Thin-Walled Structures 169 (2021) 108389

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Full length article

The impact resistance of composite Y-shaped cores sandwich structure

Sheng Yu a , Xiaofei Yu d , Yaoliang Ao a , Jie Mei a , Weimin Jiang a , Jiayi Liu a,b,c ,∗, Can Li a ,
Wei Huang a
a
School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, PR China
b Hubei Key Laboratory of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering Hydrodynamics (HUST), Wuhan 430074, PR China
c Collaborative Innovation Center for Advanced Ship and Deep-Sea Exploration (CISSE), Shanghai 200240, PR China
d Science and Technology on Reactor System Design Technology Laboratory, Nuclear Power Institute of China, Chengdu, 610041, PR China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In this study, a series of ballistic impact tests were performed to investigate the impact resistance and failure
Sandwich structures modes of composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores in the experiment and finite element method
Ballistic impact (FEM). A number of impact experiments were carried out to obtain the ballistic limit velocity and failure
Mechanical testing
modes of the sandwich structures. Furthermore, based on the Hashin and Yeh failure criteria, a progressive
Failure mode
damage model was introduced into the user subroutine VUMAT to simulate the impact responses of the
sandwich structure in Abaqus/Explicit. The residual velocity, ballistic limit velocity and failure modes were
presented experimentally and numerically, and a good agreement was found between the numerical results
and experimental results. The results shown that the front face sheet of the sandwich structures experienced
shear failure at all impact tests, while the delamination and cracking were observed on the rear face sheet.
The platform and flange played important roles in resisting impact loading at low impact velocity, while
the vertical leg made important contributions for the impact resistance at high impact velocity as well. The
ballistic limit velocity of the structure was adopted to quantitatively evaluate the anti-impact effect of sandwich
structure with Y-shaped core. The ballistic limit velocity of composite sandwich structure was 133.2 m/s, while
the ballistic limit velocity of the laminate was 115.3 m/s. The ballistic limit velocity of composite sandwich
structure increased by 15.52% compared with that of the laminate. By comparison, it could be reasonably
concluded that the impact resistance capabilities of composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores were
superior to that of the laminate. Moreover, the effect of the impact position on the impact response was studied
in the numerical simulation.

1. Introduction
The sandwich structure was widely used in aerospace [1–3], naval
architecture and ocean engineering [4,5], automotive industry [6], civil
engineering [7–11] and other fields, due to its excellent mechanical
properties and lightweight design effect [12,13]. This structure was typ-
ically made up of the front and rear face sheets and a lightweight core,
wherein the front and rear face sheets mainly resisted normal stress
and shear stress in the plane, while the core experienced compressive
stress and transverse stress primarily [14–17]. Based on the lightweight
design concept, various core designs had been proposed, including truss
cores [18–20], corrugated cores [21–24], honeycomb cores [25–28]
and others. Furthermore, the carbon fiber composite sandwich structure
had the advantages of chemical stability, corrosion resistance and light
weight, which caught attentions of researchers.
Recently, composite sandwich structure gradually exhibited fab-
ulous and conspicuous advantages in mechanical properties. Xiong
et al. [29] studied the effect of the thickness of the face sheet on the
flexural response of a composite curved panel with pyramidal metallic
truss cores experimentally and numerically. It found that the core
debonding and localized buckling instabilities played an important role
in bending strength. Sharaf et al. [30] studied the bending behavior
of the large scale sandwich panels using the finite element method.
The results showed that the sandwich panels satisfied the design code
requirements according to the strength and stiffness. Wang et al. [31]
proposed a lightweight composite X-type lattice sandwich structure. It
found that the X-type lattice sandwich structure performed better in
resisting compressive and shear load, compared to the lattice sandwich
structure. Liu et al. [32] studied the energy absorption characteristic of
composite sandwich structure. The experiment exhibited better energy
absorption compared with composite sandwich structures with metallic
face sheets. Sabah et al. [33,34] researched the low-velocity impact
behavior of the bio-inspired sandwich beam and constructed the failure

∗ Corresponding author at: School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, PR China.
E-mail address: liujiayi@hust.edu.cn (J. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2021.108389
Received 2 June 2021; Received in revised form 13 August 2021; Accepted 27 August 2021
Available online xxxx
0263-8231/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Yu, X. Yu, Y. Ao et al. Thin-Walled Structures 169 (2021) 108389

Table 1
Geometric parameters of the unit cell of the Y-shaped core.
Category Value
Height of the leg ℎ = 18 mm
Height of the overall height 𝐻 = 27 mm
Inclined angle of the Y-flanges 𝛼 = 45◦
The web size 𝑒 = 2 mm

