, and the
with a load range of 100 kN. The strain gauge was attached to the bottom of the mid-span, and the
Materials 2019, 12, 2959 4 of 22

2.2. Three-Point Bending Experiment Process and Results

The three-point bending experiment was carried out on an INSTRON 5982 universal experimenting
machine (Instron (Shanghai) Testing Equipment Trading Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) with a load range
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 22
of 100 kN. The strain gauge was attached to the bottom of the mid-span, and the strain data were
recorded
strain databy were
a DH8303 strainby
recorded acquisition
a DH8303analyzer. (Jiangsu Donghua
strain acquisition analyzer.Testing Technology
(Jiangsu DonghuaCo., Ltd.,
Testing
Jingjiang City, Jiangsu Province, China). The whole experiment process was recorded
Technology Co., Ltd., Jingjiang City, Jiangsu Province, China). The whole experiment process was by a digital
camera (Canon
recorded (China)
by a digital Co., Ltd.,
camera Beijing,
(Canon China),
(China) Co., as shown
Ltd., in Figure
Beijing, 3. as shown in Figure 3.
China),

Figure 3. Schematic of the three-point bending experiment.

Figure 4 shows the three-point bending experiment process of the three composite sandwich
laminated box
laminated boxbeambeam beams.
beams.Figure 5 shows
Figure the load–displacement
5 shows curves recorded
the load–displacement curves by the experiment
recorded by the
machine. It can
experiment be found
machine. that,
It can beatfound
the beginning of the
that, at the experiment,
beginning of thethe specimen was
experiment, bent and deformed,
the specimen was bent
the load increased
and deformed, with increased
and the load the displacement. When the ultimate
with the displacement. Whenload was reached,
the ultimate load wastherereached,
was an
auditory cracking sound. The upper flanges of the three composite sandwich
there was an auditory cracking sound. The upper flanges of the three composite sandwich laminated laminated box beams
all recessed
box beams all downwards, indicating that
recessed downwards, nonlinear
indicating thatstrength
nonlinear failure occurred
strength failureinoccurred
the action inarea of the
the action
indenter,
area and
of the the structural
indenter, and the bearing capacity
structural started
bearing to fall.started
capacity As the to
displacement
fall. As the of the experimenting
displacement of the
machine increased,
experimenting the breaking
machine sound
increased, thebecame
breakingmore and more
sound sharpmore
became and dense.
and moreCracks appeared
sharp at the
and dense.
intersection
Cracks of the webs
appeared at theand the upper of
intersection flanges of theand
the webs threethe
composite sandwich
upper flanges of laminated
the three box beams,
composite
and out-of-plane
sandwich laminatedbulging deformation
box beams, occurred. For
and out-of-plane the composite
bulging polyurethane
deformation occurred.elastomer sandwich
For the composite
laminated boxelastomer
polyurethane beam, thesandwich
crack gradually
laminated expanded
box beam,in thethe
longitudinal direction,
crack gradually local buckling
expanded in the
instability occurred
longitudinal on local
direction, both buckling
webs, andinstability
the structural
occurredbearing capacity
on both webs,tended
and the to structural
be stable. bearing
For the
compositetended
capacity aluminumto behoneycomb
stable. For andthe the aluminum
composite foam sandwich
aluminum honeycomb laminated
and the boxaluminum
beams, verticalfoam
cracks were
sandwich generatedbox
laminated on beams,
the sidesvertical
of the webs,
cracksandwere thegenerated
cracks gradually
on the expanded
sides of the to webs,
the lowerandside
the
of the web
cracks as the load
gradually increased.
expanded to theInlower
general,sidetheofcomposite
the web laminated
as the loadbox beams with
increased. the coresthe
In general, of
aluminum honeycomb and aluminum foam had a small decrease in
composite laminated box beams with the cores of aluminum honeycomb and aluminum foam had abearing capacity after strength
failure,decrease
small and the inbearing
bearingcapacity
capacitywas stable
after withinfailure,
strength a certain
and range.
the bearing capacity was stable within
Figure
a certain 6 shows the load–mid-span strain curves of the composite sandwich laminated box beams
range.
in the linear elastic stage, and the overall bending stiffness Kb of the composite sandwich laminated
box beams could be calculated using the following formula [6,7]:

PLH
Kb = , (1)
8ε
where P is the concentrated the two seats, and ε is the mid-span strain.
load, L is the distance between D=3.07mm
D=2mm D=12mm

(a)

D=2mm D=3.79mm D=12mm

(b)
 capacity tended to be stable. For the composite aluminum honeycomb and the aluminum foam
sandwich laminated box beams, vertical cracks were generated on the sides of the webs, and the
cracks gradually expanded to the lower side of the web as the load increased. In general, the
composite laminated box beams with the cores of aluminum honeycomb and aluminum foam had a
small 2019,
Materials decrease in bearing capacity after strength failure, and the bearing capacity was stable within
12, 2959 5 of 22
a certain range.

D=2mm D=3.07mm D=12mm

(a)

D=2mm D=3.79mm D=12mm

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 22
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 22
(b)

D=2mm D=3.43mm D=12mm

D=2mm D=3.43mm D=12mm

(c)
(c)
Figure
Figure4.
Figure 4.4.Three-point
Three-pointbending
Three-point bendingexperiment
bending experiment process
experiment
process ofcomposite
process
of composite
of sandwich
composite sandwich
sandwich laminated
boxbox
laminated
laminated beams.
box
beams. (a) (a)
beams.
Aluminum
(a)Aluminum
Aluminum honeycomb
honeycomb sandwich;
honeycombsandwich; Aluminum
(b) Aluminum
sandwich; foam sandwich;
foam
(b) Aluminum sandwich;(c)(c)Polyurethane
foam sandwich; Polyurethane elastomer
elastomer
(c) Polyurethane
sandwich.
sandwich.
elastomer sandwich.

Aluminum
Aluminum honeycomb
honeycomb
1.2x1044
1.2x10 Aluminum
Aluminum foam
foam
Polyurethane
Polyurethaneelastomer
elastomer
1.0x1044
1.0x10

8.0x103
8.0x103
Load/N
Load/N

6.0x103
6.0x103

4.0x103
4.0x103

2.0x103
2.0x103

0.0
0.0 0 4 8 12 16 20
0 4 8 12
Displacement/mm 16 20
Displacement/mm
Figure 5. Load–displacement curves of the three composite sandwich laminated box beams.
Load–displacement curves
Figure 5. Load–displacement curves of
of the
the three
three composite sandwich laminated box beams.
Figure 6 shows the load–mid-span strain curves of the composite sandwich laminated box
According
Figure to thethe
6 shows dataload–mid-span
of Figures 5 and 6, the Kb of the three kinds of specimens was calculated
beams in the linear elastic stage, and thestrain overallcurves
bending of stiffness
the composite
Kb of the sandwich
composite laminated
sandwichbox
using
beams Equation
in the
laminated (1).
linear
box beamsIn order
elastic to measure
couldstage,
be and the
calculated the benefits
overall
using of light stiffness
bending
the following weight,
formula the Kb ratio
of theofcomposite
[6,7]: the ultimate load Pu
sandwich
to the total mass m was defined as P , and the ratio of
laminated box beams could be calculated using the following formula [6,7]:
mu the overall bending stiffness K b to the total
mass m was defined as Kmb ; the results are shown PLH
in Table 2. It can be found that the P and K
Kb = , u b(1) the
of
PLH
8ε
composite aluminum foam sandwich laminated K b =box beam , was largest, while the Pmu and Kmb of(1) the
composite 8ε box beam was largest.
where P isaluminum honeycomb
the concentrated load, Lsandwich laminated
is the distance between the two seats, and ε is the mid-span strain.
where According to the dataload,
P is the concentrated of Figure 5 and
L is the Figure
distance 6, the the
between Kb oftwotheseats,
threeandkindsε isof
thespecimens
mid-spanwas strain.
calculated usingtoEquation
According the data(1).
ofInFigure
order to 5 measure
and Figure the benefits
6, the Kof light
b of theweight,
three thekindsratioofofspecimens
the ultimatewas
load Pu tousing
calculated the total mass m(1).
Equation wasIndefined
order toasmeasure
Pmu, andthe thebenefits
ratio of of
thelight
overall bending
weight, stiffness
the ratio Kb to
of the the
ultimate
total mass m was defined as K mb; the results are shown in Table 2. It can be found that the Pu and Kb
load Pu to the total mass m was defined as Pmu, and the ratio of the overall bending stiffness Kb to the
of the
total masscomposite aluminum
m was defined as Kfoam sandwich laminated box beam was largest, while the Pmu and Kmb
mb; the results are shown in Table 2. It can be found that the Pu and Kb

ofof thecomposite
the compositealuminum
aluminum foamhoneycombsandwich sandwich laminated
laminated box beam
box beam waswas largest.
largest, while the Pmu and Kmb
of the composite aluminum honeycomb 1.2x10 4 sandwich laminated box beam was largest.
4
1.2x10
1.0x104

