Composite Structures 321 (2023) 117279

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Damage sensitivity studies of composite honeycomb sandwich structures

under in-plane compression and 4-point bending: Experiments and
numerical simulations
Jiu-Tao Hang a, Wei Zhao b, *, Lei Liu c, Guang-Kui Xu a, *
a
Laboratory for Multiscale Mechanics and Medical Science, Department of Engineering Mechanics, SVL, School of Aerospace Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University,
Xi’an 710049, China
b
School of Mechanics, Civil Engineering and Architecture, State Key Laboratory of Clean and Efficient Turbomachinery Power Equipment, Northwestern Polytechnical
University, Xi’an 710129, China
c
State Key Laboratory of Aerodynamics, Mianyang 621000, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Honeycomb sandwich structures, especially those with carbon-fiber panels and Nomex-honeycomb cores, are
Composite Honeycomb Sandwich widely employed in automobiles and aircraft due to their excellent mechanical properties. Here, in-plane
De-bonding Defects compression and 4-point bending experiments, as well as FEM simulations, are performed for a composite
Impact Damage
honeycomb sandwich structure with face-core de-bonding defects or impact damage to evaluate the damage
Damage sensitivity
sensitivity. It is found that the structure exhibits a higher sensitivity to impact damage than to de-bonding de­
In-plane compression
4-point bending fects. Impact damage caused by an energy of 3 J–5.5 J can alter the failure mode under both in-plane
compression and 4-point bending loads, and reduce in-plane compression strength by more than 50 % and 4-
point bending strength by 15 %. In comparison, de-bonding defects of the same size can change the failure
mode and decrease the strength by only 10 % under in-plane compression. The developed FEM model predicts all
failure modes and residual strengths obtained from experiments. The simulation results show that the structural
characteristics of producing concaves in the facesheet and core are the dominant contributors to structural
failure. Our model, covering all geometric and structural details of the honeycomb core, provides a useful tool for
studying the mechanical behaviors of such structures.

1. Introduction
Composite honeycomb sandwich structures are widely used in
aerospace and automotive fields for their lightweight, high specific
strength, and excellent sound and thermal insulation properties [1–9].
However, their mechanical performance can often be crippled by
various types of damages, including the barely visible face-core de-
bonding defects originating from manufacture-induced flaws, along
with the impact damage due to collision with tools or other foreign
objects in service [10–12]. The extreme sensitivity of honeycomb
sandwich structures to different types of damage can result in a signif­
icant reduction in residual strength as well as the alteration in failure
mode under in-plane compression and bending loads [11,13,14].
Therefore, studying the sensitivity of such structures to damage is of
great significance for their design and damage tolerance
characterization.
Over the past decades, several theoretical, numerical, and experi­
mental methods have been developed to investigate the damage sensi­
tivity of composite honeycomb sandwich structures. Compression after
impact (CAI) tests were extensively employed in evaluating the effects of
structural and damage characteristics on their residual strength and
failure mechanisms [15–19]. Hansen et al. [20] performed in-plane
compression tests on composite honeycomb sandwich structures con­
taining impact damage and observed failure modes in both global and
local buckling. Using theoretical and experimental methods, Vadakke
and Carlsson [21,22] investigated the effects of de-bonding defects on
the failure mode of composite sandwich specimens composed of glass/
vinylester facesheets over PVC foams, showing that their failure under
in-plane compression is mainly caused by buckling. Now, the damage
sensitivity of metal honeycomb sandwich structures has been well

