Accepted Manuscript

Experimental investigation on bending behavior of honeycomb sandwich panel with

ceramic tile face-sheet

Zhonggang Wang, Zhendong Li, Wei Xiong

PII: S1359-8368(18)32544-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.10.077
Reference: JCOMB 6156

To appear in: Composites Part B

Received Date: 10 August 2018

Revised Date: 12 October 2018
Accepted Date: 24 October 2018

Please cite this article as: Wang Z, Li Z, Xiong W, Experimental investigation on bending behavior
of honeycomb sandwich panel with ceramic tile face-sheet, Composites Part B (2018), doi: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.10.077.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Experimental investigation on bending behavior of

2 honeycomb sandwich panel with ceramic tile face-sheet
3 Zhonggang Wanga, b,c,d*, Zhendong Lia,b,c,d, Wei Xionga,b,c,d
4 a. School of Traffic & Transportation engineering, Central South University,
5 Changsha, Hunan, China.

PT
6 b. Key Laboratory of Traffic Safety on Track，Ministry of Education; Changsha,
7 Hunan, China.

RI
8 c. Joint International Research Laboratory of Key Technology for Rail Traffic Safety,

SC
9 Changsha, Hunan, China.
10 d. National & Local Joint Engineering Research Center of Safety Technology for Rail

U
11 Vehicle, Changsha, Hunan, China.
12 *wangzg@csu.edu.cn
AN
13

14 Abstract—Honeycomb sandwich structures are widely employed in the engineering

M

15 field, due to their light weight, strong rigidity and high strength. In this study, the
D

16 bending resistance performance of the honeycomb sandwich panel with ceramic tile
17 face-sheet (short as ceramic sandwich) was investigated through three-point bending
TE

18 experiments. Their differences between the present ceramic sandwich and the
19 conventional ones were reported and discussed in terms of deformation mode,
EP

20 load-deflection history and bending resistance. As the experiments turned out that
21 differing from the conventional sandwich panel, the present ceramic one performs
C

22 different collapse modes when undergoing 3-point bending load. The results
AC

23 demonstrated that the bending behavior of the present ceramic sandwich was largely
24 promoted due to the ceramic tile face-sheet. Besides, the mechanical influence of the
25 ceramic tile face-sheet and the cell length of honeycomb core were determined. These
26 achievements pave a way of designing composited superb bending resistant sandwich
27 structures.
28 Keywords: Honeycomb sandwich; ceramic sandwich; deformation mode; bending

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 resistance.
2 1 Introduction

3 Lightweight structures were largely used in high-performance applications such

4 as, aerospace, automobile and even decoration industry in the past decades. New
5 materials with better performance have been always seeking for. Therefore, the

PT
6 investigations of honeycomb sandwich structures have steadily increased for their
7 great properties such as high stiffness-to-weight ratio [1-4], high energy absorption

RI
8 capability [5-7], outstanding resistance ability as well as the thermal insulation, and
9 so on [8-9].

SC
10 To meet the increasing requirements, researchers are keeping on designing
11 structures quite different from the traditional sandwich structures. Abundant studies

U
12 focusing on the novel patterns were developed. Extraordinary achievements have been
AN
13 obtained such as the research of Liu et.al [10], in which a composited honeycomb core
14 filled with circular tubes (HFCT) has been developed. This type of filling structure
M

15 performs better resistance subjected to blast impact. Extensive studies on Nomex

16 honeycomb [11-12], lattice truss [13-14], the corrugated [15-16] patterns, even some
D

17 combination core structure [17–24] were also attempted. Substantial works of the
corresponding experiments and investigations have been done to explore their
TE

18

19 mechanical performances [25-29].