4
1.0x10
8.0x103
oad/N

3
8.0x10
6.0x103
 Figure 6 shows the load–mid-span strain curves of the composite sandwich laminated box
beams in the linear elastic stage, and the overall bending stiffness Kb of the composite sandwich
laminated box beams could be calculated using the following formula [6,7]:
Materials 2019, 12, 2959 6 of 22
PLH
Kb = , (1)
8ε
where P is the Table 2. Bendingload,
concentrated experiment
L is thedata of the composite
distance between the sandwich
two seats,laminated
and εbox beams.
is the mid-span strain.
According to the No. data ofK Figure 2 5 and Figure
Pu (N) 6, the K b 2of the three kinds of specimens was
Kmb (N·m /g) Pmu (N/g)
b (N·m )
calculated using Equation (1). In order to measure the benefits of light weight, the ratio of the ultimate
B1 3686.56 7590.15 32.42 69.51
load Pu to the total massB2 m was3707.98
defined as11,211.87
Pmu, and the ratio of the overall
21.25 bending stiffness Kb to the
56.74
total mass m was defined B3 as K ; the
3693.66
mb results are
6670.07 shown in Table
10.46 2. It can19.07 found that the Pu and Kb
be
of theNote:
composite
Kmb = Kbaluminum
/m is the ratiofoam sandwich
of bending stiffnesslaminated box
to total mass; Pmubeam was
= Pu /m, largest,
is the ratio ofwhile theload
ultimate PmuPuand
to Kmb
of thetotal
composite
mass. aluminum honeycomb sandwich laminated box beam was largest.

1.2x104

1.0x104

3
8.0x10
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 22
Load/N

3
6.0x10
Table 2. Bending experiment data of the composite sandwich laminated box beams.

No. Kb（N∙m
4.0x10 3 2） Pu (N) K honeycombPmu（N/g）
mb (N∙m2/g)
Aluminum
B1 3686.56 7590.15 Aluminum
32.42foam 69.51
2.0x103 Polyurethane elastomer
B2 3707.98 11,211.87 21.25 56.74
B3 3693.66
0.0
6670.07 10.46 19.07
Note: Kmb = Kb/m is the ratio0.000 0.001
of bending stiffness 0.002
to total mass; 0.003
Pmu = Pu/m, is the ratio of ultimate load
Strain ε
Pu to total mass.
Figure 6.
Figure Load–strain curves
6. Load–strain curves ofof the
the three
three different
different composite
composite sandwich
sandwich laminated
laminated boxbox beams.
beams.
3. Model of Composite Sandwich Laminated Box Beam
3. Model of Composite Sandwich Laminated Box Beam
3.1. Finite Element Model of Composite Sandwich Laminated Box Beam
3.1. Finite Element Model of Composite Sandwich Laminated Box Beam
3.1.1.
3.1.1. Constitutive
Constitutive Model
Model andand Progressive
Progressive Damage
Damage Analysis
Analysis forfor Composite
Composite Panels
Panels
In In Figure
Figure 7, (1,
7, (1, 2, 3)
2, 3) andand
(n,(n, s, are
s, z) z) are
thethe main
main axis
axis andandthethe off-axis
off-axis coordinate
coordinate systems
systems of of
thethe
orthotropic composite material, respectively, whereas θ is the angle between 1 and the z-direction.
orthotropic composite material, respectively, whereas θ is the angle between 1 and the z-direction.

n 3
2

s
θ 1
z
t

Figure 7. The coordinate system of the composite.

Figure 7. The coordinate system of the composite.
When θ = 0◦ , the three-dimensional constitutive equation of the composite is as follows:
When θ = 0°, the three-dimensional constitutive equation of the composite is as follows:
 σ1   ε1 
    
  C11 C12 C13 0 0 C16 
 σ1   C11 C12 C13 0 0 C16   ε1  
 
  
σ ε
  
 C  C C 0 0 C   
   
2  σ  12 22 23 26 2
ε
     
C C C 0 0 C
     
   C13 C23 C33 0 C36   ε3 
   
 σ3  2 12 22 23 26 2
    

   0   
=σ   C C C 0 0 C   ε  (2)

   
 τ23   γ23 
3 13 23 33
0 C44 C45 36 3
    =0  0

0 

 
  
 
 

(2)
     
τ 0 0 0 C C 0 γ

  23  0  0
 τ13  0 C45 44 C55 45 0   γ2313 
  
 
 


   
 τ 13 C16 0C26 0 C36 0 0C45 0C55 C660  γγ1312 
 
 τ12 

   
    

τ 12  C16 C26 C36 0 0 C66  γ 12 
Equation (2) can be written as
Equation (2) can be written as σ = Cε, (3)
σ = Cε, (3)
where C is the stiffness matrix of the main axis coordinate system, θ ≠ 0°, and the stiffness matrix of
the off-axis coordinate system can be obtained as follows:

σ nsz = TCT T ε nsz = Cε nsz , (4)

where T is the transformation matrix, calculated as follows:

Materials 2019, 12, 2959 7 of 22

where C is the stiffness matrix of the main axis coordinate system, θ , 0◦ , and the stiffness matrix of
the off-axis coordinate system can be obtained as follows:

σnsz = TCTT εnsz = Cεnsz , (4)

where T is the transformation matrix, calculated as follows:

cos2 θ sin2 θ −2 cos θ sin θ

 
 0 0 0 
sin2 θ cos2 θ 2 cos θ sin θ
 

 0 0 0 

 0 0 1 0 0 0 
T =  (5)
 
0 0 0 cos θ sin θ 0

 
 

 0 0 0 − sin θ cos θ 0 

cos θ sin θ − cos θ sin θ 0 0 0 cos2 θ − sin2 θ
 

Substituting Equation (5) into Equation (4), the three-dimensional constitutive equation of the
composite under the off-axis coordinate system is obtained by

σz εz
    





  C11 C12 C13 0 0 C16   

 
σs εs
    





  C12 C22 C23 0 0 C26   

     

σn εn
   
C13 C23 C33 0 0 C36
    
  
  
= , (6)
  
τsn 0 0 0 C44 C45 0 γsn

 
    


 
  
  
τnz γnz

 
  

 
 
0 0 0 C45 C55 0  

 
 
 
 

τsz γsz

  
 

  C16 C26 C36 0 0 C66  

where Cij is the three-dimensional stiffness coefficient under the off-axis coordinate system. A more
detailed expressions can be found in Reference [7].
The Hashin criterion was used as the damage initiation criterion of the composite. The Hashin
criterion is a model correlation criterion, which can distinguish the four failure modes of fiber tensile,
fiber crush, matrix tensile, and matrix crush, defined below.
(1) Fiber tensile failure
σ11 τ12 2
 2  
Fft = +α , σ11 ≥ 0, (7)
XT SL

(2) Fiber crush failure

!2
σ
Ffc = 11 , σ11 ≤ 0, (8)
XC

(3) Matrix tensile failure

σ22 τ12 2
 2  
Fmt = +α , σ22 ≥ 0, (9)
YT SL

(4) Matrix crush failure

2
σ σ22 τ 2
2 " #
YC
  
Fmc = 22 + −1 + 12 , σ22 ≥ 0, (10)
2ST 2ST YC SL

where Fi (i = ft, fc, mt, mc) are the damage parameters corresponding to the four failure modes.
When Fi ≥ 1, the composite material is destroyed; XT and XC are the longitudinal tensile strength and
compressive strength, respectively; YT and YC are the transverse tensile strength and compressive
strength; SL and ST are the shear strength. The engineering elastic constants and ultimate strength
values of the composite materials used in the panels are shown in Table 3.
Materials 2019, 12, 2959 8 of 22

Table 3. Material mechanical properties for the specimens.