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: zhaowei@nwpu.edu.cn (W. Zhao), guangkuixu@mail.xjtu.edu.cn (G.-K. Xu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.117279
Received 25 April 2023; Received in revised form 31 May 2023; Accepted 15 June 2023
Available online 17 June 2023
0263-8223/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.-T. Hang et al.
understood, and the finite element method (FEM) analysis has been
widely applied to their design and damage characterization [23–25]. In
addition, many research groups [22,26] investigated the damage
sensitivity of foam sandwich structures using FEM modeling and
experimental methods.
Raju et al. [27] have investigated the net-section fracture and
buckling failure of composite honeycomb sandwich structures contain­
ing impact damage under compressive loading and observed a remark­
able reduction in compression strength up to 60 % of the undamaged
value in experiments. Lacy et al. [28] developed semi-empirical nu­
merical models to predict the residual strength of impact-damaged
sandwich composites, providing a good description of their in-plane
compression strength. To date, however, there is a lack of systematic
studies on the sensitivity of composite honeycomb sandwich structures
to different damages under different loads, calling for effective modeling
methods with the real structure of the honeycomb core considered. In
addition, under 3-point bending, the damage area is subjected to a
combination of bending and shear loading and the sensitivity of the
structure to damage under pure bending remains elusive.
Here, in coordination with experiments, we present a FEM model of a
composite honeycomb sandwich structure incorporating the real struc­
ture of the honeycomb core. We also performed a 4-point bending
experiment to investigate the sensitivity of the structure to damage
under pure bending loads. Based on this model and corresponding ex­
periments, we investigate the sensitivity of this structure to de-bonding
defects and impact damage under both in-plane compression and 4-
point bending loads. The organization of this paper is as follows. In
Section 2, we summarize the setup of experiments and FEM simulations,
including the preparation of specimens, assembly of testing devices, and
development of the FEM model. These methods are used in Section 3 to
study the mechanical behaviors of the composite honeycomb sandwich
structure with different damages under different loads. Under in-plane
compression, we investigate the near-field and far-field stress/strain
around the damages to probe the manner of damage propagation in the
structure. Under both in-plane compression and 4-point bending loads,
we investigate how the failure mode of the structure is altered by
damages and discuss underlying mechanisms. Meanwhile, through
global force–displacement curves, we investigate how damages affect
the stiffness and strength of the structure.
2. Methods
2.1. Experiments
2.1.1. Materials and specimens
The composite honeycomb sandwich structure is constructed of two
same carbon-fiber-reinforced laminate facesheets bonded by a Nomex
honeycomb core. The laminate facesheets are made of T300/QY8911
with 1 mm panel thickness, 0.125 lay-up thickness, and a lay-up
sequence of [45/-45/0/90]s. The honeycomb core is made of NRH-
type aramid paper with the grade NRH-3–56 (0.08) and a height of
17 mm, bonded to the panels. The honeycomb core has a wall thickness
of 0.08 mm and a hexagonal lattice edge length of 3 mm. The in-plane
compression specimen has a length of 150 mm and a width of 100
mm according to the ASTM test standard D7137. The 4-point bending
specimen has a length of 600 mm and a width of 75 mm according to the
ASTM test standard D7249-06. The de-bonding defects between the
panel and the honeycomb core are introduced by pre-embedding plastic
films during manufacture. The impact damage is produced by a single
impact on the positive center of one side of the test specimen by the
Instron CEAST 9350 impact testing machine according to the ASTM test
standard D7136. The impact energy level is varied from 3 J to 5.5 J by a
25 mm diameter hemispheric impactor.
2.1.2. Test methods
During in-plane compression, the load is applied to specimens
2
Composite Structures 321 (2023) 117279
through a special test device designed for unidirectional compression,
with simple support restraints at the edges of the panel to prevent
overall instability of the honeycomb sandwich structure, as shown in
Fig. 1a. A universal testing machine applies a uniform compression load
with a fixed loading rate of 1 mm/min until specimens are destroyed.
For specimens with de-bonding defects, the locations of strain gauges
are shown in Fig. 1b. Strain gauges 1 to 4 are used in the far field of the
specimens to determine if the specimens are correctly installed, while
strain gauges 5 and 6 are attached to the marginal area of the de-bonding
defects. For undamaged specimens, strain gauges are attached at posi­
tions 1 to 4 to measure the far-field strain. For specimens containing
impact damage, strain gauges are arranged on the right side of the
damage only, as shown in Fig. 1c. During a 4-point bending load, the test
device consists mainly of a support unit below specimens and a loading
unit above (Fig. 1d). A universal testing machine is used for loading,
using the displacement control method with a loading speed of 5 mm/
min until specimens are destroyed. The strain gauge attachment dia­
gram is shown in Fig. 1e and f. Strain gauges 3 and 8 are used to measure
the strain near the damage or the corresponding location undamaged,
while other strain gauges are used to monitor the far-field strain.
2.2. Finite element model
Three-dimensional FEM models of the composite honeycomb sand­
wich structure are developed for both in-plane compression and 4-point
bending loads using the software Abaqus 6.13-1 and Python script. The
realistic structural characteristics of both the hexagonal honeycomb
core and single and double cell walls within are modeled by parametric
modeling in Python script. As shown in Fig. 2a, the loads and boundary
conditions in the in-plane compression model are established according
to the constraints imposed on the specimen by the test device. The
bottom of the specimen is fixed, while the sides are simply restrained.
Out-of-plane displacements of the upper area are restrained, and the top
of the entire structure is subjected to displacement loads. The de-
bonding defects between the facesheets and core are introduced by
cutting out a thin layer of the core (1 mm thickness) from the face-core
interface with the corresponding defect shape, as shown in Fig. 2b. The
impact damage to the specimen is introduced by planting spherical
concaves in one of the facesheets before excising the collapsed part of
the core underneath (Fig. 2b). As shown in Fig. 2c, the load and
boundary conditions in the 4-point bending model are established. A
cylindrical structure is built to simulate the rolling support above and
below the specimen, and a rectangular body with a circular hole in the
middle is built to model the cushion block. The cushion block can rotate
around the cylinder, and a downward displacement is applied on the
block along the height direction (Fig. 2c). Both the panels and the
honeycomb core of honeycomb sandwich structures are thin-walled
structures that are extremely susceptible to buckling and the failure of
the structure is mainly caused by the buckling of the core. Therefore, the
failure of the bond between the core and the facesheet is not considered
in the model. The facesheets are connected to the honeycomb core and
cushion block surfaces using “Tie” constraints. The upper and lower
surfaces of the specimen are constrained together by “Surface-to-Sur­
face” contact. The facesheets of the specimen are meshed with 8-node
linear brick and reduced integration elements (C3D8R). The material
properties of the composite laminates are shown in Table 1, according to
material performance parameters from the material manufacturer. The
composite laminates follow the Hashin failure criterion, which is
employed to predict the onset of in-ply damage in composite plies and
simulate the mechanical weakening of composite layups. The stress-
based Hashin failure criterion [29,30] is written as:
1) Fiber failure
J.-T. Hang et al. Composite Structures 321 (2023) 117279

