Composite Structures 81 (2007) 575–586

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Experimental and numerical evaluation of the mechanical

behaviour of GFRP sandwich panels
A. Russo, B. Zuccarello *

Dipartimento di Meccanica, Viale delle Scienze, 90128 Palermo, Italy

Available online 11 December 2006

Abstract

This work deals with the analysis of the mechanical behaviour of a class of sandwich structures widely employed in marine construc-
tions, constituted by fiber-glass laminate skins over PVC foam or polyester mat cores. In detail, a systematic experimental study and
numerical simulations have shown that the theoretical prediction of the strength and the actual failure mechanism of these sandwich
structures can be affected by significant errors, specially in the presence of prevalent shear loading. Moreover, because of the low shear
stiffness and the elastic constants mismatch of the skins and core material, failure modes and strength are strongly influenced by eventual
stresses orthogonal to the middle plane of the sandwich. In particular, for the sandwich structures with a PVC foam core, such a stress
interaction leads to early skin–core delamination failure, whereas for those with a polyester core it leads to core shear-cohesive failure. By
means of accurate non-linear simulations, accurate failure criteria, that can be used at the design stage in the presence of complex load-
ing, have also been developed.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sandwich composites; Mechanical testing; Damage mechanisms; Failure criteria

1. Introduction strength prediction needs the preliminary knowledge of

Sandwich composites are widely employed in modern
mechanical design, not only in the field of aeronautical
constructions, where they have initially been developed,
but also in the fields of land transports and marine
constructions.
Because of their main features, such as the high flexural
resistance and stiffness [1], the high impact strength [2,3],
the high corrosion resistance [4] and the low thermal and
acoustics conductivity [5–7], sandwich structures are in fact
preferred over conventional materials in various industrial
applications. Although large number of research projects
have been performed by various authors, the design of
structural elements made from sandwich composites is
often a difficult task. This is mainly because a reliable
the mechanical behaviour of skins and core, as well as of
the peculiar damage mechanisms [8–10] and failure criteria
that can be used under a complex loading.
The goal of the present work is to give a contribution to
the improvement of the mechanical design of naval struc-
tures made from sandwich composites constituted by
fibre-glass laminate skins over a PVC foam core [11,12]
or a polyester mat core. A systematic experimental and
numerical study of such composites as well as the individ-
ual materials constituting skins and cores has been per-
formed. The results of accurate non-linear numerical
simulations are also presented and used to develop reliable
failure criteria.
2. Failure mechanisms and theoretical strength prediction

*
Corresponding author.
As shown in the literature [8–10], the failure of a sand-
E-mail addresses: russo@dima.unipa.it (A. Russo), zuccarello@ wich structure can occur through several damage mecha-
dima.unipa.it (B. Zuccarello). nisms such as:

0263-8223/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.10.007
576 A. Russo, B. Zuccarello / Composite Structures 81 (2007) 575–586

(1) skin compressive/tensile failure [13]; N is the shear stiffness provided by the following formulas
(2) core shear failure [14,15]; [22]:
(3) delamination, i.e. skin–core debonding [16];
ðh3  h3c Þ
(4) local skin wrinkling [17–19]; and D ¼ Es ð3Þ
(5) core indentation failure, related to high specific pres- 12ð1  v2s Þ
sure [20,21]. Gc ðh þ hc Þ2
N¼ ð4Þ
4hc
In general, in the case of failures like type (1) and (2) it is
It has to be noted that because the compressive strength of
possible to perform a theoretical strength prediction analy-
the skins is in general higher than the tensile strength, un-
sis [1] from the knowledge of the mechanical characteristics
der pure bending the failure of the skin subjected to tension
of the skin and the core. In more detail, considering a gen-
prevents the damaging of the opposite skin subjected to
eric loading condition constituted by a bending moment M
compression.
and a shear load T (see Fig. 1a) the composite’s rupture fol-
From Eqs. (1) and (2) it follows that, in the presence of a
lows the skin failure if the maximum normal stress r0x;max
complex loading (bending + shear), the rupture of the
acting in the external skin face exceeds the skin tensile
sandwich composite is caused by the skin tension failure
strength rs,u. It follows the core rupture if the maximum
if the load ratio r = M/T is higher than rmax = Mmax/Tmax,
shear stress sxz,max acting in the middle plane of the core
i.e. if:
exceeds the core shear strength sc,u. Using the notation
reported in Fig. 1, as well as the widely used Classical Lam- M Gc 2D rs;u
inate Theory and the First Order Shear Deformation The- r¼ > rmax ¼ ð5Þ
T Es Nh sc;u
ory [1] to compute r0x;max and sxz,max, the skin failure and
the core failure occur when M and T exceed the corre- Otherwise, if r is less than rmax, the rupture is caused by the
sponding values Mmax and Tmax given by: core failure. As an example, if the sandwich structure is
2D subjected to a three point bending (TPB) in which r is equal
M max ¼ rs;u ðskin tension failureÞ ð1Þ to half the span length a1 [22], then it fails due to the skin
Es h
failure if a1 satisfies the condition:
N
T max ¼ sc;u ðcore shear failureÞ ð2Þ
Gc a1 > 2rmax ðTPBÞ ð6Þ
where Es is the Young modulus of the skins, Gc is the shear Otherwise the composite’s rupture is caused by the core
modulus of the core, whereas D is the bending stiffness and shear failure. Similarly, for a four point bending (FPB)
with distance between the two loads equal to half the span
length a2 [22], the rupture is caused by the skin failure if the
ts
span length a2 satisfy the condition:

zs
a2 > 4rmax ðFPBÞ ð7Þ
h hc
T T Eqs. (6) and (7) show that for increasing span length the
core failure mechanism moves from the core shear failure to
M M the tensile skin failure. Obviously, if a1 and a2 equal the
z skin corresponding critical values ac1 ¼ 2rmax and ac2 ¼ 4rmax ,
a then the skin failure and the core failure occur at the same
x time.
BACK Unfortunately, because of various parameters affect the
failure properties (the skin–core adhesion, loading interac-
tions, contact stresses, etc.) that can lead also to failures
type (3)–(5), such theoretical predictions of the failure
FRONT
modes (Eqs. (5)–(7)) and corresponding strengths (Eqs.
b (1) and (2)) are in general not accurate. Also, the theoreti-
cal prediction of these failure modes (3)–(5) is a difficult
task and, consequently, a reliable strength evaluation of a
sandwich structure often requires an accurate experimental
analysis and/or numerical simulations [23,24].
In order to improve the structural design of naval com-
ponents, two types of sandwich composites widely
c employed in this field have been studied. Various experi-
mental tests have been carried out on skins and core
Fig. 1. (a) Scheme of a sandwich panel and general notations, (b) pictures (tensile, compressive and shear tests) as well as on the sand-
of the PVC foam core and (c) the polyester mat core. wich structures (tensile, compressive, shear and bending
 A. Russo, B. Zuccarello / Composite Structures 81 (2007) 575–586
tests). Successive non-linear FEM simulations have also
been carried out to verify whether reliable estimations of
failure modes and mechanical strength can be obtained
using accurate numerical results. Finally, proper failure cri-
teria that can be used in the presence of the delamination or
the core shear failure under complex loading, have been
developed from numerical results.
3. Materials description
For both examined types of sandwich panels, furnished
by the AiconÒ Italian shipbuilder, the skins are made from
3 mm thick fiber-glass laminates manufactured by hand
lay-up using an E-glass mat (randomly oriented fibres, with
density of 450 g/m2) and an orthophthalic polyester resin
(CRYSTIC 446 LVPAÒ produced by Scott Bader), with
fibre volume fraction of Vf = 0.17. The core of one sand-
wich composite type is constituted by a ‘‘closed cell’’
PVC foam DivinycellÒ H 100 (having thickness
hc = 10 mm and density of 100 kg m3); it is a GRID-
SCORED type core, with longitudinal and transverse cuts
on a face and a fibre-glass reinforcing grid placed on the
other face (see Fig. 1b). The core of the other sandwich
composite type is constituted by a 4 mm thick thermoset
polyester mat having a grid of holes (see Fig. 1c), commer-
cially denominated COREMATÒ; it is the so-called ‘‘open
cells’’ material that absorbs resin during the lamination
process. Therefore the sandwich panel with the PVC core
has a total thickness h = 16 mm, whereas the one with
the polyester core has a total thickness h = 10 mm.
4. Experimental analysis
Experimental tests have been carried out by using a
mechanical testing machine (HOUNSFIELD H 20 kN)
and a hydraulic testing machine (MTS 350 kN), both inter-
faced to a data acquisition system type HBM UPM 100.
Such a device allows the user to acquire the applied loads
along with the corresponding strains of the specimens,
measured by electrical strain gauges (SG) or LVDT
transducers.
In the following sections detailed descriptions of the
tests carried out on skins, cores and sandwich panels are
reported.
Fig. 2. Skins characterisation: pictures of the specimens after the rupture under: (a) tensile, (b) compressive and (c) shear loading.
577
4.1. Skins characterization
The experimental characterization of the skins has been
performed using tensile, compressive and shear tests. The
tensile test has been carried out following the ASTM
D3039/D3039M-93 standard [25], by using specimens
properly instrumented with an HBM DD1 extensometer
to measure the longitudinal strain, and a MM CEA-06-
125UW-350 strain gauge to measure the transverse strain.
The tests have shown that the skins exhibit a linear elastic
behaviour up to about 4000 micro strain and an ultimate
strain et,u  13000 micro strain. Moreover, all specimens
have shown an XGM type failure [25], i.e. a sudden failure
localized at the central zone of the specimen, with the frac-
ture surface perpendicular to the specimen axis (see
Fig. 2a).
The compressive test has been carried out following the
ASTM D3410-87 standard [26]. Two opposite longitudinal
MM CEA-06-125 UW-350 strain gauges were mounted on
the specimens. Under compressive loading the material
exhibits a linear elastic behaviour up to about 4000 micro
strain, with an ultimate strain ec,u  16000 micro strain.
Unlike tensile tests, the failure is due to the shear rupture
of the matrix and debonding phenomena (see Fig. 2b).
The shear test has been carried out following the ASTM
D 4255-83 standard [27], by performing the so-called
‘‘three-rail shear test’’ on specimens with two rectangular
strain gauge rosettes type MM CEA-06-250UR-350. The
experimental shear stress–strain curves have shown that
under shear loading the skin exhibits a linear elastic behav-
iour up to a shear strain of about 5000–6000 micro strain,
whereas the failure corresponds to an ultimate shear strain
of es,u  25000 micro strain. Moreover, the skin rupture is
mainly due to the shear failure along one or more vertical
specimen sections (see Fig. 2c).
In accordance to the ASTM standards, all the elastic
constants of the skins have been determined by considering
the bilinear stress–strain approximation, i.e. the tensile
Young’s modulus (E0s;1 ; E0s;2 ), the compressive Young’s
modulus (E0s;1 ; E0s;2 ), the Poisson ratio vs and the shear mod-
ulus Gs. These values are reported in the upper part of
Table 1, along with the tensile strength rs,u, the compres-
sive strength r0s;u , the shear strength ss,u and the corre-
sponding tensile transition stress rs,t, the compressive
transition stress r0s;t and the shear transition stress ss,t.
578 A. Russo, B. Zuccarello / Composite Structures 81 (2007) 575–586