Parameter Value Parameter Value

E1 (GPa) 135 Xt (MPa) 1673
E2 = E3 (GPa) 8.8 Xc (MPa) 1160
G12 = G13 (GPa) 4.47 Yt (MPa) 68
G23 (GPa) 3.0 Yc (MPa) 210
v12 = v13 0.33 SL = ST (MPa) 112
v23 0.33 ρ (g/cm3 ) 1.58

When a single layer of the composite material is damaged in strength, its mechanical properties are
attenuated to some extent. In this paper, the stiffness degradation was based on the linear degradation
mode of fracture toughness, as shown in Figure 8, where σ0,i (i = ft, fc, mt, mc) is the initial damage
Materials
equivalent2019,stress, δ0,iPEER
12, x FOR initial damage displacement, δf,i is the complete damage displacement,8 of
is theREVIEW and22

di is the damage state variable. It can be seen from Figure 8 that the equivalent strain energy of the
displacement,
composite material and dunder
i is the damage state variable. It can be seen from Figure 8 that the equivalent
complete failure can be calculated as follows:
strain energy of the composite material under complete failure can be calculated as follows:
σ δ
W = σ 0.0.iiδ f f,i,i (11)
Ws =
s
2 (11)
2

σi di
σ 0,i

δ 0,i δ f,i δi

Figure 8. Linear degradation mode.

Figure 8. Linear degradation mode.
Table 4 shows the fracture energy parameters of the carbon-fiber composites used in the
Table [8].
specimens 4 shows
Whenthe
thefracture
compositeenergy parameters
material of the carbon-fiber
fails completely, composites
the equivalent used inWsthe
strain energy is
specimens
equal to its[8]. Whenenergy
fracture GC
the composite
i
. At material
this time, fails
the completely,
complete the
damage equivalent strain
displacement energy
can be W s is equal
obtained as
C
to its fracture energy Gi . At this time, the complete damage displacement can be obtained as
2GC
δ f ,i = 2G Ci (12)
δ f ,i = σ0,ii (12)
σ 0,i
Table 4. Composite material fracture energy parameters [8].

Table
GC 4. Composite
GC material fracture energy parameters [8].
ft (N/mm) fc (N/mm) GCmt (N/mm) GCmc (N/mm)

G Cft (N/mm)
50.5 G Cfc (N/mm)
30.5 GmtC 0.22
(N/mm)
C
Gmc
1.1(N/mm)
50.5 30.5 0.22 1.1
The degree of deterioration of the mechanical properties of the material is characterized by the
Thestate
damage degree of deterioration
variable ofexpression
di , and their the mechanical properties of the material is characterized by the
is as follows:
damage state variable di, and their expression is as follows:
δ f ,i (δi − δ0,i )
di = δ f ,i (δ i − δ 0,i ) (13)
di = δi (δ f ,i − δ0,i ) (13)
δ i (δ f ,i − δ 0,i )
The constitutive equation of composite monolayers in the process of damage evolution is as follows:
The constitutive equation of composite monolayers in the process of damage evolution is as
follows: σ = C ε, (14)
d
σ = Cdε, (14)
where Cd is the stiffness matrix considering the damage, calculated as

 (1 − d f ) E1 (1 − d f )(1 − d m ) v 21E1 0 
1 
Cd = (1 − d f )(1 − d m ) v 21E1 (1 − d m ) v 21E 2 0  (15)
D
 0 0 D(1 − d s ) G12 
Materials 2019, 12, 2959 9 of 22

where Cd is the stiffness matrix considering the damage, calculated as

 
 (1 − d f )E1 (1 − d f )(1 − dm )v21 E1 0 
1  
Cd =  (1 − d f )(1 − dm )v21 E1 (1 − dm )v21 E2 0  (15)
D  
0 0 D(1 − ds )G12


where D = 1 − (1 − d f )(1 − dm ); df , dm , and ds are state variables of fiber damage, matrix damage,
and in-plane shear damage, respectively, which can be expressed as follows

σ11 ≥ 0
(
dft
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW df = , (16)
9 of 22
dfc σ11 < 0

d s = 1 − (1 − d ft )(1
dmt− d fcσ)(1 − d mt )(1 − d mc )
(
11 ≥ 0 (18)
dm = , (17)
dmc σ11 < 0
The relationship between the effective stress matrix and the real stress matrix is as follows:
ds = 1 − (1 − d f t )(1 − d f c )(1 − dmt )(1 − dmc ) (18)
σ = Mσ (19)
The relationship between the effective stress matrix and the real stress matrix is as follows:
M is the damage coefficient matrix and is calculated by

 1 σ = Mσ  (19)
1 − d 0 0 
 is calculated
M is the damage coefficient matrix and
f
by 
 1 
M =  0 0  (20)
 1−d f 1 −0d m
1
0 
 
M = 00 1
0
1−d m
01  (20)
 0

0 1 −1 d s 
1−ds

3.1.2. Elastoplastic Constitutive Model of Core Material

3.1.2. Elastoplastic Constitutive Model of Core Material
For aluminum honeycomb and aluminum foam core materials, an ideal elastoplastic model was
For aluminum honeycomb and aluminum foam core materials, an ideal elastoplastic model was
used. The aluminum honeycomb core substrate used in this paper was pure aluminum with a modulus
used. The aluminum honeycomb core substrate used in this paper was pure aluminum with a
of elasticity of 67 GPa, a yield strength of 108 MPa, and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.3. The stress–strain
modulus of elasticity of 67 GPa, a yield strength of 108 MPa, and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.3. The stress–
relationship of pure aluminum is shown in Figure 9 [9]. The density of the aluminum foam core
strain relationship of 3pure aluminum is shown in Figure 9 [9]. The density of the aluminum foam
material was 0.5 g/cm , and the aluminum foam constitutive model considering the effect of density
core material was 0.5 g/cm3, and the aluminum foam constitutive model considering the effect of
can be represented
density by Equation
can be represented (21) [10].(21) [10].
by Equation
94.58ρ 0.08
94.58 ρε
0.08
ε
1.69 e1.69 e − −11 12.34ρ−10.55
12.34 ρ −10.55
e( −e8.6
h
+)14.68
ρ +14.68
(−8.6ρ ε )ε
i
σ = 20.34ρ
σ =20.34 ρ +
+ e − 1 −1 (21)
(21)
e94.41ρ εε
1 +1e+94.41ρ
0.080.08
 

The stress–strain curves of aluminum foam with different

different densities
densities are
are shown
shown in
in Figure
Figure 10.
10.
120

100

80
σ/MPa

60

40

20

0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Strain ε

Figure 9.
Figure The stress–strain
9. The stress–strain curve
curve of
of the
the aluminum
aluminum honeycomb
honeycomb matrix.
matrix.

50
0.3
0.4
40 0.5
0.6
0.7
30 0.8
σ/MPa

20
 40

20

0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Strain ε
Materials 2019, 12, 2959 10 of 22
Figure 9. The stress–strain curve of the aluminum honeycomb matrix.

50
0.3
0.4
40 0.5
0.6
0.7
30 0.8

σ/MPa
20

10

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Strain ε

Figure 10. The stress–strain curves of aluminum foam with different densities.
Figure 10. The stress–strain curves of aluminum foam with different densities.
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22
3.1.3. Adhesive Interface Element Damage Analysis Model
3.1.3. Adhesive Interface Element Damage Analysis Model
TheThe
interface performance
interface was
performance wassimulated
simulatedbyby
placing
placinginterface
interfaceelements
elementsofofCOH3D8.
COH3D8.COH3D8
COH3D8 is
is aathree-dimensional eight-node interface element with thickness as shown in Figure 11
three-dimensional eight-node interface element with thickness as shown in Figure 11 [11].[11].

8 Thickness direction
Top face

Cohesive element node

4 7
5
3
1 6
Midsurface
Bottom face

2
Figure 11. Schematic of three-dimensional eight-node interface element.
Figure 11. Schematic of three-dimensional eight-node interface element.