20 However, these investigations of sandwich structures still need to be improved in
EP

21 kinds aspects (lightweight, high stiffness and localized load resistance, etc.) to meet
22 the growing rigid service environment. For this purpose, some researchers put efforts
C

23 on the ceramic material to seek some breakthroughs on engineering application

AC

24 [30-31]. Indeed, ceramic tile possesses some great mechanical merits which metals
25 do not have, such as heat-proof, abrasion-proof and strong corrosion resistance.
26 Meanwhile, the researches of sandwich with ceramic tile face-sheet are few. This
27 paper incorporated the ceramic tile into lightweight honeycomb sandwich as a
28 face-sheet to form a novel sandwich, which has blended their both merits. This kind
29 of novel sandwich can be applied into large building construction, devices

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 establishment and domestic decoration. In that manner, they are usually subjected to
2 various types load, and the most common one is bending. Nonetheless, most of the
3 investigations focusing three-bending test on conventional sandwich panels [32-41]
4 with the face-sheet made of aluminum, wood, CFRP, even Kevlar. Up to now, there
5 has been very little attention to the ceramic sandwich. The bending performance,

PT
6 failure load as well as the deformation mode of ceramic sandwich was yet to be
7 investigated. They need to be furtherly excavated in order to achieve reliable design

RI
8 with high bending resistance.
9 This study, differs from the former literatures, focusing on the investigation of

SC
10 the three-point bending performance of ceramic sandwich using experimental
11 approaches. Majority of these works addressed the analyses of failure load and

U
12 deformation modes of this novel structure. Meanwhile, the influence of the
AN
13 honeycomb core size on the three-point bending performance was analyzed by 4
14 groups specimens. These above works achieved in this paper are aiming to provide
M

15 new option for enhancing the engineering application.

16
D

17 2 Experiment
18 2.1. Specimens
TE

19 Fig.1 shows the components as well as the specimens employed in this study, in
20 which ① , ② , ③ and ④ respectively represent the ceramic tile face-sheet,
EP

21 aluminum face-sheet, aluminum honeycomb core I (d = 18 mm) and aluminum

22 honeycomb core II (d = 23 mm), for the purpose of investigating the influence of the
C

23 thickness on the whole structure, as shown in Fig.1(a)~ (d). They were intended for
AC

24 three-bending tests. These components in each layer and the product were shown as
25 Fig.1(e) and (f), respectively. According to the different panels, there were three types
26 of specimens employed in experiments, respectively labeled with A, B and C, as shown
27 in Table 1 below. For the Type A and B, their front (undergoing the load) and back
28 face-sheets are made of aluminum. By contrast, for Type C, the back face-sheet is also
29 made of aluminum, but the front face-sheet is made of ceramic tile.

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 For each specimen, it can be characterized as the thickness of ceramic tile c1 and
2 back face-sheet c2. The thickness of the front face-sheet is the thickness sum of
3 ceramic and back face-sheet. For different specimens, they have the same c2 (c2= 1
4 mm), but different c1. For ceramic tile, c1 =5 mm; while for conventional aluminum
5 plate, c1 =1 mm. The honeycomb core can be characterized as L, W and T, standing

PT
6 for the overall dimension sizes at L-direction, W-direction and T-direction,
7 respectively. The cell parameters contain h, l, t and θ, as shown in Fig.2. In this study,

RI
8 t=0.06 mm, L=160 mm, W=60 mm, and T is the sum thickness of all the components. In this
9 study, hexagonal honeycomb was used, which means h = l and θ=π/6. They were all

SC
10 manufactured in HUARUI® Honeycomb Technology Co. Ltd., China, with
11 AL5052H18 foil material. The material parameters of the aluminum foil were

U
12 designated as: density 2680 kg/m3, Young's module 68.97 GPa, Poisson's ratio 0.35,
AN
13 and yield stress 215 MPa. Meanwhile, of the ceramic tile, the properties are: density
14 2370 kg/m3, and Poisson's ratio 0.23.
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

15
16 Fig.1 The components of the ceramic sandwich: (a)~ (d) ceramic tile face-sheet,
17 aluminum face-sheet, honeycomb core I (d = 18 mm) and honeycomb core II (d = 23
18 mm) ;(e) components in each layer; (f) the product.
19
20

21 Table 1 Categories of specimens.

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Type A Type B Type C

②+③+② ②+④+② ①+②+③+②

PT
1

RI
U SC
2
AN
3 Fig.2 Honeycomb core of (a) general appearance and (b) cell unit.
4
5 2.2. Arrangement
M

6 In experiments, the specimens were classified into four groups (G1, G2, G3 and
D

7 G4) according to different cell edge length of honeycomb core. I.e., G1 represents the
8 sandwiches with core cell length of 1 mm. In each group, there are three tests were
TE