mode maps of the bio-inspired beam. The bio-inspired beam exhibited

the better impact resistance compared with the conventional beam.
Composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores were widely
studied by researchers. Liu et al. [35] proposed the fabrication process
of composite sandwich structures with Y-shaped cores using the hot-
press molding technology, and investigated the influence of different
relative densities on the failure mode and compressive resistance of
this structure. The result shown that increasing the relative density of
the unit cell was able to improve the compression resistance of the
structure. Zhou et al. [36] studied the compressive response and failure
behavior of composite sandwich structures with Y-shaped cores under
high temperature environments. The results shown that the high tem-
perature environment weakened the performance of epoxy resin, which
Fig. 1. A unit cell schematic of composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores.
would reduce the compressive stiffness and strength of the structure.
From above literatures, composite sandwich structures with Y-shaped
Table 2
cores had excellent mechanical properties under quasi-static loading,
Mechanical properties of the carbon fiber reinforced polymer lamina [35].
but few references studied the impact resistance of such structure. In
Mechanical properties Symbol Value
order to fill in gaps in the dynamic mechanical performance of this
Longitudinal modulus (MPa) 𝐸11 100000
sandwich structure, further studies were needed to reveal the impact
Transverse modulus (MPa) 𝐸22 8000
resistance and failure modes of such composite sandwich structure Out-of-plane modulus (MPa) 𝐸33 8000
under ballistic impact loading. Poisson’s ratio 𝜈12 , 𝜈13 , 𝜈23 0.21, 0.21, 0.3
In the present study, a number of ballistic impact tests were per- Shear modulus (MPa) 𝐺12 , 𝐺13 , 𝐺23 4000, 4000, 3000
Shear strength (MPa) 𝑆12 , 𝑆13 , 𝑆23 104, 104, 86
formed to analyze the impact resistance and failure mode of the sand-
Longitudinal tensile strength (MPa) 𝑋𝑇 2100
wich structure. The numerical simulation was carried out to predict the Longitudinal compressive strength (MPa) 𝑋𝐶 700
impact response and failure mechanism. In order to evaluate the impact Transverse tensile strength (MPa) 𝑌𝑇 42
performance of the structure, an equivalent laminate with same areal Transverse compressive strength (MPa) 𝑌𝐶 160
mass was adopted to compare as a blank reference. The ballistic limit Out-of-plane tensile strength (MPa) 𝑍𝑇 42
Out-of-plane compressive strength (MPa) 𝑍𝐶 160
velocity and energy absorption capability of the structures had been
Density (kg/m3 ) 𝜌 1500
developed according to the test results. Furthermore, the analysis was
carried out to characterize the failure modes of composite sandwich
structure. In addition, the effect of different impact position on the
failure modes was studied in the numerical simulation. were stacked with 12 layers prepregs respectively, and the stacking
sequence was [0◦ /90◦ /0◦ /90◦ /0◦ /90◦ ]s . The total thickness of the face
2. Experimental details sheet and Y-shaped core was 1.2 mm. The detailed manufacturing
processes were as follows: (i) Preparation stage. Some release agent
2.1. Sandwich panel fabrication was brushed on the unit molds surface. The carbon/epoxy prepregs
were cut to the required size according to the design requirement. Then
The unit cell configuration of composite sandwich structure with the carbon/epoxy prepregs were stacked into the laminates in term of
Y-shaped cores was presented in Fig. 1. To better define the Y-shaped the designed stacking sequence, which would be used to fabricate the
core, a variety of geometric parameters were introduced, such as the face sheets and Y-shaped core of composite sandwich structure. The 6
inclined angle 𝛼 of the Y-flanges, the thickness t of the constituent layers carbon/epoxy prepregs were stacked on the surface of the unit
members, the height h of the vertical leg of the Y-shaped cores, the molds as shown in Fig. 2(a). (ii) Assembly stage. The unit molds stacked
size e of the platform and the overall height H. These parameters with prepregs were combined to form a complete mold, and another
referenced the dimension of the metallic sandwich structure with Y- 6 layers of prepregs were stacked on the upper and lower surfaces.
shaped core [37,38]. In addition, the specific values of the above Subsequently, the mold was tightened with nuts on both ends as shown
geometric parameters were listed in Table 1. According to the geometry in Fig. 2(b). (iii) Curing stage. The preformed sandwich structure was
characteristic of composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores, the cured for 1.5 h at 125 ◦ C as shown in Fig. 2(c). (iv) Demold stage.
relative density of the unit cell was calculated by The mold was cooled to room temperature after curing. The unit molds
were then separated from the structure by loosening nuts and knocking
2(𝐻 − ℎ) sin−1 𝛼 + 2𝑒 + 𝑡 + ℎ out the mold as shown in Fig. 2(d). In the experiment, due to the
𝜌= 𝑡 (1)
𝐻𝐿 limitation of the impact test setup, specimen has three unit cells along
where 𝐿 = 4𝑒 + 2(𝐻 − ℎ) cot 𝛼 + 𝑡. the transverse direction. The surface size of the specimen was 120 mm
Composite sandwich structures with Y-shaped cores were fabricated × 120 mm, but the effective impact area of the projectile was 90 mm
using the unidirectional carbon/epoxy prepregs by hot-press molding × 90 mm. Composite sandwich structures with Y-shaped cores for the
technique. The mechanical properties of the carbon fiber reinforced ballistic impact test were shown in Fig. 3.
polymer lamina [35] were listed in Table 2. The prepregs were supplied In order to reveal the impact resistance capacity of composite
by Shanghai Xinao Composites Technology Research and Development sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores, the ballistic impact properties
Center. The constituent members of the Y-shaped cores and face sheet of a laminate with the same areal mass were also tested. The thickness

2
S. Yu, X. Yu, Y. Ao et al. Thin-Walled Structures 169 (2021) 108389

Fig. 2. Schematic for the fabrication of composite Y-shaped cores sandwich structure: (a) stacking the unidirectional carbon/epoxy prepregs; (b) assembling the mold and stacking
face sheets; (c) curing the preformed sandwich structure; (d) removing the molds from the specimen after curing.

Fig. 3. The impact test specimens of composite sandwich structures with Y-shaped cores.

Table 3
Geometric parameters of cylindrical projectile.
Category Value
Diameter (mm) 𝐷 = 12.67
Height (mm) 𝐻1 = 34.48

ballistic impact tests of composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped

cores, it was important to select the appropriate projectile loading
method. Combined the specific conditions of the test sample with
the experimental equipment, a flat-headed cylindrical projectile was
selected in this paper. The geometric parameters of the projectile used
in the experiment were listed in Table 3.

2.2. Ballistic impact test

The ballistic impact tests of composite sandwich structure with Y-

Fig. 4. (a) Composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores; (b) a laminate with the
same areal mass.
of the laminate was 4.6 mm. The size of the laminate was also 120 mm
× 120 mm, which was same as the surface size of composite sandwich
structure with Y-shaped cores, as shown in Fig. 4. The effective impact
area of the laminate was also 90 mm × 90 mm. In addition, for the
shaped cores were performed using a one-stage gas gun as shown in
Fig. 5. The impact resistance capacity of composite sandwich structure
was assessed under impact loading by flat-headed cylindrical projectile,
and the ballistic velocity of the projectile ranged from 70 m/s to
230 m/s. A high-speed camera was placed at the front of the view
window, which was used to monitor the entire impact process for
composite sandwich structure and laminate. The initial velocity and
residual velocity of the projectile, and the failure process of the target
could be recorded by the high-speed camera.

3
S. Yu, X. Yu, Y. Ao et al. Thin-Walled Structures 169 (2021) 108389

Fig. 5. Schematic of the impact experimental setup.

