Received: 19 July 2019 Revised: 29 January 2020 Accepted: 29 January 2020

DOI: 10.1002/pc.25543

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A review on recent advances in sandwich structures based

on polyurethane foam cores

Tayyab Khan1 | Volkan Acar1 | M. Raci Aydin1 | Burak Hülagü1 |

lu2
Hamit Akbulut1 | M. Özgür Seydibeyog

1
Department of Aerospace Engineering,
Khalifa University of Science and
Abstract
Technology, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Sandwich composites with a polyurethane foam (PUF) core have become a
Emirates versatile set of materials with applications ranging from basic construction ele-
2
Department of Material Science and
ments to advanced engineering materials. This diverse range of applications
Engineering, Izmir Katip Celebi
University, Izmir, Turkey has provided these sandwich materials with a distinctive position in today's
engineering world. This review focuses on the broad research that has been
Correspondence
carried out on PUF core-based sandwich composites over the years—especially
M. Özgür Seydibeyo
glu, Department of
_
Material Science and Engineering, Izmir in the last decade. Thorough details have been presented focusing on basic
Katip Celebi University, 35620 Izmir, PUF core sandwich structures, advanced PUF core sandwich composites with
Turkey.
Email: seydibey@gmail.com;
different kinds of reinforcements and complex structures such as hybrid sand-
seydibeyoglu@ikc.edu.tr wich panels. All the research presented here has been categorized carefully,
such as the types of materials used in various studies, the types of reinforce-
ments and testing techniques used, including mechanical, electrical, dynamic,
thermal and acoustic methods etc. Comparisons have also been made based on
similar materials, similar testing procedures and similar application areas.
Research areas have been highlighted by giving a deep insight into the most
promising research, manufacturing techniques and improvement procedures.
Major consumption areas and application sectors for PUF core sandwich com-
posites have also been discussed in this review. Finally, conclusions have been
made based on the results found from a literature investigation.

KEYWORDS
core material, face sheets, polyurethane, reinforcement, sandwich structures, structural
properties

1 | INTRODUCTION polyhedral cells pack in three-dimensions to fill space;

Polyurethane foams (PUFs) are one of the most exhaus-
tively researched and exploited groups from the poly-
meric family, thanks to their remarkable properties such
as light weight, environment-friendliness, low density,
impact and shock absorption, processability, and out-
standing elasticity. Like other cellular solids, PUFs are
characterized as cellular structures in which the
these three-dimensional cells as characterized as foams.[1]
Different techniques have been used over the years to
manufacture these PUFs in order to achieve the desired
properties. Also, there is a wide variety of polyols and iso-
cyanates available as raw materials, which can be used to
modify the cellular structure according to the desired
requirements for a particular application.[2] Current
annual production of polyurethane (PU) raw materials is

Polymer Composites. 2020;1–46. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pc © 2020 Society of Plastics Engineers 1

2 KHAN ET AL.
estimated as 12 million metric tons with a rapid increase
every year.[3] Such properties have led researchers and
manufacturers to utilize polyurethane (PU) in a variety of
sectors like leather finishing, automotive, furniture,
refrigeration, sports, transportation, insulating materials
and marine applications.[4–7] This versatile range of appli-
cations is possible mainly by altering its main constitu-
ents like polyols and isocyanates and their proportions.[8]
Thus, PU can be manufactured in various physical states
such as viscous liquids, low-density soft foam, flexible
and semi-flexible foam and hard foam according to the
properties required in the different sectors. A wide vari-
ety of PU with density ranging from 10 kg/m3 to 800 kg/
m3 can be manufactured to meet various target parame-
ters. Apart from this, low cost is another major advantage
that has persuaded manufacturers to prefer PU for differ-
ent applications over the years.
Even though the PU industry is considered to be fully
developed today—with such a wide range of applications
and impressive characteristics—some disadvantages like
low mechanical strength still limit the use of PU in vari-
ous structural applications. Consequently, it is important
to manufacture polyurethane foams (PUFs) for high-
performance applications.[9] One of the major ways of
producing PUFs with superior strength in recent years
has been to use reinforcements of different kinds, such as
nanoparticles like carbon nanotubes, carbides, fibers, fab-
rics and bio additives.[10–13] Depending on the type of
reinforcement, the resulting Polyurethane Composites
(PUCs) exhibit remarkable properties, such as high-
impact resistance, low density, high strength to weight
ratio, high elasticity, and corrosion and abrasion
resistance.[14]
PUFs are also characterized as traditional core mate-
rials for sandwich structures, which usually consist of
upper and lower face sheets that are bonded together
with a core material. These sandwich structures are used
for numerous applications in the aerospace, marine,
automotive, insulated sandwich panel, shipbuilding and
construction industries and the blades of ocean current
turbines.[15–20] In recent years, researchers have
reinforced polyurethanes (PUs) with different reinforcing
agents such as nanofillers and have successfully
improved the properties of the resulting PU
nanocomposites.[21] Therefore, being a versatile member
of the polymeric group with an impressive chemical com-
position and good solvent resistance, PUs have become a
perfect choice as a matrix for various hybrid
nanocomposites.[14] Similarly, PUFs have also been
reinforced by a variety of nanoreinforcements to prepare
composite foams that have shown some remarkable
properties.[22,23] Based on these reinforcements, the over-
all performance of the sandwich composites having
reinforced-PUF cores have also been enhanced over the
years. Reinforced PUF cores for sandwich applications
are discussed in detail in this review.
With commercial production of PUF, it is being used
in various industrial applications, especially in applica-
tions requiring insulation and lightweight. It is preferred
mainly for reasons of lightness, low thermal conductivity,
for providing structural strength to sandwich composites,
for ensuring automatic adhesion without requiring a sep-
arate bonding stage and allowing low-cost panel produc-
tion. As discussed earlier, PUF is used as a core material
in sandwich composites. As a surface plate in sandwich
structures, various materials ranging from metal-based
light structures to laminated composite boards can be
used. According to this proposed use, PUFs have been
widely used in sandwich structures with new production
technologies and have been the subject of much scientific
research in recent decades. The fact that the basic ele-
ments that form the PUF can be mixed in different pro-
portions with different densities and stiffness values,
allows different mechanical, dynamic, thermal features
etc. to be achieved. In addition, this situation has resulted
in a wide research area on the properties of different
additives, and especially for lightness and insulation.
Various studies relating to PUF core sandwich com-
posites have been found from a detailed literature
research carried out using the Scopus database and the
keywords “Polyurethane” and “Sandwich” with “Article
Title, Abstract and Keywords” filters. By looking at the
distribution of these studies by years, we see that 76% of
them were carried out after 2000, and the number of
studies performed in the last ten years constitute more
than half of all studies. These results support the predic-
tion that the use of PUF in sandwich structures has
increased with the new production technologies and that
this increase will further accelerate in the coming years.
Figure 1.a shows the percentages of PU and sandwich
structures according to years. When the studies con-
ducted since 1966 are examined in terms of “Document
Type”, 98% of these studies are seen as Articles and Con-
ference papers (Figure 1.b).
These studies have focused on a wide area depending
on the production methods, varying boundary conditions
and on the intended use. These include: the construction
sector (roof, wall and floor applications), train cabin bod-
ies, automotive applications, furniture, storage, protec-
tion, sound insulation, thermal insulation for gas tanks,
bone simulations tests for orthopedic implants, cold stor-
age tanks, cold rooms and refrigerated transport con-
tainers and trucks, liquefied natural gas (LNG) main
transport and containment systems, and passive fire pro-
tection. It also involves areas from sports—like
surfboards—to missile wings, mechanical (especially
KHAN ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 Studies relating to PU and sandwich structures from past years. A, Years–documents. B, Document type [Color figure can
be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
low-velocity impact test, buckling, bending and shear
strength, crushing response and ballistic resistance) and
dynamic properties (like frequency, damping, and acous-
tics). In addition, studies on a variety of subjects have
been performed and are still being carried out by using
reinforcing micro- and nanoadditives in the PUF foam
cell (void), in the face sheets of sandwich structures, and
in the interlayer between the core material and the face
sheets. Studies in which PUF is reinforced with nano-
and microadditives started in the 2000s and are continu-
ing to increase.
This review highlights the research carried out on
sandwich structures with PUF cores in previous years,
especially in the last decade. Various research areas such
as mechanical, thermal, dynamic, insulation and electro-
magnetic interference etc. have been thoroughly investi-
gated and categorized to provide a deep insight into a
wide range of research. Comparisons have also been
made by considering experimental, numerical and ana-
lytical studies in these research areas. Remarkable studies
have been explained in detail by providing actual experi-
mental findings from different researches over the years.
Almost all the research that has been carried out most
recently has been covered in this review. Sandwich struc-
tures and their constituents are discussed in detail in
Section 2. Whereas, Section 3 gives an insight of the prop-
erties and the applications of PUF. Research carried out
on PUF core sandwich structures is presented in detail in
Section 4. Different industrial applications of sandwich
composites with PUF cores have been discussed in detail
in Section 5, which is followed by the conclusion in
Section 6.
2 | S ANDWICH STRUCTURES
Load carrying members in various engineering and struc-
tural applications are preferred to be as light as possible,
along with having a very high strength. One of the most
3
effective means to achieve such a structure is by making
composites such as sandwich structures.[24] These well-
known sandwich structures consist of outer face mate-
rials usually made up of composites or metals having
high stiffness and a softer core material with low density
in between them. These core materials are usually made
from a less expensive material having a lower strength
compared to the face sheets but providing effective over-
all load distribution and increasing the moment of iner-
tia, which reduces stresses. Sandwich composites have
provided a remedy for weight and flexural strength chal-
lenges in multiple sectors like aerospace, marine, auto-
motive and architecture during the last few
decades.[17,24–26] A general representation of a sandwich
structure is shown in Figure 2.
2.1 | Face sheets/skins
As a general trend, face sheets for sandwich composites
are prepared from either metals or fiber-reinforced com-
posites that provide superior strength and stiffness. Alu-
minum and steel sheets are generally preferred among
metals as face materials. Wood-based face sheets are also
being used in sandwich structures along with wood-fiber
cores because of good thermal and acoustic insulation
F I G U R E 2 A general representation of a sandwich structure
[Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
4 KHAN ET AL.
properties.[27] However, with recent breakthroughs in
hybrid materials, functionally graded materials (FGMs)
have overtaken conventional materials. These FMGs are
a special group of composites possessing the unique char-
acteristic of varying material properties throughout their
structure.[28] Nowadays, functionally graded ceramic
metals, graphene-reinforced composites (GRCs) and
functionally graded carbon nanotube-reinforced compos-
ites (FG-CNTRCs) are widely being used for multiple
applications. These advanced composites based on
graphene and nanotubes exhibit unparalleled mechani-
cal, electrical and thermal characteristics and have also
been used as face sheets for sandwich composites.[28,29]
Hence, face sheets have outstanding load-bearing capa-
bilities especially in the case of bending loads. In a sand-
wich structure, the major portion of the overall bending
load is carried by the face sheets made up of materials
such as metals or composites that provide high bending
stiffness.[17,29] The face sheets of a sandwich structures
are shown in Figure 2.
Conventionally, face sheets are adhesively bonded to
the core material, which results in a sandwich structure
possessing an outstanding strength-to-weight ratio.
Bonding between face sheets and core material is criti-
cally important, as under most loading conditions, the
very frequent failure mode of delamination between
face sheets and core can occur.[30,31] Metal face sheets
like steel show a very poor bonding with softer core
materials like polymeric cores. This poor bonding in
metal-polymer sandwich composites is mainly due to
the significant difference in their electrical and thermal
properties that limits the possibility of bonding pro-
cesses like welding and mechanical joining.[32] To
address this drawback, different techniques like roll
bonding and reinforcing the core with metallic inserts to
induce better bonding have been studied in previous
research.[32,33] Another widely used solution is to use
FGMs as face sheets, which reduces the difference of
material properties across the interface and ultimately
results in better adhesion.[28]
2.2 | Core material
One of the main advantages associated with sandwich
structures is the availability of a diverse range of core
materials. The choice of core material depends on the
type of application and the distinct target parameters.
Every core has its own unique chemical, physical and
mechanical features that can be considered for a specific
design purpose.[34] Along with weight and cost, strength,
stiffness and energy absorption are usually the most
demanding properties in the design of a sandwich
structure.[20] A lot of research has been carried out in pre-
vious years using different kinds of core materials.
Based on geometry, honeycombs, corrugated cores,
lattice cores and different kinds of truss structures are
regarded as the most common types of core materials.
Honeycomb sandwich composites are extensively used in
aerospace and automotive applications because of their
moisture-resistant hollow structure that provides an
impressive impact resistance.[35] Honeycomb cores are
also continuously being reinforced with other materials
such as metallic tubes[36] and aluminum grids[37] to fur-
ther improve properties like blast resistance, energy
absorption, and stiffness, which make them ideal for
aerospace applications. Egg- and pyramid-shaped honey-
comb cores from a previous study have shown superior
specific energy absorption compared to other honeycomb
cores with low densities.[38] In recent years, researchers
have utilized new techniques such as selective laser melt-
ing (SLM) to manufacture lattice core structures that can
be used instead of honeycombs in aerospace applications.
SLM is a layered manufacturing technique that enables
to produce the complex unit-cell architectures of the lat-
tice cores. Different kinds of metallic powders have been
selectively melted to form metallic micro lattice cores
with open cells in previous studies. It has been found that
these micro lattice cores are competitive with the conven-
tional aluminum honeycomb and aluminum foam
cores.[39,40] The SLM process provides open cell architec-
ture of the lattice structures which is highly advanta-
geous in aerospace applications such as moisture
reduction. Similarly, corrugated core-based sandwich
composites with different geometries such as Y-shaped
cores[19] have been studied in past years and have
reported a better energy-absorption capability compared
to conventional core materials. Woven corrugated cores
from a previous study also resulted in a sandwich struc-
ture that showed an excellent skin-core delamination
resistance.[41] Truss core-based sandwich structures, such
as lattice truss core sandwich panels[42] and pyramidal
truss core sandwich structures,[43] have also drawn signif-
icant attention in past years, which exhibit good energy-
absorption ability mainly for out-of-phase bending and
compressive loads.
Core materials for sandwich composites can also be
categorized as polymeric foams, wood cores, metallic
foams, cork agglomerates and ceramic cores, based on
the type of material. For example, balsa wood core-based
sandwich composites have found their use in the decks of
bridges, wind turbine blades and aerospace applications
because of their lightweight.[30,44] Metallic foam-based
sandwich composites, especially aluminum core compos-
ites, are commonly being used and are continuously
under research in the aeronautics, marine and
KHAN ET AL. 5

