171

Effect of adhesive in sandwich panels subjected to

low-velocity impact
S Zhu* and G B Chai
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

The manuscript was received on 2 September 2010 and was accepted after revision for publication on 22 March 2011.

DOI: 10.1177/1464420711406777

Abstract: In this contribution, the impact response and failure modes of square sandwich test
panels subjected to low-velocity impact were investigated. The two main groups of test speci-
mens investigated were: (a) bonded specimens – sandwich panels with skins glued to the hon-
eycomb core; (b) unbonded specimens – sandwich panels with skins not glued to the honeycomb
core. The focus of the study is on the effect of the adhesive and the various modes of failures on
the impact response of sandwich panels. A relatively detailed experimental investigation was
conducted in conjunction with a detailed finite element analysis. The experiments were con-
ducted using a standard dart test machine and the finite element analysis was carried out using a
commercially available finite element software. The results of maximum contact force, contact
duration, and failure modes are presented, compared, and discussed in this technical article.

Keywords: sandwich panel, low-velocity impact, adhesive

1 INTRODUCTION panel structure is susceptible to transverse impact,

Sandwich structure is composed of a lightweight core
attached with two skins. This type of structure is
widely used in aerospace, marine, military, defence,
transportation, and construction industries due to
the advantages such as high specific strength and
stiffness, heat resistance, sound insulation, and easy
assembly. Nowadays, different kinds of material such
as metals, laminated composites, and plastics are
used for skins, and materials such as polymeric
foam, metallic foam, metallic honeycomb, and
Nomex honeycomb are used for the core. At the
same time, various assembly methods are tried to
combine the advantage of various materials. Among
them, honeycomb core attached with lightweight
and high strength skins is a well-liked combination
for sandwich panels. However, this kind of sandwich
*Corresponding author: School of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, Division of Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang
Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore
639798, Singapore.
email: M080013@ntu.edu.sg
which invoked plentiful investigation for the response
of sandwich panel subjected to impact loading [1, 2].
The response of low-velocity impact to bonded
composite sandwich panel has been examined exten-
sively [3] using both experimental and analytical
methods and the work on composite sandwich
panel subjected to impact of ballistic velocity using
both experimental and numerical methods were also
available [4, 5]. Influencing factors such as the impact
mass, impact velocity, skin thickness, and core geo-
metrical parameters were investigated and presented
[3–5]. The effect of core thickness on the flexural
behaviour of sandwich structures has been investi-
gated based on four-point bending experiments [6]
and it was demonstrated that a thinner core may
result in failure mode with large deformation of the
core prior to skin wrinkling. Scale effect of the basic
cell was discussed in static analysis with various kinds
of cores [7]. The effect of core height and skin thick-
ness on the behaviour of honeycomb cores sandwich
structures subjected to blast loading was investigated
using experiments [8] and it was found that increas-
ing the core thickness delayed the onset of core