The pedestal and fixture were restricted in all directions, while the
movement of the projectile was restricted in all direction except for the
Y-direction translational freedom. General contacts were adopted on
potential contact surfaces to avoid the mesh penetration. The friction
coefficient value of tangential friction interaction was 0.3. The projec-
tile was defined initial velocity in the Y-direction using predefined field
on the reference point which was coupled with projectile by ‘rigid-body’
constraint. The interaction property between the face sheets and cores
was ‘tie constraint’, which was used to simulate true connected relation
between the cores and face sheets.
Considering structural failure under static or dynamic loads, the
failure criteria were one of the most critical factors in the finite element
simulation, especially for composite materials. Hashin criteria [40]
were one of credible failure criteria for composite material. Hashin
and Yeh failure criteria were utilized to study the failure behaviors of
composite sandwich structure [41–43]. The strain-rate effect was not
considered in this all-composite sandwich structure. In this work, based
on the Hashin failure criteria and the Yeh delamination criteria, a pro-
Fig. 6. Numerical simulation model of composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped
cores. gressive damage model was introduced into the user-defined material
subroutine VUMAT of Abaqus/Explicit to evaluate the state of material
point. The failure criteria can be written as following equations:
3. Numerical simulation Fiber tensile failure factor:
( ) ( ) ( )
𝜎11 2 𝜎12 2 𝜎13 2
𝑅2𝑓 𝑡 = + + , 𝜎11 ≥ 0 (2)
The impact responses of composite sandwich structure with Y- 𝑋𝑇 𝑆12 𝑆13
shaped cores were analyzed by the finite element software Abaqus, Fiber compressive failure factor:
which had a powerful nonlinear analysis function to simulate the ( )
failure of the composite. Abaqus/Explicit solver was utilized to solve 𝜎11 2
𝑅2𝑓 𝑐 = , 𝜎11 < 0 (3)
the dynamic response of the entire impacting process. The numerical 𝑋𝐶
model of a flat-headed cylindrical projectile, a clamp, a specimen and Matrix tensile failure factor:
( ) ( )
a pedestal were shown in Fig. 6. The geometric size of the finite 𝜎22 + 𝜎33 2 ( 2 )
1
element (FE) model was identical with experimental test, and the 𝑅2𝑚𝑡 = + 𝜎23 − 𝜎22 𝜎33
𝑌𝑇 2
𝑆23
stacking sequence of the face sheets and Y-shaped cores in the FE model ( ) ( ) (4)
was consistent with the experimental specimen. Both the face sheets 𝜎12 2 𝜎13 2
+ + , 𝜎22 + 𝜎33 ≥ 0
and Y-shaped core were simulated by solid element C3D8R (8-node 𝑆12 𝑆13
linear brick, reduced-integration element), due to more authentic stress Matrix compressive failure factor:
distribution situation along the 3-direction of the material principal ( ) [( ) ] ( )
axis [39]. In order to approach the true experimental conditions, the 𝜎22 + 𝜎33 𝑌𝐶 2 𝜎22 + 𝜎33
𝑅2mc = −1 +
fixtures, projectile and pedestal were modeled as steel material, whose 𝑌𝐶 2𝑆23 2𝑆12
Young’s modulus 𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 = 210 GPa, Poison’s ratio 𝜈 = 0.3 and density ( )2 ( )2 ( ) (5)
𝜎12 𝜎13 1 ( 2 )
𝜌 = 7.9 × 10−9 t∕mm3 . In FE model, the mesh size of the clamp and + + + 𝜎23 − 𝜎22 𝜎33 , 𝜎22 + 𝜎33 < 0
𝑆12 𝑆13 2
𝑆23
pedestal were approximately 2.5 mm × 2.3 mm × 3 mm. The mesh size
of the projectile was close to 1 mm × 1 mm × 1 mm, and the mesh size Yeh delamination failure factor:
( ) ( ) ( )
of the sandwich structure was approximately 1 mm × 1 mm × 0.1 mm. 𝜎33 2 𝜎13 2 𝜎23 2
𝑅2𝑙𝑑 = + + , 𝜎33 ≥ 0 (6)
𝑍𝑇 𝑆13 𝑆23

4
S. Yu, X. Yu, Y. Ao et al.
where 𝑋𝑇 , 𝑋𝐶 , 𝑌𝑇 and 𝑌𝐶 denote the longitudinal or transverse ultimate
strength under tensile or compressive loading, respectively. 𝑆12 , 𝑆13
and 𝑆23 are respectively represented the ultimate shear strength com-
ponents of in-plane and out-of-plane. 𝑍𝑇 refers to the interlaminar
ultimate tensile stress of CFRP layers.
These five failure factors 𝑅𝑓 𝑡 , 𝑅𝑓 𝑐 , 𝑅𝑚𝑡 , 𝑅𝑚𝑐 and 𝑅𝑙𝑑 are quantified
for five failure modes to judge whether the corresponding damage
initiation occurs. 𝑅𝑓 𝑡 and 𝑅𝑓 𝑐 represent the fiber damage level, caused
by fiber tension and compression. 𝑅𝑚𝑡 and 𝑅𝑚𝑐 represent the matrix
damage level, due to matrix tensile and compressive effect, while 𝑅𝑙𝑑
depicts the extent of delamination failure. The damage initiation is able
to be judged by the state of 𝑅𝑖 (𝑖 = 𝑓 𝑡, 𝑓 𝑐, 𝑚𝑡, 𝑚𝑐, 𝑙𝑑) as follows:
{
no damage, 𝑅𝑖 < 1
The state of material point , (𝑖 = 𝑓 𝑡, 𝑓 𝑐, 𝑚𝑡, 𝑚𝑐, 𝑙𝑑)
damage, 𝑅𝑖 ≥ 1
The damage initiation of material point will occur once one of the
failure factors satisfy 𝑅𝑖 ≥ 1(𝑖 = 𝑓 𝑡, 𝑓 𝑐, 𝑚𝑡, 𝑚𝑐, 𝑙𝑑), but no damage of the
material point will occur when all the failure factors satisfy 𝑅𝑖 < 1(𝑖 =
𝑓 𝑡, 𝑓 𝑐, 𝑚𝑡, 𝑚𝑐, 𝑙𝑑). According to Classical Laminate Theory (CLT), the
stiffness matrix will degrade when corresponding strength criterion is
satisfied (𝑅𝑖 ≥ 1). In this numerical simulation, the stiffness of the mate-
rial point will degrade by the damage extent of the material point. The
corresponding independent damage variables 𝑑𝑖 (𝑖 = 𝑓 𝑡, 𝑓 𝑐, 𝑚𝑡, 𝑚𝑐, 𝑙𝑑)
are specified for characterizing the extent of damage and the damage
variable 𝑑𝑖 is related to the damage factor 𝑅𝑖 . The relationship between
damage factor 𝑅𝑖 and damage variable 𝑑𝑖 can be written as follows:
1 ( ) the initial velocities of the projectile were 93.8 m/s and 120.3 m/s
𝑑𝑖 = 1 − 𝑛 𝑅𝑖 ≥ 1, 𝑛 ≥ 1; 𝑖 = 𝑓 𝑡, 𝑓 𝑐, 𝑚𝑡, 𝑚𝑐, 𝑙𝑑
𝑅𝑖
In addition, it is an irreversible process once the damage of material
point occurs. In order to prevent the damage state from being restored,
the historical damage parameter 𝑑 𝑡 at time of 𝑡 can be written as
𝑖
follows:
𝑑𝑖𝑡 = max(𝑑𝑖𝜏 , 0) (𝜏 ≤ 𝑡; 𝑖 = 𝑓 𝑡, 𝑓 𝑐, 𝑚𝑡, 𝑚𝑐, 𝑙𝑑)
In the process of the programmatic iteration, when the stress at the
element integration point satisfies the Hashin or Yeh failure criteria,
the block of material point begins to fail, and the material stiffness
matrix will degrade. A set of degraded parameters 𝑤𝑖 (𝑖 = 1, … , 6) are
introduced to calculate the degraded the stiffness matrix of material.
The degraded constitutive equation of the material point and the rela-
tionship between the degraded parameter 𝑤𝑖 and damage parameter 𝑑𝑖
can be written as Eqs. (10) and (11) in Box I.
According to the degraded stiffness matrix, the state of material
point will be changed into inactive and not be reactivated when damage
parameter 𝑑𝑖 degrades to be zero, which means that material point
makes no contribution to structural stiffness and will be deleted from
FE model.
4. Results and discussions
4.1. Experimental results and discussions
4.1.1. Impact responses
In the experiment, a high-speed camera was used to capture the
impact process of each experimental sample. Depending on the ini-
tial kinetic energy of the projectile, there existed two damage modes
of the structure under this impact loading: (1) non-penetration and
(2) complete penetration. The former indicated that the front surface
was penetrated and the core was partial failure, but the projectile
rebounded from the specimen eventually.
The time of the impact response decreased with the increase of
the impact velocity. The appropriate impact moments were chosen
to reveal the impact process. The typical side view of the projectile
impacting the sandwich structure at three different velocities were
Thin-Walled Structures 169 (2021) 108389
presented in Fig. 7. When the impact velocity of the projectile was
93.8 m/s in Fig. 7(a), the projectile failed to penetrate the target
plate and its velocity decelerated to zero then rebounded. The impact
processes with an impact velocity of 133.8 m/s and 222.8 m/s were
shown in Figs. 7(b) and 7(c). The projectile successively penetrated
the front face sheet, core and rear face sheet. Fiber debris were pulled
out when the projectile penetrated the rear face sheet at 133.8 m/s.
Besides the failure mode of fiber debris, the bulge and fiber belts
emerged at 222.8 m/s and more fibers were pulled out as shown in
Fig. 7(c). According to the results of the impact processes, the sandwich
structures were penetrated due to the strong shearing ability of the
projectile at high impact velocity.
4.1.2. Failure mode
In addition to the impact response of specimens during the impact
(7) process, the damage morphology of the face sheets and cores were able
to obtain corresponding damage evolution regulation [44]. The damage
morphology figures at different impact velocities were respectively
presented in Figs. 8–10. The local damage morphology for the front
face sheet were demonstrated in Fig. 8. In these experiments, the front
face sheets of all samples were penetrated, which was due to the thin
front face sheet. The shear failure of the fibers was observed at the edge
of the hole. The shape of the perforation was circular, and the diameter
of the hole was slightly larger than the diameter of the projectile.
The local damage morphology for the rear face sheet at different
impact velocities were shown in Fig. 9. No obvious damage was ob-
served on the rear face sheet at the velocity of 70.3 m/s due to the
low impact kinetic energy of the projectile as shown in Fig. 9(a). When
(8)
as shown in Figs. 9(b)–9(c), the projectile did not cause apparent
damage on the rear face sheet except for the bulge. At the impact
velocity of 133.8 m/s, the rear face sheet was penetrated. As the impact
velocity continue increasing, the rear face sheet underwent significant
fiber/matrix rupture, delamination, and fiber belts peeling, as shown in
Figs. 9(d), (e) and (f). The failure direction of the fiber belts was similar
(9) to the orthogonal distribution, due to the orthotropic stacking sequence
between layers. There was an apparent crack extension along the path
of the Y-shaped unit cell with the increase of the impact velocity as
shown in Figs. 9(g)–9(i). This was primarily due to that the leg of the
Y-shaped core was split by the projectile in the impact process.
The Y-shaped core was an important part of the structure to resist
impact load. The failure modes of the Y-shaped cores at different impact
velocities were presented in Fig. 10. Delamination and fiber fracture
could be observed at the leg of Y-shaped core as shown in Fig. 10(a)
at 70.3 m/s and failure in the skin-core interface did not happen.
Delamination occurred at the flange, leg and skin-core interface at the
impact velocity of 93.8 m/s as shown in Fig. 10(b). Collapse occurred
at the joint between the middle platform and leg at 120.3 m/s as shown
in Fig. 10(c), which indicated that there existed a local stress concentra-
tion at the joint. Entire flange fracture occurred at 133.8 m/s as shown
in Fig. 10(d) mainly due to the stress concentration at the joint between
the flange and middle platform. Delamination emerged at the interface
between the cores and face sheets due to the interlaminar stress exceeds
the interlaminar ultimate strength at the velocity of 147.1 m/s and
158.5 m/s as shown in Figs. 10(e) and 10(f). Fiber fracture occurred at
the joint between the middle platform and leg at 172.6 m/s as shown
in Fig. 10(g) and at the middle of the flange at 200.3 m/s as shown in
Fig. 10(h). Delamination occurred at the leg at 222.8 m/s as shown in
Fig. 10(i) due to the local weak intralaminar strength of the cores. It
could be found that the platform and flange played important roles in
resisting impact loading at low velocity impact, while the vertical leg
made important contributions for the impact resistance at high impact
velocity as well. Considering the occurrence of the fiber rupture and
delamination at the leg, middle platform and flange at different impact
velocities, increasing the thickness of the cores can effectively alleviate
these damages and promote the anti-impact ability of these regions.
5
S. Yu, X. Yu, Y. Ao et al. Thin-Walled Structures 169 (2021) 108389