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of test devices and strain gauge attachment for the honeycomb sandwich structure. (a) The in-plane compression test device. Strain gauge
attachment for the in-plane compression specimens with (b) de-bonding defects and (c) impact damage. (d) The 4-point bending test device. Strain gauge attachment
for the 4-point bending specimens (e) without damage and (f) with damage.

Fig. 2. FEM model of the composite honeycomb sandwich structure. (a) The structure under in-plane compression load. (b) Schematic diagram of de-bonding defects
and impact damage. (c) The structure under 4-point bending load.

3
J.-T. Hang et al. Composite Structures 321 (2023) 117279

Table 1 undamaged specimen, both experiments and FEM simulation results

Material properties of T300/QY8911 composite laminates. indicate that fracture occurs at approximately 1/3 of the specimen
E11 E22, E33 G12, G13 G23 v12 v23 v13 length near the loaded end, due to surface instability under compression
(GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (Fig. 4a). For the damaged specimen, the de-bonding defects between
135 8.8 4.47 3.2 0.33 0.48 0.15 the facesheet and honeycomb core prevent the local core from being
XT (MPa) XC (MPa) YT (MPa) YC (MPa) S restrained by the facesheet. As the compression load increases, the
(MPa) honeycomb core in the de-bonding area buckles first, resulting in face­
1240 1500 38.7 189.4 81.2 sheet bulging in the neighborhood, and eventually fracture in the middle
of the specimen (Fig. 4b). Reduced binding capacity of the honeycomb
⎧ ( )2 ( )2 core to the deformation of the upper panel. The presence of the de-
⎪
⎪ σ 11 + σ 12
⎪
⎪ σ 11 ⩾0 bonding defect reduces the binding capacity of the honeycomb core to
⎨ XT SL
2
r1 = ( ) ; (1) the upper facesheet deformation, thus inducing the facesheet in the
⎪
⎪
⎪ σ 11 2
defective area to be the first to buckle. The change in failure mode re­
⎪
⎩ σ11 < 0
XC sults in a significant reduction in the in-plane compression strength of
the structure. It is worth pointing out that, although quite different from
2) Matrix failure the undamaged case, the failure mode of the damaged specimen is still
⎧( ) ( )2 structural collapse triggered by surface instability. These results suggest
⎪
⎪ σ 22 2 σ 12
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ YT
+ σ22 ⩾0 that the in-plane compression behavior of composite honeycomb sand­
SL
r22 = ( )2 [( )2 ] ; (2) wich structures possesses a strong sensitivity to de-bonding defects.
( )2
⎪
⎪
⎪ σ 22 YC σ22 σ12 Next, we obtain the force–displacement curves (Fig. 5a) of specimens
⎪ − 1 σ 22 < 0
⎩ 2ST +
⎪
2ST YC
+
SL undamaged or with de-bonding defects. The results show that both
specimens undergo brittle rupture, unlike traditional metal and com­
where XT and XC are the longitudinal tensile and compression posite plates. This brittleness originates from the brittle fracture of
strength of the layup, YT and YC the transverse tensile and compression facesheets after local buckling caused by surface instability since the
strength of the layup, SL and ST the longitudinal and transverse shear compression strength of the sandwich structure is much less than that of
strength of the layup, approximated as S here. The damage evolution the composite laminate plates. Furthermore, Fig. 5a shows that de-
process after the onset of in-ply damage is simulated by element stiffness bonding defects have a limited effect on the in-plane compression
discounting. When r12 ⩾1 and r22 ⩾1, fiber and matrix failure are consid­ stiffness of the structure macroscopically, with little changes in the slope
ered to occur. The honeycomb cores are modeled as anisotropic laminas of the force–displacement curves. In contrast, the residual compression
and meshed with 4-node shell reduced integration elements (S4R). The strength will be altered by the presence of de-bonding defects (Table 3).
mechanical properties of the honeycomb core obtained from the me­ The results in Table 3 correspond to the experimental results in Fig. 5b.