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications

Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on July 15, 2015
172
densification and decreased back plate deflection,
while increasing the plate thickness was also found
to decrease back plate deflection, although the panels
then had a substantially higher overall mass.
Zhou [2, 15] have investigated almost all parame-
ters in the failure mode and energy absorption char-
acteristic using an extensive experimental study. In
their study, the change of the indenter nose shape is
shown to result in a change in the damage mecha-
nisms and have the most significant effect on energy
absorption. Increasing the core density has a very
little effect on the ultimate loads and energy-absorb-
ing capacity. The effect of the support conditions on
the damage and energy-absorbing characteristics has
also shown to be small. Furthermore, different core
materials with a similar density show little difference
in either the damage or the energy-absorbing charac-
teristics due to the limited contribution of transverse
shear resistance.
The bonding between skins and the core is vital
for sandwich structures to make most of the advan-
tage of their high structural stiffness. The load
transfer mechanism between skins and the core
was studied using the finite element method by
Burton and Noor [9] and a closed-form formula
for calculating the stress in adhesive layers in sand-
wich beams was deduced by Huang [10].
References on the bonding process and the
amount of adhesive in sandwich structures are
also available [11, 12]. Although the delamination
crack along the skin/core has been reported by
experiment [11, 13–16], the investigation into the
effect of adhesive on the mechanical properties of
sandwich panels is still absent.
The purpose of this article is to address the lack of
research and publications on the role of adhesive in
impact loading environment. The study will explore
the role of adhesive in sandwich panel by comparing
the structural impact responses of bonded sandwich
panels with those of unbonded sandwich panels.
Acrylics skins are used in place of composite skins
in sandwich panels, because the transparency of
acrylics allows one to see the damage and failure
mechanisms in the core and also those occurring
between the skin and the core. The study of the
impact response of the brittle monolithic acrylic
panel is included as a comparison in this
contribution.
2 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Figure 1 shows an illustration of the experimental set-
up of the impact testing with digital data acquisition.
The Instron Dynatup 8250 impact testing machine
Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications
Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on July 15, 2015
S Zhu and G B Chai
From force transducer on impactor
Steel impactor
φ 13.1 mm
sensor Dynamic Data
Acquisition Card
Specimen
φ 76.4 mm
Clamp plate
100 mm
Computer
Fig. 1 Schematic of the test set-up
was used for the drop-weight tests. In this test, the
impact mass is kept at a constant of 2.65 kg through-
out the tests. Upon release, the free-falling impactor
would fall along two smooth guided columns, and
through the centre hole of the clamp plate of diame-
ter 76.4 mm to strike the specimen.
The specimen was positioned between the top and
bottom clamp plates, with the mid-point of the plate
directly located underneath the impactor. The sup-
port fixture for the specimen facilitated circular
clamped condition. After the first impact, the
rebound brake was activated to support the cross-
head, and thus the impactor was only allowed to
strike the specimen once. Transient response of the
samples included the velocity and deflection of the
impactor, as well as load, as a function of time. The
total displacement of impactor and bottom skin
deflection was recorded as a function of time with a
data acquisition system. Graphical plots were then
generated using data collected from the data acquisi-
tion system.
For the sandwich panels in these experiments,
skins were made of acrylic material, while honey-
comb core was made of Nomex paper. The mechan-
ical properties of acrylic were obtained using
standard tests. While the compression property of
Nomex paper has been investigated using standard
compression tests, these data were published in Foo
et al. [17]. Two groups of sandwich specimens were
conducted by drop-weight tests: (a) the skins were
bonded with the core with Araldite 2012; (b) the
skins and the core were unbonded. Each specimen
is made of two acrylic plates of size 100  100 mm2
and a honeycomb core made of Nomex paper with
a height 15 mm. The cell size of each honeycomb core
is 6 mm, while acrylic plates of thicknesses 1.5, 2, and
3 mm are used, respectively. The specimens were
impacted with velocities 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.7, and 2.3 m/s.
In total, there were more than 30 specimens tested,
 Effect of adhesive in sandwich panels 173