1 𝜈12 𝜈13
⎡ − − 0 0 0 ⎤
⎢ 𝐸11 (1 − 𝑤1 ) 𝐸22 𝐸33 ⎥
⎢ 𝜈12 1 𝜈 ⎥
⎛𝜀11 ⎞ ⎢ − 𝐸 − 23 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎛𝜎11 ⎞
22 𝐸22 (1 − 𝑤1 ) 𝐸22
⎜𝜀22 ⎟ ⎢ 𝜈13 𝜈 1 ⎥ ⎜𝜎22 ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎢ − − 23 0 0 0 ⎥⎜ ⎟
𝜀
⎜ 33 ⎟ = ⎢ 𝐸33 𝐸22 𝐸33 (1 − 𝑤3 ) ⎥ ⎜𝜎33 ⎟
1 (10)
⎜𝛾12 ⎟ ⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎜𝜏12 ⎟
⎜𝛾 ⎟ ⎢ 𝐺12 (1 − 𝑤4 ) ⎥ ⎜𝜏 ⎟
⎜ 23 ⎟ ⎢ 1 ⎥ ⎜ 23 ⎟
⎝𝛾13 ⎠ ⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎝𝜏13 ⎠
⎢ 𝐺23 (1 − 𝑤5 ) ⎥
⎢ 1 ⎥
⎣ 0 0 0 0 0
𝐺13 (1 − 𝑤6 ) ⎦

𝑤1 = max(0.0, 𝑑𝑓 ), 𝑤2 = max(0.0, 𝑑𝑓 , 𝑑𝑚 ), 𝑤3 = max(0.0, 𝑑𝑓 , 𝑑𝑑 )

𝑤4 = 𝑤2 , 𝑤5 = 𝑤6 = 𝑤3 (11)
𝑑𝑓 = max(0.0, 𝑑𝑓 𝑡 , 𝑑𝑓 𝑐 ), 𝑑𝑚 = max(0.0, 𝑑𝑚𝑡 , 𝑑𝑚𝑐 ), 𝑑𝑑 = max(0.0, 𝑑𝑙𝑑 )

Box I.

Fig. 7. The impact processes of composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores at different impact velocities: (a) 93.8 m/s; (b) 133.8 m/s; (c) 222.8 m/s.