automotive industries.[45] These aluminum foam-based dependent on a number of parameters such as the
sandwich composites are found to be very effective in impact energy, core thickness, face sheet thickness and
automotive structures where impact phenomena are the diameter of the impactor.[51] Within polymer cores,
common.[46] Along with this, advancements in these PUF has been undoubtedly the most thoroughly
aluminum foam-based sandwich composites are consis- researched core material. This review illustrates the
tently being made in the form of innovative research. past research on sandwich composites based on PUF
For example, a research group in a recent study cores to date, with a special focus on most recent
achieved major improvement in the energy absorption breakthroughs within the past decade.
capability of the aluminum foam sandwich structures Figure 3 represents various core geometries and their
by embedding aluminum pins in the aluminum foam sandwich structures.
core sandwich composites. The aluminum pins rein-
forcement also helped to control the deformation pat-
terns of the foam cells.[47] Response of these aluminum
foam-based sandwich composites to different types of
loadings has also been investigated by using numerical
approach in the past. A high degree of correlation was
achieved in one of such studies between the numerical
predications and the experimental results for the local
indentation of aluminum foam core sandwich compos-
ites. Furthermore, the results of the study also enabled
the research group to successfully develop and verify a
relation between shear strain and indenter size.[48]
Ceramic cores are also getting a great deal of attention,
mainly in high temperature applications, and silicon
carbide (SiC)-based cores in a recent study showed the
capability to resist a thermal shock of 1000 C.[26]
Another class of core materials for sandwich structures
is cork agglomerates, which have very impressive prop-
erties like high-impact resistance and good damping
qualities when exposed to vibrations. They also show
noteworthy acoustic and thermal insulation character-
istics. In a recent study, it has been observed that these
cork agglomerates show a better core stress limit in
comparison to other core materials.[49] Among differ-
ent core types, polymer foams have been widely used
in sandwich panels for decades in various industrial
applications, thanks to their lightweight, low cost, high
strength to weight ratio and other impressive proper-
ties. Polymethacrylimide (PMI) foam, polyvinyl chlo-
ride (PVC) and polyurethane foams are the most
common examples of these polymeric foams that have
been extensively used as core materials for sandwich
composites. The mechanical performance of these poly-
mer core-based sandwich composites depends on mul-
tiple factors such as test parameters and the properties
of face sheets and core materials. For example, an
experimental study on the indentation of PMI foam
cored sandwich composites showed that PMI core den-
sity and the shape of the indenter has a great influence
on the indentation response of the sandwich speci-
mens.[50] In another study, it was observed that the
residual compressive strength of the PUF core-based F I G U R E 3 Various core geometries and their sandwich
sandwich composites after the impact loading was structure [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
6 KHAN ET AL.
3 | POLY URETHANE FOAM
Polyurethanes (PUs) were first manufactured by Otto
Bayer in the 1930s and are regarded as one of the most
important members of the polymeric group. PUF is
mostly manufactured from different kinds of polyols and
isocyanates (one of the basic building blocks of polymeric
materials) in a polyaddition reaction.[52,53] With a diverse
variety of raw materials (polyols and isocyanates) and the
possibility of changing their proportions while
manufacturing the PUF; it is possible to achieve count-
less different kinds of PUFs. This versatility in the synthe-
sis of PUFs allows control of the desired properties while
it is manufactured and to make PUFs according to spe-
cific requirements.[52] Based on their chemical composi-
tion and mechanical properties such as strength, stiffness
and rigidity, PUFs are generally categorized as rigid poly-
urethane foams (RPUFs), semi-rigid polyurethane foams,
and viscoelastic and flexible foams.[9,53] Accordingly,
these different kinds of PUFs have found their use in
numerous applications over the years, such as furniture,
construction, footwear, domestic appliances, automotive
uses, refrigeration and as an insulating material.[53–56]
And as mentioned above, one of the major uses of PUFs
(especially RPUFs) are as a core material for sandwich
structures that are widely used in many applications. The
stepwise preparation of PUF is shown in Figure 4.
4 | P U F CO R E SA N D W IC H
STRUCTURES
For the past few decades, PUF core-based sandwich com-
posites have been continuously used in various fields.
The main purpose of manufacturing these PUF core-
based sandwich composites is to achieve a very light-
weight structure along with high strength and stiffness.
F I G U R E 4 Manufacturing of PUF. A, Mixing of polyol with
isocyanate. B, Mechanical mixing. C, Foam rising. D. PUF[20]
Within these sandwich structures, the PUF core accounts
for many advantages, such as cost efficiency, light weight,
stability and energy absorption. Over the years PUF cores
have been manufactured using different proportions of
raw materials to achieve the required properties. Simi-
larly, a vast variety of face sheets have also been used
with PUF cores in previous years for different industrial
applications. However, with advancements in materials,
researchers felt the need to further enhance the proper-
ties of these PUF sandwiches, and thus, they started
manufacturing PUF cores with various reinforcements.
These reinforced PUF cores have shown some remark-
able properties in previous years.
4.1 | Neat PUF core sandwich structures
In the early years, PUF core sandwich composites started
getting a great deal of attention in numerous industrial
and construction applications. In these PUF core sand-
wich composites, one of the major interests has always
been to study their mechanical behavior. For this reason,
many researchers have studied the mechanical properties
of PUF core sandwich composites over the years, such as
flexural strength, stiffness, creep, buckling, and fatigue
behavior.
A great deal of research in previous years has focused
on the flexural performance of PUF sandwich composites
under bending loads. Researchers have used different
numerical, analytical and experimental techniques to
analyze the flexural behavior of PUF sandwich compos-
ites and have focused on different parameters and their
effects on their flexural performance.[57–71] One of the
most important parameters is the density of the PUF
core, which has a great influence on the flexural behavior
of sandwich composites. For example, Sharaf et al.[72]
analyzed PUF sandwich panels under flexural loading.
The effect of core density on flexural performance sand-
wich composites was observed by using PUF cores with
two different densities (0.31 and 0.63 kg/m3). Six samples
(P1 to P6) were manufactured with a soft PUF core with
a density of 0.31 kg/m3 and four samples (P7 to P10) were
manufactured by using a hard core with a density of
0.63 kg/m3. The experimental results indicated that PUF
density had a major influence on the strength of sand-
wich composites. A substantial increase of 165% and
113% was calculated in flexural strength and stiffness,
respectively, when the core density was doubled. Also, a
PUF core with a lower density was more vulnerable to
failure under concentrated loads. Relative slip between
the upper and lower face sheets under bending loads was
also calculated for sandwich specimens with different
densities. It was observed that the sandwich specimen
KHAN ET AL.
with a high-density foam showed significantly lower slip
values, indicating the rigidity of the foam. Load vs slip
behavior of all the specimens under bending loads is
given in Figure 5.
In another similar study by Uday et al.,[73] the effect
of the density of RPUFs on the flexural properties of
sandwich composites with glass/epoxy face sheets was
considered. RPUF cores with three different densities of
125, 250 and 500 kg/m3 were used in sandwich struc-
tures. From three-point bending tests it was observed that
with an increase in foam density, the flexural rigidity of
the sandwich composites increased along with a notice-
able decrease in bending stress, normal stress and shear
stress. These results indicated that the density of the PUF
foam core is critically important in considering the flex-
ural behavior. An interesting approach was applied by
Tuwair et al.[74] to study the structural performance of
sandwich panels with PUF cores having different densi-
ties. Sandwich panels consisting of three different core
structures that is, a high-density PUF core, a bidirectional
grid core structure filled with low-density PUF, and a
trapezoidal core structure filled with low-density PUF. A
detailed study was carried out by subjection all these
sandwich composites to flatwise compression tests, flat-
wise tensile tests, 3-point bending, and 4-point bending
tests. It was observed that the sandwich composites with
a trapezoidal core filled with low-density PUF exhibited
better strength as well as better flexural and shear stiff-
ness. Also, the sandwich composites sandwich compos-
ites with a trapezoidal core were less vulnerable to
localized stresses under concentrated load.
Researchers have also used an analytical approach for
optimization of sandwich beams with a PUF core in pre-
vious years. Gibson[75] used analytical modeling for stiff-
ness optimization in foam-core sandwich composites and
F I G U R E 5 Load vs relative slip response of sandwich
specimens under bending loads[72] [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
7
validated the results with experimental data using PUF
sandwich specimens with aluminum face sheets based on
the analytical findings that found optimum values for
core density (320 kg/m3), face sheet thickness (1.3 mm),
and core thickness (93 mm). The results found by the
analysis agreed with the experimental values for the opti-
mized sandwich beam. Swanson and Kim[76] used opti-
mization theory and performed experiments on PUF
sandwich composites with varying core densities (96.1,
160 and 320 kg/m3) and different core thicknesses to
select an optimum design. It was observed, by comparing
experimental data with the analysis that sandwich com-
posites with a core density of 320 kg/m3, along with a
core thickness value of 6.35 mm, gave values closest to
the optimum conditions. In another study, Briscoe
et al.[77] developed a design methodology for sandwich
composites with thin metal web cores as well as for sand-
wich composites with RPUF core used for residential
roofs. A detailed analytical approach was applied that
considered panel deflection, core shear failure, bearing
failure and buckling of the face sheets and webs. The roof
loadings of 1500, 2000, and 3000 N/m2 were and the span
lengths for both types of core materials were determined.
It was observed that the span length of the web core
sandwich panels was limited to 7 m, while the span
length for the RPUF core was restricted to 4 m. Also, it
was found that the no RPUF core designs could sustain a
load greater than 3000 N/m2 when the depth was limited
to 400 mm.
In other research, Thomsen and Frostig[78] considered
high-order sandwich panel theory (HSAPT) for analytical
modeling of sandwich beams with PUF under bending
loads and compared the results with experimental out-
comes. In comparison with the experimental results, it
was observed that HSAPT fully demonstrated the bend-
ing behavior of sandwich panels and accurately predicted
the high stress zones at the point of application of the
load and at the support points. It was concluded that
HSAPT could be used very effectively in the design of
sandwich panels with flexible cores. The debonding phe-
nomenon in sandwich composites also has a great impact
on flexural performance and needs to be considered.
Triantafillou and Gibson[79] studied failure modes in PUF
core sandwich structures using an analytical approach
and focused on debonding between the face sheets and
core material. Analysis was performed for a three-point
bending conditions. Experimental tests were also per-
formed on specimens with aluminum face sheets and an
RPUF core. The results from the analysis predicted the
actual behavior very well and it was concluded that the
initial crack in the interface region needed to be large
enough for debonding to take place. All these theoretical
results showed a good correlation with experimental
8 KHAN ET AL.
findings and could be effectively used in the design of
PUF sandwich composites.
The processing temperature during manufacturing of
PUF sandwich composites has also been shown to be a
great influence on flexural performance in previous
research. Mirzapour et al.[80] manufactured PUF sand-
wich panels with glass/epoxy face sheets using different
processing conditions. Dry and wet faces were applied
using these different processing conditions and all the
specimens were subjected to flexural loading. It was
observed that with an increase in the temperature during
the manufacturing of the sandwich composites, the core
strength decreased; however, at the same time,
debonding strength between the face sheets and the core
material increased. Improvements in the flexural strength
of these sandwich composites as high as 267% were
achieved. Based on core strength and debonding strength,
an optimum temperature was selected to achieve the best
sandwich structure. Ostwal et al.[81] also manufactured
sandwich composites with glass/epoxy face sheets having
PUF and polyisocyanurate foam (PIR) cores and studied
the effects of post curing on their flexural behavior. It
was found that with post curing at elevated temperatures,
flexural rigidity increased for both types of sandwich
composites. However, it was also observed that while
PUF is thermally stable up to 100 C compared to PIR
(stable up to 200 C), a post curing at 70 C resulted in
more stiffness in PUF than in PIR. These results indi-
cated that processing temperature during the
manufacturing process and post curing at high tempera-
tures could give better performance.
Some researchers have also compared PUF sandwich
panels with other structures used for similar applications
based on flexural performance. For example, Shawkat
et al.[82] investigated the bending performance of PUF
core sandwich composites with carbon fiber-reinforced
polymer (CFRP) face sheets. Specimens were tested
under both three-point and four-point bending condi-
tions and were compared with traditional reinforced con-
crete (RC) panels used in construction applications.
Sandwich composites showed a similar strength com-
pared to 100 mm thick RC panels. Buckling of CFRP
skins was the most common failure mode observed in the
study. It was indicated in the research that a better per-
formance could be achieved by using glass fiber-
reinforced polymer (GFRP) face sheets instead of CFRP,
which has shown superior flexural behavior in past
research.
Correia et al.[83] also performed a comparison and
investigated the structural behavior of GFRP sandwich
composites with both PUF and polypropylene
(PP) honeycomb cores. Furthermore, both types of sand-
wich structures were strengthened by introducing GFRP
ribs in the longitudinal direction. PP core sandwich com-
posites were observed to be stiffer than PUF sandwich
composites, which was mainly because of a higher shear
modulus in the PP core. A remarkable increase in both
strength and stiffness was seen by the introduction of
GFRP ribs for both types of sandwich panels. Mamalis
et al.,[84] in a similar study, used four different types of
foam cores, including PUF foam, and studied their flex-
ural behavior and collapse modes under three-point
bending conditions. Frequent failure modes of core shear
failure and local indentation were observed in all types of
sandwich specimens. However, it was observed that
sandwich panels with a PUF core showed the lowest
peak load values that was directly related to the lower
shear modulus of the PUF compared to other core mate-
rials. The research indicated that flexural performance is
greatly influenced by the shear modulus of the core mate-
rial. Experimental configurations for bending tests of
sandwich specimens are shown in Figure 6.
PUF core-based sandwich composites with either
GFRP or metal face sheets have been very popular as
panels for bridge decks in construction applications.
Researchers in past years[85–87] have mainly focused on
flexural behavior, buckling and stress concentration in
these bridge decks panels. Tuwair et al.[88] studied the
influence of different environmental factors on such PU
core-based deck panels. Sandwich panels were exposed to
thermal cycling, ultraviolet radiation and deicing solution
prior to flexural testing. It was observed that thermal
cycling had a major effect on the flexural properties of
sandwich panels, and a degradation of 24% was observed
in their ultimate strength. Deicing solution also had simi-
lar effects on the modulus of elasticity and ultimate ten-
sile strength of both the face sheets and the core material.
However, ultraviolet radiation had no major effect on the
tensile modulus or tensile strength of the core material
and face sheets.
Another flexural study on PUF-based bride decks was
conducted by Freitas et al.[89] in which a PUF core-based
sandwich renovation system for steel bridge decks was
presented. Four-point bending tests were conducted to
study the flexural performance of sandwich specimens,
and the results were compared with the outcomes of a
numerical analysis. Temperature was found to have had
a major effect on the flexural performance of the test
specimens. It was observed that both the stiffness and the
strength of the sandwich composites decreased with an
increase in temperature. A major reduction in stresses on
the deck plate from 60 to 95% was observed by using the
renovation system adopted in the research. Sandwich
composite with a core thickness of 30 mm gave the best
performance. A bridge deck sandwich panel filled with
PUF under a four-point bending test is shown in
KHAN ET AL.
F I G U R E 6 Sandwich specimen under A, three-point loading and B, four-point bending. Adapted from Reference [84] and [18],
respectively [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 7 Deformation of bridge deck sandwich panel filled with PUF under experimental and Finite Element (FE) Tests[87] [Color
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 7. The deflection of the sandwich panel under
four-point bending load in the FEA is represented
by U, U2.
For structural applications, it is essential to estimate
other mechanical properties of these sandwich compos-
ites as well, for example, the creep behavior when these
sandwich composites are subjected to loading for a very
long period. Researchers in past years[90–92] have used
different numerical and experimental techniques to study
the creep performance of PUF core sandwich panels.
Garrido et al.[93] used analytical modeling and performed
experimental tests to study the creep behavior of sand-
wich composite panels with GFRP face sheets and RPUF
cores. A full-scale sandwich panel was manufactured and
tested for creep under simply supported conditions of
bending for 3600 hours. The sandwich panel showed a
significant increase in deflection due to creep.
Findley's power law in a simplified form was used to
predict the effect of creep on the material when subjected
to long-term deformations. A Composed Creep Model
(CCM) was also used to predict the effect of creep for a
period of 50 years. CCM results were compared with the
experimental data and gave a very small error, which
implied that CCM could be regarded as an effective
approach for creep evaluation in the design of such
9
sandwich panels. Another important study related to the
creep behavior of PUF core sandwich composites was
conducted by Huang and Gibson.[94] A simple model for
predicting creep response of sandwich panels with a poly-
mer core was presented in this study. The results of the
analyses were compared with experimental data for sand-
wich composites made of a RPUF core and steel face
sheets. The model presented gave a good description of
the creep behavior of the sandwich panels for a loading
period of up to 1200 hours.
Sandwich composites are also widely used in aero-
space and automotive applications because of their light-
weight and good energy-absorption ability. One of the
main advantages of these sandwich composites is to min-
imize the damage under various impact conditions in
such applications. These impacts can be classified as low-
velocity impacts, debris-flow impacts and high-velocity
impacts. Detailed research on PUF sandwich composites
has been carried out in previous years to study their
impact behavior using different numerical, analytical and
experimental techniques.[95–106] Sadighi and
[106]
Pouriayevali studied the low-velocity impact of PUF
sandwich beams using indentation theory and Finite Ele-
ment Analysis (FEA). Experiments were performed on
sandwich composites with both polyurethane and poly
10 KHAN ET AL.