9 carried out to verify the repeatability and avoid the accidence. And they are tagged as
10 1#,2# and 3#. For the sake of convenience, the number of the specimen were labeled
EP

11 together with the group and tag. For instance, G1-A-1 means experiment 1# for the
12 thinner aluminum honeycomb sandwich (Type A) with honeycomb cell size of 1mm
C

13 (G1).
AC

14 The bending tests of these specimens were conducted on a servo-hydraulic load

15 machine (INSTRON) using the test configuration, at a constant speed 2 mm/min. The
16 schematic of three-point bending tests for the present ceramic sandwich is shown in
17 Fig.3. The experimental setup is shown in Fig.4.

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
1
2 Fig.3 Schematic of the bending test arrangement.

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP

3
C

4 Fig.4 Experimental setup (INSTRON).

5
AC

6 3 Results

7 The experimental results of three-point bending tests on kinds of specimens were

8 analyzed here. First of all, the representative load-deflection curves of them were
9 depicted in Fig.5. In the bending history curve, three stages can be observed. Firstly, a
10 dramatic increasing occurs under gradually loading situation and then the maximum
11 yield load achieved. Secondly, the load decreased with the back face-sheet yield. At
12 the same time, indentation appeared in the middle part of the face-sheet. In this
6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 plastic deformation stage, the deformation of the structure requires less force. Thirdly,
2 the load promotes again because of the increasing stiffness of the structure. Once the
3 deflection up to 12.15 mm, the load dramatically falls off for unloading.
4

PT
RI
U SC
AN
5

6 Fig.5 Representative load curves versus deflection.

7
M

8 Fig.6 shows the deformation process of three-point bending tests performed on

D

9 ceramic sandwich. As seen in Fig.6(a), it can be found that the indentation firstly
10 occurred on the two supports and its depth increased with the rising load. When the
TE

11 load reached to the failure load, fracture happened in the middle area of the front
12 face-sheet. This mainly attributed to the mechanical properties of ceramic tile. The
EP

13 promotion of the structural stiffness, which, in turn, leading to the distortions on the
14 back face-sheet occurred firstly. Eventually, the ceramic tile was cracked and heavy
C

15 buckling was found in honeycomb core (see Fig.6 (d)).

AC

16 Fig.7 shows the representative damage area of the present ceramic sandwich
17 specimen after three-point bending load (G3-C-3). Clearly, there is a fracture in the
18 middle of ceramic tile caused by the deep indenter. At the same time, bending
19 depression of the structure happens in the two supports areas. Heavy buckling can be
20 observed there.
21

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
1
2 Fig.6 Representative deformation mode of key stages(G3-C-3).

U
AN
M
D
TE

3
EP

4 Fig.7 Representative damage modes of ceramic sandwich panels(G3-C-3).

5
C

6 Table 2 reports experimental results below, in which F1 and F2 represent the yield
AC

7 load and failure load, respectively. s means the corresponding deflection when the
8 complete fracture of ceramic tile face-sheet occurs. As the Table 2 given, for
9 conventional honeycomb sandwiches (type A and B), according to F1, d is significant
10 for the promotion of bending resistance ability. In addition, their failure loads are
11 largely close to their yield loads when h equals to 1 mm and 2 mm. But, in the cases

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 of h＞2mm, the failure load clearly gets much higher comparing with the yield load.
2 This indicates the direct influence caused by core stiffness.
3 Table 2 Experimental Results (t=0.06 mm, L=160 mm, W=60 mm)
h c1 c2 d T F1 F2 s
Groups Specimens
mm mm mm mm mm kN kN mm
A-1 1 / 1 18 20 5.230 / /

PT
A-2 1 / 1 18 20 5.410 / /
A-3 1 / 1 18 20 5.622 / /
B-1 1 / 1 23 25 6.262 / /

RI
G1 B-2 1 / 1 23 25 6.262 / /
B-3 1 / 1 23 25 6.172 / /

SC
C-1 1 5 1 18 25 11.969 11.969 1.999
C-2 1 5 1 18 25 12.280 12.280 2.110
C-3 1 5 1 18 25 10.784 10.784 1.434

U
A-1 2 / 1 18 20 3.123 / /
A-2 2 / 1 18 20 3.124 / /
AN
A-3 2 / 1 18 20 3.125 / /
B-1 2 / 1 23 25 3.093 / /
G2 B-2 2 / 1 23 25 3.262 / /
M