chanical property testing of aramid papers are shown in Table 2. The residual in-plane compression strength of the structure for different
sizes and shapes of de-bonding depends primarily on the length of the
3. Results and discussions damage projection in the direction of the width of the specimen. Both
experimental and FEM simulation results (Fig. 5b) show a well-defined
3.1. In-plane compression of composite honeycomb sandwich structures linear relationship between the residual compression strength of the
with de-bonding defects structure and the characteristic length of de-bonding defects, defined as
their projected length in the vertical loading direction. The residual
Here we test the composite honeycomb sandwich structure con­ compression strengths obtained from experiments and FEM simulations
taining de-bonding defects with in-plane compression. The far-field and are compared in Table 3, showing that our FEM model provides good
near-field stress–strain curves are obtained by extracting the strains at predictions for the excremental results (maximum error less than 12 %).
corresponding locations (Fig. 3). The far-field stress is defined as the
compressive force divided by the cross-sectional area of the two lami­ 3.2. In-plane compression of composite honeycomb sandwich structures
nate plates in the specimen, while the far-field strain is defined as the with impact damage
average value over the readings of strain gauges 1–4. The near-field
strain is defined in experiments as the measured value of strain gauges Currently, there are many studies aiming at the effects of de-bonding,
at corresponding positions, and in the FEM model as the average strain indentation, and open-hole damages on the in-plane compression
over elements at corresponding positions. The consistency between the behavior of composite honeycomb sandwich structures. However, few
stress–strain curves obtained from experiments and simulations proves studies have focused on the effects of impact damage, which often exists
the accuracy of our FEM model. The transition points of the stress–strain in such structures as well. Here, we produce low-velocity impact damage
curves (a mutation in the slope) indicate the moment when the damage on one side of the honeycomb sandwich structure through impact tests
propagates to the positions of strain gauges. The change in the transition and then examine the structure with an in-plane compression test by the
point at each strain gauge position reveals that the path of damage is same procedure as in the case of de-bonding defects. As shown in Fig. 6,
extending from the de-bonding area to the edges of specimens. the far-field (Fig. 6a) and near-field (Fig. 6b–d) stress–strain curves of
To investigate the effect of de-bonding defects on the failure mode of the damaged specimens obtained from experiments and FEM simula­
the structure, undamaged specimens are examined by in-plane tions are in good agreement. Under the same load, due to the stress
compression test as well. As seen from Fig. 4a and b, the presence of concentration caused by the impact damage, the strain is higher near the
de-bonding defects can alter the failure mode of this structure. For the damaged area (Fig. 6b). Similar to the case of de-bonding defects, the
damage path also starts with the impact damage and extends to both
sides, as illustrated by the stress–strain curves in the positions of strain
Table 2 gauges 5, 6 and 7 (Fig. 6b–d).
Material properties of Nomex aramid paper. As shown in Fig. 7a, the impact damage can also alter the failure
Young’s modulus (MPa) Poisson’s ratio mode of the composite honeycomb sandwich structure (recall the failure
E1 E2 G12 G13 G23 v12 mode of undamaged specimens in Fig. 4a). Unilateral asymmetric
impact damage necessarily results in a corresponding asymmetry in the
4314 2852 2137 2137 2137 0.359
bearing capacity of the structure. The asymmetry produces an additional

4
J.-T. Hang et al. Composite Structures 321 (2023) 117279

Fig. 3. The far-field and near-field stress–strain curves obtained from experiments and FEM models. (a) The far-field stress–strain curves. (b-d) The stress–strain
curves at the position strain gauge 6–8.