Table 1
Mechanical properties determined from the experimental tests
Tensile test (MPa) Compressive test (MPa) Shear test (MPa) Flexural test (MPa)
Skins rs,u = 95 r0s;u ¼ 120 ss,u = 49 –
rs,t = 45 r0s;t ¼ 58 ss,t = 24 –
Es,1 = 8580 E0s;1 ¼ 9000 Gs,1 = 2950 –
Es,2 = 5650 E0s;2 ¼ 5700 Gs,2 = 1600 –
ms = 0.38 – –
PVC foam core rc,u = 3.7 r0c;u ¼ 1:45 – –
rc,t = 2.5 E0c;1 ¼ 35 – –
Ec,1 = 120 E0c;2 ¼ 0:4 – –
Ec,2 = 75 – –
Polyester core rc,u = 3.5a r0c;u > 30a – –
rc,t = 2.55a r0c;t ¼ 9:6a – –
Ec,1 = 610a E0c;1 ¼ 390a – –
Ec,2 = 140a E0c;2 ¼ 210a – –
Sandwich structure with the PVC foam core rd = 1.65 – sd ¼ 1:65 sc,u = 2
E = 120 – G = 78.6 Gc = 49.8
– – Gc = 48.5 –
Sandwich structure with the polyester core ru = 3.5 r0u > 30 sc;u ¼ 3:65 sc,u = 4
rt = 2.55 r0t ¼ 9:6 G = 670 Gc = 394
E1 = 610 E 0 = 390 Gc = 390 –
E2 = 140 E = 210 – –
a
Values determined from flat-wise tensile and compressive tests performed on the sandwich structure, as prescribed by the ASTM Standards [27,28].

From these results can be observed that the skins exhibit

an almost isotropic elastic behaviour with compressive
strength that is about 20% larger than the tensile strength.

4.2. Core characterization

The characterization of the PVC foam core has been

obtained by means of the flatwise tensile test and the flat-
wise compressive test, carried out directly on the core
material.
Fig. 3. Flatwise tensile test of the PVC foam core: the picture of the
In detail, the flatwise tensile test has been carried out fol-
specimen after the rupture.
lowing the ASTM C297-61 standard [28] and using two
square specimens bonded to the steel plates of the loading 9
device with cyanoacrylate adhesive. The flatwise compres-
C
sive test, carried out following the ASTM C365-57 stan- 7.5
dard [29], has been performed on circular specimens.
The stress–strain curves obtained from the flatwise ten-
6
sile test have shown a linear elastic behaviour up to a strain
σ ’ [MPa]

of about 14000 micro strain and an ultimate strain of about

33000 micro strain. Also, the experimental evidence has 4.5
shown that in general the cohesive core failure starts at
the core face where the reinforcing grid is placed, and con- 3
tinue following a typical cup-cone surface (see Fig. 3). σ ’c,u
Fig. 4 shows the typical stress–strain curve obtained
1.5
from the flatwise compressive tests; such curves are consti- A B
tuted by a first linear elastic segment (0A), followed by a
sub-horizontal segment (AB) corresponding to the collapse 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
and micro-buckling of the foam cells [24], and a successive
curvilinear segment (BC) with progressively increasing ε [μm/m]
slope [10,12,30], corresponding to the progressive ‘‘densifi- Fig. 4. Flatwise compressive test of the PVC foam core: stress–strain
cation’’ [24] of the cells. curves.
 A. Russo, B. Zuccarello / Composite Structures 81 (2007) 575–586 579

The elastic constants (the tensile Young’s modulus Ec
and the compressive Young’s modulus E0c ), as well as the
strengths rc,u (tensile), r0c;u (compressive) and the corre-
sponding transition stresses (the tensile transition stress
rc,t, the compressive transition stress r0c;t ) are reported in
Table 1. From these values it is seen that the compressive
stiffness and compressive strength of the PVC foam core
are much lower than those corresponding to tensile
loading.
Following the ASTM standards, mechanical character-
istics of the polyester core have indirectly been determined
from tests carried out on the corresponding sandwich
structures (see the following section). These characteristics,
in fact, can not be determined directly by using specimens
made by the polyester mat, that is a fibrous material with
no initial bending and transversal stiffness.
4.3. Sandwich structures characterization
The characterization of both types of sandwich panels
has been carried out by means of three points bending
(TPB) tests, four points bending (FPB) tests, shear tests,
flatwise tensile tests and flatwise compressive tests.
4.3.1. Three points bending test
TPB tests have been carried out following the ASTM
C393-62 standard [22]. To observe the possible failure
mechanisms of the skins, specimens with span length of
a1 = 380 and 330 mm for the sandwich panel with the
PVC core and a1 = 300 and 166 mm for the sandwich panel
with the polyester core have been tested. In fact, all speci-
mens satisfy the condition expressed by Eq. (6)
(2rmax = 254 mm and 140 mm, respectively for sandwich
structures with the PVC core and the polyester core, see
failure (at ±45°) propagating toward the lower skin–core
interface with a successive delamination (see Fig. 6a and
c). On the contrary, in accordance to the theoretical failure
mode prediction, the longer specimens have failed after the
lower skin tensile failure (see Fig. 6b and d).
For both types of sandwich structures the mean value of
the actual bending moment at failure M max is reported in
Table 2 along with theoretical estimations (see Eq. (1)).
4.3.2. Four points bending test
The FPB test has been carried out in accordance with
the ASTM C393-62 standard [22]. In detail, to observe
the core failure mechanisms, the following specimens have
been tested with span length of a2 = 330 mm for the sand-
wich structure with the PVC core and with a2 = 166 mm
for the sandwich structure with the polyester core. In fact,
both of these span length values satisfy Eq. (7)
(4rmax = 508 mm and 280 mm respectively for the sand-
wich panel with the PVC core and the polyester core, see
Table 2) and therefore the failure of these two sandwich
structures should follow the core shear rupture.
In Fig. 7a it is seen that the sandwich structure exhibits a
significant deviation from linearity for midspan deflections
more than about 25–30% of the corresponding failure
1600
a1=330 mm
1400 C
a1=380 mm
D
1200 a1=166 mm
A
1000
Load P1 [N]