B-3 2 / 1 23 25 3.262 /
C-1 2 5 1 18 25 6.611 6.980 5.417
C-2 2 5 1 18 25 6.601 7.027 5.165
D

C-3 2 5 1 18 25 6.403 6.940 5.512

TE

A-1 3 / 1 18 20 2.325 / /
A-2 3 / 1 18 20 2.410 / /
A-3 3 / 1 18 20 2.324 / /
EP

B-1 3 / 1 23 25 2.361 / /
G3 B-2 3 / 1 23 25 2.362 / /
B-3 3 / 1 23 25 2.449 / /
C

C-1 3 5 1 18 25 4.390 5.879 10.575

C-2 3 5 1 18 25 4.557 6.057 11.731
AC

C-3 3 5 1 18 25 4.489 5.976 12.150

A-1 4 / 1 18 20 1.625 / /
A-2 4 / 1 18 20 1.751 / /
A-3 4 / 1 18 20 1.625 / /
B-1 4 / 1 23 25 1.638 / /
G4
B-2 4 / 1 23 25 1.690 / /
B-3 4 / 1 23 25 1.719 / /
C-1 4 5 1 18 25 2.851 3.648 10.849
C-2 4 5 1 18 25 2.979 3.582 12.528
9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
C-3 4 5 1 18 25 2.951 3.632 10.578
1
4 Discussion
4.1 Influence of ceramic tile

Differing from the conventional sandwich, the main change in ceramic one lies
in the front face-sheet, from the aluminum to ceramic tile. Fig.8 shows the

PT
load-deflection curves of representative different sandwiches (h = 3mm), with the
specimen type A, type B, and Type C, respectively. It shows the resultant

RI
load-deflection curves of two kinds conventional honeycomb sandwich and the
present ceramic sandwich in the case of h = 3 mm. Obviously, among these three

SC
types of sandwich, the ceramic one has the biggest load carrying capacity (see
G3-C-3 in Fig.8).

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig.8 Representative load-deflection curves of different sandwiches (h = 3mm).

As the experimental results shown in Table 2, it can be found that, there is only a
little difference between type A and type B honeycomb sandwich in the yield load. I.e.,
It is 2.324kN of G3-A-3 and 2.449kN of G3-B-3(see Fig.8, Table 2). However, the
yield load of G3-C-3 is 4.489kN, almost twice of that of conventional sandwich.

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Besides, comparing with the G3-A-3 and G3-A-3, the slope of curve for G3-C-3
greatly increases from the aluminum to ceramic tile face-sheet. That’s because the
ceramic tile face-sheet improves the stiffness of whole structure a lot. Comparing with
the sandwich cored with honeycomb core I (type A), the ceramic sandwich performs a
stronger stiffness as it has thicker T. So does for sandwich cored with honeycomb core

PT
II (type B), although they have the same thickness (T = 25 mm). In this situation,
indentation is forced to occur in back face-sheet. The load falling at 12.150 mm

RI
corresponds the time when complete fracture takes place.
In order to further explore the mentioned influences brought from the ceramic

SC
tile, Fig.9 shows the representative bending behavior in cases of G3-A-1 and
G3-B-1(h = 3 mm). Clearly, Fig.9 (a) ~ (b) totally demonstrate the different

U
deformation mode with ceramic one. For these aluminum sandwiches, the
AN
deformation happens in the middle area. Clear indentation occurs in the middle area
but the honeycomb cores are almost intact. While, for ceramic sandwich, not only the
M

middle of the structure was damaged, but the two supports were also deformed with
worse buckling. At the same time, tension fractures occur for all the specimens in their
D

back face-sheets, as shown in Fig.10. These phenomena are totally different that of
TE

ceramic one, whose fracture mainly takes place in the front face-sheet. From this
difference, it can be indicated that ceramic tile plays important role in bending
EP

performance, which promotes the bending resistance ability of honeycomb sandwich.

C
AC

Fig.9 Representative damage modes of conventional sandwich with (a) G3-A-1and (b)

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

G3-B-1.