Fig. 4. The failure modes of the composite honeycomb sandwich structure under in-plane compression obtained from experiments and FEM simulations. (a) Un­
damaged specimen. (b) Specimen with de-bonding defects.

bending effect on the specimen, leading to an overall bending tendency
of the structure. Combined with stress concentrations caused by the
impact damage, these lead to surface instability in nearby facesheets,
which rapidly expands to the sides and thereby results in the failure of
the structure. The FEM predictions (Fig. 7b) are in excellent agreement
with the experiments, and reveal that the collapse of the honeycomb
core also extends from the damaged zone to both sides. The transition
points (Fig. 7c) in the stress–strain curve (a mutation in the slope of the
curve) conform to the moment when the damage propagation reaches
the position of the strain gauges. It can be seen that the corresponding
far-field stress of the transition point increases with the increase of the
distance between the specific strain gauge location and the damage
center. The change in the transition point at each strain gauge location
resulting from the stress concentration reveals that the path of damage is
extending from the damaged area to the edges of the specimens. It is
worth noting that we mainly consider the structural features of the
concave planted in the facesheet and core when modeling impact
damage. Therefore, these structural features underlie the good agree­
ment between our simulation results and experiments. This suggests that
the structural characteristics of impact damage are the dominant con­
tributors to the surface instability and eventual failure of the structure.
Next, we obtain the force–displacement curves of the specimens, as
shown in Fig. 8a. The composite honeycomb sandwich structure con­
taining impact damage also undergoes sudden brittle failure in the
elastic stage of in-plane compression. Meanwhile, the macroscopic
stiffness under compression is not sensitive to impact damage, which is

5
J.-T. Hang et al. Composite Structures 321 (2023) 117279

Fig. 5. The residual strength of the composite honeycomb sandwich structure under in-plane compression obtained from experiments and FEM simulations. (a)
Force-displacement curves obtained from FEM simulations. (b) The residual strength decreases approximately linearly with the characteristic damage length.

4-point bending tests, and the failure mode obtained from experiments
Table 3
and FEM simulations is presented in Fig. 9. The results reveal that this
Comparison between FEM and experimental results of in-plane compression
structure is insensitive to de-bonding defects under 4-point bending
strength of the composite honeycomb sandwich structure with de-bonding
defects.
loads, as the failure mode is not changed by de-bonding defects. The
failure mode of the undamaged structure is shown in Fig. 9a,b as core
De-bonding De-bonding Experiment FEM Reduction Error
collapse and facesheet damage below the loading cushion block, and in
Shape Length L Strength Strength (%) (%)
(mm) (MPa) (MPa) Fig. 9c,d for the structure containing the de-bonding defect, both of
which have the same failure mode. In addition, Fig. 9 also shows that the
Undamaged — 480.39 511.05 — 6.38
Ellipse 60 × 17 393.97 414.5 17.98 5.21
failure mode of the structure in experiments is similar to that predicted
17 × 60 275.99 285.2 42.54 3.33 by the FEM model, in which the facesheet and core collapse around the
16 × 16 433.93 481.01 9.67 10.84 loading cushion block. The difference is that the collapse only occurs
Rectangle 12 × 6 459.59 513.48 4.32 11.72 below one loading cushion block in experiments (non-fixed indenter)
25 × 8 474.98 501.07 1.12 5.49
but below both blocks in FEM simulations.
8 × 25 473.45 493.51 1.44 4.23
Oblique 60 × 17 357.00 380.54 25.68 6.59 A comparison between the 4-point bending force–displacement
ellipse curves of the structure with and without de-bonding defects is given in
Fig. 10a and b, respectively. It can be clearly seen that the FEM results
agree well with experiments. The de-bonding defects have little effect on
consistent with the case of de-bonding defects. However, the compres­ the bending stiffness of the structure, as can be seen from the slope of the
sion strength shows a much higher sensitivity to impact damage than to force–displacement curves, similar to the case of in-plane compression.
de-bonding defects. The compression strength of the structure with The 4-point bending strength of the structure with and without de-
impact damage of 8 mm diameter is decreased by more than 50 % bonding defects is shown in Table 5. The effect of face-core de-
compared to the undamaged value (Table 4), whereas a de-bonding bonding defects on the bending strength of the structure is closely
defect of the same size merely leads to a 5 % reduction (Table 3). In related to the panel thickness. The variation curve of strength reduction
addition, the sensitivity of compression strength to impact damage is with plate thickness for structures containing face core de-bonding is
also higher in the composite honeycomb sandwich structure than in shown in Fig. 10c. When the panel thickness is less than or equal to 0.4
metal structures, whose compression strength is reduced by just 13 % at mm, the failure mode of the structure containing de-bonding defects is
10 J impact energy [23]. Such high sensitivity of the sandwich structure core collapse in the damaged area and its sides and the panel fractured in
to impact damage makes the residual in-plane compression strength the middle (I in Fig. 10c). When the panel thickness is higher than 0.4
decrease exponentially with the damage characteristics, faster than the mm, the failure mode of the structure is the facesheet and core collapse
linear relation in the case of de-bonding defects, as shown in Fig. 8b and around the loading cushion block (II in Fig. 10c), as the same as that of
c. Unlike the linear reduction in strength due to face-core debonding the undamaged structure. The stress concentration resulting from the
defects, the exponential reduction in strength of structures with impact de-bonding defect diminishes with increasing facesheet thickness, thus
damages arises from the non-visual structural damage beneath its making the structure sensitive to defects with thin facesheets while
facesheets, as shown in Fig. 2b. Massive collapse of the core in and insensitive to defects with thick facesheets. In addition, the 4-point
around the impact concave results in a substantial reduction in the in- bending strengths obtained by the FEM model and experiments are
plane compression strength of the structure. The residual in-plane compared in Table 5, with a maximum error of less than 8 %.
compression strengths obtained from the experiments and FEM simu­
lations are compared in Table 4, where our FEM model provides good
predictions for the experimental results (maximum error of about 8 %). 3.4. 4-point bending of composite honeycomb sandwich structures with
impact damage