The constitutive equation of COH3D8 in the linear elastic range is as follows [11]:
The constitutive equation of COH3D8 in the linear elastic range is as follows [11]:
εn 
 
KnnKnn 0 0 0  0ε n
 
tntn 
    
   
  ε
   
t t== t 0 K 0  = Kε (22)

 t
 st  
s 
 0

 K 0
 0 ss 0 K s
ss ε 
 
= K
 ε 
s ε  (22)
 t t  0 ttε  t



 t  0 K tt   t 

where tn, ttsn, ,and

where ts , and tt are
tt are the the normal
normal stressstress
andand thethe
twotwo shear
shear stresses
stresses of the
of the adhesive
adhesive interface
interface element
element
respectively,
respectively, εi =εiδ= δ /T = (in，s，t),
i/T0i (i 0
= n, s, t),TT 0 is
0 is thethethickness
thicknessactually
actuallycalculated
calculatedforforthe
theadhesive element,δδi i is
adhesiveelement,
the relative displacement of the top surface and the bottom surface
is the relative displacement of the top surface and the bottom surface of the cohesive element in the of the cohesive element in the
corresponding direction, and K
corresponding direction, and Kii isiia stiffness factor. The secondary stress criterion was used as thethe
is a stiffness factor. The secondary stress criterion was used as
starting
starting criterion,
criterion, shownshown in Equation
in Equation (23).
(23).
2!2 2!2
 2 2
 tntn  ts ts  tt tt 
 0 0 ++  0 0 + + 0 0 =1 = 1 (23) (23)
 tntn  ts ts  tt tt
TheThe damage
damage evolution
evolution of COH3D8
of COH3D8 elements
elements waswas based
based on the
on the mixed
mixed mode
mode Benzeggagh–Kenane
Benzeggagh–Kenane
energy criterion [12], shown below.
energy criterion [12], shown below.
η η
 Gs G +sG+ Gt

C C C C C C
GGnCn++(G(G
s −
s G
− )
G
n n ) t C
 G= G =, G , (24) (24)
G G+nG+ +GG +
 n s
s t 
t

where
where Gi=(in,=s,n,t)s,represents
Gi (i t) represents
thethe strain
strain energy
energy release
release rates
rates corresponding
corresponding to open,
to open, slip,
slip, andand
teartear
cracks, respectively, GCC represents the critical strain energy release rates of the three kinds of cracks,
cracks, respectively, Gi i represents the critical strain energy release rates of the three kinds of
G is the damage evolution variable (the layers are fully stratified when G = 1), and η is the damage
C C
C
cracks, is carbon-fiber
the damage epoxy evolution variable (the layers are fully stratified when G C = 1 ), and η is
factor.G For materials, η is generally between 1 and 2. The material parameters of
thethe
damage
adhesivefactor.
elementFor carbon-fiber epoxy
layer are shown materials,
in Table 5 [13].η is generally between 1 and 2. The material
parameters of the adhesive element layer are shown in Table 5 [13].

Table 5. Material parameters of composite adhesive interface layer [13].

Parameter Value Parameter Value

0
t n (MPa) 30 Knn (GPa) 1000
Materials 2019, 12, 2959 11 of 22

Table 5. Material parameters of composite adhesive interface layer [13].

Parameter Value Parameter Value

t0n (MPa) 30 Knn (GPa) 1000
t0s (MPa) 60 Kss (GPa) 1000
t0t (MPa) 60 Ktt (GPa) 1000
GC
n (N/mm) 0.2 η 1.5
GC
s (N/mm) 1.0 ρ (g/m3 ) 1.2
GC
t (N/mm)
1.002

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 22

3.1.4. Geometric Model
The inner and outer
outer panels
panels were
were cut
cut into
into 10
10 layers
layers in
in the
the thickness
thickness direction.
direction. Each layer was
simulated by an SC8R continuous shell element with a thickness of 0.15 mm. The The “composite
“composite layup”
layup”
function in ABAQUS was used to grant material properties to the inner and outer
grant material properties to the inner and outer panels. panels. The S4R
common shell element and the C3D8R three-dimensional stress element were used to simulate the
aluminum honeycomb and the aluminum aluminum foam foam core
core material.
material. A layer of COH3D8 interface element
with
with zero
zero thickness
thickness was
was arranged
arranged between the core material and the inner and the outer panels to
simulate degumming damage. A universal universal contact with a tangential friction coefficient of 0.1 and a
normal
normal “hard” contact [14] was established.AA3838mm
“hard” contact [14] was established. mm××1010mm mmnodenodearea was
area wascreated
createdin in
thethe
middle
middle of
the upper
of the flange
upper to establish
flange a coupling
to establish constraint
a coupling between
constraint the node
between areaarea
the node and and
the reference pointpoint
the reference RP1.
The
RP1.displacement load onload
The displacement RP1onwas applied,
RP1 and a historical
was applied, output of U2
and a historical and of
output RF2U2wasandestablished.
RF2 was
The geometric
established. Themodel of the two
geometric supports
model of thewas
twoalso established
supports and defined
was also as a rigid
established body; then,
and defined as aa rigid
fully
fixed
body;constraint was fixed
then, a fully applied. The finite
constraint element
was models
applied. The of the two
finite composite
element modelssandwich laminated
of the two box
composite
beams
sandwichare laminated
shown in Figure 12. are shown in Figure 12.
box beams

Aluminum honeycomb

(a)

Aluminum foam

(b)

12.Finite
Figure 12. Finite element
element models
models of composite
of composite sandwich
sandwich laminated
laminated box
box beams. (a)beams. (a) honeycomb
Aluminum Aluminum
honeycomb
core; core; (b)foam
(b) Aluminum Aluminum
core. foam core.

3.2. Analytical Model of Composite Sandwich Laminated Box Beam

3.2.1. Simplification of Constitutive Equation for Composite Panels and Core Materials
In order to describe the deformation geometry of the composite sandwich laminated box beams,
the Cartesian coordinate system (x, y, z) was used for the overall coordinates, whereby the coordinate
origin was located in the cross-section centroid; the curvilinear coordinate system (z, s, n) was used
for the local coordinates, whereby the origin of the coordinates was in the midline of the cross-section;
Materials 2019, 12, 2959 12 of 22

3.2. Analytical Model of Composite Sandwich Laminated Box Beam

3.2.1. Simplification of Constitutive Equation for Composite Panels and Core Materials
In order to describe the deformation geometry of the composite sandwich laminated box beams,
the Cartesian coordinate system (x, y, z) was used for the overall coordinates, whereby the coordinate
origin was located in the cross-section centroid; the curvilinear coordinate system (z, s, n) was used for
the local coordinates, whereby the origin of the coordinates was in the midline of the cross-section;
n and s represent the normal direction and the tangential direction of the middle line, respectively.
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 22
The core material and the panels were all symmetric about the middle line, as shown in Figure 13.

s
b
h

z
Figure
Figure 13.
13. Composite
Compositesandwich
sandwichlaminated
laminatedbox
boxbeam
beam coordinate
coordinate system.
system.

The inner
The inner and
and outer outer panels
panels were composite
composite laminate
laminate structures,
structures, and and the
the three-dimensional
three-dimensional
constitutive equation
constitutive equation of of an
an arbitrary k-th composite
arbitrary k-th composite single
single layer
layer isis shown
shown in in Equation
Equation (6).
(6). The
The stress
stress
components σσnn, , σσs,s , and
components and ττsnsnoutside
outsidethe thecross-section
cross-sectionwere
were much
much smallersmaller than
than the
the in-plane
in-plane stress
stress
components σσzz,,ττnznz, ,and
components andττszsz , whereititcan
, where canbebeassumed thatσnσn= =
assumedthat σs σ=s τ=sn τ=sn0.= 0.

σnσ=n C=31Cε31zε+ z +CC ε + C 33εεnn++C36 Cγ36szγ=sz 0= 0


2323εss + C33
 



σs=σ s C=21Cε21zε+z +CC
2222εεs s+ 23ε γ szγsz= 0= 0
εnn ++CC2626

 + C23 (25)
(25)
 τsn = C44 γsn + C45 εnz = 0


τ sn = C44γ sn + C45ε nz = 0


Equation (25)
Equation (25) was
was substituted
substituted into
into Equation
Equation (6),
(6), which
which could
could be be simplified
simplified as
as follows:
follows:

σzσ  C11 CC12*∗12 00 ε ε 

  ∗* 
z  z  z 
 
11

    ∗*
τszτ C*∗22 00 γ
 
  
γsz 
    
= = C
C C (26)
 


 τ  sz
  
  12
12 22  sz
   (26)
* 
 ∗
  γ 

  
nz τ 0 0 C
0 C3333 γ nz 
  
 nz   0
nz

The formulas for calculating the three-dimensional converted stiffness coefficient C*∗ in
The formulas for calculating the three-dimensional converted stiffness coefficient Cijij in
Equation (26) were as follows:
Equation (26) were as follows:
2
Q 2 Q Q
C∗11* = Q11 −Q1212 , C∗12*
= Q16 Q −12 Q1226 26 ,
C11 = Q11 − Q22， C
2 12 = Q 16 − Q22，
2 (27)
∗
C22 = Q66 − Q Q26
22 ∗
, C33 = Q55 − Q Q45
22
Q222 2Q44
(27)
* Q26 * Q45
C22 = Q66 − ，C33 = Q55 −
where Qij is the two-dimensional converted Q modulus
22
component Q44 in the classical laminate theory.
The aluminum honeycomb core material is also an orthotropic material, but it does not have a
change Q
where is the
inij ply two-dimensional
angle like the single converted
layer of themodulus
composite component
material.in Thethemain
classical
axis laminate theory.
coordinate system
The aluminum honeycomb core material is also an orthotropic material, but it does not have a
change in ply angle like the single layer of the composite material. The main axis coordinate system
(1, 2, 3) and the local coordinate system (s, n, z) of aluminum honeycomb were parallel, reducing
Equation (27) to

E1 v122 E1
C11* = (1 − )，C12* = 0，C22
* *
= G12，C33 = G13 (28)
1 − v122 E2
Materials 2019, 12, 2959 13 of 22

(1, 2, 3) and the local coordinate system (s, n, z) of aluminum honeycomb were parallel, reducing
Equation (27) to
E1 v212 E1
C∗11 = ( 1 − ), C∗12 = 0, C∗22 = G12 , C∗33 = G13 (28)
1 − v212 E2

E1 , E2 , G12 , and G13 in Equation (28) are the equivalent elastic parameters of aluminum honeycomb,
the calculation method of which is detailed in Reference [15]. It can be found that the aluminum
honeycomb core material has no tensile–shear coupling effect.
For isotropic materials such as aluminum foam and polyurethane elastomers, Equation (28) can
be further simplified as
C∗11 = E, C∗12 = 0, C∗22 = C∗33 = G (29)

It can be seen that, whether it is a laminated wall or a core material, the constitutive equation can
be represented by Equation (26). The orthotropic, isotropic core material can be equivalent to a single
layer of composite material. There is no tensile–shear coupling effect in the constitutive equation of
isotropic materials. Subsequent calculations can be simplified by equating the sandwich panels to
common laminates.