A,B: Specimen with polyester core

Table 2) and therefore they should theoretically fail due 800 C,D: Specimen with PVC core
to the tensile rupture of the skin.
Briefly, the load–deflection curves of all four specimen a1=300 mm
600
types have shown a significant deviation from linearity
starting from a mid-span deflection equal to about 20– 400 B
30% of the value corresponding to the failure (see Fig. 5).
Moreover the tests have shown that, unlike the theoret- 200
ical failure mode prediction, the shorter specimens
(a1 = 330 for the sandwich panel with the PVC core, 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
a1 = 166 for the sandwich panel with the polyester core)
Midspan deflection w1 [mm]
have failed due to the shear failure of the core localized
at the core middle plane and a simultaneous core cohesive Fig. 5. TPB tests: load–deflection curves of the various tested specimens.

Table 2
Theoretical and experimental values of Mmax, Tmax and rmax defined by Eqs. (1), (2) and (5)
Theoretical values Experimental values % Error
Sandwich structure with the PVC foam core Mmax (N) 3491 M max (N) 3576 2.3
Tmax (Nm m1) 33.8 T max (Nm m1) 25.3 33.6
rmax (mm) 127 – – –
Sandwich structure with the polyester core Mmax (N) 1689 M max (N) 1989 15
Tmax (Nm m1) 49 T max (Nm m1) 24.34 101
rmax (mm) 70 – – –
580 A. Russo, B. Zuccarello / Composite Structures 81 (2007) 575–586

Fig. 6. Pictures of the TPB specimens after the rupture: (a) the sandwich panel with the PVC core having a1 = 330 mm and (b) 380 mm, (c) the sandwich
panel with the polyester core having a1 = 166 mm and (d) 300 mm.

2000 inclined at about 45° (PVC core, Fig. 7b) or placed at the
1800 a B core middle plane (polyester core, Fig. 7c) is observed.
For both types of sandwich structures the mean value of
1600
the actual failure shear load T max is reported in Table 2
1400 along with that estimated theoretically by Eq. (2). Also, fol-
lowing the ASTM standard [22], the core shear strength as
1200
Load P2 [N]

A
well as the core shear modulus Gc have been computed (see
1000 A. Specimen with the polyester core Table 1).
800 B. Specimen with the PVC core
4.3.3. Shear test
600 The shear test has been performed following the ASTM
400 C273-61 standard [31], by using an LVDT transducer type
HBM W 10 TK (see Fig. 8a) to measure the relative dis-
200
placement of the two opposite faces of the sandwich struc-
0 ture. Fig. 8b shows the obtained s–c curves. It can be
0 5 10 15 20
observed that the sandwich panel with the polyester core
Midspan deflection w2 [mm]
exhibits a linearity and a failure shear stress higher than
those of the sandwich panel with the PVC core. Using
b the relationships provided by the ASTM standard [31]
the shear modulus G of the composite has been computed
and the core shear modulus Gc, already estimated by the
FPB test, has been confirmed (see Table 1).
Core shear failure Moreover, the experimental analysis has shown that,
unlike the usual theoretical prediction of the core shear
failure, the actual rupture of the sandwich panel with the
c
PVC core is caused by the delamination of the skin–core
interface where the core reinforcing grid is located (see
Fig. 8c). In accordance with the theoretical predictions,
the failure of the polyester core sandwich panel is caused
Core shear failure by the core rupture (Fig. 8d).
It is important to note that both the delamination of the
Fig. 7. FPB tests: (a) load–deflection curves, pictures of the sandwich PVC core sandwich composite and the core rupture of the
structures with (b) the PVC core and (c) the polyester core after the
rupture.
other sandwich composite type happen at a shear stress
level less than the value previously estimated by the corre-
sponding FPB test (see Table 1). In particular, the delami-
value, like in the previous TPB tests. Also, it is shown in nation corresponds to an apparent ultimate delamination
Fig. 7b (sandwich panel with the PVC core) and Fig. 7c stress sd ¼ 1:65 MPa significantly less than the core shear
(sandwich panel with the polyester core) that in accordance strength sc,u = 2 MPa (see Table 1), whereas the core rup-
to the theoretical prediction, the failure of both sandwich ture corresponds to an ultimate core shear stress
structures follows the core rupture localized in the region sc;u ¼ 3:65 MPa less than the core shear strength value
located between the section where the load is applied and sc,u = 4 MPa (see Table 1). As shown by the successive
the support section. A typical cohesive failure surface numerical simulations reported in the next section, the dif-
 A. Russo, B. Zuccarello / Composite Structures 81 (2007) 575–586 581

core shear failure

delamination
a 3.5
A b c d
hinge pin
3

LVDT 2.5

[MPa]
2
B

τ
l 1.5

0.5
A. Specimen with the polyester core
B. Specimen with the PVC core

hinge pin 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15

x
γ [mm]

z
Fig. 8. Shear tests: (a) loading device, (b) stress–strain curves and pictures of the specimens with (c) the PVC core and (d) the polyester core after the
rupture.