vinyl chloride (PVC) cores. Good accuracy was observed different density configurations (37, 49, 70, 95, 105 and
between the theoretical, FEA and experimental results. 240 kg/m3) were used in the manufacture of sandwich
In another research, Wang et al.[107] studied the influence composites. PUF with a density of 49 kg/m3 exhibited the
of impact variables and sandwich configuration parame- best performance based on energy absorption and ballis-
ters on the low-velocity impact behavior of PUF core tic limit velocity, whereas a PUF core with a density of
sandwich composites with carbon fiber laminated face 70 kg/m3 showed better ballistic performance in terms of
sheets. Foam core thickness showed no influence on specific energy absorption. Failure patterns of all the
either the damage state or the impact response. An sandwich specimens with varying PUF densities are illus-
increase in impact energy increased both indentation trated in Figure 9. It can be concluded from these previ-
depth and damage diameter in the sandwich composites. ous investigations that the impact behavior of PUF
Moreover, parameters like contact duration, the ratio of sandwich composites depends on both the impact test
absorbed energy to the impact energy and the peak load parameters and on the geometric configuration of the
decreased with face sheet thickness and increased with sandwich structures.
impact energy. Peak loads and the first load drop were
predicted by numerical analysis and were compared with
the actual results. A good accuracy in FEA results was
observed compared to experimental results. These results
are shown in a force-time history graph for two experi-
mental impact test cases (PURT2L3_E30I2 and
PURT2L1_E30I1), and their respective FEA, in Figure 8.
A different geometric configuration was used in
another study by Shim and Yap,[108] in which the impact
behavior of sandwich structures with 10 layers of poly-
urethane foam, and mild steel with four different geomet-
rical formations, was investigated. A theoretical model
was also used to predict the actual impact behavior. A
good correlation was observed between the overall exper-
imental results and the theoretical data. Both the theoret-
ical and experimental results showed that the
geometrical configuration of the sandwich composites
was a significant influence.
Nasirzadeh and Sabet[109] investigated the influence
of PUF core density on the high-velocity impact response
of sandwich structures with composite face sheets. Six