3.2.2. Calculation of Bending Stiffness of Composite Sandwich Laminated Box Beam

It was assumed that the panel, the core material, and the neighboring layers were all firmly
bonded, and no relative slip occurred between them. By integrating the normal stress σz and the
two shear stresses τsz and τnz along the section, the internal force and the internal moment could be
obtained as follows [16]:  R
 Nz = RA σz dsdn


Vx = RA (τsz cos φ + τnz sin φ)dsdn





 V y = RA (τsz sin φ − τnz cos φ)dsdn




Mx = RA σz ( y − n cos φ)dsdn

(30)



 M y = R A σz (x + n sin φ)dsdn




Mz = RA τsz ψ(s)dsdn





 Mω = σz [Fw (s) + na(s)]dsdn


A
where Nz is the axial force, Vx and Vy are the shear forces in the x and y directions, respectively, Mx ,
My , and Mz are the bending moments around the x, y, and z axes, respectively, Mw is the bi-moment
generated by the torsional normal stress, φ is the angle between the n and the x directions, a(s) is
the height of the right triangle in the geometric relationship, Fw (s) is the generalized fan coordinate,
and ψ(s) is the warping function.
The relationship between internal force and displacement can be obtained by simplifying
Equation (30) [16].

w00
    

 Nz 
  a11 a12 a13 a14 a15 a16 a17   

θ0y
    
My a22 a23 a24 a25 a26 a27

 
  
 


 
  
  
θ0x
   
Mx a33 a34 a35 a36 a37

 
    


 
    

 
 u0 + θ y
    0 
Vx = a44 a45 a46 a47 , (31)
 

 
   


 Vy

 
a55 a56 a57   v0 + θ 






    0 x 

   
ϕ
   00




 Mω 

  a66 a67 







 Mz   sym

a77

 ϕ0



where u, v, and w are displacements along the coordinate axes x, y, and z, respectively, θx (z), θx (z),
and ϕ(z) are rotation angles around the coordinate axes x, y, and z respectively, and u0 (z), v0 (z), and w0 (z)
are rigid body displacements in the three directions. The direction of the displacement components
and the internal force components in Equation (31) are shown in Figure 14.
Materials 2019, 12, 2959 14 of 22
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 22

y
ϴy(z) s
n

V0(z)
u0(z) ϕ x
w0(z) ϴx(z)

φ(z)

Figure14.
Figure Internalforce
14.Internal forceand
anddisplacement
displacementcomponents
componentsof
ofcomposite
compositesandwich
sandwichlaminated
laminatedbox
box beam.
beam.

When the laminated panel adopts balanced oblique symmetric, balanced antisymmetric,
When the laminated panel adopts balanced oblique symmetric, balanced antisymmetric, and
and orthogonal layups, aij = 0 (i , j), the elastic coupling effects between different deformations
orthogonal layups, aij = 0 (i ≠ j), the elastic coupling effects between different deformations are all
are all cancelled [16,17]; thus, Equation (31) can be reduced to
cancelled [16,17]; thus, Equation (31) can be reduced to
My
w00 ′= NaN11zz , θ0y ′= Ma22y , θ0x ′= M Mx
a33x ,，u00 + Vx
′ +θθy ==Vax44
w0 = ，θVyy = ，θ x = u
M0z y (32)
v00 + θax11 = a55 , φa0022 = M a0
a66 , φ33 = a77
ω a44
(32)
′ Vy Mω Mz
From the relationship between v0 + θ x =internal ，φ ′′= force ， and φ ′=displacement in Equation (32), the stiffnesses
a55 a66 a77
of the composite laminated box beams can be obtained: axial stiffness (EA); bending stiffness (EI)y ,
(EI)xFrom y and
for thethe x axes; shear
relationship between stiffness (GA)yforce
internal , (GA)and the y and x axes;
x fordisplacement the section
in Equation warping
(32), stiffness
the stiffnesses
(GI)
of w ; composite
the the section laminated
torsional stiffness
box beams (GJ).can Thebecalculation
obtained: formulasaxial stiffnessof the(EA);
stiffnesses
bending mentioned
stiffnessabove
(EI)y,
are xas
(EI) forfollows:
the y and x axes; shear stiffness (GA)y, (GA)x for the y and x axes; the section warping stiffness
(GI)w; the section torsionalRstiffness (GJ). The calculation formulas of the stiffnesses mentioned above
A212

are as follows: [ EA ] = a 11 = s
A 11 − A22 ds
R A212 A12 B12 B212
[EI ] y = a22 = s [x2 (A11A− 2
 ) + 2 ( B − ) x sin θ + ( D − A22 ) sin θ]ds
2
[ EA] = a11 =Rs  A11 − 12 AAds 22
2
11 A22 11
2
[EI ]x = a33 = s [y2 (A11A−
B
22  12 ) − 2y(B11 − 12 12 ) cos θ + (D11 − 12 ) cos2 θ]ds
A B
A22 A22  A22
A2A2 A12 B12 A245 B122
 
[GA[ EI ]y =a44a22== s s[[xA（
R
12 cos2 θ + A
θ + θ( D
2 (33)
]x = 2
− −A26
66A11 ）+ 2( B11 − 55 − A) x sinsin 11 −
]ds ) sin 2 θ ]ds
A22
22
2   A22 A2 44
 A22
R A
A2 sin θ + A55A −BA44 cos θ]ds B 2
2 2
[GA] y = a55 = s [ A66 − A26 45

[ EI ]x = a33 =  [ y（A211 − 12 ）− 2 y ( B11 − 212 12 ) cos θ + ( D11 − 12 ) cos 2 θ ]ds

R 2 22
[EI ]w = a66 = s (s A11 Fω + 2B F a + D11 a A)22ds
 A2211 ω A22
R A226 2 2
[GJ ] = a77 = s A66 − A22 Aψ26 (s)ds2  A 
2

[GA]x = a44 = s [ A66 −  cos θ +  A55 − 45  sin 2θ ]ds , (33)

 A22   A44 
where Aij , Bij , and Dij are the in-plane stiffness coefficients,2 coupling stiffness coefficients, and bending
 A262  2  A 
[ ] y 55 s  66
stiffness coefficientsGA in= a
the = [
classical A −laminate  sin θ +  A55 − 45  cos 2θ ]ds
theory.
 A22   A 44 

[ EI ] = a = ( A F + 2 B F a + D a )ds
3.3. Results, Discussion,
w
and
66 
Comparative
s 11 ω
2 Analysis
11 ω 11
2

3.3.1. Model Validity Verification  A  2

[GJ ] = a77 = s  A66 − ψ 2 (s)ds 26

The bending stiffnessesof theAcomposite

22  sandwich laminated box beams were calculated by
Equation (33) and compared with the experiment results,
where Aij, Bij, and Dij are the in-plane stiffness coefficients, as shown
coupling in Table
stiffness 6. It can
coefficients, andbe found
bending
that the coefficients
stiffness errors calculated by Equation
in the classical (33) theory.
laminate were within 6%, meeting the accuracy requirement of
engineering applications.
3.3. Results, Discussion, and Comparative Analysis

3.3.1. Model Validity Verification

The bending stiffnesses of the composite sandwich laminated box beams were calculated by
Equation (33) and compared with the experiment results, as shown in Table 6. It can be found that
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 22

the errors
Materials 2019,calculated
12, 2959 by Equation (33) were within 6%, meeting the accuracy requirement
15 of of
22
engineering applications.