as listed in Table 1. Each configuration was tested panels. In the first stage, the contact force increases
at least twice to ensure that the test results were linearly with impact displacement until the force
repeated and thus consistent with some degree of reaches the initial threshold force. After that, the con-
reliability. tact force usually increases slightly and non-linearly
For bonded and unbonded sandwich panels as to reach the maximum force. In the last stage, the
well as the monolithic acrylic panel, curves of contact contact force decreases dramatically with impact
force with impactor displacement are shown in Figs 2 displacement.
and 3. It can be seen in these figures that there are In the case of the unbonded sandwich panels, the
three stages for the response of the contact force with initial response of the force versus displacement
impact displacement for the bonded sandwich curve is linear until it reaches a level that radial crack-
ing of the acrylic is initiated. After that, the load drops
and then the force increases and fluctuates with
increasing displacement until either the circumferen-
Table 1 Test configuration for Dynatup drop-weight
test
tial failure is achieved or the impactor rebounds.
These responses were similar to those of the mono-
Velocity (m/s) Thickness of acrylic (mm) Specimen type
lithic acrylic panels. The details of the low-velocity
0.7 1.5 2 3 Bonded impact response of acrylic panels have recently
1.5 2 3 Unbonded
0.8 1.5 2 3 Bonded
been reported [15].
1.5 2 3 Unbonded
0.9 1.5 2 3 Bonded
1.5 2 3 Unbonded
3 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
1.7 1.5 2 3 Bonded
1.5 2 3 Unbonded To investigate the impact response of failure process
2.3 1.5 2 3 Bonded
1.5 2 3 Unbonded in both the bonded and unbonded sandwich panels

(a) 0.6
(a) 0.7
Initial threshold force Bonded
0.6 0.5

0.5 Bonded 0.4 Unbonded

Force, kN

Maximum force
Force, kN

0.4 0.3
0.3
0.2 Acrylics
0.2 Unbonded
0.1
0.1 Acrylics
0
0 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Displacement of Impactor, mm
Displacement of Impactor, mm
(b) 1 (b) 1.2
0.9 Bonded
Bonded
1
0.8
0.7 0.8
Force, kN

0.6
Unbonded
Force, kN

0.5 0.6
0.4 Unbonded
0.4
0.3 Acrylics
0.2 0.2
0.1
0
Acrylics 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement of Impactor, mm Displacement of Impactor, mm

Fig. 2 Contact force versus displacement of impactor Fig. 3 Comparison of contact force versus displace-
for impact velocity 0.7 m/s ment plots

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications

Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on July 15, 2015
174
(a) 100 mm
100 mm
clamped R=6.55 mm R=38.2 mm
region
Fig. 4 Finite element and solid models of sandwich panel
using finite element analysis, the drop-weight tests
were simulated using ABAQUS/Explicit. A finite
element model of a sandwich panel subjected
to a low-velocity mass impact is shown in Fig. 4.
Figure 4(a) shows the plan and side view of the
finite element model; it is seen that clamped regions
outside the radius of 38.2 mm are assigned with fully
fixed constraints. Figure 4(b) gives the isometric view
of the solid model with and without the top skin.
The bonded and unbonded sandwich panels were
modelled with real dimensions and geometries with
the details shown in Fig. 4. The impactor was mod-
elled as a hemispherical volume of radius 6.55 mm as
in the experimental set-up. The input density of this
volume is equivalent to impact mass 2.65 kg. To
save computational time, the impactor was placed
just on top of the sandwich panel and an initial veloc-
ity was specified. The prescribed velocities are listed
in Table 1.
For compatibility, the core was meshed with four-
node thick shell reduced integration elements (S4R)
and the skin was meshed with eight-node linear solid
reduced integration elements (C3D8R). The mesh
near to contact area was refined and there were four
elements in the thickness direction for skin after
conducting mesh sensitivity analysis.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications
Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on July 15, 2015
S Zhu and G B Chai
(b)
clamped
region
hf
hc
(c) 3D view
hf
The mechanical property of Nomex core was
specified to be elastic–plastic with elastic modulus
3.40 GPa, Poisson’s ratio 0.4, and yield stress
30 MPa. The dimensions of the core are kept constant:
core cell size of 6 mm and core thickness hc ¼ 15 mm.
Acrylic material was specified as a linear elastic frac-
ture mechanics with an elastic modulus 3.13 GPa,
Poisson’s ratio 0.32, and the fracture stresses 55, 51,
and 46 MPa for values of thickness hf 1.5, 2, and 3 mm,
respectively, obtained from standard ASTM D3039
standard tests [18].
Initial velocity was specified to the impactor and
the contact force, displacements, stress, and strain
of the system were output. For interaction property,
general contact was defined between sandwich panel
and the impactor so that contact would take place
automatically as soon as the skin failed.
In the finite element models, the difference
between unbonded and bonded sandwich panels is
that skins and the core were tied together for bonded
sandwich panel while contact with friction was
defined instead for unbonded sandwich panel.
Typical finite element results of the bonded and
unbonded sandwich panels are shown in Fig. 5.
The comparisons showed the presence of adhesive
on the load versus displacement response, the
 Effect of adhesive in sandwich panels 175