F I G U R E 8 Comparison of contact force-time history of two

experimental impact test cases with FEA results[107] [Color figure F I G U R E 9 Failure patterns for sandwich specimens with
can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] different core densities under high-velocity impact[109]
KHAN ET AL.
When sandwich panels are subjected to cyclic loading
for a long time (such as in orthotropic bridge decks), it
becomes essential to study their fatigue behavior and esti-
mate the fatigue life. Different numerical and experimen-
tal techniques have been applied in previous years to
analyze the response of PUF sandwich structures under
fatigue loading.[110–112] For example, to investigate the
influence of a PUF core on the fatigue behavior of sand-
wich structures, Frank et al.[113] performed fatigue ana-
lyses of web-core steel sandwich structures with and
without PUF. It was observed that sandwich structures
with PUF exhibited superior fatigue strength. Also, the
fatigue strength evaluated for a life of two million cycles
agreed with previous studies for similar structures.
In a comparison-based study, Mathieson and Fam[114]
studied the fatigue behavior of sandwich panels having a
PUF core and GFRP face skins. Fatigue analysis was per-
formed under reverse bending (R = −1) load conditions
and a comparison was made with the fully unloaded
(R = 0) case. Curves for fatigue life were established and
compared based on maximum loads of 30 to 70% of the
ultimate load. A reduction of around 10% in the fatigue
life was observed for the R = −1 loading condition com-
pared to R = 0. From the results it was concluded that to
have a fatigue life of at least two million cycles (which is
generally regarded as an acceptable fatigue life in struc-
tural applications), the service loading should not exceed
30% to 45% of the ultimate strength for the R = −1 and
R = 0 cases, respectively.
PUF sandwich composites with different kinds of face
sheets have shown different fatigue behavior in previous
research. For example, Sharma et al.[115] also used FEA
to study the bending fatigue behavior and stiffness degra-
dation (SD) of PUF core sandwiches with different face
sheets. The study mainly focused on the impact of
FIGURE 10 Fatigue crack in A, bonded steel plate and B, sandwich panel with PUF core. Adapted from Reference [110]
11
interfacial bonding on the fatigue behavior in three dif-
ferent sandwich structures: Epoxy/Glass-PUF-Polyester
(EPP), Epoxy/Glass-PUF-Epoxy/Glass (EPE) and Polyes-
ter/Glass-PUF-Polyester/Glass (PPP). It was noticed that
among all three types of sandwich structures, EPE
exhibited the best bending fatigue characteristics, as well
as SD, while PPP had the lowest fatigue properties and
stiffness degradation among all the specimens. A compar-
ison of fatigue cracks generated in a sandwich bridge
deck with a PUF core and a bonded steel plate deck sys-
tem is shown in Figure 10.
Another well-known failure mode in sandwich com-
posites is the buckling phenomenon. It has been studied
by many researchers in previous years by subjecting PUF
sandwich composites to axial loading. Different Finite
Element (FE) models and experiments have been con-
ducted to study the buckling behavior and different fail-
ure modes in this previous research.[116–121] Boccaccio
et al.[122] analyzed the buckling response of PUF-based
sandwich composites subjected to edgewise compression.
An FE model was also used to simulate the actual experi-
ment and its results were validated against the experi-
mental test results. It was found that by keeping the
overall thickness of the sandwich composite constant,
buckling phenomenon is related to the thickness of the
core material as well as the thickness of the face sheets. If
the core thickness is reduced, the sandwich panel with
thicker face sheets becomes more sensitive to buckling.
Increasing the thickness of the face sheets also resulted
in an increase in imperfections at the face/core interface,
which led to frequent buckling. In a theoretical study,
Davis and Hakmi[123] studied the post buckling behavior
of PUF-filled steel sandwich beams by performing a
series of experiments, and by using a formula for
enhanced effective width. It was concluded that the
12
expressions used in the study could be safely used to pre-
dict the effective width for sandwich beams having a
small width to thickness ratio (b/t < 120).
A similar study considering the influence of geomet-
ric parameters was conducted by Mathieson and Fam[124]
that investigated the failure response of PUF sandwich
composites with GFRP skins under axial loading experi-
ments and analysis. Test specimens with a slenderness
ratio from 15 to 70 were considered. The skin wrinkling
failure mode was observed for short sandwich panels
with slenderness from 15 to 17; global buckling was
observed for panels with slenderness from 41 to 70 and
mixed failure modes were observed for panels with inter-
mediate slenderness. Also, it was observed that increas-
ing the face sheet thickness and core shear modulus
greatly increased the ultimate load. A comparative study
was carried out by Correia et al.[83] based on two different
core materials. The structural behavior of sandwich struc-
tures with two different cores (PUF and PP honeycomb)
and GFRP face sheets was investigated. Many tests were
performed on both types of sandwich structures, includ-
ing edgewise compression tests. The failure load calcu-
lated for PP honeycomb test specimens was double that
KHAN ET AL.
of specimens with a PUF core. Such a big difference was
because of the very high flexibility of the PUF in the out-
of-plane direction compared to the honeycomb core.
In another comparison by Mamalis et al.,[125] the
edgewise compression behavior of sandwich composites
with four different types of cores (Polymethacrylimide
(PMI), two types of PVC foam and PUF) was investigated.
From the test results, it was observed that specimens with
different cores showed three different types of collapse
modes. These collapse modes were buckling with foam
core shear failure, unstable disintegration of the sand-
wich panels and progressive end crushing. It was
observed that specimens with PVC cores exhibited the
best performance in terms of peak load and average
crushing load. Furthermore, progressive end-crushing
failure mode was regarded as being the failure mode hav-
ing the greatest effect among all the failure modes. Fail-
ure modes for PUF core sandwich specimens under
edgewise compression and a graph of load (P) and crash
energy absorption (Eabs) vs displacement are shown in
Figure 11.
Other researchers in past years have also studied the
effect of drilling parameters on delamination and the
F I G U R E 1 1 Failure mode
of PUF core sandwich under
edgewise compression. A,
Stepwise views of failure. B,
Combined graph of absorbed
crash energy and load vs
displacement[125]
KHAN ET AL.
quality of holes in PUF sandwich composites. Sharma
et al.[126] manufactured PUF sandwich specimens with
glass/polyester face sheets and investigated the influence
of different drilling parameters such as drilling velocity,
flute length and feed rate on the delamination of the
sandwich structure. A delamination factor—defined as
the ratio of the maximum diameter of the damage zone
to the standard diameter of the hole—was used in the
study. Damage caused by the drilling was studied by
using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). It was
found that among all the drilling parameters, drilling
velocity had the greatest effect on the delamination fac-
tor (39.5%). Flute length also had a great effect on the
delamination factor (34%), whereas feed rate had the
least influence (24%). Also, it was observed that with an
increase in drilling velocity, flute length and feed rate,
the quality of the drill hole degraded. Rao et al.[127] also
studied the effects of different drilling parameters such
as thrust force, feed rate, torque and speed on the qual-
ity of drilled holes in PUF core sandwich structures.
Four different kinds of E-glass fabrics were used to
manufacture face sheets in vinyl ester resin. In all four
types of sandwich composites, it was observed that tor-
que was mainly influenced by feed rate and the diame-
ter of the drilled holes, whereas the thrust force was
influenced by feed rate only. Thrust force was increased
at higher feed rates, which resulted in an increase in
delamination. Hence, it was concluded that to achieve
drilled holes of better quality, the feed rate needed to
be low.
Apart from the mechanical behavior of PUF sand-
wiches, some researchers in past years have studied their
response in other areas such as moisture absorption,
insulating behavior and damping response etc. Manujesh
et al.[128] studied the effects of moisture absorption on the
mechanical behavior of PUF sandwich composites. Four
different types of sandwich specimens were man-
ufactured using woven roving (WR), chopped strand mat
(CSM), stitched bond mat (SBM) and chopped strand
stitched mat (CSM-S) fabrics for face sheets. All the sand-
wich specimens were exposed to moisture in a salt fog
chamber for 180 days. The mechanical properties, in
terms of flexural strength, core shear strength, edgewise
and flatwise compression, were calculated and compared
before and after the moisture absorption. All the speci-
mens showed a linear degradation in mechanical proper-
ties over time. Among all the specimens, WR and SBM
showed maximum moisture absorption, while minimum
absorption was observed in CSM-S sandwich composites.
It was observed that the density of PUF also plays an
important role in flexural and compressive degradation.
With a decrease in PUF density, an increase in degrada-
tion was seen in terms of strength. SBM specimens
13
showed maximum degradation in flexural strength and
edgewise compression strength, whereas CSM-S compos-
ites showed minimum degradation. Also, compressive
strength and flexural strength decreased with an increase
in temperature. The failure of two sandwich specimens
exposed to moisture with different core densities under
edgewise compression is shown in Figure 12.
Researchers have also studied the effects of moisture
absorption on performance of PUF sandwich composites
by using distilled water. For example, Mohamed et al.[129]
studied the impact of moisture absorption on the
mechanical properties of E-glass/PU sandwich compos-
ites. Specimens were immersed in distilled water for a
period of 75 days and tests were performed after every
15 days. In addition, test results for both wet and dry
samples were also compared. Flexural and low-velocity
impact tests were performed on all the specimens. A sig-
nificant degradation in mechanical properties was
observed after moisture absorption. Sample S1 (after
15 days) showed a decrease of 35% in flexural strength
compared to dry samples and S2 (after 30 days) showed a
decrease of 17% compared to S1 samples. Energy absorp-
tion was observed to be increased as more moisture pene-
trated the specimens. The degradation in mechanical
properties was also obvious from low-velocity impact
tests with an energy level of 30 J. FEA was also carried
out and the results were validated by comparing it with
the experimental data.
To study the effects of moisture absorption for a lon-
ger period, Huo et al.[130] conducted both experimental
and numerical analysis on moisture diffusion in PUF
core sandwich composites with E-glass/PU face sheets by
immersing the specimens in distilled water for almost
7 months. Tests were performed on sandwich specimens
as well as on neat resin, face sheets and the PUF core
separately, and their moisture diffusion behavior was
observed. Face sheets and neat resin exhibited moisture
diffusion behavior in accordance with Fick's law. How-
ever, PUF core showed significant deviation from Fick's
law. Therefore, a multi-stage diffusion model with time-
dependent diffusivity was adopted to demonstrate that
deviation. In the model, it was assumed that diffusion
within the PU core changes with time mainly because of
its complex cellular structure and its internal stresses.
The simulation results were validated with experimental
data and showed a good correlation. Shawkat et al.[82]
also studied the effect of moisture absorption by immers-
ing one kind of test specimens in water for around three
months. It was observed that the failure mode of the wet
specimens changed from shear to buckling compared to
dry specimens. However, no negative effect of moisture
absorption on strength of the specimens was seen in that
research.
14 KHAN ET AL.

F I G U R E 1 2 Failure of PUF sandwich specimens exposed to moisture for 180 days under edgewise testing. A, Specimen with PUF core
density of 100 kg/m3. B, Specimen with PUF core density of 300 kg/m3[128] [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Sandwich structures experience different kinds of