ferent failure modes and the different ultimate stresses 500

observed in the shear test and in the FPB test are caused Sandwich panel with the polyester core

by spurious transverse tensile stresses existing in the shear Sandwich panel with the PVC core
test; such spurious stresses are related to the unavoidable 450 2
misalignment between the actual loading direction and 3

the specimen axis. 4

400
PF [N/mm]

To implement reliable failure criteria that can be used at 5

the design stage in presence of shear and transverse stres-
ses, using the same loading device already used for the stan- 350
dard shear tests, successive ‘‘shear–tensile’’ tests have been 4
carried out by decreasing the distance l between the hinge 3
5
pins (see Fig. 8a) in such a way to increase the misalign- 300
2
ment between the load direction and the specimen axis 2. shear test;
(and then the ratio between spurious tensile load and shear
3. 4. 5. “shear-tensile” tests.
load). The corresponding results in terms of failure load PF 250
0 100 200 300 400
(per unit width) versus the distance l between the hinges are
reported in Fig. 9. Unfortunately, because of the actual dis- l [mm]
tribution of both the shear stresses sxz and the transverse Fig. 9. Experimental results of the shear and ‘‘shear–tensile’’ tests: the
stress rz are not known, the reported results do not allow failure load per unit width PF versus the distance l between the hinges.
to develop a failure criteria suitable to taking into account
the interaction between the two stress components. Succes- delamination corresponds to a delamination stress rd equal
sive numerical analyses are necessary to accomplish this to about 50% of the tensile strength of the PVC, whereas
goal (see Section 6.1). the ultimate tensile stress of the polyester core is close to
the tensile strength of the PVC core (see also Table 1).
4.3.4. Flatwise tensile test
The flatwise tensile test has been carried out following 4.3.5. Flatwise compressive test
the ASTM C297-61 standard [28]. Fig. 10a shows the The flatwise compressive test has been performed fol-
stress–strain curve obtained for both types of sandwich lowing the ASTM C365-57 standard [29], by using circular
structures, whereas Figs. 10b and c show the pictures of specimens. In particular, taking into account that the
the sandwich structures after rupture. It is seen that the behaviour of the PVC foam core under compressive load-
sandwich panel with the PVC core fails by the delamina- ing has been already analyzed (see Section 4.2), this test
tion of the skin–core interface where the core reinforcing has been carried out only on the sandwich panel with the
grid is located (Fig. 10b), whereas the sandwich panel with polyester core. Young’s moduli E0c;1 , E0c;2 and the transition
the polyester core fails by a core cohesive failure taking stress r0c;t , obtained from the analysis of the stress–strain
place along the middle plane of the core (Fig. 10c). The curve, are reported in Table 1.
582 A. Russo, B. Zuccarello / Composite Structures 81 (2007) 575–586

4 modes. In more detail, for the sandwich panel with the

A. Specimen with the polyester core PVC core the delamination occurs at the skin–core inter-
B. Specimen with the PVC core face where the core reinforcing grid is located. Such a
3
delamination is associated with a low transverse tensile
strength, so that the risk of delamination is quite relevant
not only into actual engineering applications, but also dur-
σ [MPa]