PT
RI
SC
Fig.10 Fractures in representative conventional sandwich: (a) comparison for
the same specimens; (b) fracture in the back face-sheet.

U
AN
Another interesting phenomenon was also observed in some experiment that,
when undergoing three-point bending loading, the fracture occurs in the front ceramic
M

tile face-sheet not only lies in the middle area, but also sometimes upon the two
supports, as seen in Fig.11. These owes to fragile properties of ceramic material.
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig.11 The fracture on ceramic front face-sheet of G1-C.

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.2 Influence of Cell length

Table 2 also shows the different influence of the cell edge length on the bending
performance, ranging from h = 1~4 mm. As demonstrated in Table 2, s of G1-C-1,
G2-C-1, G2-C-1 and G4-C-1 are 1.999mm, 5.417 mm, 10.575 mm and 10.849 mm,

PT
respectively. It means that the larger size of the cell edge length, the bigger deflection
achieved for the ceramic panel to fracture completely. It can be seen that the bending

RI
behavior of the ceramic sandwich is heavily influenced by the cell edge length of
honeycomb core.

SC
Fig.12 reports the average failure load of each group for ceramic sandwich.
According to the results, the failure load is decreasing with the rising h, from

U
11.6760kN (h =1 mm) to 3.6205kN (h = 4mm). But, the amount of reduction is the
AN
smallest when h increases from 2mm to 3mm (1.0114kN). Therefore, on condition of
engineering product (ceramic thickness equals to 5mm), the cell length range from 2
M

to 3 mm is recommended, taking account into saving material and fully playing the
ceramic advantages.
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig.12 Histogram of average failure load versus different h.

Besides, the deformation mode also varied with h. Fig.13 shows the
representative fracture states after bending. As shown in Fig. 13, with the increasing
of h, fracture in the front face-sheet become worse and worse. The honeycomb core
13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

collapse area near the supports become wider and wider. Fig.14 shows the typical
load-deflection curves below. The good coincidence with the phenomenon presented
in Fig.13 confirms this influence again.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M

Fig.13 Failure modes of ceramic sandwiches with different core cell edge length.
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig.14 The load-deflection curves of ceramic sandwich with different core cell edge
length.

5 Conclusions

Based on the investigations mentioned above, some important conclusions can

be drawn as below:
14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(1) The ceramic sandwich performs different mechanical behavior subjected to

bending loading. Differing from the conventional aluminum sandwich, indentation
was firstly occurred on the two supports area in ceramic sandwich. With the load
increasing, fracture happens in the middle area of the front ceramic face-sheet.
Eventually, the ceramic tile was cracked, and heavy buckling can be found in

PT
honeycomb core. While for the conventional sandwich, clear indentations can be
observed in the front aluminum face-sheet under the indenter, but the honeycomb core

RI
in other zone is intact without huge deformation. The fracture also occurs in the
middle of back face-sheet.

SC
(2) Ceramic tile strengthens the sandwich a lot. Compared with the
conventional sandwich, the yield load increases in all kinds of ceramic one. Versus

U
with conventional sandwich, even with the same thickness (T =25 mm), the stiffness of
AN
the ceramic one is remarkably promoted due to the ceramic tile. Both of their different
slope and trend of load-deflection curves confirm the great promotion in the structural
M

bending resistance. But, based on the value of yield load, it can be found that the
promotion brought from ceramic tile will decreases with bigger cell edge length.
D

(3) For the ceramic sandwich, the edge length of honeycomb cell heavily
TE

influences the bending resistance. The failure load increases while the indentation
decreases with the smaller cell edge length. On condition of engineering product
EP

(ceramic thickness equals to 5mm), the cell length range from 2 to 3 mm is

recommended, taking account into saving material and fully playing the ceramic
advantages.
C

To sum up, as a pioneering attempt to learn the bending behavior of composited

AC

honeycomb sandwich with ceramic tile, this work paves a way of developing
innovative stronger structures.

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by The National Natural Science

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Foundation of China (51875581, 51505502), Project funded by China Postdoctoral

Science Foundation (2017M620358, 2018T110707), and Innovation-Driven Project of
Central South University (2018CX022), China. The authors would like to express
their thanks.
References

PT
[1] Torre L, Kenny JM. Impact testing and simulation of composite sandwich
structures for civil transportation. Compos Struct 2000;50(3):257-267.