deformation process, and the failure modes of the initial threshold force at least 1.5 times higher when
sandwich panel. subjected to impact load.

4.2 Maximum force

4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS The maximum force values for different types of
sandwich panels and different impact velocities are
The experimental results were analysed and pre- listed in Table 2. For relatively low-velocity impact,
sented in detail in this section. The impact responses the impactor will rebound and the maximum force
and modes of failure of bonded and unbonded sand- for bonded sandwich panel is much larger than that
wich panels subjected to impact load are found to be of unbonded sandwich panel. However, at higher
quite different. To compare the impact response impact velocity, the differences between the maxi-
behaviour of bonded and unbonded sandwich mum forces decrease. At the impact of velocity
panels, four main critical points were identified and higher than 1.7 m/s, the differences are trivial and
discussed in the following subsections.

4.1 Initial threshold force

2.5 1.5 mm thick
To examine the effect of adhesive in sandwich panels 2.0 mm thick
3.0 mm thick
in the elastic stage of the impact response, the ratio of 2
initial threshold load for bonded over that for
Load Ratio, ζ

1.5
unbonded sandwich panel is used
Fbcrt 1
¼ crt ð1Þ
Funb
0.5
where Fbcrt and crt
Funb
are the respective threshold loads
0
of bonded and unbonded sandwich panels subjected 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.7 2.3
to impact load. The ratios of initial threshold loads Impact Velocity, m/s
with different velocities were plotted in Fig. 6.
Fig. 6 The ratios of initial threshold force of bonded
It can be seen in Fig. 6 that the ratio  ranged from sandwich panel to that of unbonded sandwich
1.5 to 2.5. This means, for a sandwich panel with brit- panel
tle skins, bonding the skins to the core produces an

(b)

(a) 0.6

Bonded
0.5

0.4 A
Unbonded panel (Point A)
Force, kN

0.3

0.2 B Unbonded

0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Displacement of impactor, mm

Bonded panel (Point B)

Fig. 5 Finite element results for sandwich panels (skin thickness 1.5 mm and velocity 0.7 m/s)

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications

Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on July 15, 2015
176 S Zhu and G B Chai

Table 2 Maximum force values for bonded and unbonded sandwich panels
Velocity (m/s)
Thickness (mm) Skin conditions 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.7 2.3
1.5 Bonded 0.46 0.60 0.55 0.73 0.73
Unbonded 0.21 0.40 0.45 0.59 0.53
2 Bonded 0.63 0.66 0.73 0.84 0.95
Unbonded 0.32 0.43 0.45 0.89 0.93
3 Bonded 0.99 1.17 1.15 1.22 1.19
Unbonded 0.65 0.51 0.74 1.19 1.48

2.2 this linear slope is calculated here and regarded as the

structural stiffness of sandwich panel.
2
In the elastic stage, the structural stiffness of
bonded sandwich panel is much larger than that of
Force Ratio, η