A ing the same manufacturing process when, for example, the

2
sandwich laminate is extracted from the relative mould.
Therefore, in order to increase the transverse resistance
of the sandwich structure it is necessary to improve the
B
1 skin–core adhesion by moving the core reinforcing grid
under the core surface.
Finally, the experimental tests have shown that in gen-
a eral the theoretical strength predictions can be not accu-
0
0 3000 5000 9000 12000 15000 rate. In particular, if the rupture of the sandwich
ε [μm/m] composite is given by the skin tension failure, then the
value of Mmax computed by Eq. (1) underestimates the
delamination actual value of M max , with errors that can reach about
z 15% (see Table 2). On the contrary, if the rupture is given
by the core failure, then the value of Tmax computed from
x Eq. (2) overestimates the actual value T max (non-conserva-
tive estimations), with errors up to 100% (see also Table 2).
b Consequently, accurate non-liner numerical computa-
tions of the actual stress–strain distribution due to simple
and complex loading conditions are necessary for a better
understanding of the mechanical behaviour and a reliable
strength prediction. Moreover, such simulations are also
necessary to develop accurate failure criteria that take into
Core cohesive failure
account the peculiar failure modes and the interactions
c between the various stress components that can signifi-
cantly influence the strength of the sandwich structure.
Fig. 10. Flatwise tensile tests: (a) stress–strain curves and pictures of the
sandwich panel with (b) the PVC core and (c) the polyester core after the 6. Numerical analysis
rupture.
The simulations of all the experimental tests have been
carried out by using the AnsysÒ code and isoparametric
5. Discussion quadrilateral plane elements type PLANE42 (four nodes
element) and PLANE82 (eight nodes element). Considering
The described experimental tests have shown that in the the non-linear behaviour of the materials constituting the
presence of a mixed loading condition constituted by bend- skin and the core, as well as the large displacements that
ing and shear, the theoretical prediction of the failure precede in general the failure of the sandwich structure,
modes is in general not accurate. In fact, the experimental all simulations have been performed by means of non-lin-
tests show that for TPB the actual critical span length of ear analyses. Also, in order to introduce the actual mechan-
the sandwich structure with the PVC core falls in the range ical behaviour of the skin and the core, which are different
of 330–380 mm, whereas the theoretical value (equal to under tensile, compressive and shear loading, anisotropic
2rmax, see Table 2) is 254 mm; similarly, for the sandwich elements that allows the user to introduce a bilinear r–e
structure with the polyester core the actual critical span curve and an independent bilinear s–c curve, have been
length falls in the range of 166–300 mm, whereas the theo- used. Using the elastic constants and the transition stresses
retical value is 140 mm (see Table 2). determined experimentally, each of the numerical models
Moreover, in the presence of a prevalent shear loading, (obtained by a proper convergence test) has provided
the strong influence of transverse stresses can lead to an results in a good agreement with the experiment. As an
unexpected skin–core delamination or a premature core example, Fig. 11a shows the numerical model (1040 ele-
shear-cohesive failure for the sandwich with the PVC core ments) used to simulate the FPB test, whereas Fig. 11b
and with the polyester core, respectively. No local skin shows the corresponding load–midspan deflection curve
wrinkling phenomenon or core indentation failure have provided by the non-linear FEM analysis, along with that
been observed in the performed tests, although no particu- obtained experimentally: it is shown that a good accor-
lar device has been used to avoid these special damage dance between numerical and experimental results has
 A. Russo, B. Zuccarello / Composite Structures 81 (2007) 575–586 583

P2/2 8
7 a
6
5
4 τ xz

Stress [MPa]
3
2 τxz τxz
1
1200 0 σz
experimental
-1
-2
σz
1000 FEM
-3
-4
0 10 30 50 70 90 110 130
800
x [mm]
Load P2 [N]

1.1
600
1 numerical-experimental data
1
2
b
linear criterion (eq.8)
0.9
400 3
0.8 4

0.7
200

τ xz / τu
0.6

0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.4
1. FPB test;
Midspan deflection w2 [mm] 0.3
5
2. shear test;
Fig. 11. Numerical simulations: (a) the model used to simulate the FPB 0.2
3. 4. 5. “shear/ tensile”
test of the sandwich structure with the polyester core and (b) the 0.1 tests;
comparison between numerical and experimental load–midspan deflection 6
0
curves. 6. tensile test.
-0.1
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1

achieved with deviations less than 4%. Similar FEM mod-
els have been used to simulate the remaining experimental
tests, and similar deviations have been observed.
6.1. Numerical results and failure criteria under shear–tensile
loading
The results of the simulation of the TPB and FBP tests,
not reported in this paper for simplicity sake, have corrob-
orated the experimental results in terms of failure modes
and corresponding strengths.
Relevant results are those provided by the simulations
of the standard shear tests, carried out by using accurate
FEM models that simulate the specimens and the loading
device in the actual experimental conditions. As it is shown
in the following paragraphs, such results have permitted to
develop, for both types of sandwich structures examined,
accurate failure criteria that allow the user reliable strength
predictions under complex loading.
6.1.1. Sandwich structure with the polyester core
Considering the sandwich structure with the polyester
core Fig. 12a shows the distribution of the stresses sxz
and rz at the middle plane of the core, where the failure
occurs (see also Fig. 8d) . From this figure it is possible
to observe that the shear stress distribution is not uniform
and, most importantly, non-negligible tensile transverse
stresses rz are observed close to the two edges of the spec-
σz /σu
Fig. 12. Sandwich structure with the polyester core: (a) stress distributions
in the middle plane obtained numerically and (b) resistance domain under
complex shear–tensile loading.
imen. Additional numerical simulations of the shear test,
performed by increasing the Young’s modulus of the two
plates constituting the test device, have corroborated that,
in accordance with the theoretical analysis of the adhesive
joints [32], the non-uniformity of such stress distributions
decrease if the shear stiffness of the system increases. How-
ever, such significant tensile transverse (peel) stresses rz
next to the two specimen edges are responsible for the pre-
mature core failure observed experimentally at an ultimate
mean shear stress of su = 3.6 MPa, lower than the core
shear strength of sc,u = 4 MPa, estimated experimentally
with the FPB test. In other words, the interaction between
shear stresses sxz and peel stresses rz leads to core cohesive-
shear failure (mixed mode). To develop a failure criterion
that can be used to take into account such a stress interac-
tion, the numerical simulation of the experimental ‘‘tensile–
shear’’ test has also been performed. The relative results, in
terms of non-dimensional mean shear stress sxz =sc;u and
non-dimensional mean transverse stress r z =rc;u (see
Fig. 12a) are reported in Fig. 12b. In this figure the failure
points are defined by the mean stress components provided
by FEM when the applied load is equal to the failure load
584 A. Russo, B. Zuccarello / Composite Structures 81 (2007) 575–586

8 8
a b
6 6

4 4
σ~ z

τ xz [MPa]
σz [MPa]