3.3. 4-point bending of composite honeycomb sandwich structures with
de-bonding defects
Due to outstanding bending resistance, composite honeycomb
sandwich structures are widely used in aircraft rudder surfaces and
vehicle bulkheads, where bending loads prevail during service. Thus, it
is necessary to examine the effects of face-core de-bonding defects and
impact damage on their bending behavior. Here, the composite honey­
comb sandwich structure containing de-bonding defects is examined by
Unlike debonding defects, the impact damage can alter the failure
mode of the composite honeycomb sandwich structure under 4-point
bending loads, as shown in Fig. 11a and b. Under 4-point bending
loads, the upper facesheet of the composite honeycomb sandwich
structure is subjected to compression, while the lower facesheet is sub­
jected to tension, and the core is subjected to shear. The impact damage
disrupted the continuity of the structure, causing a significant stress
concentration in the damaged area. This nearly semi-penetrating dam­
age caused a change in the failure mode of the structure, resulting in a

6
J.-T. Hang et al. Composite Structures 321 (2023) 117279

Fig. 6. The far-field and near-field stress–strain curves of specimens with impact damage obtained from experiments and FEM simulations. (a) The far-field
stress–strain curves. (b-d) The stress–strain curves at the positions of strain gauge 5–7.

Fig. 7. The failure modes of the composite honeycomb sandwich structures with impact damage under in-plane compression. (a) Experimental results. (b) FEM
simulation results. (c) The schematic diagram of the transition point in the stress–strain curves.

significant reduction in strength. The impact damage in the upper
facesheet extends laterally, leading to failure of the upper facesheet due
to surface instability, followed by the extensive collapse of the honey­
comb core.
The 4-point bending force–displacement curves of the composite
honeycomb sandwich structure containing impact damage are shown in
Fig. 12. The shape of the curves is similar to the case of de-bonding
defects, showing an abrupt drop in force at the brittle failure.
Compared to the in-plane compression strength, the 4-point bending
strength of the structure is less sensitive to impact damage. For struc­
tures containing impact damages of approximately the same size, the in-
plane compression strength is reduced by more than 50 % compared to
the undamaged value (Table 4), while the 4-point bending strength is
reduced by only 11 % to 15 % (Table 6). Moreover, the residual bending
strength decreases approximately linearly with the characteristic depth
(Fig. 13a) and diameter (Fig. 13b) of the impact damage. Hence the
structure has a higher sensitivity to impact damage than to de-bonding
defects under 4-point bending loads, which is also consistent with in-
plane compression tests. The residual bending strengths obtained from
the experiments and FEM simulations are compared in Table 6, showing
that the FEM model provides good predictions for experimental results
(maximum error of about 8 %).

7
J.-T. Hang et al. Composite Structures 321 (2023) 117279

Fig. 8. The residual strength of the composite honeycomb sandwich structure with impact damage under in-plane compression obtained from experiments and FEM
simulations. (a) Force-displacement curves of specimens with impact damage obtained from FEM. The residual strength of the composite honeycomb sandwich
structure decreases approximately exponentially with impact indentation (b) depth and (c) diameter.

Table 4
Comparison between FEM and experimental results of in-plane compression strength of the composite honeycomb sandwich structure with impact damage.
Impact Energy E (J) Indentation Depth δ (mm) Indentation Diameter d (mm) Strength (MPa) Reduction (%) Error (%)

FEM Experiment

0 — — 511.05 480.39 — 6.38

2.5 0.41 8.84 250.2 231.50 51.80 8.07
3.8 0.89 12.34 233.25 215.83 54.99 8.07
5.0 1.48 14.70 224.95 212.83 55.69 5.69

Fig. 9. The failure modes of the undamaged composite honeycomb sandwich structures under 4-point bending. (a) Experimental results. (b) FEM simulation results.
The failure modes of the composite honeycomb sandwich structures with de-bonding defects under 4-point bending. (c) Experimental results. (d) FEM simula­
tion results.