RI
[2] Wei K, Peng Y, Qu Z, Pei Y, Fang D. A cellular metastructure incorporating
coupled negative thermal expansion and negative Poisson’s ratio. Int J Solids

SC
Struct 2018；150: 255-267
[3] Wang Z, Tian H, Lu Z, et al. High-speed axial impact of aluminum honeycomb –

U
Experiments and simulations. Compos Part B Eng 2014; 56(1):1-8.
AN
[4] Wang Z, Li Z, Zhou W, et al. On the influence of structural defects for
honeycomb structure. Compos Part B Eng 2018; 142:183-192.
M

[5] Wang Z, Lu Z, Yao S, et al. Deformation mode evolutional mechanism of

honeycomb structure when undergoing a shallow inclined load. Compo Struct
D

2016; 147:211-219.
[6] Wang Z, Yao S, Lu Z, et al. Matching effect of honeycomb-filled thin-walled
TE

square tube —Experiment and Simulation. Compos Struct 2016; 157:494-505.

[7] Wang Z, G Guang, T Qi. A stability maintenance method and experiments for
EP

multi-player tandem aluminium honeycomb array. Int J Crashworthiness,

2013;18(5):483-491.
C

[8] Valvano S, Carrera E. Multilayered plate elements with node-dependent

AC

kinematics for the analysis of composite and sandwich structures. Facta

Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering 2017; 15(1): 1-30.
[9] Wei K, He R, Cheng X, Zhang R, Pei Y, Fang D. A lightweight, high compression
strength ultra-high temperature ceramic corrugated panel with potential for
thermal protection system applications. Materials & Design 2015; 66: 552-556.

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[10] Liu J, Wang Z, Hui D. The blast resistance and parametric study of sandwich
structure consist of honeycomb core filled with circular metallic tubes. Compos
Part B Eng 2018, 145.
[11] Seemann R, Krause D. Numerical Modeling of Nomex Honeycomb Sandwich
Cores at Meso-Scale Level. Compos Struct 2017;159(1):702-718.

PT
[12] Rajaneesh A, Yian Z, Chai G B, et al. Flexural fatigue life prediction of
CFRP-Nomex honeycomb sandwich beams. Compos Struct 2018; 192:225-231.

RI
[13] Sun F, Lai C, Fan H. Failure mode maps for composite anisogrid lattice
sandwich cylinders under fundamental loads. Compos Sci Technol 2017;

SC
152:149-158.
[14] Jelena M, Miloš S, Miroslav T. Applicability analysis of additive manufacturing

U
processes in the fabrication of anatomically shaped lattice scaffolds. Facta
AN
Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering 2015; 13(3): 295-305.
[15] Zhou J, Guan Z W, Cantwell W J. Scaling effects in the mechanical response of
M

sandwich structures based on corrugated composite cores. Compos Part B 2016;

93:88-96.
D

[16] Zhou J, Guan Z W, Cantwell W J. Scaling effects in the mechanical response of

TE

sandwich structures based on corrugated composite cores. Composites Part B,

2016, 93:88-96.
EP

[17] Ostos JB, Rinaldi RG, Hammetter CM, Stucky GD, Zok FW, Jacobsen AJ.
Deformation stabilization of lattice structures via foam addition. Acta Mater 2012;
60:6476–85.
C

[18] Zhang GQ, Wang B, Ma L, Wu LZ, Pan SD, Yang JS. Energy absorption and
AC

low velocity impact response of polyurethane foam filled pyramidal lattice core
sandwich panels. Compos Struct 2014; 108:304–10.
[19] Wei K, Chen H, Pei Y, et al. Planar lattices with tailorable coefficient of thermal
expansion and high stiffness based on dual-material triangle unit. J Mech Phys
Solids 2016; 86:173-191.

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[20] Vaidya UK, Ulven C, Pillay S, Ricks H. Impact damage of partially foam-filled
co-injected honeycomb core sandwich composites. J Compos Mater 2003;
37:611–26.
[21] Vaziri A, Xue ZY, Hutchinson JW. Metal sandwich plates with polymer
foam-filled cores. J Mech Mater Struct 2006; 1:97–127.