Table
Table 6. Thetheoretical
6. The theoreticaland
andexperimental
experimental bending
bending stiffnesses
stiffnesses of composite
of composite sandwich
sandwich laminated
laminated box
box beams.
beams.
No. Theoretical 2 2
No. Theoreticalcalculation
Calculation (N∙m
(N·m 2)) (N∙m)2) Error
Experiment (N·m
Experiment Error(%)
(%)
B1B1 3686.56
3686.56 3495.26
3495.26 −5.19
−5.19
B2B2 3707.98
3707.98 3529.02
3529.02 −4.83
−4.83
B3 3693.66 3544.75 −4.03
B3 3693.66 3544.75 −4.03

The load–displacement curves of the three-point bending process of the composite sandwich
load–displacement curves
laminated box beam obtained by the experiment and the finite element simulation are shown in
Figure 15.
15. The
The overall
overallchange
changetrend
trendofofthe
theload–displacement
load–displacement curves obtained
curves obtainedby the
by two methods
the two was
methods
similar.
was The numerical
similar. ultimate
The numerical loadsloads
ultimate of theof
twothedifferent composite
two different sandwich
composite laminated
sandwich box beams
laminated box
were
beams7.59
werekN7.59
andkN
11.2and
kN.11.2
Compared with thewith
kN. Compared experimental data in Table
the experimental data 2,
inthe errors
Table were
2, the 6.7%were
errors and
6.9%,and
6.7% respectively. The reliability
6.9%, respectively. of the finite
The reliability of element
the finitemodel is, therefore,
element illustrated.illustrated.
model is, therefore,

1.0x104
Experiment
Simulation
3
8.0x10

6.0x103
Load/N

4.0x103

2.0x103

0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Displacement/mm
(a)
1.6x104 Experiment
Simulation

1.2x104
Load/N

8.0x103

4.0x103

0.0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement/mm
(b)

15.Load–displacement
Figure 15. Load–displacementcurves of three-point
curves bending
of three-point processprocess
bending of composite sandwich laminated
of composite sandwich
box beams. (a) Aluminum honeycomb core; (b) Aluminum foam core.
laminated box beams. (a) Aluminum honeycomb core; (b) Aluminum foam core.

3.3.2. Failure Mechanism Analysis of Composite Sandwich Laminated Box Beams under
3.3.2. Failure Mechanism Analysis of Composite Sandwich Laminated Box Beams under Three-
Three-Point Bending
Point Bending
Figure 16 shows the results of the finite element simulation; there were four failure modes of the
Figure 16 shows the results of the finite element simulation; there were four failure modes of the
composite sandwich laminated box beams under ultimate load. According to the legend in Figure 16,
composite sandwich laminated box beams under ultimate load. According to the legend in Figure 16,
the scale from blue to red indicates that the damage is getting worse. Composite damages occurred in
the scale from blue to red indicates that the damage is getting worse. Composite damages occurred
areas of the circle, where the red area indicates that elements were completely destroyed. It can be seen
in areas of the circle, where the red area indicates that elements were completely destroyed. It can be
that, when the ultimate load was reached, the compression zone of the two composite sandwiches
seen that, when the ultimate load was reached, the compression zone of the two composite
began to undergo partial depression deformation, where the stress concentration at the top of the web
sandwiches began to undergo partial depression deformation, where the stress concentration at the
was the most serious. The collapse of the fiber and matrix in the compression zone of the upper flange
and the top of web was the main cause of the decline in bearing capacity.
Materials 2019,
Materials 2019, 12,
12, 2959
x FOR PEER REVIEW 17
16 of 23
of 22

(a)

(b)

16. Failure
Figure 16. Failuremodes
modesofofcomposite
composite sandwich
sandwich laminated
laminated boxbox beam.
beam. (a) Aluminum
(a) Aluminum honeycomb
honeycomb core;
core;
(b) (b) Aluminum
Aluminum foam foam
core. core.

Figure 17 shows the stress cloud of the composite sandwich box beam and core material after
nonlinear deformation. A darker color denotes a more severe stress concentration. After the ultimate
load, as the displacement increased, the web near the compression zone of the outer panel underwent
out-of-plane bulging deformation, part of the failure element was removed, and the lower flange
was mainly subjected to tensile stress. Both the aluminum honeycomb and the aluminum foam core
materials underwent overall bending deformation and local plastic deformation. The panels and the
Materials 2019, 12, 2959 17 of 22

(b)
core material were degummed and dislocated, and the deformation of the inner and outer panels
Figure 16. Failure modes of composite sandwich laminated box beam. (a) Aluminum honeycomb
was uncoordinated.
core; (b) Aluminum foam core.

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 22

(a)

(b)

Figure 17.Figure 17. Theclouds

The stress stress clouds of the
of the whole
whole composite sandwich
composite sandwichlaminated box beams
laminated under three-point
box beams under three-point
bending failure process. (a) Aluminum honeycomb core; (b) Aluminum foam core.
bending failure process. (a) Aluminum honeycomb core; (b) Aluminum foam core.
4.1. Influence of the Ratio of Span to Height
4. Analysis of Factors Affecting Mechanical Properties of Composite Sandwich Laminated
Box Beams The composite aluminum honeycomb sandwich laminated box beam in Section 1.1 was taken as
an example. It was assumed that the cross-section dimensions of the laminated box beam and the
For composite sandwich
inner and outer laminated
panel layups box beams
were unchanged, subjected
and the to concentrated
concentrated loads
load was P = 1000 at the
N. Using the mid-span,
laminated box beam span L as a variable, δM, δV, and δ were calculated by Equations (34), (35), and
the maximum mid-span deflection caused by the bending load [3] was calculated as follows:
(36), respectively. The results are shown in Figure 18. It can be seen that the ratio of the shear
additional deflection δV to the total deflection δ decreased
PL3 as the ratio of span to height L/H increased;
when L/H was less than 10, the ratio of δV toδδMwas
= above 25%, and, for the isotropic material laminated (34)
48[EI ]x sandwiched box beam was more affected
box beam, the ratio of δV to δ was only 3%. The composite
by shear deformation.
The additional deflection at the mid-span caused by the transverse shear force was calculated
2.5
as follows:
δM PL
δδV V = α , (35)
2.0 4[GA] y
δ
where P is the concentrated load, L is the distance between the two supports, α is the shear section
Deflection/mm

1.5
coefficient, and [EI]x , [GA]y are the bending stiffness and shear stiffness calculated by Equation (33).
The total deflection δ of the span was calculated as follows:
1.0

δ = δM + δV (36)
0.5

0.0
5 10 15 20 25 30
Ratio of span to height L/h

Figure 18. Curves of bending deflection δM, shearing additional deflection δV, and total deflection δ
with the ratio of span to height L/H.
Materials 2019, 12, 2959 18 of 22

Under the premise of considering lateral shear deformation and with the purpose of characterizing
the overall stiffness performance of the composite sandwich laminated box beam and measuring the
benefits of light weight, the overall stiffness coefficient K and the specific stiffness coefficient Km were
defined as follows:
1
K (b)
= , (37)
δ
Figure 17. The stress clouds of the whole composite sandwich laminated box beams under three-point
1
Km = core; (b) Aluminum foam core.
bending failure process. (a) Aluminum honeycomb (38)
mδ
4.1.
4.1. Influence
Influence of
of the
the Ratio
Ratio of
of Span
Span to
to Height
Height
The
The composite
compositealuminum
aluminumhoneycomb
honeycombsandwich
sandwichlaminated
laminated box
boxbeam
beam in in
Section
Section1.12.1
waswastaken as
taken
an example.
as an It was
example. assumed
It was assumed that thethe
that cross-section
cross-sectiondimensions
dimensionsofofthe thelaminated
laminatedbox boxbeam
beam andand the
the
inner and outer panel layups were unchanged, and the concentrated load was P = 1000 N. Using
inner and outer panel layups were unchanged, and the concentrated load was P = 1000 N. Using the
laminated box box
the laminated beam spanspan
beam L as La as
variable, δM, δδVM
a variable, , δV , δand
, and δ were
were calculated by Equations
calculated (34), (35),
by Equations and
(34)–(36),
(36), respectively.
respectively. The results
The results are shown
are shown in Figure
in Figure 18.beItseen
18. It can can that
be seen that of
the ratio thetheratio
shearof additional
the shear
deflection δV to the total deflection δ decreased as the ratio of span to height L/H increased; when L/H
additional deflection δV to the total deflection δ decreased as the ratio of span to height L/H increased;
when L/Hthan
was less was 10,
lessthe
than ratio of δratio
10, the δ was
V to of δV toabove
δ was above
25%, and, 25%,for
and, forisotropic
the the isotropic material
material laminated
laminated box
box
beam,beam,
the ratio of δVofto
the ratio δVδto δ was
was onlyonly
3%.3%.TheThe composite
composite sandwiched
sandwiched boxbox
beambeamwas was more
more affected
affected by
by shear deformation.
shear deformation.