2 2

0
τ~xz
0

-2 -2
a a
-4 -4

-6 -6
0 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 0 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
x [mm] x [mm]
Fig. 13. Numerical results relative to the shear test of the sandwich structure with the PVC foam core: stress distribution of: (a) rz and (b) sxz at the skin–
core interface.

measured experimentally. It is seen that these results are in high stress concentration phenomena) applied by consider-
practice well aligned with the straight line (deviations less ing an integration interval a (see Fig. 13) equal to two times
than 5–6 %) between the two limit points (1, 0) and (0, 1), the core thickness hc, i.e. a = 2hc (a = 20 mm for the exam-
representing respectively the cohesive core failure under ined sandwich structure).
pure flatwise tensile loading and the core shear failure From Fig. 14, that shows the numerical results in terms
under pure shear loading. Consequently, according to data of non-dimensional stresses r ~z =rd and ~sxz =sd (the symbol 
presented in Fig. 12b, the failure of the polyester core is indicates the average stress computed in the a integration
accurately predicted by the following simple failure interval), it is shown that the failure points follow the
criterion: Ye’s criterion, i.e. they are well fitted by the well known
jsxz j rz Ye formula:
þ ¼1 ð8Þ  2  2
sc;u rc;u ~sxz r
~z
þ ¼1 ð9Þ
sd rd
6.1.2. Sandwich structure with the PVC core in which rd = 1.65 MPa is the transverse tensile strength of
For the sandwich structure with the PVC core, Fig. 13 the sandwich structure provided by the flatwise tensile test
shows the distributions of rz (Fig. 13a) and sxz (Fig. 13b) (see Table 1) whereas sd = 2.2 MPa is the delamination
at the skin–core interface where, as it is shown by the strength of the sandwich structure under a pure shear load-
experimental shear tests, the delamination failure occurs. ing, provided by the same fitting procedure. It is important
From this figure it is possible to observe that, although
the transverse load is small, the low shear stiffness and
the high elastic constants mismatch of the skin and the core 1.1
(see Table 1) lead to a rz stress distribution that diverges 1 6
next to the free edges; in particular, rz is positive at the left 0.9
edge and negative at the right edge. This particular stress 0.8
distribution justifies the premature delamination phenom- 1. tensile test.
5
3
2
0.7 4
ena experimentally observed at the left edge of the shear 2. shear test;
0.6
test specimen (see Fig. 8c). In fact, the tensile stress rz pro-
τ~xz / τd

0.5 3. 4. 5. “shear/tensile”
duces a peeling force at the skin–core interface that leads to tests;
0.4
the delamination. In order to develop a failure criterion
6. FPB test;
that takes into account the interaction between peel (rz) 0.3

and shear stresses (sxz), numerical simulations of the exper- 0.2

Ye criterion (eq.9)
imental tensile–shear tests have been also performed. The 0.1

systematic analysis of the relative results have shown that 0

numerical-experimental data
1
this ‘‘peel–shear’’ delamination failure can be theoretically -0.1
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
predicted by using the Ye’s delamination failure criterion ~ /σ
[33] (widely used in composite laminates and bi-material σ z d