1.8
unbonded sandwich panel. The structural stiffness
1.6 initial threshold force of bonded sandwich panel increases with increasing
maximum force thickness of the skin, which agrees well with former
1.4 research work. It is interesting to note that the stiff-
ness of unbonded sandwich panel decreases with
1.2 increasing thickness of the skin. The fact that the
stiffness of unbonded sandwich panel decreases
1
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 with increasing thickness of skins is due to the sliding
Impact velocity, m/s of the core and hence, the inability of the sandwich
panel to transfer the stress in the core thickness
Fig. 7 The ratio of maximum force of bonded sand- direction. This is observed in the finite element
wich panel to that of unbonded sandwich panel result of unbonded sandwich panel which shows
for different impact velocities
the core under the area of contact slants. After
deformation, the core deforms significantly and
thereby the structural stiffness decreases significantly
thereafter.
the maximum force for both cases can be regarded as The downward movement of the impactor is com-
the same. posed of bending and shear deformation as well as
The ratio of maximum force for bonded sandwich the indentation of the top skin. Bending and shear
panel, Fbmax , to that of the unbonded sandwich panel, stiffnesses of bonded sandwich panel are given by
max
Funb , is calculated using the following [15, 17]

Fbmax 8E ðhc þ hf Þ2 hf

¼ max ð2Þ Kb ¼ ð3Þ
Funb ð3 þ Þð1  ÞRp2

The ratios and  for each impact velocities were 4Gc ðhc þ hf Þ2
Ks ¼ ð4Þ
averaged and compared, as shown in Fig. 7. The hc ð1 þ 2 ln Rp =Rc Þ
figure shows that for low velocity, the maximum
force of bonded sandwich panel is nearly double where E and are the elastic modulus and Poisson’s
that of the unbonded sandwich panel. However, for ratio of skin and Gc the shear modulus of the core; hc
higher impact velocity, there is little difference and hf the height of the core and thickness of the
between the two. In contrast, the ratios for initial skins; Rc Rp and the contact radius and boundary dis-
threshold force hovers around the factor of two tance of the panels.
The relationship of indentation to contact force is
throughout the range of impact velocity studied.
quite complex and has been investigated extensively
[6, 15] and in the linear elastic region, the slope of
4.3 Structural stiffness of sandwich panels load–indentation adopted here was from Yigit and
Christoforou [19]
As discussed in the earlier section, the initial stage of
load–deflection curve is rather linear and the slope of K ¼ 20 Ri ð5Þ

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications

Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on July 15, 2015
 Effect of adhesive in sandwich panels 177

where 0 is the yield stress for ductile material and The transverse stiffness for the plate resting on
fracture stress for brittle material. elastic foundation is also given [20]
The structural stiffness of the bonded sandwich pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
panels, K , is therefore determined as Ktop ¼ 8 kD ð8Þ
3
f
Eh
1 1 1 1 where D ¼ 12ð1 2 Þ is the bending rigidity of skin. The
¼ þ þ ð6Þ bottom skin which is subjected to uniform pressure
K K Kb Ks
from the elastic foundation approximately and the
The structural stiffness of unbonded sandwich transverse stiffness can be written as
panel can be deduced from a circular plate resting
64D
on elastic foundation, as shown in Fig. 8. To explore Kbottom ¼ ð9Þ
the relationship between the contact force with the Rp2
displacement of the impactor, the top skin is mod- Considering that the load acting on the unbonded
elled as a plate resting on elastic foundation with a sandwich panel can be transferred to boundary from
modulus of foundation in thickness direction given 0
top skin to bottom skin, the structural stiffness of K
by Timoshenko and Krieger [20] can be written as
Ec 0
K ¼ Ktop þ Kbottom ð10Þ
k¼ ð7Þ
hc
Substituting equations (7) to (9) into equation (10),
where  and Ec are the relative density and Young’s it yields
modulus of the core. The top skin is subjected to a sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
central concentrated load, P, and resting on the foun- 0 Ec D 64D
dation, while the bottom skin is subjected to the pres- K ¼ 8 þ ð11Þ
hc Rp2
sure from the elastic foundation.
The results obtained using equations (6) and (11)
are compared with data obtained from the experi-
ments, and these are shown in Fig. 9.
P In bonded sandwich panel, the core and the skins
are perfectly merged together and the stiffness would
Skin
decrease only if the core buckles or the skins fail.
However, in unbonded sandwich panel, the core
and the skins are independent; thus, the shear trans-
Core k ferring from top skin to the core and to bottom skin is
lacking. In most sandwich structures, the strength of
core is much less than the skins and this is also true
Skin
for their stiffness. As a result, the core does not con-
tribute significantly in unbonded sandwich panels
Fig. 8 Sketch of an unbonded sandwich panel with a with thicker skin. As shown in Fig. 9, the stiffness of
central concentrated load
bonded sandwich panel is more than 3.5 times larger