PT
[22] Yazici M, Wright J, Bertin D, Shukla A. Experimental and numerical study of
foam filled corrugated core steel sandwich structures subjected to blast loading.

RI
Compos Struct 2014; 110:98–109.
[23] Yang L, Fan HL, Liu J, Ma Y, Zheng Q. Hybrid lattice-core sandwich composites

SC
designed for microwave absorption. Mater Des 2013; 50:863–71.
[24] Yan L L, Yu B, Han B, et al. Compressive strength and energy absorption of

U
sandwich panels with aluminum foam-filled corrugated cores. Compos Sci Tech
AN
2013;86(7):142-148.
[25] Karličić D, Ožvat S, Cajić M, et al. Bending vibration and stability of a
M

multiple-nanobeam system influenced by temperature change. Facta Universitatis,

Series: Mechanical Engineering, 2016, 14(1):75-88.
D

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

TE

sandwich panels under bending and impact loading. Int J Impact Eng
2012;43(5):6-15.
EP

[27] Abbadi A, Koutsawa Y, Carmasol A, Belouettar S, Azari Z. Experimental and

numerical characterization of honeycomb sandwich composite panels. Simul
Model Pract Th 2009;17(10):1533-47.
C

[28] Belingardi G, Martella P, Peroni L. Fatigue analysis of honeycomb-composite

AC

sandwich beams. Compos Part A 2007; 38:1183-91.

[29] Jen Y-M, Chang L-Y. Evaluating bending fatigue strength of aluminum
honeycomb sandwich beams using local parameters. Int J Fatigue
2008;30(6):1103-14.
[30] Harte A-M, Fleck NA, Ashby MF. The fatigue strength of sandwich beams with
an aluminium alloy foam core. Int J Fatigue 2001;23: 499-507.

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[31] Wei K, He R, Cheng X, et al. Fabrication and mechanical properties of

lightweight ZrO 2, ceramic corrugated core sandwich panels. Mater Des 2014;
64(9):91-95.
[32] Wei K, He R, Cheng X, et al. A lightweight, high compression strength ultra-high
temperature ceramic corrugated panel with potential for thermal protection

PT
system applications. Mater Des 2015; 66:552-556.
[33] Chen DH. The collapse mechanism of corrugated cross section beams subjected

RI
to three-point bending. Thin Wall Struct 2012; 51:82–6.
[34] Seong DY, Jung CG, Yang DY, Moon KJ, Ahn DG. Quasi-isotropic bending

SC
responses of metallic sandwich plates with bi-directionally corrugated cores.
Mater Des 2010; 31:2804–12.

U
[35] Rubino V, Deshpande VS, Fleck NA. The three-point bending of Y-frame and
AN
corrugated core sandwich beams. Int J Mech Sci 2010; 52:485–94.
[36] Xiong J, Ma L, Pan SD, Wu LZ, Papadopoulos J, Vaziri A. Shear and bending
M

performance of carbon fiber composite sandwich panels with pyramidal truss

cores. Acta Mater 2012; 60:1455–66.
D

[37] McCormack TM, Miller R, Kesler O, Gibson LJ. Failure of sandwich beams with
TE

metallic foam cores. Int J Solids Struct 2001; 38:4901–20.

[38] Zu GY, Song BN, Zhong ZY, Li XB, Mu YL, Yao GC. Static three-point bending
EP

behavior of aluminum foam sandwich. J Alloy Compd 2012; 540:275–8.

[39] Steeves CA, Fleck NA. Collapse mechanisms of sandwich beams with composite
faces and a foam core, loaded in three-point bending. Part II: experimental
C

investigation and numerical modelling. Int J Mech Sci 2004; 46:585–608.

AC

[40] Marsavina L, Sadowski T, Knec M, Negru R. Non-linear behaviour of foams

under static and impact three-point bending. Int J Nonlin Mech 2010; 45:969–75.
[41] Yu JL, Wang E, Li JR, Zheng ZJ. Static and low-velocity impact behavior of
sandwich beams with closed-cell aluminum-foam core in three-point bending. Int
J Impact Eng 2008; 35:885–94.

19