loads during their service life. One of these critical load-
ing conditions is dynamic loading when these sandwich
composites are subjected to vibrations. Dynamic loading
has a serious impact on the overall service life of sand-
wich composites and must be paid serious attention.
Researchers in previous years have used various experi-
mental, numerical and mathematical modeling tech-
niques to find the natural frequencies and study the
dynamic behavior of flat and curved PUF sandwich
composites.[131–136] Baba and Thoppul[137] investigated
the dynamic behavior of flat and curved sandwich beams
with debonding between the face sheets and the PUF
core. A decrease in natural frequencies was observed for
sandwich composites having interfacial debonding. The
damping loss factor was also increased for sandwich spec-
imens with debonding because of an increase in friction.
Moreover, the damping loss factor was observed to be
more sensitive to debonding and curvature instead of fre-
quency. A schematic for an experimental set-up to study
the vibrational response and natural frequencies of
curved sandwich specimens with respect to flat sandwich F I G U R E 1 3 Schematic of experimental set-up to measure the
specimens is given in Figures 13 and 14, respectively. vibration response of PUF core sandwich specimens[137] [Color
Material properties and test parameters also influence figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
the dynamic response of PUF sandwich composites.
Sharma et al.[138] studied in detail the influence of core
density, type of skin material, operating temperature and decreased in the range from 60 to 100 C. Of all the speci-
interface bonding on the dynamic response of PUF sand- mens, PPP exhibited the best damping properties.
wich composites. Three different sandwich structures: A good estimation of dynamic behavior has been
Epoxy/Glass-PUF-Polyester (EPP), Epoxy/Glass-PUF- achieved in previous years using both numerical and ana-
Epoxy/Glass (EPE) and Polyester/Glass-PUF-Polyester/ lytical formulations. For example, Barbieri et al.[139] per-
Glass (PPP) with varying core densities of 0.60, 0.65 and formed dynamic analysis and studied the frequency
0.70 g/cc were prepared and tested. It was observed that response of RPUF-based sandwich beams having hot-
all sandwich composites showed a similar damping rolled steel and high-impact polystyrene face sheets.
response. With a decrease in foam density, damping Experiments were performed using an impact hammer
capability of the composites increased. Depending on the and four accelerometers positioned along the sandwich
temperature, sandwich composites showed different beam. Mathematical models were also presented based
responses in three different temperature zones. The on the Timoshenko beam theory and finite element
damping capability of all the composites was increased in method (FEM). The physical parameters (loss factor for
the temperature range from −20 to 0 C, it decreased mar- RPUF and Young's modulus) were estimated using a
ginally in the range from 0 to 60 C and drastically Genetic Algorithm (GA) method and the amplitude
KHAN ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 4 Natural frequencies of different curved sandwich
specimens normalized with respect to flat sandwich specimens with
no debond[137] [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
correlation coefficient. The estimated and experimental
Frequency Response Function (FRF) curves were com-
pared. It was observed that for three vibration modes, the
numerical study showed very good outcomes when com-
pared to the experimental data and published literature.
Another major use of PUF sandwich composites is as
thermal insulation panels for buildings. Mohamed et al.
[67] also studied the dynamic thermal behavior of sand-
wich composites with different core materials. Thermal
behavior was simulated using FEA and the results were
compared for all the sandwich specimens. It was
observed that composite structural insulated panels
(CSIPs) specimens with a PUF core (PU-CSIPs) showed a
better dynamic thermal behavior and had a better ther-
mal resistance compared to SIPS with both extruded
polystyrene (XPS) and expanded polystyrene (EPS) cores.
15
Based on the thermal behavior, a sample house was
designed and simulated to estimate the energy consump-
tion for a longer period. PU-CSIPs showed a high energy-
saving gain for a longer period.
Apart from using different types of core materials, Xu
et al.[140] studied the effect of the foaming process on
insulation thickness and the performance of PUF sand-
wich panels used in cold storage warehouses. Blends of
blowing agents (HCFC-141b/HFC-245fa) of six different
proportions were used during the manufacture of the
PUF. Thermal conductivity of the sandwich panels was
measured within a temperature range from −165 to 20 C.
Insulation thickness values were calculated for PUF
made from blends of blowing agents and it was observed
that the values were very low compared to the results of
the recommended data. It clearly indicated that by using
such blends during the manufacturing process, energy
savings could be achieved by reducing the insulation
thickness and still demonstrate similar insulation perfor-
mance. The post stability of the PUF was also evaluated
by using a 3D parabolic shrinkage model, which provided
a scientific method to evaluate the panel shrinkage.
4.2 | Particle-reinforced PUF core
sandwich structures
From past research, it can be observed that PUF is exten-
sively used in different industrial and structural applica-
tions because of its impressive properties. However, there
is always a need for some improvement in performance of
PUF in certain applications. For this reason, researchers in
past years have used different reinforcing agents with PUF
to achieve better properties, such as high strength, stiff-
ness, energy absorption and electrical conductance etc.
This section discusses previous research on particle-
reinforced PUF sandwich composites in detail.
One of the major advantages of using PU in different
industrial and structural applications is that it gives a
homogenous mixture with almost any kind of reinforce-
ment. Thus, depending on the amount and type of rein-
forcement, the mechanical and other properties of PU
can be easily improved according to specific require-
ments. These is also an unlimited variety of reinforcing
particles available to improve the properties of PU, like
bio-additives, ceramic particles, clay, metallic powders
and carbon-based nanoparticles such as graphene and
carbon nanotubes (CNTs) etc. All these reinforcing parti-
cles have their own advantages.
However, with breakthroughs in carbon nanomaterials
like graphene and CNTs, researchers have continuously
explored their use as reinforcements in the PU matrix to
achieve superior mechanical, thermal, electrical and
16
structural properties. These nanoparticles have higher
strength compared to any other materials, which makes
them a perfect choice for reinforcements. It is observed
from previous research that even with reinforcements on a
very small scale, these nanoparticles can give the required
strength and other properties to the PU matrix. Among
different kinds of carbon nanoparticles, CNT-reinforced
PU nanocomposites have shown remarkable performance
in terms of strength, energy absorption and electrical con-
ductance etc. in previous years and are widely being used
by researchers in different fields.[141–156] Transmission
Electron Micrographs (TEM) of multi-wall carbon nan-
otubes (MWCNTs) embedded in polyurethane from a pre-
vious study are shown in Figure 15.
Graphene and graphene oxide are other well-known
types of carbon nanostructures that also exhibit remark-
able properties. Different mixtures of graphene and
graphene oxide as reinforcements for PU have been stud-
ied by many researchers in previous years and have
shown remarkable improvements in various
properties.[157–162] Other popular choices over the years
for reinforcing particles for PU have been metallic pow-
ders, ceramics particles, nanoclay, natural clays, modified
sand etc.[163–169] Among these different kinds of rein-
forcements, TEMs of different forms of natural clays
embedded in the PU matrix from a previous study are
shown in Figure 16.
Particle-reinforced PUF sandwich structures studied
by different researchers in past years are discussed below.
A major part of the research into particle-reinforced
PUF sandwich structures from previous years was based
on nanoclay reinforcements to the PUF core. These
nanoclay-reinforced PUF sandwiches have shown better
performance in terms of energy absorption, strength and
thermal insulation etc. For example, Njuguna et al.,[170]
prepared nanoclay-reinforced PUF sandwich composites
by using montmorillonite (MMT) nanoclay with different
reinforcement ratios (0-10% by weight). From the
KHAN ET AL.
microstructure of the nanoclay-reinforced PUF, it was
seen that by increasing the content of nanoclay it resulted
in a smaller cell size but did not affect the regular distri-
bution. Also, it was observed from low-velocity impact
tests that reinforced PUF sandwich composites could
withstand higher peak loads compared to sandwich com-
posites with neat PUF. In addition, reinforced PUF sand-
wich structures showed improved thermal insulation
properties compared to neat PUF sandwiches.
A similar analysis considering organo-montmorillonite
(OMMT) nanoclay as reinforcement for a PUF core in sand-
wich structures was performed by Sachse et al.[171] Low-
velocity impact tests were performed on the PUF sandwich
specimens with reinforcement ratios varying from 0 to 10%
by weight. It was observed that the addition of nanoclay
resulted in an improvement in energy absorption of the
sandwich composites under impact loading. Moreover, the
performance of two different kinds of face sheets
(Polyamide and PP) was also investigated in this study. It
was noticed that polyamide face sheets showed superior
mechanical properties compared to PP face sheets.
Another study investigating the low-velocity impact
behavior of nanoclay-reinforced PUF sandwich compos-
ites was carried out by Hosur et al.[172] Tests were per-
formed on sandwich specimens with a neat core, and
0.5% and 1% nanoclay-reinforced cores by weight. It was
observed that nanoclay-reinforced specimens exhibited
higher peak loads, had smaller damage areas and stron-
ger cell structures compared to their neat counterparts.
Moreover, a relatively brittle fracture was seen in
nanoclay-reinforced samples because of an increase in
stiffness. The improvement in low-velocity impact dam-
age of PUF sandwich composites reinforced with differ-
ent ratios of nanoclay is shown in Figure 17.
Sandwich structures are also subjected to high impact
loadings under certain applications. The energy absorption
of nanoclay reinforced PUF sandwich composites under
high-impact loading was investigated by Nasirzadeh and
FIGURE 15 A, TEM of
MWCNT reinforcements in a PU
matrix. B, TEM of single
MWCNT surrounded by a PU
matrix[150] [Color figure can be
viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
KHAN ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 6 TEM of A,
soil in PU matrix; B, rock in PU
matrix; C and D, sand in PU
matrix[168]
Sabet.[173] Reinforcement ratios of nanoclay varied from
0 to 3% by weight in the PUF core. Similar results com-
pared to previous research were obtained and it was
observed from the microstructure that nanoclay reinforce-
ment reduced the cell size. Test results indicated that the
best performance was observed for specimens with a
nanoclay reinforcement of 0.5% in terms of energy absorp-
tion and impact resistance, whereas test specimens with
3% nanoclay reinforcement exhibited the lowest ballistic
performance. A failure analysis of a PUF sandwich com-
posite with 3% nanoclay reinforcement exhibiting
debonding between the face sheets and the core material
is shown in Figure 18.
Other than impact behavior, researchers in previous
years have also studied other mechanical properties of
MMT nanoclay-reinforced PUF sandwich structures. For
example, Zainuddin et al.[174] studied the flexural behav-
ior of nanoclay-reinforced PUF sandwich structures with
reinforcement ratios ranging from 0 to 5% by weight.
PUF and sandwich specimens were separately subjected
to three-point bending tests. It was observed that the flex-
ural stresses decreased with an increase in the
17
reinforcement ratio. Also, nanoclay reinforcement pro-
vided resistance against crack growth and deformation of
cell structures, which provided higher strength.
In order to investigate the performance of nanoclay
reinforcements in the PUF core against other
nanoparticles, Saha et al.[175] conducted a comparison-
based study by using four different kinds of
nanoparticles: nano TiO2, carbon nanofibers (CNFs),
multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs), and
nanoclay. The performance of sandwich specimens with
different nanoparticles was compared based on debond
fracture toughness by subjecting the sandwich specimens
to a Tilted Sandwich Debond (TSD) test configuration.
Reinforcement ratios of nanoparticles varied from 0 to
1.5%. It was noticed that among all reinforcement types,
nanoclay with 1% reinforcement showed the highest
increase of 69% in debond fracture toughness compared
to neat PUF core sandwich specimens. Furthermore,
MWCNTs exhibited better debond fracture toughness
compared to CNFs for all reinforcement ratios. All this
previous research indicated that modification of the PUF
core with nanoclay enhanced the mechanical properties
18
F I G U R E 1 7 Impact damage of PUF sandwich specimens. A,
Neat. B 0.5% nanoclay. C 1% nanoclay. Adapted from Reference
[172] [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
F I G U R E 1 8 Fracture mode in a nanoclay-reinforced PUF
sandwich panel subjected to a high-velocity impact test[173]
KHAN ET AL.
of the sandwich structures. In fact, nanoclay could also
exhibit better performance compared to other types of
nanoparticle reinforcements. The configuration of the
TSD test for sandwich panels and load vs displacement
results at different crack lengths (a) are shown in
Figure 19.
Carbon-based nanoparticles such as CNTs and
graphene etc., which exhibit remarkable strength and
stiffness have also been used as reinforcements in PU
core sandwich structures to enhance their properties.
CNT-reinforced composites show superior mechanical
properties such as high strength and energy absorption.
However, the major problem of agglomeration of CNTs
in a polymer matrix can also have a negative impact on
the mechanical properties instead of an improvement.
Consequently, the agglomeration phenomenon must be
considered during the manufacturing process of
reinforced sandwich composites.
Adnan et al.[176] studied the effect of CNT-
reinforcement on compression and energy-absorption
behavior in PUF sandwich composites with different
reinforcement ratios between 0 to 3% by weight. Fluctuat-
ing behavior was observed from the results of compres-
sion tests for different values of CNT reinforcements. A
good improvement in compressive strength was observed
for a small-scale reinforcement of 0.5%. A decrease in
compressive strength for higher ratios of reinforcements
was caused by nonhomogeneous mixing and agglomera-
tion of CNTs in the PUF matrix. However, an increase in
energy-absorption capability was observed by increasing
the reinforcement ratio of CNTs. Thus, the best energy-
absorption performance was shown by sandwich compos-
ites with a 3% weight ratio of CNTs.
A study based on graphene reinforcement, focusing
on the electromagnetic interference (EMI) and
microwave-absorbing (MA) behavior of PUF-based sand-
wich configurations was conducted by Li et al.[177] in
which multilayered PU/graphene (PUG) sandwich com-
posites were manufactured. Different graphene ratios
were used to prepare PUG composites ranging from 0 to
20% by weight and the effect of gradient structure on the
MA and EMI performance was investigated. It was
observed that there is an optimum gradient structure,
which can provide remarkable MA and EMI properties.
Other similar research conducted by Park et al. [178] used
MWCNT reinforcement in the PUF core to improve the
EMI and radar absorbing properties of the sandwich
structure. In this study, face sheets were also reinforced
by carbon black to further enhance the performance.
Simulations were also performed to verify the experimen-
tal data. It was concluded that the absorbing capability of
KHAN ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 9 Tilted
sandwich debond test. A,
Schematic and B, load vs
displacement results at different
crack lengths of sandwich
specimen with 1 wt% MWCNT
reinforcement to the core[175]
[Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
F I G U R E 2 0 Schematic of
manufacturing of nanophased
PUF. A, Step 1. B, Step 2. C, Step
3. D, Step 4[179]
the reinforced sandwich specimens was really improved
and the experimental outcomes showed a good agree-
ment with simulated results. These results could be very
effectively used in the design process of polymer compos-
ites to achieve a higher MA performance.
CNFs are another carbon-based nanostructure addi-
tive that shows great improvement in the mechanical
properties of PUF sandwich composites. Zainuddin
et al.[179] prepared a PUF core reinforced with 1% CNFs
by weight and studied the shear and fatigue performance
of the sandwich specimens. CNF-reinforced specimens
showed improved shear strength and shear modulus
values compared to neat specimens. A significant
increase in fatigue behavior of the sandwich composites
was seen for CNF reinforcement. It was observed that the
reinforced sandwich specimens would exhibit 400 000
more fatigue cycles than sandwich specimens with a neat
PUF core. The manufacturing process used in the study
to prepare nanoparticle-reinforced PUFs is illustrated in
Figure 20, whereas the SEM of CNFs and their
nanophased PUFs used in the study are given in
Figure 21.
Graphite is another crystalline allotrope of carbon
and has been used in powder form as particle reinforce-
ment for PUF sandwich composites by Hunjra et al.[180]
The effect of graphite powder and carbonyl iron rein-
forcement (ranging from 5 to 30% and 30 to 55% by
weight, respectively) to the PUF core was observed for
19
the radar absorption capability of the sandwich compos-
ite. Moreover, face sheets were also reinforced with
graphite powder in this study having weight ratios from
6 to 8%. Optimum performance was observed for graphite
powder reinforcement of 20% to the PUF core. Almost
100% radar cross-section (RCS) reduction was achieved
and zero radar signature was observed at nine different
frequencies in the different sandwich structures. In the
case of carbonyl iron reinforcement, maximum attenua-
tion was observed for sandwich specimens having 50%
reinforcement in the PUF core, whereas the foam core
having 20% graphite powder reinforcement exhibited
optimum attenuation behavior. Attenuation and RCS
reduction behavior of sandwich composites with carbonyl
iron reinforcement to the PUF core is shown in
Figure 22. All these results from previous research indi-
cated that carbon-based nanostructures can have a major
influence on the performance of PUF core-based sand-
wich composites used in a variety of applications.
Another widely used particle reinforcement choice
for PUF sandwich composites from the metallic oxides
group is TiO2. It has been observed in previous years that
TiO2 nanoparticle-reinforcement on a small scale can
show a major improvement in different properties of the
PUF sandwich composites. As discussed before, Saha
et al.[175] studied the debond fracture toughness of PUF
sandwich specimens reinforced with different sizes of
nano TiO2 ranging from 5 to 30 nm diameters. Around a
20
50% improvement in debond fracture toughness was
observed for reinforcements with particles of 5 nm diam-
eter. However, a decrease in debond fracture was
observed with an increase in particle size. Another study
considering TiO2 as reinforcement for PUF sandwich
composites was conducted by Keshavarz et al.[181] The
thermal performance of PUF sandwich composites
reinforced with 0 to 1% ratio by mass of TiO2 was investi-
gated in the study. The best thermal stability was
KHAN ET AL.
F I G U R E 2 1 SEM of A,
CNFs. B, CNFs embedded in
PUF matrix. C, Cell structure of
neat PUF. D, Cell structure of
1 wt% CNF-reinforced PUF.
Adapted from Reference [179]
F I G U R E 2 2 A, The attenuation
and B, RCS reduction of four types of
sandwich structures with composite face
sheets and a carbonyl iron-reinforced
PUF core[180] [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
observed for sandwich specimens with a 1% reinforce-
ment ratio. An impressive increase was observed in both
loss modulus and storage modulus from a dynamic
mechanical thermal analysis (DMTA). Also, SEM results
indicated that there was a homogenous distribution of
the TiO2 particles in the PUF matrix and there was no
indication of agglomeration.
One other study related to TiO2 nanoparticles rein-
forcement in PUF-based sandwich composites was
KHAN ET AL.
conducted by Mahfuz et al.[182] The strain rate response
and compressive behavior of 3% TiO2-reinforced sand-
wich specimens were investigated by using high strain
rate compression tests. An average increase between
40 to 60% was observed in both compressive strength and
energy-absorption capability of the reinforced sandwich
specimens compared to their neat counterparts. More-
over, it was observed that TiO2-reinforced sandwich spec-
imens also exhibited better thermal stability compared to
neat specimens. All this research indicated that TiO2
reinforcement can have a major influence on the
mechanical and other properties of PUF-based sandwich
composites and could be effectively used as reinforce-
ments. Other metal reinforcements could include pure
metallic powder or solid metallic inserts.
For a general overview of performance of particle-
reinforced PUF sandwich composites and their mechani-
cal behavior before and after reinforcement, Birman
et al.[183] used an analytical approach by considering
Mori-Tanaka based stress analysis and self-consistent
methods. A detailed analysis was performed to investi-
gate the bending, buckling, wrinkling and compressive
collapse response of particle-reinforced PUF sandwich
composites. Aluminum particles were considered as the
reinforcement for the PUF core based-sandwich compos-
ites. Good results were found in terms of shear modulus,
bulk modulus and modulus of elasticity. It was concluded
that the particle reinforcement to the PUF core increased
the stiffness and provided support to the face sheets,
which in turn, improved the wrinkling behavior. Com-
pressive collapse strength was observed to be increased
every time with particle reinforcement. However, particle
reinforcement had very little impact on the stability and
bending performance of the sandwich structures. It was
concluded from the study that particle reinforcement
could be very effective when the local response of the
sandwich composites was considered.
Other particle reinforcement types discussed in this
review from past research include ceramic particles and
bio-based additives. SiC is a well-known member of the
ceramic group and has been extensively used as a rein-
forcement material in different applications. Previous
research, carried out by Stewart et al.[184] used SiC
nanoparticles as a reinforcement material for the PUF
core in a sandwich structure. Mechanical and fracture
behaviors of neat and reinforced PUF sandwich speci-
mens were observed using a three-point bending test and
debond fracture toughness test. The reinforcement ratios
of nanoparticles varied from 0.1 to 2% by weight. Test
results indicated an improvement ranging from 50 to 70%
in both compressive and flexural performance of sand-
wich specimens with a reinforcement ratio of 1%. Further
improvement was achieved by functionalizing the SiC
21
particles, whereas the best results for debond fracture
toughness were obtained with a reinforcement ratio of
0.1%. Results also indicated that improvement in
mechanical strength and debond fracture toughness were
not achieved with similar reinforcement ratios of SiC in
the PUF core. A major improvement in compressive
strength was determined to be as a result of the func-
tionalization of the SiC particles.
Among other reinforcement types, bio-based additives
have become popular in recent years to modify polymer
materials. The major advantages of using bio-based mate-
rials are sustainability and low production costs. A recent
study carried out by Chan et al.[185] manufactured
sustainable-based sandwich structures with an oil-based
PUF core and used waste rice hull ashes (RHA) as rein-
forcement. Rice hulls were used in both cooked and
uncooked form as reinforcements to the PUF core in 3 to
5% ratios by weight. Three-point bending and uniaxial
compression tests were performed on both neat and
reinforced sandwich specimens. It was observed that
reinforcement with cooked RHA resulted in an increase
in strength compared to neat specimens. Furthermore, a
numerical model was also created by using FEA and the
obtained results showed a good correlation with experi-
mental outcomes. The results indicated that the sandwich
biocomposites could be effectively used as an alternative
to traditional drywall materials in building applications
(Table 1).
4.3 | Fiber- and polymer-reinforced PUF
core sandwich structures
Another successful way to enhance the performance of
PUF in previous years has been the reinforcement of dif-
ferent types of fibers and fabrics. These reinforcements
can range from nanofibers, chopped fibers, shear pins,
3D fabrics and long fibers based on their sizes and
shapes. According to the type of reinforcement, glass
fibers, polymers, shear keys, pins and different kinds of
natural fibers/fillers have been most common. A major
improvement in the different mechanical properties of
fiber-reinforced PUFs has been observed by previous
researchers by using different kinds of fibers.[186–198]
Fiber-reinforced PUFs can be used in different industrial
applications to achieve better performance in comparison
to its neat counterpart. This section focuses on previous
research based on fiber/fabric-reinforced PUF sandwich
composites.
Glass fibers have been the most widely studied among
all kinds of fibers in previous studies and have been used
in different shapes, sizes, and orientations in previous
years as reinforcements for the PUF core in sandwich
22 KHAN ET AL.