joints) along with the so-called average stress criterion Fig. 14. Delamination resistance domain of the sandwich structure with
[34] (commonly used for composite materials subjected to the PVC foam core under complex loading.
 A. Russo, B. Zuccarello / Composite Structures 81 (2007) 575–586
to note that the latter characteristic stress cannot be esti-
mated experimentally with the FPB test, because it is high-
er than the core shear strength of sc,u = 2 MPa and,
consequently, in absence of transverse stresses rz the core
shear failure prevents the skin–core delamination.
7. Conclusions
In the present work the actual mechanical behaviour
and the peculiar failure mechanisms of two types of sand-
wich structures widely used in marine constructions (con-
stituted by fibre-glass laminate skins over a PVC foam or
a polyester mat core) have been studied by means of exper-
imental investigations and successive numerical analyses
under different loading conditions. The experimental anal-
ysis has shown that both types of sandwich structures exhi-
bit a significant non-linearity, with different behaviour
under tensile, compressive and shear loading. Also, in the
presence of prevalent bending and shear loading the theo-
retical prediction of the possible failure modes (skin tension
failure or core shear failure) are in general not accurate.
The corresponding theoretical strength predictions are in
general not accurate as well. In particular, if the failure
of the sandwich structure is caused by the skin tension rup-
ture, then the theoretical predictions underestimate the
actual strength with errors up to 15%; on the contrary,
if the failure of the sandwich structure is caused by the core
shear rupture, then the predictions overestimate the actual
strength with errors up to 100%.
Under flatwise tensile loading the sandwich panel with
the PVC foam exhibits a very low transverse tensile
strength associated with a skin–core delamination caused
by the presence of the reinforcing fibre-glass grid. How-
ever, the transverse stresses significantly influence also the
core shear failure of the sandwich panel with the polyester
core.
The non-linear FEM simulations have allowed us to
study the influence of the transverse stresses on the actual
failure modes of the sandwich composites, as well as to
develop accurate failure criteria that can be used at the
design stage. In practice, for the sandwich structure with
the polyester core, a reliable estimation of the cohesive-
shear core failure can be obtained by using a simple linear
criterion involving the mean stresses, whereas for the sand-
wich structure with the PVC core, the skin–core delamina-
tion can be accurately predicted by applying the Ye’s
delamination failure criterion to the average interface stres-
ses computed from the FEM results by using the average
stress method with a characteristic distance a equal to
two times the core thickness hc.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Aicon Italian shipbuilder for pro-
viding the examined materials, as well as Dr. Bartlomiej
Benedikt (LANL) that has read the paper. The authors
wish to thank also Giuseppe Giacalone and Giacomo
585
Cerami for their contribution to the specimens manufac-
turing and the successive instrumentation.
References
[1] Vinson JR. The behaviour of sandwich structures of isotropic and
composite materials. Westport: Technomic; 1999.
[2] Mines RAW, Worrall CM, Gibson AG. Low velocity perforation
behaviour of polymer composite sandwich panels. Int J Impact Engng
1998;21(10):855–79.
[3] Torre L, Kenny JM. Impact testing and simulation of composite
sandwich structures for civil transportation. Compos Struct
2000;50:257–67.
[4] Kootsookos A, Burchill PJ. The effect of the degree of cure on the
corrosion resistance of vinyl ester/glass fibre composites. Composites
A 2004;35:501–8.
[5] Allard JF. Propagation of sound in porous media: modelling sound
absorbing materials. Elsevier Applied Science; 1993.
[6] Sahraoui S, Mariez E, Etchessahar M. Mechanical testing of
polymeric foams at low frequency. Polym Test 2001;20:93–6.
[7] Kalaprasad G, Pradeep P, George Mathew, Pavithran C, Sabu
Thomas. Thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity analyses of
low-density polyethylene composites reinforced with sisal, glass and
intimately mixed sisal/glass fibres. Compos Sci Technol
2000;60:2967–77.
[8] Anderson, Melvin S. Optimum proportions of truss core and web-
core sandwich plates loaded in compression. NASA TN D-98; 1959.
[9] Steeves CA, Fleck NA. Collapse mechanisms of sandwich beams with
composite faces and a foam core, loaded in three-point bending. Part
I: analytical models and minimum weight design. Mech Sci
2003;46:561–83.
[10] Steeves CA, Fleck NA. Material selection in sandwich beam
construction. Scripta Mater 2004;50:1335–9.
[11] Danielsson M, Grenestedt JL. Gradient foam core materials for
sandwich structures: preparation and characterisation. Composites A
1998;29:981–8.
[12] Lin Hong-Ru. The structures and property relationships of commer-
cial foamed plastics. Polym Test 1997;16:429–43.
[13] Vaikhanski L, Nutt SR. Fiber-reinforced composite foam from
expandable PVC microspheres. Composites A 2003;34:1245–53.
[14] Kim J, Swanson R. Design of sandwich for concentrated loading.
Compos Struct 2001;52:365–73.
[15] Belingardi G, Cavatorta MP, Duella R. Material characterization of
a composite-foam sandwich for the front structure of a high speed
train. Compos Struct 2003;61:13–25.
[16] Corigliano AZ, Rizzi E, Papa E. Experimental characterization and
numerical simulations of a syntactic-foam/glass-fibre composite
sandwich. Compos Sci Technol 2000;60:2169–80.
[17] Mouritz AP, Thomson RS. Compression, flexure and shear properties
of a sandwich composite containing defects. Compos Struct
1999;44:263–78.
[18] Gdoutos EE, Daniel IM, Wang KA. Compression facing wrinkling of
composite sandwich structures. Mech Mater 2002;35:511–22.
[19] Hadi BK, Matthews FL. Development of Benson–Mayers theory on
the wrinkling of anisotropic sandwich panels. Compos Struct
2000;49:425–34.
[20] Sokolinsky VS, Shen H, Vaikhanski L, Nett SR. Experimental and
analytical study of nonlinear bending response of sandwich beams.
Compos Struct 2003;60:219–29.
[21] Petras A, Sutcliffe MPF. Indentation failure analysis of sandwich
beams. Compos Struct 2000;50:311–8.
[22] ASTM C393-62, standard test method for flexural properties of flat
sandwich constructions; 1962.
[23] Mines RAW, Alias A. Numerical simulations of the progressive
collapse of polymer composite sandwich beams under static loading.
Composites A 2002;33:11–26.
586 A. Russo, B. Zuccarello / Composite Structures 81 (2007) 575–586
[24] Borsellino C, Calabrese L, Valenza A. Experimental and numerical
evaluation of sandwich composite structures. Compos Sci Technol
2004;64:1709–15.
[25] ASTM D3039/D3039-93, Standard test method for tensile properties
of polymer matrix composite materials; 1993.
[26] ASTM D3410-87, Standard test method for compressive properties of
unidirectional or crossply fiber-resin composites; 1987.
[27] ASTM D4255-83, Standard guide for testing shear properties of
composites laminates; 1983.
[28] ASTM C297-61, Standard test method for tensile strength of flat
sandwich constructions in flatwise plane; 1961.
[29] ASTM C365-57, Standard test method for flatwise compressive
strength of sandwich cores; 1957.
[30] Mines RAW, Jones N. Approximate elastic–plastic analysis of the
static and impact behaviour of polymer composite sandwich beams.
Composites 1995;26:803–14.
[31] ASTM C273-61, Standard test method for shear properties in flatwise
plane of flat sandwich constructions or sandwich cores; 1961.
[32] Shin KC, Lee JJ. Bond parameters to improve tensile load bearing
capacities of co-cured single and double lap joints with steel and
carbon fiber-epoxy composite adherends. J Compos Mater
2003;37(5):401–20.
[33] Ye L. Role of matrix resin in delamination onset and growth in
composite laminates. Compos Sci Technol 1988;33:257–77.
[34] Whitney JM, Nuismer RJ. Stress fracture criteria for laminated
composites. J Compos Mater 1974;8:253–65.