1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
Structural Stiffness, MN/m
Structural Stiffness, MN/m

1.4 1.4
1.2 Bonded 1.2 Bonded
1 Unbonded 1 Unbonded
Eq.(6) Eq.(6)
0.8 Eq. (11) 0.8 Eq. (11)

0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Thickness of skin, mm Thickness of skin, mm

Fig. 9 The structural stiffness of bonded and unbonded sandwich panels in comparison with
analytical solution (symbols represent experimental data and lines theory)

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications

Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on July 15, 2015
178 S Zhu and G B Chai

than that of the unbonded sandwich panel with the causes the core to buckle. At the final failure stage,
same skin thickness. circumferential cracks appear in top skin and the
contact force decreases sharply.
In the finite element results for the bonded sand-
4.4 Failure mechanisms
wich panel, the conjunct nodes will not separate
Looking at the failure mechanism involved, it can be during impact. However, for the unbonded sandwich
seen that both bonded and unbonded sandwich panel, separation appears. Take the specimen of the
panels failed in a similar fashion. At first, the panels unbonded sandwich panel with skin thickness 3 mm;
deform linearly at the onset of contact. With the fur- for example, a representative node, N, which is a node
ther downward movement of the impactor, radial at the common point between the core and skin, was
cracks start to appear on the bottom surface of the selected to examine the sliding of the skin over the
top skin due to tensile stress exceeding the fracture core. A node in the core facing the impactor is
stress. Contact force increases nearly linearly with the selected and the compressive stress of this node was
displacement of impactor during this stage. Then, the compared for both the bonded and unbonded sand-
top skin deforms significantly into the core and wich panels, as shown in Fig. 10. The strain of the core

18 Exp-Bonded
x x 1.4 Exp-Unbonded
16 FEA-Bonded
FEA-Unbonded B
onset of U
Compressive Stress, MPa

14 1.2
fracture
12
1
10
Force, kN

0.8
8
6 0.6
4
Bonded 0.4
2
Unbonded
0 0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Displacement of impactor, mm 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Fig. 10 Compression stress of the core for bonded and Displacement of Impactor, mm
unbonded sandwich panels in elastic stage
Fig. 12 Load–deflection curves of test panels with
for skin thickness 3 mm and impact velocity
thickness 3 mm and velocity 1.7 m/s
2.3 m/s

1.8
1.2 Exp-Bonded
Exp-Bonded Exp-Unbonded B
Exp-Unbonded 1.6 FEA-Bonded
FEA-Bonded FEA-Unbonded
1 U
1.4
FEA-Unbonded

0.8 1.2
Force, kN
Force, kN

1
0.6
0.8

0.4 0.6

0.4
0.2
0.2

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8
Displacement of Impactor, mm Displacement of Impactor, mm

Fig. 11 Load–deflection curves of panels with thick- Fig. 13 Load–deflection curves of test panels with
ness 2 mm and velocity 2.3 m/s thickness 3 mm and velocity 2.3 m/s

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications

Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on July 15, 2015
 Effect of adhesive in sandwich panels 179

Fig. 14 Fracture for bonded panel with skin thickness 2 mm and impact velocity 0.9 m/s

Fig. 15 The failure modes of acrylic panel [18]

in bonded sandwich panel increases nearly linearly
but the strain in unbonded sandwich panel increases
non-linearly.
The obvious differences between the failure mech-
anism in bonded and unbonded sandwich panels are
as follows.
1. The acrylic skin in bonded sandwich panels failed
locally, which is very similar to that of composite
sandwich panel.
2. The skin in unbounded sandwich panel failed with
a larger area of radial and circumferential cracks.
The core does not affect the skin failure.