TABLE 1 Summary of the studies in particle-reinforced PUF core sandwich structures

S. No. Face material Reinforcement material wt% Test(s)/analysis Ref.

1. Aluminum Nanoclay (MMT) Up to 10 Low-velocity impact [170]
Characterization
2. Glass fiber-reinforced polyamide Nanoclay (OMMT) Up to 10 Low-velocity impact [171]
Glass fiber-reinforced Compression
polypropylene Characterization
3. Carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy Nanoclay Up to 1 Low-velocity impact [172]
Characterization
4. Glass fiber-reinforced polyester Nanoclay Up to 3 High-velocity impact [173]
Characterization
5. Aluminum Nanoclay (MMT) Up to 5 Three-point bending [174]
Numerical analysis
6. Glass fiber-reinforced epoxy Nanoclay Up to 1.5 Tilted sandwich debond testing [175]
TiO2
CNF
MWCNT
7. Aluminum CNT Up to 3 Compression [176]
8. Carbon fiber /epoxy prepreg Carbon black Up to 5 EMI characterization [178]
Carbon black-reinforced glass / MWCNT
epoxy prepreg
9. Glass fiber-reinforced epoxy CNF 1 Fatigue [179]
Quasi-static shear
Characterization
10. Carbon fiber /epoxy Graphite powder Up to 55 EMI characterization [180]
Carbon black-reinforced glass / Carbonyl iron
epoxy
11. Rigid PUF TiO2 Up to 1 Thermal analysis [181]
Characterization
12. Glass fiber-reinforced epoxy TiO2 3 Compression [182]
Characterization
13. Unspecified face material Al powder Unquantified Analytical analysis [183]
Numerical analysis
14. Carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy SiC Up to 2 Tilted sandwich debond testing [184]
Three-point bending
Compression testing
15. Woven hemp fabric-reinforced Rice hulls ashes Up to 5 Tensile [185]
epoxy Compression
Three-point bending
Numerical analysis

structures. The resulting reinforced sandwich composites
have shown remarkable properties in terms of various
parameters compared specimens with a neat PUF core.
For example, Buenrostro and Whisler[199] studied the
impact behavior of glass fiber-reinforced PUF core sand-
wich specimens by using a low-cost manufacturing tech-
nique and compared the results with sandwich
specimens with a neat PUF core. Firstly, the mechanical
properties of the reinforced and neat PUF were investi-
gated using three-point bending tests and then their
sandwich specimens were subjected to drop tower (low
velocity) and gas gun (high velocity) impact tests.
Reinforced sandwich specimens showed improved per-
formance under both test conditions and dissipated the
impact force more effectively than their neat counter-
parts. A numerical study was also performed that pro-
vided similar outcomes compared to experimental
results. Another study to investigate the low velocity
impact response of the carbon nanofibers reinforced PUF
sandwich composites was performed by Bhuiyan
KHAN ET AL.
et al.[200] PUF cores were reinforced with 0.2, 0.4, and
0.6% by weight and the impact response was investigated
for different energy levels of 15, 29 and 44 J. The study
illustrated the sandwich composites with nanophased
PUF cores exhibited higher peak loads compared to the
neat specimens. In addition, it was observed that the
sandwich specimens with nanophased cores absorbed
more energy at low energy level and less energy at high
energy level. Among the nanofiber-reinforced systems,
the sandwich specimens 0.2% reinforcement showed best
performance.
In another study using glass fiber reinforcement for
the PUF core, Dai et al.[201] used traditional 2D woven
fabric made of glass fiber and proposed a new looped
glass fabric reinforcement (U-cor). The mechanical prop-
erties for both kinds of reinforcements to the PUF core
were calculated in terms of tension, compression, peeling
and shear response. A major improvement was observed
from experimental outcomes for looped fabric reinforce-
ment compared to traditional 2D fabric reinforcement.
Looped fabric improved the interface, tension and shear-
ing properties of the sandwich specimens. Numerical
analysis was also carried out in this study on U-cor sand-
wich specimens and it was in a good agreement with the
experimental values.
A different technique was used for reinforcing glass
fibers to the sandwich composite by Henao et al.[202]
Glass fibers were both stitched and through-thickness
tufted in both PUF and PVC core-based sandwich speci-
mens. Furthermore, two different kinds of face sheets
(carbon/epoxy and glass/epoxy) were used in the study.
The mechanical behavior of non-tufted and tufted speci-
mens was investigated by subjecting them to three-point
bending and edgewise compression tests. A major
enhancement was observed by using the tuft reinforce-
ment in specimens with a PUF core. An increase of 106%
in failure load was observed for tufted specimens with
carbon fiber face sheets compared to non-tufted speci-
mens. Likewise, tufted PUF specimens with glass fiber
face sheets showed an improvement of 192.53% in face
bending strength.
In a similar study, Sharma et al.[203] also applied a
through-thickness stitching technique to PUF sandwich
specimens using glass fabric for stitching. The buckling
behavior of both unstitched and stitched sandwich speci-
mens was investigated by using edgewise compression
tests. It was observed that stitching provided a significant
increase in buckling strength of the test specimens and
prevented debonding of the face sheets. FEA was also
performed in the study and the effect of stitch row spac-
ing on the buckling behavior was observed. The results
indicated that a decrease in stitch row spacing resulted in
a significant increase in buckling strength of the
23
sandwich specimens. A combination glass and polyester
thread was used by Kim et al.[204] to stitch PUF core
sandwich specimens in the thickness direction. More-
over, stiffened sandwich specimens were also prepared in
the study by using pre-impregnated (prepreg) glass/
epoxy. The bending performance and fatigue behavior of
unstitched, stitched and stiffened sandwich specimens
were investigated. An improvement of 50% was observed
in the bending strength of stitched specimens compared
to unstitched specimens. Stiffened specimens showed a
remarkable improvement in bending strength of over
10 times compared to unstitched specimens. However, it
was concluded that stitching could not increase the
fatigue strength because of resin deposition around the
stitching thread, which contributed to the brittleness of
the specimens. These results clearly indicated that both
stitched and tufted sandwich configurations can be used
very effectively to achieve higher bending and edgewise
compression strength in different applications. Figure 23
represents a schematic view of the through-thickness
stitching and tufting processes.
Another way of reinforcing fibers such as glass fibers
into a foam core of sandwich material (mainly to improve
their shear behavior) is by introducing them as shear
keys. These fiber-based shear keys are generally made of
glass fiber impregnated with epoxy resin. Different ana-
lytical and experimental studies have been carried out in
previous years to investigate the performance of sand-
wich composites with and without shear keys. Mostafa
et al.[205] used FEA to study the effect of shear key diame-
ter on the shear performance of sandwich composites
with both PVC and PUF cores. Semi-circular shear keys
with 5 different diameters (2, 5, 8, 11 and 14 mm) were
used in the study. The results of FEA indicated that the
shear keys tend to improve the debonding between face
sheets and the core material, which consequently
resulted in an improvement in the in-plane shear
response. It was also observed that specimens having
shear keys with diameters of 8 mm showed superior per-
formance compared to other specimens. It was also indi-
cated in the research that a wide range of parameters
needed to be studied to investigate the detailed effect of
shear keys. Therefore, Mostafa et al.[206] carried out
another study to observe the flexural behavior of sand-
wich specimens with shear keys based on glass fibers.
Four-point bending tests were performed on both neat
and shear key-reinforced sandwich specimens. Also, a
numerical study was performed using MATLAB. Experi-
mental results indicated that the sandwich specimens
with shear keys showed very high flexural strength and
stiffness compared to neat specimens. This improvement
was mainly because of the better interfacial strength due
to the introduction of the shear keys. A good correlation
24 KHAN ET AL.