4.2. Numerical simulation results and discussion
Initial velocity and residual velocity of the experimental results and
numerical results for composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores
and laminate, subjected to the ballistic impact at different velocities,
were listed in Table 4. The negative value of the residual velocity meant
that the projectiles failed to penetrate the target and rebounded in the
opposite direction of the initial velocity. No matter in the experiment
or numerical simulation, the ballistic limit velocity is just estimated
by fitting the function between initial incident velocity and residual
velocity. The Lambert–Jonas equation [45,46] is always utilized to
obtain the ballistic limit velocity and used to evaluate the impact
resistance performance of the sandwich structure. The detail form of
Lambert–Jonas equation is presented as Eq. (12).
{ with the experimental results. The source of the errors between the
0 𝑣𝑖 ≤ 𝑣𝑏𝑙
𝑣𝑟 = , 𝑖𝑓 (12)
𝐴(𝑣𝑝𝑖 − 𝑣𝑝𝑏𝑙 )1∕𝑝 𝑣𝑖 > 𝑣𝑏𝑙
where 𝑣𝑏𝑙 , A and p are the fitting parameters. Initial velocity 𝑣𝑖 and
residual velocity 𝑣𝑟 can obtain from Table 4. This expression had
significance only when 𝑣𝑖 > 𝑣𝑏𝑙 , and 𝑣𝑏𝑙 is the ballistic limit velocity
obtained by fitting the equation. If projectile fails to penetrate the
sandwich structure (𝑣𝑖 ≤ 𝑣𝑏𝑙 ), the residual velocity value of projectile
is defined to zero [47].
The residual velocity vs. impact velocity for numerical results and
experimental results of composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped
cores was shown in Fig. 11. The ballistic limit velocity of the exper-
iment obtained by fitting was 133.2 m/s. The ballistic limit velocity of
the numerical simulation obtained by fitting was 131.8 m/s. The error
of the ballistic limit velocity between the numerical simulation and
the experiment was 1.06%. In addition, in terms of residual velocity,
the maximal error between the numerical simulation and experimental
result was 16.2%, and the minimal error was 7.1%. It can be reasonably
proposed that the numerical simulation results were in good agreement
numerical simulation results and experimental results was mainly due
to the manufacture defects of the experimental samples, and the sim-
ulation model did not consider the manufacture defects. Furthermore,
during the process of experiment, the impact center of the projectile
was slightly deviated from the center line of vertical leg, which caused

6
S. Yu, X. Yu, Y. Ao et al. Thin-Walled Structures 169 (2021) 108389

Fig. 8. The failure modes for the front face sheet of composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores at different impact velocities.

Fig. 9. The failure mode for the rear face sheet of composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores at different impact velocities.

7
S. Yu, X. Yu, Y. Ao et al.
Fig. 10. The failure mode for composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores at different impact velocities.
Fig. 11. Residual velocity vs. impact initial velocity for the numerical and experiment
results of composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores.
by gravity, air friction and the friction between projectile and gas gun.
The failure processes of composite sandwich structures at different
impact velocities in the numerical simulation were presented in Fig. 12.
The failure process of the structure at 93.8 m/s was shown in Fig. 12(a).
It can be seen that in the initial stage of structural response, the front
face sheet was broken due to the shear failure, and the middle platform
was broken due to the compressive load at 360 μs. As the impact
process continuing, the vertical part of the Y-shaped core became
8
Thin-Walled Structures 169 (2021) 108389
buckling and rear face sheet emerged conspicuous bulge while no pene-
tration occurred. In Fig. 12(b), the impact velocity of the projectile was
133.8 m/s. Under this impact velocity, the vertical core was completely
destroyed at 640 μs, and the rear face sheet began to fail at 960 μs. Until
1660 μs, the projectile penetrated the sandwich structure. Due to the
impact velocity of the projectile was close to the ballistic limit velocity
of the structure, the residual velocity of the projectile was 14.3 m/s. In
Fig. 12(c), the impact velocity was 222.8 m/s. At 240 μs, the front face
sheet and Y-shaped core were destroyed, and the rear face sheet began
to suffer damage from the projectile. Due to the high impact velocity
of the projectile in this case, the rear face sheet was broken down at
480 μs, and a plug was formed at the front of the projectile.
The numerical failure modes of the front face sheet of composite
sandwich structure at different impact velocities were presented in
Fig. 13. In order to clearly observe the failure mode of the front face
sheet, the cores and the rear face sheet were hidden in Abaqus. It can
be found that the front face sheet underwent shear failure within the
range of impact velocity, which was consistent with the experimental
phenomenon as shown in Fig. 8. The numerical failure modes of the
rear face sheet of composite sandwich structure at different impact
velocities were shown in Fig. 14. It can be seen that the rear face
sheet did not suffer obvious damage when the impact velocities were
below the ballistic limit velocity, while the rear face sheet occurred
fiber fracture and delamination failure when the impact velocities were
larger than the ballistic limit velocity. In conclude, the front face sheet
was penetrated by cylindrical projectile, and the rear face sheet was
also penetrated when the impact velocity was larger than ballistic limit
velocity in the numerical simulation.
The failure modes of the face sheets were dependent on the impact
velocity. For the failure mode of the rear face sheet in the experimental
results, the fibers resulting from the fiber fracture and delamination
covered the impact hole. The fiber fracture and delamination were
also observed in the numerical simulation. However, there were some
S. Yu, X. Yu, Y. Ao et al. Thin-Walled Structures 169 (2021) 108389

Fig. 12. Numerical simulation results of the failure process of composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores impacting on the middle core at different impact velocities: (a)
𝑣 = 93.8 m/s; (b) 𝑣 = 133.8 m/s; (c) 𝑣 = 222.8 m/s.

Table 4
The results for the initial velocity and residual velocity of the laminate and composite sandwich structure at different impact velocities.
Experimental results of the laminate Experimental results of composite Numerical results of composite
sandwich structure sandwich structure
V Initial velocity Residual velocity Initial velocity Residual velocity Initial velocity Residual velocity
𝑉𝑖 m∕s 𝑉𝑟 m∕s 𝑉𝑖 m∕s 𝑉𝑟 m∕s 𝑉𝑖 m∕s 𝑉𝑟 m∕s
T1 83.5 – 70.3 – 70.3 –
T2 110.5 – 93.8 – 93.8 –
T3 121.9 58.2 120.3 – 120.3 –
T4 133.5 82.7 133.8 12.3 133.8 14.3
T5 151.9 109.9 147.1 51.6 147.1 58.1
T6 162.9 126.1 158.5 86.3 158.5 97.2
T7 189.4 153.3 172.6 98.3 172.6 109.2
T8 200.6 168.1 200.3 141.6 200.3 155.3
T9 – – 222.8 164.8 222.8 173.4

9
S. Yu, X. Yu, Y. Ao et al. Thin-Walled Structures 169 (2021) 108389

Fig. 13. The failure modes of the front face sheet of composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores in the numerical simulation at different impact velocities.

Fig. 14. The failure modes of the rear face sheet of composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores in the numerical simulation at different impact velocities.

10
S. Yu, X. Yu, Y. Ao et al. Thin-Walled Structures 169 (2021) 108389

Fig. 15. The impact processes of the laminate at different impact velocities: (a) 110.5 m/s; (b) 162.9 m/s; (c) 189.4 m/s.