4. Conclusions
In this paper, we have investigated the sensitivity of the composite
honeycomb sandwich structure to face-core de-bonding defects and
impact damage through both FEM simulations and experiments. We
show that this structure has higher sensitivity to impact damage than to
face-core de-bonding defects and higher sensitivity under in-plane
compression than under 4-point bending. The effect of face-core de-
bonding defects on the bending strength of the structure is closely
related to the panel thickness. The high sensitivity to impact damage
under in-plane compression is manifested in an exponential decrease in
the in-plane residual compression strength of the structure with the
characteristic damage size. In comparison, when containing de-bonding
defects and subjected to in-plane compression, or containing impact

8
J.-T. Hang et al. Composite Structures 321 (2023) 117279

Fig. 10. The force–displacement curves of the composite honeycomb sandwich structure under 4-point bending. (a) Undamaged. (b) With de-bonding defects. (c)
Variation curve of strength reduction with plate thickness for structures containing face core de-bonding.

Table 5
Comparison of FEM and experimental results of 4-point bending strength of the composite honeycomb sandwich structure with de-bonding defects.
Debonding Shape Debonding Length L (mm) Failure Force (N) Strength (MPa) Error(%)

Experiment FEM Experiment FEM

Undamaged — 3269 3551 48.90 52.77 7.9

Oblique ellipse 60 × 17 3329 3543 49.79 52.65 5.7

Fig. 11. The failure modes of the composite honeycomb sandwich structure with impact damage under 4-point bending. (a) Experimental results. (b) FEM simu­
lation results.

damage and subjected to 4-point bending, the residual compression or
bending strength of the structure shows a linear decrease with the
characteristic damage size. It is also worth noting that the reduction of
the in-plane compression strength of the impact-damaged structure is
much larger than that of metal honeycomb sandwich structures under
the same impact energy. We have developed a parametric analysis
model of the composite honeycomb sandwich structure based on FEM
modeling and Python scripting. The predicted failure modes and resid­
ual strengths are consistent with the experimental results, which proves
the accuracy of our model. The present model can be used as a powerful

9
J.-T. Hang et al. Composite Structures 321 (2023) 117279

Fig. 12. The force–displacement curves of composite honeycomb sandwich structures with impact damage under 4-point bending. (a) 3.8 J. (b) 5.5 J.

Table 6
Comparison of FEM and experimental results of 4-point bending strength of the composite honeycomb sandwich structure with impact damage.
Impact Energy Indentation depth Indentation diameter Strength Error Reduction
E (J) δ (mm) d (mm) (%) (%)
Experiment FEM
(MPa) (MPa)

0 — — 48.9 52.77 7.9 —

3.8 0.83 12.34 43.16 45.31 4.98 11.7
5.5 1.55 15.6 41.65 39.68 − 4.7 14.8

Fig. 13. The residual strength of the composite honeycomb sandwich structure with impact damage under 4-point bending obtained from experiments and FEM
simulations. The residual strength of the composite honeycomb sandwich structure decreases approximately linearly with impact indentation (a) depth and
(b) diameter.

tool for the analysis of the mechanical behaviors of composite honey­ Acknowledgments
comb sandwich structures.
Financial supports from the National Natural Science Foundation of
Author contributions China (Nos. 12072252, 11972359 and 12002399 ), and the Funda­
mental Research Funds for the Central Universities are gratefully
J.-T. H., W. Z., and G.-K. X. designed the research. J.-T. H and W. Z. acknowledged.
performed the research. J.-T. H., W. Z., L. L., and G.-K. X. analyzed the
data and wrote the article. References

Declaration of Competing Interest [1] Evans AG, Hutchinson JW, Fleck NA, Ashby MF, Wadley HNG. The topological
design of multifunctional cellular metals. Prog Mater Sci 2001;46(3-4):309–27.
[2] Oliveira PR, May M, Panzera TH, Hiermaier S. Bio-based/green sandwich
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial structures: A review. Thin-Walled Struct 2022;177:109426.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence [3] Mejdi A, Atalla N, Ghinet S. Wave spectral finite element model for the prediction
of sound transmission loss and damping of sandwich panels. Comput Struct 2015;
the work reported in this paper. 158:251–8.
[4] Castanie B, Bouvet C, Ginot M. Review of composite sandwich structure in
Data availability aeronautic applications. Composites Part C: Open Access 2020;1:100004.
[5] Wang Z. Recent advances in novel metallic honeycomb structure. Compos B Eng
2019;166:731–41.
Data will be made available on request. [6] Le VT, Ha NS, Goo NS. Advanced sandwich structures for thermal protection
systems in hypersonic vehicles: A review. Compos B Eng 2021;226:109301.