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications

Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on July 15, 2015
180
Fig. 16 Fracture for unbonded panel with skin thickness 2 mm and impact velocity 1.7 m/s
5 COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL WITH
FINITE ELEMENT RESULTS
The contact force versus impactor displacement
results obtained from experiments and finite element
analysis are compared in Figs 11 to 13 for various
skin thicknesses and impact velocities. For clarity,
the symbols ‘B’ and ‘U’ on the solid curve lines in
Figs 12 and 13 refer to responses of the bonded and
unbonded specimens, respectively. The initial linear
slopes of the curves are well predicted even up to the
point of initial threshold force. However, the subse-
quent failure points were not captured using the
present finite element model, especially for higher
velocity impact. The fact that the interface of adhesive
failure was not analysed could be the main reason
for the discrepancies between the two results after
initial threshold stage. The oscillations after the
initial threshold point could probably be due to a
combination of panel vibration and crack progres-
sion. These oscillations are more pronounced in the
finite element results than those found in the exper-
imental results.
The final failure modes, however, are well predicted
using the current finite element model, as shown in
Figs 14 and 15. These figures compare experimentally
obtained failure modes of the bonded and
unbounded sandwich panels with those obtained
using finite element analysis. The failure modes of
the unbounded sandwich panels of Fig. 14 indicate
that radial cracks developed first and this failure
mode is similar to that obtained for the case of the
monolithic acrylic panels, as shown in Fig. 15 [18].
However, the circumferential cracks that developed
Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications
Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on July 15, 2015
S Zhu and G B Chai
in unbonded sandwich panels have a smaller radius
as compared to that of acrylic panels.
Comparing the failure modes of the bonded sand-
wich panels (Fig. 16) with those of the unbonded
sandwich panels (Fig. 14), it can be seen showed
that the areas where radial and circumferential
cracks developed in bonded sandwich structures are
very localized than those found in unbonded sand-
wich panels. With the bonding between the skins and
the core, the failure area can be approximated as the
projected area of impactor head.
6 CONCLUSION
Details of an experimental and finite element study of
sandwich panels with bonded skins and unbonded
skins subjected to low velocity were presented. The
study of the impact response of the acrylic skin panel
was also included for comparison and completeness.
Some conclusions can be drawn from the comparison
of the results of bonded sandwich panel subjected to
impact load with those of the unbonded sandwich
panel.
1. The initial linear elastic load for a bonded sand-
wich panel subjected to impact load is at least 1.5
times that of the unbonded panel, and this can be
predicted quite accurately.
2. The maximum force increases significantly on
bonding the core and skins, but the magnitude of
the maximum force approaches the value of the
unbonded sandwich panel as the impact velocity
increases.
 Effect of adhesive in sandwich panels
3. The structural stiffness of bonded sandwich panel
is more than three times that of unbonded sand-
wich panel. Thicker skin enhances the structural
stiffness of bonded sandwich panel distinctly but
has little influence on the structural stiffness of
unbonded sandwich panel.
4. The failure modes are well predicted though the
paths to failure are not satisfactorily predicted.
New but simple expressions to calculate the initial