Fig. 16. The failure modes for the front face sheet of the laminates at different impact velocities.

discrepancies in the damage region of the rear face sheet between
the experimental results and numerical simulation results. The main
reason for these discrepancies were due to the manufacture defect in
the specimen, which was not considered in the FE model.
4.3. Comparison between laminate and sandwich structure
4.3.1. Impact response
In order to compare the anti-impact ability of composite sandwich
structure with Y-shaped cores, a series of ballistic impact tests were

11
S. Yu, X. Yu, Y. Ao et al. Thin-Walled Structures 169 (2021) 108389

Fig. 17. The failure modes for the rear face sheet of the laminates at different impact velocities.

carried out on the laminates with the same areal mass. The equivalent
thickness of the laminate was 4.6 mm. The impact processes of the
laminates were shown in Fig. 15. The failure process of the laminate
with an impact velocity of 110.5 m/s was presented in Fig. 15(a).
Bulging was observed on the rear face sheet of the laminate at 420 μs.
However, the projectile did not penetrate the laminate, which re-
bounded from the front face sheet at 730 μs. The result showed that
the laminate has enough resistance to hinder the penetration under this
impact velocity. The failure process of the laminate with an impact
velocity of 162.9 m/s was presented in Fig. 15(b). It can be found
that the laminate was penetrated by the projectile. During the impact
process, the fiber debris occurred at 200 μs and fiber belts were pulled
out at 400 μs. The projectile penetrated the rear face sheet, and the
plug was observed during penetrating. The result reflected that there
existed a strong shearing action on the laminate. The failure process
of the laminate impacted by a steel cylinder projectile with an impact
velocity of 189.4 m/s was presented in Fig. 15(c). It could be found
that the projectile can easily penetrated the laminate. Less fibers were
pulled out and earlier plug happened compared with impact velocity
of 162.9 m/s, which meant the stronger shearing action at high impact
velocity. Fig. 18. Residual velocity vs. impact initial velocity for the laminate and composite
sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores.
The failure modes of the front face sheet of composite laminates at
different impact velocities were presented in Fig. 16. It can be found
that the front face sheet underwent shear failure and formed a local
shear plug. The fiber fracture was also observed around the impact the rear face sheet at 133.5 m/s as shown in Fig. 17(d) due to the
area when the impact velocity exceeded 110.5 m/s. Delamination were orthotropic stacking sequence of the laminate. Furthermore, the peeling
observed in the front face sheet at 83.5 m/s, 110.5 m/s and 133.5 m/s. off of fibers, fiber fracture and matrix crack were observed around the
The failure modes of the rear face sheet of composite laminate impact area as shown in Fig. 17(e)–(h).
at different impact velocities were shown in Fig. 17. It can be seen According to the data of initial velocity and residual velocity in
that the rear face sheet was not penetrated when the impact velocities Table 4, the curves between the initial velocity and residual velocity of
was 83.5 m/s and 110.5 m/s in Fig. 17(a) and (b). The rear face the laminate and sandwich structure were demonstrated in Fig. 18. The
sheet was penetrated when the impact velocities exceeded 121.9 m/s ballistic limit velocity of composite sandwich structure was 133.2 m/s,
as shown in Fig. 17(c)–(h), and the fiber fracture was observed on and the ballistic limit velocity of the laminate was 115.3 m/s. The
the rear face sheet as shown in Fig. 17(c). Delamination occurred on ballistic limit velocity of composite sandwich structure increased by