10
J.-T. Hang et al.
[7] Mohammadi H, Ahmad Z, Petrů M, Mazlan SA, Faizal Johari MA, Hatami H, et al.
An insight from nature: honeycomb pattern in advanced structural design for
impact energy absorption. J Mater Res Technol 2023;22:2862–87.
[8] Seemann R, Krause D. Numerical modelling of Nomex honeycomb sandwich cores
at meso-scale level. Compos Struct 2017;159:702–18.
[9] Zhou Y, Pan Yi, Gao Q, Sun B. In-plane quasi-static crushing behaviors of a novel
reentrant combined-wall honeycomb. J Appl Mech 2023;90(5).
[10] Ibrahim ME. Nondestructive evaluation of thick-section composites and sandwich
structures: A review. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 2014;64:36–48.
[11] Xue P, Wei X, Li Z, Xiong J. Face-core interfacial debonding characterization model
of an all-composite sandwich beam with a hexagonal honeycomb core. Eng Fract
Mech 2022;269:108554.
[12] Nsengiyumva W, Zhong S, Lin J, Zhang Q, Zhong J, Huang Y. Advances, limitations
and prospects of nondestructive testing and evaluation of thick composites and
sandwich structures: A state-of-the-art review. Compos Struct 2021;256:112951.
[13] McQuigg TD, Kapania RK, Scotti SJ, Walker SP. Compression after impact
experiments on thin face sheet honeycomb core sandwich panels. J Spacecr Rocket
2014;51(1):253–66.
[14] Song S, Xiong C, Zheng J, Yin J, Zou Y, Zhu X. Compression, bending, energy
absorption properties, and failure modes of composite Kagome honeycomb
sandwich structure reinforced by PMI foams. Compos Struct 2021;277:114611.
[15] Rhodes M. Impact fracture of composite sandwich structures. 16th Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. 1975.
[16] Davies GAO, Hitchings D, Besant T, Clarke A, Morgan C. Compression after impact
strength of composite sandwich panels. Compos Struct 2004;63(1):1–9.
[17] Reifsnider KL, Sendeckyj GP, Wang SS, Johnson WS, Stinchcomb WW, Pagano NJ,
et al. Compressive strength of composite sandwich panels after impact damage: an
experimental and analytical study. J Compos Tech Res 1988;10(2):65.
[18] Yang B, Wang Z, Zhou L, Zhang J, Tong L, Liang W. Study on the low-velocity
impact response and CAI behavior of foam-filled sandwich panels with hybrid
facesheet. Compos Struct 2015;132:1129–40.
11
Composite Structures 321 (2023) 117279
[19] Wang J, Chen B, Wang H, Waas AM. Experimental study on the compression-after-
impact behavior of foam-core sandwich panels. J Sandw Struct Mater 2015;17(4):
446–65.
[20] Hansen U. Compression behavior of FRP sandwich specimens with interface
debonds. J Compos Mater 1998;32(4):335–60.
[21] Vadakke V, Carlsson LA. Experimental investigation of compression failure
mechanisms of composite faced foam core sandwich specimens. J Sandw Struct
Mater 2004;6(4):327–42.
[22] Veedu VP, Carlsson LA. Finite-element buckling analysis of sandwich columns
containing a face/core debond. Compos Struct 2005;69(2):143–8.
[23] Zhao W, Xie Z, Li X, Yue X, Sun J. Compression after impact behavior of titanium
honeycomb sandwich structures. J Sandw Struct Mater 2018;20(5):639–57.
[24] Dai X, Yuan T, Zu Z, Ye H, Cheng X, Yang F. Experimental investigation on the
response and residual compressive property of honeycomb sandwich structures
under single and repeated low velocity impacts. Mater Today Commun 2020;25:
101309.
[25] Li Z, Wang Z, Wang X, Zhou W. Bending behavior of sandwich beam with tailored
hierarchical honeycomb cores. Thin-Walled Struct 2020;157:107001.
[26] James CT, Watson A, Cunningham PR. Numerical modelling of the compression-
after-impact performance of a composite sandwich panel. J Sandw Struct Mater
2015;17(4):376–98.
[27] Raju KS, Smith BL, Tomblin JS, Liew KH, Guarddon JC. Impact damage resistance
and tolerance of honeycomb core sandwich panels. J Compos Mater 2008;42(4):
385–412.
[28] Lacy TE, Hwang Y. Numerical modeling of impact-damaged sandwich composites
subjected to compression-after-impact loading. Compos Struct 2003;61(1-2):
115–28.
[29] Hashin Z. Fatigue failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composites. J Appl Mech
1981;48:846–52.
[30] Hashin Z, Rotem A. A fatigue failure criterion for fiber reinforced materials.
J Compos Mater 1973;7(4):448–64.