F I G U R E 2 3 Schematic diagram of A, stitching and B, tufting. Failure of C, nontufted and D, tufted sandwich panel. Adapted from
Reference [202] [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

F I G U R E 2 4 Failure modes of A, PUF sandwich without shear keys and B, PUF sandwich with shear keys. Adapted from Reference
[206] [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

was also observed in the study between experimental and
numerical results.
To further investigate the effect of shear keys,
Mostafa[207] considered different pitches (space between
shear keys) in another study. The mechanical properties
of the foam core, the face sheets and the glass fibers were
investigated by performing several tests such as tensile,
compressive and shear tests. Five different pitches
(15, 25, 35, 45 and 55 mm) were considered in the study.
A clear enhancement in mechanical properties was
observed from both the experimental and numerical
results by the introduction of shear keys. Among differ-
ent pitch sizes, sandwich specimens with a pitch size of
45 mm gave optimum results and an improvement of
about 10% was observed in shear performance compared
to neat specimens. Moreover, experimental results
showed a good correlation with numerical outcomes. It
could be concluded from this past research that shear
keys can be very effective to minimize the delamination
of face sheets from the core material resulting in an
improved shear performance. Failure modes of sandwich
specimen with and without shear keys, subjected to a
four-point bending tests are shown in Figure 24.
In previous years, bio-based fibers and natural fillers
have gained much attention because of their mechanical
properties, their lightweight and environmental friendli-
ness. Another major advantage in using natural fillers is
their cost effectiveness. All these advantages have moti-
vated researchers to use them as reinforcements for the
PUF core in sandwich composites. For example,
Abidin[208] used kenaf fiber reinforcement for PUF sand-
wich composites and studied their ballistic response. The
reinforcement ratio of kenaf fiber in the PUF varied from
0 to 30% in increments of 10%. Ballistic-impact tests and
quasi-compression tests were performed on neat and
reinforced sandwich specimens. Compression test results
indicated a major improvement in Young's Modulus and
in the energy absorption of the reinforced composites
over their neat counterparts. Superior ballistic resistance
was also observed for reinforced sandwich specimens.
KHAN ET AL.
Optimum results were obtained with a reinforcement of
20% of kenaf fiber in terms of both compression as well as
impact behavior. It was concluded in the study that kenaf
fiber could be used very effectively in industrial applica-
tions to resist indentation caused by bullet impacts.
Another study using natural fibers based on coconut
coir (CC) fibers as reinforcement (ranging from 0 to 20%)
to the PUF core in a sandwich structure was carried out
by Azmi et al.[209] The effect of reinforcement on density,
weight per unit area and flexural performance of the
specimens was observed. It was seen that both density
and weight per unit area linearly decreased with an
increase in the fiber-reinforcement ratio. Moreover, fiber
reinforcement of 10% gave optimum results in terms of
flexural strength. Further increases in the reinforcement
ratio resulted in a decrease in flexural strength, which
resulted in interface cracks.
Another well-known type of natural reinforcement to
the PUF core, namely empty fruit bunch fiber (EFB), was
used in a study by Teo et al.[210] and the mechanical
properties of the palm oil-based PUF and its sandwich
F I G U R E 2 5 Microscopic images of A, neat PUF. B, 15% EFB-reinforced PUF. C, 20% EFB-reinforced PUF and 30% EFB-reinforced
PUF[210] [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
25
specimens were investigated. A reinforcement ratio of
EFB varying from 15 to 30% by weight was used in the
study. The flexural performance of the reinforced PUF
core sandwich composites was compared with traditional
sandwich panels having a polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) foam core. The flexural and compressive strength
of the PUF was significantly enhanced with the EFB rein-
forcement. Also, the sandwich specimens with 30% core
reinforcement showed a major improvement in flexural
strength compared to sandwich panels with a PET core.
In addition, the superior toughness of the EFB-reinforced
core helped to prevent debonding between the face sheets
and the core material.
EFB was used along with palm shells as reinforce-
ment to the PUF core by Cheng et al.[211,212] Single palm
shells and hybrid palm shells—consisting of dried palm
shell (DPS) and palm kernel shell (PKS)—were used in
the study. The flexural performance and falling weight
impact response of the sandwich specimens were investi-
gated. Higher mechanical properties, in terms of com-
pressive and flexural strength, were observed for the
26
hybrid shell reinforcement compared to the single shell
reinforcement. The blending ratio of the DPS and PKS
was also observed to have a significant influence on the
stiffness of specimens. In the case of impact loading, opti-
mum values were observed for hybrid specimens with a
50% content of each type of palm shells. The results indi-
cated the high potential for these bio-based reinforce-
ments for use in different applications. Microscopic
images of EFB-reinforced palm oil-based PUFs with dif-
ferent reinforcement ratios are shown in Figure 25.
To improve the mechanical properties (mainly com-
pressive behavior) of PUF sandwich composites, through-
thickness pins of different materials have also been used as
reinforcements in previous years. The pins have provided a
major advantage in terms of enhanced properties such as
indentation strength and compressive strength etc. For
example, Abdi et al.[213] used cylindrical polymer pins as
reinforcement to a PUF core in a sandwich structure and
studied the flatwise compression and indentation response.
It was observed from experimental results that both inden-
tation and compressive strengths were increased with pin
reinforcement. Moreover, it was seen that the compression
and indentation strength were increased by increasing the
diameter of the cylindrical pins.
Another study was conducted by the same research
group to study the flexural properties of cylindrical pin-
reinforced sandwich specimens with a PUF core.[214]
Similar results were founds compared to the precious
study, and it was observed that increasing the pin diame-
ter improved the flexural strength of the pin-reinforced
sandwich specimens. Loading rate also influenced the
flexural performance and it was observed that by increas-
ing the loading rate, the flexural properties of both neat-
and pin-reinforced sandwich specimens increased. It was
concluded that by using pin reinforcement, the weight of
the sandwich specimens was slightly increased but the
KHAN ET AL.
mechanical properties were greatly improved. The fabri-
cation technique used in the study to manufacture sand-
wich panels with a neat PUF core and pin-reinforced
PUF core is shown in Figure 26.
Another study considering pin-reinforcement to the
PUF core was conducted by Nia et al.[215] using alumi-
num pins. The research mainly focused on the effect of
the density of the PUF core and the reinforcement ratio
on the high-velocity impact resistance of the sandwich
specimens. Different conclusions were made based on
the experimental outcomes in the study. It was observed
that increasing the density of the PUF core increased the
impact performance of the sandwich specimens in terms
of energy absorption and ballistic velocity limit. A consid-
erable improvement was achieved in energy absorption
and ballistic performance by aluminum pin reinforce-
ment. Moreover, introduction of aluminum pins also
changed the shape of failure in the back face sheets. All
these results suggested that pin reinforcements could be
considered during the design process of sandwich speci-
mens to achieve better performance in terms of different
parameters. Figure 27 shows polymer pin reinforcement
in a sandwich structure and its failure mode under com-
pression testing.
In previous years, another technique used by
researchers to enhance the mechanical properties of PUF
sandwich composites was using rigid inserts as reinforce-
ments for the core. These rigid inserts were mainly made
up of polymers such as polyurethane. Reinforcing these
polymer-based rigid inserts gives the advantage of
increasing the density of a “foam-in-foam” structure and
ultimately improves the mechanical properties. To inves-
tigate the effect of such rigid inserts on mechanical prop-
erties, Yuan and Shutov[216] used open-pore PUF
reinforcement on closed-pore PUF. A major improve-
ment was observed in the mechanical properties of the
FIGURE 26 Schematic of
the manufacting process for A,
neat PUF sandwich and B, Pin-
reinforced sandwich panel[214]
[Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
KHAN ET AL.
F I G U R E 2 7 Sandwich specimen A, with pin reinforcement (PUF partially removed to show pins) and B, failure of pin-reinforced PUF
sandwich composite under compressive loading. Adapted from Reference [214] [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
reinforced sandwich specimens. The results indicated
that for a small increase in the density of the foam (25%),
the reinforced sandwich structure showed an impressive
improvement of about 100%. Moreover, the support fac-
tor increased to about 65%.
In a similar study considering rigid inserts as rein-
forcements, Sharma and Raghupathy[217] used PUF with
a high density of 900 kg/m3 as reinforcement to the PUF
core of sandwich panels. Two different volume fractions
of reinforcement (0.1 and 0.2) were considered in the
study. The shear behavior of neat and reinforced sand-
wich specimens was observed in terms of shear modulus
by direct shear tests. Flexural strength was also calculated
by using three-point bending and four-point bending
tests. It was observed from experimental outcomes that
without any noticeable increase in the weight of the
sandwich specimens, the shear modulus increased about
35% for an insert volume fraction of 0.2. Also, the load-
carrying ability of sandwich specimens with rigid inserts
was found to be increased substantially. Another study
was carried out by a similar research group to study the
dynamic behavior of sandwich specimens with PUF rigid
inserts.[218] The research mainly focused on the effects of
core density, core thickness and rigid inserts on the
dynamic response of sandwich specimens mainly in
terms of the fundamental frequency for different bound-
ary conditions. It was observed that an increase in core
density resulted in a significant increase in fundamental
frequency for a given thickness. The fundamental fre-
quency was also found to increase with an increase in
thickness of the core material. Also, the fundamental fre-
quency was observed to be increased by introducing the
rigid inserts in the core material for most of the boundary
conditions. This previous research indicated a great
potential for rigid inserts to improve the performance of
PUF core-based sandwich specimens (Table 2).
27
4.4 | Polyurethane foam in hybrid core
sandwich structures
A lot of research is available from past years with PUF as
a core material in combination with different other mate-
rials and configurations to form hybrid cores. These
hybrid core materials in a sandwich structure give great
advantages in terms of mechanical, thermal and dynamic
properties. Most common examples of hybrid cores are
foam-filled honeycombs, web cores with PUF, truss, pyr-
amid and corrugated cores reinforced with PUF. These
sandwich composites with hybrid cores are being used
widely in various industrial applications.
Many researchers in previous years have used PUF
reinforcement for honeycomb cores to make hybrid cores
of sandwich composites. These PUF/honeycomb hybrids
exhibit major advantages, especially their energy-
absorption capability during impact loading. To study the
impact response of aluminum honeycomb cores
reinforced with PU, Roudbeneh et al.[219] used PUF with
three different densities (56.95, 108.65 and 137.13 kg/m3)
to fill aluminum honeycomb cores. The ballistic perfor-
mance of sandwich specimens was studied using gas gun
apparatus. Test results indicated that the ballistic limit
velocity increased linearly with the increase in density of
the PUF. Moreover, the specific energy of the sandwich
structures with the highest density of foam was found to
be 24% more than the unfilled sandwich specimens.
Unfilled and PUF-filled honeycomb cores and their
respective sandwich composites are shown in Figure 28,
while Figure 29 represents the energy absorbed at the
ballistic limit by aluminum plate, a honeycomb core, an
unfilled honeycomb sandwich specimen and a foam-
filled honeycomb core sandwich specimen with three dif-
ferent foams (foam1, foam2 and foam3) of varying densi-
ties of 56.94, 108.65 and 137.13 kg/m3 respectively).
28 KHAN ET AL.