stiffness of the bonded and unbonded panels were
also developed and presented in this contribution.
The comparisons of results show the usefulness of
these expressions. It is anticipated that the effect of
impact velocity and the use of the actual force–dis-
placement response of the contact point should be
included in these expressions.
ß Authors 2011
REFERENCES
1 Zhang, T. G. and Stronge, W. J. Theory for ballistic
limit of thin ductile tubes hit by blunt missiles. Int. J.
Mech. Sci., 1996, 18, 735–752.
2 Zhou, D. W. and Stronge, W. J. Mechanical properties
of fibrous core sandwich panels. Int. J. Mech. Sci.,
2005, 47, 775–798.
3 Abrate, S. Impact on composite structures, 1998
(Cambridge University Press, UK).
4 Michelle, S., Fatt, H., and Sirivolu, D. A wave propa-
gation model for the high velocity impact response of
a composite sandwich panel. Int. J. Impact Engng.,
2010, 37, 117–130.
5 Shaker, M., Ko, F., and Song, J. Comparison of the low
and high velocity impact response of Kevlar fiber-
reinforced epoxy composites. J. Compos. Techn. Res.,
1999, 21(4), 1–6.
6 Styles, M., Compston, P., and Kalyanasundaram, S.
The effect of core thickness on the flexural behaviour
of aluminium foam sandwich structures. Compos.
Struct., 2007, 80, 532–538.
7 Dai, G. M. and Zhang, W. H. Size effects of basic cell in
static analysis of sandwich beams. Int. J. Solids Struct.,
2008, 45, 2512–2533.
8 Chi, Y., Langdon, G. S., and Nurick, G. N. The influ-
ence of core height and face plate thickness on the
Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications
Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on July 15, 2015
181
response of honeycomb sandwich panels subjected
to blast loading. Mater. Des., 2010, 31, 1887–1899.
9 Burton, W. S. and Noor, A. K. Structural analysis
of the adhesive bond in a honeycomb core sand-
wich panel. Finite Elem. Anal. Des., 1997, 26,
213–227.
10 Huang, S. J. An analytical method for calculating the
stress and strain in adhesive layers in sandwich
beams. Compos. Struct., 2003, 60, 105–114.
11 Jen, Y. M., Ko, C. W., and Lin, H. B. Effect of the
amount of adhesive on the bending fatigue strength
of adhesively bonded aluminum honeycomb sand-
wich beams. Int. J. Fatigue, 2009, 31, 455–462.
12 Rion, J., Leterrier, Y., and Jan-Anders, X. Prediction
of the adhesive fillet size for skin to honeycomb core
bonding in ultra-light sandwich structures.
Composites: Part A, 2008, 38, 1547–1555.
13 Can, W., Hao-ran, C., and Zhen-kun, L.
Experimental investigation of interfacial fracture
behavior in foam core sandwich beams with visco-
elastic adhesive interface. Compos. Struct., 2010, 92,
1085–1091.
14 Goswamia, S. and Becker, W. The effect of face-
sheet/core delamination in sandwich structures
under transverse loading. Compos. Struct., 2001,
54(4), 515–521.
15 Zhou, D. W. and Stronge, W. J. Dynamic indentation
of lightweight sandwich panels. In Proceedings of
the 11th European Conference on Composite mate-
rials, 31 May–3 June 2004, Rhodes, Greece.
16 Mines, R., McKown, S., and Birch, R. S. Impact of
aircraft rubber tyre fragments on aluminium alloy
plates: I Experimental. Int. J. Impact Engng., 2007,
34, 627–646.
17 Foo, C. C., Chai, G. B., and Seah, L. K. Mechanical
properties of Nomex material and Nomex honey-
comb structure. Compos. Struct., 2007, 80(4),
588–594.
18 Zhu, S. and Chai, G. B. Ductile and Brittle Material
Failures in Low-Velocity Impact. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal
of Materials Design and Application, 2010, 224(4),
162–172.
19 Yigit, A. S. and Christoforou, A. P. On the impact
between a rigid sphere and a thin composite lami-
nate supported by a rigid substrate. Compos. Struct.,
1995, 30, 169–177.
20 Timoshenko, S. and Krieger, S. W. Theory of
plates and shells, 2nd ed., 1959 (McGraw-Hill,
New York).