2.5
δM
δV
2.0
δ
Deflection/mm

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
5 10 15 20 25 30
Ratio of span to height L/h

Curves of bending deflection δδM

Figure 18. Curves
Figure M,, shearing
shearing additional deflection δδVV, ,and
additional deflection and total deflection δδ
total deflection
with the
with the ratio of span to height L/H.

4.2. Influence
4.2. Influence of
of Layup
Layup Parameters
Parameters
The composite
The composite aluminum
aluminum honeycomb
honeycomb core
core (AHC)
(AHC) and
and aluminum
aluminum foam
foam core
core (AFC)
(AFC) laminated
laminated
box beams in Section 2.1 were taken as examples. It was assumed that the inner and outer
box beams in Section 1.1 were taken as examples. It was assumed that the inner and outer panels panels
only
only adopted the layers of 0 degrees and 90 degrees, indicating that the layers of the composite
sandwich laminated box beams were only in the longitudinal and circumferential directions. The core
material was unchanged. The finite element model and the analytical model were used to calculate the
ultimate load and stiffness coefficients of the composite laminated box beams with different ratios of
circumferential layers to longitudinal layers, and the results are shown in Figure 19. It can be found
that the composite sandwich laminated box beam with AFC had relatively large ultimate load and
stiffness coefficients, which was due to the higher equivalent elastic modulus and yield strength of the
aluminum foam. When the panel had a pure 0-degree or a pure 90-degree layup, the ultimate load was
lower. Furthermore, the stiffness coefficient of the composite sandwich laminated box beam decreased
as the ratio of circumferential layers to longitudinal layers increased. This is because the 90-degree
circumferential layers to longitudinal layers, and the results are shown in Figure 19. It can be found
that the composite sandwich laminated box beam with AFC had relatively large ultimate load and
stiffness coefficients, which was due to the higher equivalent elastic modulus and yield strength of
the aluminum foam. When the panel had a pure 0-degree or a pure 90-degree layup, the ultimate
load was
Materials lower.
2019, Furthermore, the stiffness coefficient of the composite sandwich laminated box19
12, 2959 beam
of 22
decreased as the ratio of circumferential layers to longitudinal layers increased. This is because the
90-degree layers increased the lateral load-bearing capacity and the transverse stiffness of the web,
layers
but theincreased the lateral
small number load-bearing
of 0-degree capacity
layers andthe
reduced the overall
transverse stiffness
bending of the web,
stiffness butcomposite
of the the small
number of 0-degree
sandwich box beam. layers reduced the overall bending stiffness of the composite sandwich box beam.

1.6x1044
1.6x10
Puu of AHC K of AHC 24
24
1.4x1044
1.4x10 Puu of APC K of APC
21
21

Stiffness coefficient/mm-1-1
1.2x1044
1.2x10
Ultimate load Puu/N

18
18
1.0x1044
1.0x10
15
15
8.0x1033
8.0x10
12
12
6.0x1033
6.0x10
99

4.0x1033
4.0x10
66

2.0x1033
2.0x10
33
0:5
0:5 1:4
1:4 2:3
2:3 3:2
3:2 4:1
4:1 5:0
5:0
The ratio of circumferential layers to longitudinal layers

19.Curves
Figure 19. Curvesof ultimate
of ultimate Pu andPstiffness
load load coefficient
uu and stiffness K changingKwith
coefficient the ratiowith
changing of circumferential
the ratio of
layers to longitudinal
circumferential layers layers.
to longitudinal layers.

The
The composite
composite aluminum
aluminum honeycombhoneycomb sandwich sandwich laminated
laminated box
box beam
beam was
was taken
taken as
as an
an example.
example.
It was assumed that the inner and outer wall both had a balanced obliquely symmetric layup, [θ/−θ]
It was assumed that the inner and outer wall both had a balanced obliquely symmetric layup, [θ/−θ]55;;
the variations
the variations of
of[EI] [GA],δδMMM,, δδVVV,, and
[EI]xxx,, [GA], and δδ changing
changingwith
withthe
theply angleθθare
plyangle areshown
showninin
Figures
Figures20 20
and 21.
and
It can be found that [EI] , [GA], and K took maximum values at 0, 45, and 15 degrees,
21. It can be found that [EI]xx, [GA], and K took maximum values at 0, 45, and 15 degrees, respectively.
x respectively.

Bending stiffness
Bending stiffness
7x1099 7x1066
Shear stiffness
Shear stiffness
9 6
6x109 6x106

5x1099 5x1066
[EI]xx/N⋅mm22

[GA]/N

4x1099 4x1066

9 6
3x109 3x106

2x1099 2x1066

1x1099 1x1066

0 0
00 15
15 30
30 45
45 60
60 75
75 90
90
Ply angle θ/(°)

20. Bending
Figure 20. Bendingstiffness [EI][EI]
stiffness x and shearshear
xx and stiffness [GA] of[GA]
stiffness composite aluminum
of composite honeycomb
aluminum sandwich
honeycomb
laminatedlaminated
sandwich box beam box
changing
beam with the ply
changing angle.
with the ply angle.
Materials 2019,
Materials 2019, 12,
12, 2959
x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 22
20 of 22
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 22
0.35 30
0.35 30
0.30 25
0.30 25
0.25
0.25 20
Deflection/mm
Deflection/mm 0.20 δM 20

-1 -1
δδM

K/mm
0.20 V 15

K/mm
0.15 δδV 15
0.15 Kδ 10
0.10 K 10
0.10
0.05 5
0.05 5
0.00 0
0.00 0 15 30 45 60 75 900
0 15 Ply 30 45
angle θ /(°) 60 75 90
Ply angle θ /(°)
Figure 21. Deflection δ and stiffness coefficient K of composite aluminum honeycomb sandwich
Figure
Figure 21. Deflection
21.box
laminated Deflection δδ and stiffness
beam changing ply angle. K
with thecoefficient
coefficient K of
of composite
composite aluminum
aluminum honeycomb
honeycomb sandwich
sandwich
laminated
laminated box
box beam
beam changing
changing with
with the
the ply
ply angle.
angle.
4.3. Influence of Core Material Parameters
4.3. Influence of Core Material Parameters
4.3. Influence of Core Material Parameters
It was assumed that the cross-sectional geometry, and the inner and outer panel layups of the
It was assumed that the cross-sectional geometry, and the inner and outer panel layups of the
It wassandwich
composite assumed laminated
that the cross-sectional
box beam were geometry,
unchanged,and and
the inner and outer panel
the concentrated load layups
was P =of1000
the
composite sandwich laminated box beam were unchanged, and the concentrated load was P = 1000 N.
composite
N. sandwichproperties
The mechanical laminatedofbox thebeam were unchanged,
composite and the concentrated
sandwich laminated box beam were loadanalyzed
was P = with
1000
The mechanical properties of the composite sandwich laminated box beam were analyzed with different
N. The mechanical properties of the composite sandwich laminated box beam
different densities of aluminum foam and different wall thicknesses of the aluminum honeycomb were analyzed with
densities of aluminum foam and different wall thicknesses of the aluminum honeycomb cell. The results
different
cell. densities
The results are of aluminum
shown foam
in Figures 22and
and different wall
23. It can be thicknesses
found of the
that, as the aluminum
density honeycomb
of aluminum foam
are shown in Figures 22 and 23. It can be found that, as the density of aluminum foam and the wall
cell. the
and Thewall
results are shown
thickness of theinaluminum
Figures 22honeycomb
and 23. It can beincreased,
cell found that, asvalues
the the density of aluminum
of Km and foam
Pum decreased,
thickness of the aluminum honeycomb cell increased, the values of Km and Pum decreased, and the
and the wall thickness of the aluminum
benefits of light weight decreased. honeycomb cell increased, the values of Km and P um decreased,
benefits of light weight decreased.
and the benefits of light weight decreased.
59

0.12 59
Km
0.12 58
PKmu
m
58
0.11 Pmu
57
0.11
57
-1 -1)

-1 -1)
Km/(mm⋅g

0.10
mu/(N⋅g

56
)

)
Km/(mm⋅g

0.10
/(N⋅g

56
PmuP

0.09 55

0.09 55
54
0.08
54
0.08
53
0.07 53
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0.07
0.4 of Aluminum
Density 0.5 0.3 0.7 -1)
0.6 ρ/(g⋅cm
foam 0.8
-1
Density of Aluminum foam ρ/(g⋅cm )
Figure 22. Specific stiffness parameter Km and specific load Pmu changing with the density of
Figure 22. Specific
aluminum foam. stiffness parameter Km and specific load Pmu changing with the density of aluminum
Figure 22. Specific stiffness parameter Km and specific load Pmu changing with the density of aluminum
foam.
foam.
Materials 2019, 12, 2959 21 of 22
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 22

0.20 Km 72

Pmu

66
0.18
Km/(mm⋅g-1)

Pmu/(N⋅g-1)
60

0.16
54

0.14
48

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

-1
Density of Aluminum foam ρ/(g⋅cm )

Figure 23.
Figure Specific
23. Specific stiffness
stiffness Km specific
Km and and specific
load Pload Pmu changing
mu changing with the with the wall of
wall thickness thickness of
aluminum
aluminum
honeycomb. honeycomb.