12
S. Yu, X. Yu, Y. Ao et al.
Fig. 19. Variation of the energy absorption ratio with the initial impact energy.
15.52% compared with that of the laminate. When the initial impact
velocity was greater than the ballistic limit velocity of the two target
plates, the residual velocity of composite sandwich structure was lower
than that of the laminate at the almost same initial impact velocity,
which clearly meant that the sandwich structure had a better impact
resistance than laminate under the impact load. Comparing the failure
modes of the laminate and sandwich structure, both the sandwich
structure and laminate experienced shear failure under the impact of
a flat-headed cylindrical projectile. However, the laminate tended to
form a plug on the rear face sheet, while composite sandwich structure
was difficult to produce a plug in the rear face sheet due to the
geometrical features of the Y-shaped cores. Most of the impact energy
was absorbed and dissipated by the structural deformation and damage.
This can be proved by the residual velocity of the projectile and failure
modes of the laminates and sandwich structures.
Fig. 20. Schematic of impacting at a point half way between cores: (a) front view; (b) top view; (c) 3D geometric view.
13
Thin-Walled Structures 169 (2021) 108389
4.3.2. Energy absorption
The impact kinetic energy of the projectile could be dissipated
by: (1) structural deformation; (2) failure of the face sheet and Y-
shaped cores; (3) friction between projectile and structure. The energy
absorption capacity of composite sandwich structure was evaluated in
present paper. The absorbed energy can be calculated by the difference
between the initial kinetic energy and residual kinetic energy of the
projectile. The energy dissipated by the structures can be expressed as
follows
𝐸s = 𝐸o − 𝐸r (13)
where 𝐸o represents the initial kinetic energy of the projectile, 𝐸𝑜 =
1
𝑚 𝑣2 , 𝐸r represents the residual kinetic energy of the projectile, 𝐸𝑟 =
2 𝑝 𝑖
1
𝑚 𝑣2 , 𝑚𝑝 is the mass of the projectile, 𝑣𝑖 and 𝑣𝑟 are the initial and
2 𝑝 𝑟
residual velocities of the projectile.
A non-dimensional parameter named energy absorption ratio 𝛾 was
defined to characteristic the energy absorption ratio of the structures,
according to the research about high-velocity impact energy absorption
from Chatterjee et al. [48]. The energy absorption ratio 𝛾 was calcu-
lated by the dissipated energy 𝐸s dividing by initial kinetic energy 𝐸𝑜
as follows:
𝐸
𝛾= s (14)
𝐸𝑜
The energy absorption of the structures under different impact
kinetic energy was presented in Fig. 19, which depicted the tendency
of energy absorption ratio of the laminate and sandwich structure for
increasing impact initial kinetic energy. The energy absorption ratio
tended to increase at start and then decrease, because the residual
kinetic energy was still large when the initial velocity was lower than
the ballistic limit velocity. The energy absorption ratio of the laminate
was greatly affected by the initial velocity of the projectile. When
the initial velocity of the projectile was less than the ballistic limit
velocity of composite sandwich structure, the energy absorption ratio
was almost not affected by the initial velocity of the projectile, and the
slope of the energy absorption ratio was almost zero. Energy absorption
ratio approached the peak value when the impact velocity was around
the ballistic limit velocity, because the almost all of impact energy was
absorbed by the laminate and sandwich structure. Furthermore, in the
S. Yu, X. Yu, Y. Ao et al.
Fig. 21. Numerical simulation results of the failure process of composite sandwich structure impacting on the half way between cores at different impact velocities: (a) 𝑣 = 93.8 m/s;
(b) 𝑣 = 133.8 m/s; (c) 𝑣 = 222.8 m/s.
range of the experimental velocities, the energy absorption ratio of
composite sandwich structure was almost always greater than that of
the laminate under the almost same initial impact velocity. Therefore,
in terms of impact resistance and energy absorption, it was reasonable
to make a conclusion that the Y-shaped core had an excellent anti-
impact performance, and this structure had a superior impact resistance
capability compared with laminate.
4.4. Numerical analysis of impact position
To investigate the effect of the impact position of the projectile on
the failure process of Y-shaped cores sandwich structures, the impact
responses for the projectile impacted at a point half way between
two Y-shaped cores were studied as shown in Fig. 20. In order to
compare the effect of the impact position on the impact failure process
of composite sandwich structure, the initial impact velocities for the
projectile impacted at a point half way between two Y-shaped cores
were same as that for the projectile impacted at the center of the
specimen in Fig. 12. The numerical simulation results of the impact
process at different impact velocities for the projectile impacted at a
point half way between two Y-shaped cores were presented in Fig. 21.
The failure process of the structure under a projectile with 93.8 m/s
was shown in Fig. 21(a). It can be found that face sheet and flanges
14
Thin-Walled Structures 169 (2021) 108389
appeared large deformation and obvious crack. The projectile decel-
erated and rebounded from the specimen at last. Comparing with the
projectile impacted at the center of the specimen at the impact velocity
of 93.8 m/s in Fig. 12(a), the damage degree of the flanges was
more severe for the projectile impacted at a point half way between
two Y-shaped cores, but the damage of the leg was not obvious. In
Fig. 21(b), the projectile impact velocity was 133.8 m/s. Under this
impact velocity, the specimen was completely perforated. Comparing
with the projectile impacted at the center of the specimen at the impact
velocity of 133.8 m/s in Fig. 12(b), the projectile would take less time
to perforate the specimen, and the flanges experienced more serious
damage in present case. In Fig. 21(c), the projectile impact velocity
was 222.8 m/s. Under this impact velocity, the specimen was also
completely perforated. Furthermore, the perforated time was shorter.
Comparing with the projectile impacted at the center of the specimen
at the impact velocity of 222.8 m/s in Fig. 12(c), the flanges made
more contribution for the impact resistance in present case, while the
leg made more contribution for the impact resistance in Fig. 12(c).
5. Conclusion
Composite Y-shaped cores sandwich structure was manufactured
using the hot-press molding technology. A series of ballistic impact
S. Yu, X. Yu, Y. Ao et al.
tests were performed on composite sandwich structures and laminates
with the same areal mass. The experimental results shown that the
front face sheet of composite sandwich structure underwent a plugging
phenomenon due to the shear effect, while the rear face sheet of
composite structure not only was subjected to the fiber fracture and
delamination failure, but also occurred an obvious crack extension
along the direction of the unit cell of the Y-shaped core. The platform
and flange played important roles in resisting the impact loading at low
impact velocity, while the vertical leg made important contributions
for the impact resistance at high impact velocity as well. The ballis-
tic limit velocities of the sandwich structure and the laminate were
133.2 m/s and 115.3 m/s, respectively. Under the almost same impact
velocity, the energy absorption ratio of composite sandwich structure
was greater than that of the laminate. Therefore, it can be reasonably
concluded that composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores had
a better impact resistance and energy absorption capacity than those
of the laminate with the same areal mass. The numerical simulation
results were in good agreement with the experimental results by com-
paring the error of the ballistic limit velocity and residual velocity
of composite sandwich structure. Moreover, the effect of the impact
position of the projectile on the failure mode of the sandwich structure
was investigated. The results showed the impact position had important
effects on the failure mode.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sheng Yu: Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft. Xi-
aofei Yu: Writing – review & editing. Yaoliang Ao: Investigation, Data
curation, Writing – original draft. Jie Mei: Writing – review & editing.
Weimin Jiang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review &
editing. Jiayi Liu: Supervision, Funding acquisition, Resources. Can Li:
Writing – review & editing. Wei Huang: Supervision, Validation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
The present work is supported by National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China under Grant No. 11402094.
References
[1] S.B. Shi, Y. Chen, C.X. Dai, J. Liang, Modeling the high temperature behavior of