5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
(1) Composite sandwich laminated box beams with cores of aluminum honeycomb, aluminum foam,
(1) Composite sandwich laminated box beams with cores of aluminum honeycomb, aluminum
and polyurethane elastomer underwent localized crushing damage under three-point bending
foam, and polyurethane elastomer underwent localized crushing damage under three-point bending
load. After the ultimate load, the first two kinds of composite sandwich laminated box beams still
load. After the ultimate load, the first two kinds of composite sandwich laminated box beams still
had a high load-carrying capacity within a certain range. The composite aluminum honeycomb
had a high load-carrying capacity within a certain range. The composite aluminum honeycomb
sandwich box laminated beam had the highest ratios of overall stiffness to mass and ultimate
sandwich box laminated beam had the highest ratios of overall stiffness to mass and ultimate load to
load to mass, leading to a better benefit of light weight.
mass, leading to a better benefit of light weight.
(2) The finite element models of composite sandwich laminated box beams filled with aluminum
(2) The finite element models of composite sandwich laminated box beams filled with aluminum
honeycomb and aluminum foam, established by composite progressive damage analysis and the
honeycomb and aluminum foam, established by composite progressive damage analysis and the core
core elastoplastic constitutive equation, could approximately simulate the three-point bending
elastoplastic constitutive equation, could approximately simulate the three-point bending failure
failure process and predict the ultimate load. The analytical model of the composite sandwich
process and predict the ultimate load. The analytical model of the composite sandwich laminated box
laminated box beam established by the Timoshenko beam theory could approximately calculate
beam established by the Timoshenko beam theory could approximately calculate the overall stiffness
the overall stiffness parameters of the composite sandwich laminated box beam.
parameters of the composite sandwich laminated box beam.
(3) (3)
ForFor
composite sandwich
composite laminated
sandwich box beams
laminated with a with
box beams small aratio of span
small ratio toofheight,
span totheheight,
additional
the
deflection
additional caused
deflection by shear
caused deformation
by shear mustmust
deformation be considered in the
be considered indeflection analysis.
the deflection As the
analysis. As
ratioofofcircumferential
the ratio circumferentiallayers
layerstotolongitudinal
longitudinallayers
layersincreased,
increased, the
the three-point
three-point bending
bending ultimate
ultimate
load
load of theofcomposite
the composite sandwich
sandwich laminated
laminated boxbox beam
beam increased,
increased, andthe
and theoverall
overallbending
bending stiffness
stiffness
decreased. The use of aluminum foam with low density and aluminum
decreased. The use of aluminum foam with low density and aluminum honeycomb with a small honeycomb with a small
cell-
cell-wall thickness as the core materials can achieve greater benefits
wall thickness as the core materials can achieve greater benefits of light weight. of light weight.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.Z. and J.Y.; Methodology, X.Z.; Software, X.Z.; Validation, X.Z.,
Author
D.Y. andContributions: Conceptualization,
H.D.; Formal Analysis, X.Z. and X.Z.;
X.Z.; Investigation, J.Y.; Methodology, X.Z.;
Resources, C.X.; Software,
Data Curation,X.Z.; Validation,
X.Z.; X.Z., D.Y.
Writing-Original
and H.D.; Formal Analysis, X.Z.; Investigation, X.Z.; Resources, C.X.; Data Curation, X.Z.; Writing-Original Draft
Draft Preparation, X.Z.; Writing-Review & Editing, X.Z.; Visualization, X.Z.; Supervision, J.Y.; Project
Preparation, X.Z.; Writing-Review & Editing, X.Z.; Visualization, X.Z.; Supervision, J.Y.; Project Administration, C.X.
Administration, C.X.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their excellent comments and suggestions
that contributed to the
Acknowledgments: improvement
The of the
authors thank thisanonymous
paper. reviewers for their excellent comments and suggestions
that contributed to the improvement of this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Steeves, C.A.; Fleck, N.A. Collapse mechanisms of sandwich beams with composite faces and a foam core,
loaded in three-point bending. Part I: Analytical models and minimum weight design. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2004,
46, 561–583.
Materials 2019, 12, 2959 22 of 22

References
1. Steeves, C.A.; Fleck, N.A. Collapse mechanisms of sandwich beams with composite faces and a foam core,
loaded in three-point bending. Part I: Analytical models and minimum weight design. Int. J. Mech. Sci.
2004, 46, 561–583. [CrossRef]
2. McCormack, T.; Miller, R.; Kesler, O.; Gibson, L. Failure of sandwich beams with metallic foam cores. Int. J.
Solids Struct. 2001, 38, 4901–4920. [CrossRef]
3. Mai, S.; Fleck, N.; Lu, T. Optimal design of box-section sandwich beams in three-point bending. Int. J. Solids
Struct. 2007, 44, 4742–4769. [CrossRef]
4. Xu, W.M.; Yuan, R.C.; Jiang, Z.G.; Hu, P. Analysis of Deflection of Sandwich Beams with Sandwich Composites.
Acta Armamentari Sin. 2009, 30, 1061–1066.
5. Liu, Q.; Xu, X.; Ma, J.; Wang, J.; Shi, Y.; Hui, D. Lateral crushing and bending responses of CFRP square tube
filled with aluminum honeycomb. Compos. Part B: Eng. 2017, 118, 104–115. [CrossRef]
6. Geuchy Ahmad, M.I.; Hoa, S.V. Flexural stiffness of thick walled composite tubes. Compos. Struct. 2016, 149,
125–133. [CrossRef]
7. Shadmehri, F.; Derisi, B.; Hoa, S.V. On bending stiffness of composite tubes. Compos. Struct. 2011, 93,
2173–2179. [CrossRef]
8. Harper, P.W.; Hallett, S.R. Cohesive zone length in numerical simulations of composite delamination.
Eng. Fract. Mech. 2008, 75, 4774–4792. [CrossRef]
9. Aktay, L.; Johnson, A.F.; Krolin, B.H. Numerical modelling of honeycomb core crush behavior.
Eng. Fract. Mech. 2008, 75, 2616–2630. [CrossRef]
10. Liu, Q.; Subhash, G. A phenomenological constitutive model for foams under large deformations.
Polym. Eng. Sci. 2004, 44, 463–473. [CrossRef]
11. ABAQUS Inc., Ltd. Abaqus Theory Manual. Version V 6.12; ABAQUS Inc., Ltd.: Johnston, RI, USA, 2012.
12. Benzeggagh, M.L.; Kenane, M. Measurement of mixed-mode delamination fracture toughness of
unidirectional glass/epoxy composites with mixed-mode bending apparatus. Compos. Sci. Technol. 1996, 56,
439–449. [CrossRef]
13. Jose, S.; Kumar, R.R.; Jana, M.K.; Rao, G.V. Intralaminar fracture toughness of cross-ply laminate and its
constituent sub-laminates. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2001, 61, 1115–1122. [CrossRef]
14. Cui, H.; Yan, Q.; Wang, X.M.; Bi, S.Q.; Wang, X.F. Assessment of failure analysis method for the bolted
structure between selective laser melting aluminum plate and CFRP composite laminate. Acta Mater.
Compos. Sin. 2017, 34, 2762–2769.
15. Tan, C.; Li, Y.L.; Guo, Y.Z. Mechanical property analysis of composite adhesively bonded sandwich pipe joints.
Acta Mater. Compos. Sin. 2014, 31, 1532–1542.
16. Vo, T.P.; Lee, J. Flexural-torsional behavior of thin-walled composite box beams using shear-deformable
beam theory. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30, 1958–1968. [CrossRef]
17. Qin, Z.; Librescu, L. On a shear-deformable theory of anisotropic thin-walled beams: Further contribution
and validations. Compos. Struct. 2002, 56, 345–358. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).