all-composite, corrugated-core sandwich panels undergoing ablation, Thin-Walled
Struct. 164 (2021) 107742.
[2] M. Al-Dhaheri, K.A. Khan, R. Umer, F. van Liempt, W.J. Cantwell, Process-
induced deformation in U-shaped honeycomb aerospace composite structures,
Compos. Struct. 248 (2020) 112503.
[3] Olga A. Ganilova, Matthew P. Cartmell, Andrew Kiley, Experimental investiga-
tion of the thermoelastic performance of an aerospace aluminium honeycomb
composite panel, Compos. Struct. 257 (2021) 113159.
[4] D.Y. Chen, R.J. Yan, X. Lu, Mechanical properties analysis of the naval ship
similar model with an integrated sandwich composite superstructure, Ocean Eng.
232 (2021) 109101.
[5] W. Huang, L.Z. Lu, Z.H. Fan, W. Zhang, J.Y. Liu, C.Y. Yin, Underwater
impulsive resistance of the foam reinforced composite lattice sandwich structure,
Thin-Walled Struct. 166 (2021) 108120.
[6] A. Pavlović, D. Sintoni, G. Minak, C. Fragassa, On the modal behaviour of
ultralight composite sandwich automotive panels, Compos. Struct. 248 (2020)
112523.
[7] L. CoDyre, K. Mak, A. Fam, Flexural and axial behaviour of sandwich panels with
bio-based flax fibre-reinforced polymer skins and various foam core densities, J.
Sandw. Struct. Mater. 20 (5) (2018) 595–616.
[8] T. Sharaf, A. Fam, Numerical modelling of sandwich panels with soft core and
different rib configurations, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 31 (11) (2012) 771–784.
15
Thin-Walled Structures 169 (2021) 108389
[9] T. Sharaf, A. Fam, M.ASCE, Experimental investigation of large-scale cladding
sandwich panels under out-of-plane transverse loading for building applications,
J. Compos. Constr. 15 (3) (2011) 422–430.
[10] W. Shawkat, H. Honickman, A. Fam, Investigation of a novel composite cladding
wall panel in flexure, J. Compos. Mater. 42 (3) (2008) 315–330.
[11] W. Ferdous, A. Manalo, T. Aravinthan, A. Fam, Flexural and shear behaviour of
layered sandwich beams, Constr. Build. Mater. 173 (2018) 429–442.
[12] B. Wang, L.Z. Wu, L. Ma, Q. Wang, S. Yin, Fabrication and testing of carbon
fiber reinforced truss core sandwich panels, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 25 (4) (2009)
547–550.
[13] H.L. Fan, F.N. Jin, D.N. Fang, Characterization of edge effects of composite lattice
structures, Compos. Sci. Technol. 69 (2009) 1896–1903.
[14] L. Ma, L.Z. Wu, M. Li, B. Wang, Z.X. Guan, Structural response of all-composite
pyramidal truss core sandwich columns in end compression, Compos. Struct. 93
(2011) 1964–1972.
[15] W. Huang, W. Zhang, T. Chen, X.W. Jiang, J.Y. Liu, Dynamic response of circular
composite laminates subjected to underwater impulsive loading, Composites A
109 (2018) 63–74.
[16] V.V. Vasiliev, V.A. Barynin, A.F. Razin, Anisogrid composite lattice structures
development and aerospace applications, Compos. Struct. 94 (2012) 1117–1127.
[17] L.L. Yan, B. Yu, H. Bin, C.Q. Chen, Q.C. Zhang, Compressive strength and
energy absorption of sandwich panels with aluminum foam-filled corrugated
cores, Compos. Sci. Technol. 86 (2013) 142–148.
[18] J.S. Yang, L. Ma, M. Chaves-Vargas, T.X. Huang, Influence of manufacturing
defects on modal properties of composite pyramidal truss-like core sandwich
cylindrical panels, Compos. Sci. Technol. 147 (2017) 89–99.
[19] G.J. Mcshane, D.D. Radford, V.S. Deshpande, The response of clamped sandwich
plates with lattice cores subjected to shock loading, Eur. J. Mech. A Solids 25
(2006) 215–229.
[20] H. Wadley, K. Dharmasena, Y. Chen, P. Dudt, D. Knight, Compressive response of
multilayered pyramidal lattices during underwater shock loading, Int. J. Impact
Eng. 35 (2008) 1102–1114.
[21] Y.S. Tian, T.J. Lu, Optimal design of compression corrugated panels, Thin-Walled
Struct. 43 (2005) 477–498.
[22] C.C. Liang, M.F. Yang, P.W. Wu, Optimum design of metallic corrugated core
sandwich panels subjected to blast loads, Ocean. Eng. 28 (2001) 825–861.
[23] M. Yazici, J. Wright, D. Bertin, Experimental and numerical study of foam filled
corrugated core steel sandwich structures subjected to blast loading, Compos.
Struct. 110 (2014) 98–109.
[24] X.F. Yang, J.X. Ma, Y.L. Shi, Y.X. Sun, J.L. Yang, Crashworthiness investiga-
tion of the bio-inspired bi-directionally corrugated core sandwich panel under
quasi-static crushing load, Mater. Des. 135 (2017) 275–290.
[25] S.D. Pan, L.Z. Wu, Y.G. Sun, Z.G. Zhou, J.L. Qu, Longitudinal shear strength and
failure process of honeycomb cores, Compos. Struct. 61 (2006) 42–46.
[26] S.N. Ha, G.X. Lu, X.M. Xiang, Energy absorption of a bio-inspired honeycomb
sandwich panel, J. Mater. Sci. 54 (2019) 6286–6300.
[27] M. Costantino, Z. Alberto, A. Domenico, Numerical assessment of the impact
behavior of honeycomb sandwich structures, Compos. Struct. 106 (2013) 42–46.
[28] X. Gao, M.M. Zhang, Y.D. Huang, Experimental and numerical investiga-
tion of thermoplastic honeycomb sandwich structures under bending loading,
Thin-Walled Struct. 155 (2020) 477–498.
[29] J. Xiong, R. Ghosh, L. Ma, I. Ebrahim, Bending behavior of lightweight
sandwich-walled shells with pyramidal truss cores, Compos. Struct. 116 (2014)
793–804.
[30] T. Sharaf, A. Fam, Analysis of large scale cladding sandwich panels composed of
GFRP skins and ribs and polyurethane foam core, Thin-Walled Struct. 71 (2013)
91–101.
[31] B. Wang, J.Q. Hu, Y.Q. Li, Y.T. Yao, S.X. Wang, Mechanical properties and failure
behavior of the sandwich structures with carbon fiber-reinforced X-type lattice
truss core, Compos. Struct. 185 (2018) 619–633.
[32] T.Q. Liu, S.J. Hou, X. Nguyen, X. Han, Energy absorption characteristics of
sandwich structures with composite sheets and bio coconut core, Composites
B 114 (2017) 328–338.
[33] S.H.A. Sabah, A.B.H. Kueh, M.Y. Al-Fasih, Comparative low-velocity impact
behavior of bio-inspired and conventional sandwich composite beams, Compos.
Sci. Technol. 149 (2017) 64–74.
[34] S.H.A. Sabah, A.B.H. Kueh, N.M. Bunnori, Failure mode maps of bio-inspired
sandwich beams under repeated low velocity impact, Compos. Sci. Technol. 182
(2019) 107785.
[35] J.L. Liu, J.Y. Liu, J. Mei, W. Huang, Investigation on manufacturing and
mechanical behavior of all-composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores,
Compos. Sci. Technol. 159 (2018) 87–102.
[36] J.M. Zhou, Y. Wang, J.Y. Liu, J.L. Liu, J. Mei, Temperature effects on the
compressive properties and failure mechanisms of composite sandwich panel with
Y-shaped cores, Composites A 114 (2018) 72–85.
[37] L.S. Pierre, V.S. Deshpande, N.A. Fleck, The low velocity impact response of
sandwich beams with a corrugated core or a Y-frame core, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 91
(2015) 71–80.
[38] V. Rubino, V.S. Deshpande, N.A. Fleck, The three-point bending of Y-frame and
corrugated core sandwich beams, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 52 (2010) 485–494.
S. Yu, X. Yu, Y. Ao et al.
[39] R. Yu, W. Luo, J.X. Liu, Z.Y. Shen, W.T. He, Effect of core material on the
low-velocity impact behavior of trapezoidal corrugated sandwich panels, Int. J.
Crashworthiness 34 (2019) 1–12.
[40] M. Christensen Richard, 2013 Timoshenko Medal Award Paper—Completion and
closure on failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composite materials, J. Appl.
Mech. 81 (2014) 011011-1.
[41] G.Q. Zhang, B. Wang, L. Ma, J. Xiong, L.Z. Wu, Response of sandwich structures
with pyramidal truss cores under the compression and impact loading, Compos.
Struct. 100 (2013) 451–463.
[42] S. Li, J.S. Yang, R. Schmidt, L.Z. Wu, K.U. Schröder, Compression and hysteresis
responses of multilayer gradient composite lattice sandwich panels, Mar. Struct.
75 (2021) 102845.
[43] J. Mei, Y.L. Ao, W.M. Jiang, J.Y. Liu, Z.G. Zhou, W. Huang, Investigation on
the shear behaviors of carbon fiber composite sandwich panels with the X-core,
Mar. Struct. 77 (2021) 102897.
[44] Z.H. Sun, C. Li, Y. Tie, Experimental and numerical investigations on damage
accumulation and energy dissipation of patch-repaired CFRP laminates under
repeated impacts, Mater. Des. 202 (2021) 109540.
16
Thin-Walled Structures 169 (2021) 108389
[45] U.A. Shakil, S.B.A. Hassan, M.Y. Yahya, Mujiyono, D. Nurhadiyanto, A review of
properties and fabrication techniques of fiber reinforced polymer nanocomposites
subjected to simulated accidental ballistic impact, Thin-Walled Struct. 158 (2021)
107150.
[46] P.C. Hu, Y.S. Cheng, P. Zhang, J. Liu, H.F. Yang, J.Y. Chen, A
metal/UHMWPE/SiC multi-layered composite armor against ballistic impact of
flat-nosed projectile, Ceram. Int. 47 (2021) 22497–22513.
[47] M.V. Zhikharev, S.B. Sapozhnikov, Two-scale modeling of high-velocity fragment
GFRP penetration for assessment of ballistic limit, Int. J. Impact Eng. 101 (2017)
42–48.
[48] V.A. Chatterjee, R. Saraswat, S.K. Verma, D. Bhattacharjee, I. Biswas, S. Neogi,
Embodiment of dilatant fluids in fused-double-3D-mat sandwich composite panels
and its effect on energy-absorption when subjected to high-velocity ballistic
impact, Compos. Struct. 249 (2020) 112588.