TABLE 2 Summary of the studies in fiber- and polymer-reinforced PUF core sandwich structures

S. no. Face material Reinforcement material Reinforcement type Test(s)/analysis Ref.

1. Glass fiber-reinforced Chopped glass fiber 3 wt% addition Low velocity impact [199]
epoxy High velocity impact
Three-point bending
Numerical analysis
Characterization
2. Carbon fiber- reinforced Carbon nanofibers Up to 0.6 wt% addition Low velocity impact [200]
epoxy Characterization
3. Glass fiber-reinforced Glass fabric Looped fabric Flatwise tensile [201]
epoxy prepreg reinforcement Peeling
Shear
Numerical analysis
4. Glass fiber-reinforced Glass fiber Stitching Three-point bending [202]
epoxy Tufting Edgewise compression
Carbon fiber-reinforced Numerical analysis
epoxy
5. Glass fiber-reinforced Glass fiber Stitching Edgewise compression [203]
epoxy Numerical analysis
6. Glass fiber-reinforced Nylon/glass fiber Stitching Bending fatigue [204]
epoxy Glass fiber-reinforced Stiffening Four-point bending
epoxy prepreg
7. Glass fiber-reinforced Chopped strand glass fiber Shear key placement Tensile [205]
epoxy impregnated with epoxy Compression
Shear
Numerical analysis
8. Glass fiber-reinforced Chopped strand glass fiber Shear key placement Tensile [206]
epoxy impregnated with epoxy Compression
Shear
Four-point bending
Analytical analysis
9. Glass fiber-reinforced Chopped strand glass Shear key placement Tensile [207]
epoxy fiber impregnated with Compression
epoxy Shear
Out-of-plane shear
Numerical analysis
10. Mild steel plate Kenaf fiber Up to 30 wt% addition High velocity impact [208]
Compression
11. Glass fiber-reinforced Coconut coir fiber Up to 20 wt% addition Three-point bending [209]
epoxy Characterization
12. UD flax-reinforced epoxy Empty fruit bunch fiber Up to 30 vol% addition Tensile [210]
Compression
Three-point bending
Characterization
13. Jute woven-impregnated Palm shell 75 wt% addition Three-point bending [211]
by vinyl ester Empty fruit bunch Compression
Characterization
14. Jute woven-reinforced Palm shell 60 wt% addition Low velocity impact [212]
epoxy Empty fruit bunch 8 wt% addition
15. Glass fiber-reinforced Polymer pins Through-thickness Indentation [213]
polyester reinforcement Flatwise compression
Tensile
(Continues)
KHAN ET AL. 29

TABLE 2 (Continued)

S. no. Face material Reinforcement material Reinforcement type Test(s)/analysis Ref.

16. Glass fiber–reinforced Polymer pins Through-thickness Flatwise compression [214]
polyester reinforcement Three-point bending
Tensile
17. Aluminum Aluminum pins 37 wt% addition High velocity impact [215]
Tensile
Compression
18. Glass fiber-reinforced RPUF of 900 kg/m3 Up to 0.2 vol% addition Shear [217]
epoxy density Rigid insert Three-point bending
Four-point bending
19. Glass fiber–reinforced RPUF of 900 kg/m3 Rigid inserts of different Experimental modal analysis [218]
polymer density volume fractions

F I G U R E 2 8 The specimens. A,
Aluminum honeycomb. B, Unfilled
honeycomb core sandwich. C, PUF-filled
honeycomb. D, PUF-filled honeycomb
core sandwich[219] [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Another study considering the impact behavior of
PUF-filled honeycomb core sandwich composites was
conducted by Vaidya et al.[220] PUF and syntactic foams
were considered to fill the honeycomb core. Impact
behavior was investigated in terms of low- and high-
velocity impact tests. It was observed from test results
that the ballistic limit was impressively enhanced to 73%
by filling the honeycomb core with PUF, and the energy
absorbed was increased by 92%. The ballistic limit was
also found to increase by about 74% by filling the
honeycomb with syntactic foam. This research indicated
the potential for PUF-filled honeycomb sandwich com-
posites in moving structures such as automobiles. Three
different kinds of PUFs based on density were also used
in another other study as fillers for honeycomb sandwich
structures conducted by Mozafari et al.[221] A similar
analysis was carried out considering the impact response
and crashworthiness of foam-filled and unfilled sandwich
specimens. Three different foams (F1, F2 and F3 with
varying densities of 65, 90 and 145 kg/m3) were used to
30
fill three different kinds of honeycombs (HC1, HC2 and
HC3) in the studies. The resulting foam-filled honeycomb
sandwich specimens were given appropriate names (eg,
sandwich structure with HC1 and F1 is named as HC1F1
and so on). Furthermore, three different types of circular
tubes (T1, T2 and T3) were also used in the study. An
FEA was conducted in the study and the sandwich speci-
mens were tested under a wide range of impact energies
and were also subjected to compression testing. It was
seen that specimens filled with PUF of lower density
showed higher specific energy absorption under low
impact energies. In a similar way, specimens filled with
PUF of higher density showed higher specific energy
absorption under high impact energies. These results
indicated that PUF-filled honeycomb sandwich compos-
ites with different densities of foam show different
responses at different impact energies and can be selected
for specific applications accordingly to achieve optimum
results. Figure 30 illustrates the ratio of specific absorbed
energy (SAE) to peak compression force (PCF) for the dif-
ferent specimens used in the study.
Other than the impact response and energy-
absorption capability of PUF-filled honeycomb sandwich
structures, researchers have also studied other properties
in past years. For example, Li[222] investigated the effect
of cell size on the shear modulus and Young's modulus
using FEA. Moreover, the effect of Poisson's ratio on
these properties was also investigated. It was observed
that by decreasing the cell size of the honeycomb, the
density of the cells increased and it also increased the
resistance of the structure to external loads. However, it
was observed that the shear modulus decreased by
decreasing the cell size of the honeycomb, which was
mainly because of thinner cell walls that decreased the
constraints at the boundary. It was also concluded in the
study that by filling the honeycomb structure with poly-
urethane foam, which had a negative Poisson's ratio,
resulted in a dramatic increase in both shear modulus
and Young's modulus. It was seen that the cell size and
Poisson's ratio showed exactly opposite effects and that
KHAN ET AL.
F I G U R E 2 9 The energy absorbed
by different specimens during ballistic
impact testing[219] [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
F I G U R E 3 0 Ratio of specific absorbed energy to peak
compression force for different specimens[221] [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
an optimum sandwich structure having the desired mate-
rial properties could be manufactured. Another very
recent study based on the investigation of vibration anal-
ysis of aluminum honeycomb-based sandwich structures
filled with PUF was conducted by Aydin and
Gündo
gdu.[223] In this study, the effect of face sheet
thickness and core thickness on the vibrational response
of the sandwich panel was also investigated. Experiments
were performed based on the Taguchi method, and a
detailed numerical analysis was also carried out that
showed a good correlation with the experimental data. It
was observed that sandwich panels filled with PUF
exhibited improved energy storage capability and showed
higher damping ratio values. A similar trend was
observed for an increase in core thickness and it was con-
cluded that the core thickness should be increased in
order to achieve high values for natural frequencies and
damping ratios.
A different target parameter—microwave absorption
of foam-filled honeycomb sandwich structures—was
studied by He and Gong.[224] In this research, PUF was
also reinforced with carbonyl iron/nickel fibers (CINF)
and magnetic metal powder (MMP) to enhance its
absorbing capability. It was observed that the addition of
KHAN ET AL.
CINF and MMP to PUF resulted in a major improvement
in microwave absorption. A major enhancement was
observed in microwave absorption of the sandwich speci-
men compared to foam-filled honeycomb structures. The
results of the study indicated a promising use of foam-
filled honeycomb structures in radar-absorbing applica-
tions. Reflectivity of different specimens at varying fre-
quencies is shown in Figure 31.
One of the other well-known methods to enhance the
stability and performance of sandwich composites is to
use 3D fabrics that are woven into both top and bottom
face sheets. Such sandwich composites give an advantage
in preventing the delamination of face sheets from the
core material because of material differences, as seen in
the case of conventional sandwich composites.
Researchers have manufactured such sandwich compos-
ites by using 3D woven fabrics and have looked into sev-
eral mechanical and other properties over the years. In
addition, these 3D fabric cores are conventionally filled
with polymers to make a hybrid core and further
enhance the desired properties. One such research pro-
ject was conducted by Vaidya et al.[225] and the low-
velocity impact performance of sandwich specimens with
both hollow- and PUF-filled hybrid cores was investi-
gated. Failure modes were also investigated in the study
and it was observed that with the use of such 3D glass
fabric cores, the delamination phenomenon no longer
existed. Moreover, it was seen that unfilled sandwich
specimens showed a rupture of face sheets and buckling
of the core fabrics, while foam-filled sandwich specimens
F I G U R E 3 1 Reflectivity of PUF-filled honeycomb specimens
at different frequencies. A, Hmp1—honeycomb filled with 40 wt%
MMP-reinforced PUF. B, Hpm2—honeycomb filled with 2 wt%
CINF-reinforced PUF. C, Hpm3r—honeycomb filled with 2 wt%
CINF and 40 wt%-reinforced PUF. D, Hpm3rt—sandwich structure
of Hpm3rt with a matching layer on top[224]
31
showed crushing of the core material as its primary fail-
ure mode. This showed an improvement in strength and
load-carrying capacity of foam-filled sandwich specimens
compared to their neat counterparts. In terms of peak
load, an increase of about 250% was observed by filling
the core material with PUF. Three-dimensional woven
sandwich specimens and the failure modes of sandwich
specimens with and without PUF under low-velocity
impact are shown in Figure 32.
Another study was conducted by a similar research
group to investigate the vibration response of 3D woven
sandwich specimens made of glass fabric with and with-
out PUF.[226] Parameters like damping ratios and the fre-
quency response function (FRF) were studied in the
research. Sandwich specimens with and without PUF
were tested for flexural vibrations and it was observed
that filling the core with PUF resulted in a 150% increase
in the damping ratio along with an increase of 77% in
weight at the same time. It was also observed that the
number of vibration modes also reduced from 5 to 2 for
specimens filled with PUF.
Other research on 3D woven fabric sandwich speci-
mens from past years focused on the flexural behavior,
type of reinforcing material and fatigue response. A
detailed study related to flexural performance of 3D
woven sandwich composites made of glass fabrics was
conducted by Azadian et al.[227] Sandwich specimens
were prepared by knitting the fabrics in different shapes
such as U-shape and V-shape specimens. PUF was used
as a filler to make hybrid sandwich composites, and spec-
imens with and without PUF were subjected to three-
point bending loads. The cross-sectional shape was
observed to have a major influence on the bending per-
formance of the sandwich specimens, and it was observed
that the V-shape-reinforced specimens exhibited the best
performance and showed higher bending stiffness than
all other specimens. Moreover, no delamination was
observed in the newly designed sandwich specimens.
To study the material properties, Jia et al.[228] used
two different kinds of materials (glass fiber and polyester
filaments) to make woven fabrics. Furthermore, these
woven fabric sandwich specimens were filled with PUF.
Experiments were performed to investigate the flexural
and compression properties of the manufactured sand-
wich specimens. Conclusions were made based on the
type of material used to make the woven fabrics. It was
observed that samples with polyester filament face sheets
had better compressive and flexural strength compared to
specimens with glass fiber filaments. This behavior was
mainly observed due to the brittleness of glass fibers.
Another study using woven sandwich composites with
glass fibers was carried out by Judawisastra et al.[229]
Sandwich specimens were filled with PUF and the
32
bending fatigue behavior of specimens with and without
PUF was investigated. Specimens were filled with PUF of
two different densities and varying thicknesses. Com-
pared to unfilled specimens, it was observed that foam-
filled specimens exhibited remarkable fatigue strength in
terms of low values of stiffness degradation and very long
fatigue lives. Sandwich specimens with 10 mm-thick PUF
showed the best fatigue performance and exhibited a
fatigue life of more than 106 cycles and 6% lower stiffness
degradation at an 80% of the ultimate bending load.
Sandwich specimens with and without PUF were also
subjected to compressions and three-point bending tests
in the study. The results of these tests are given in
Table 3.
Another very effective way to manufacture hybrid
sandwich panels having superior mechanical properties
in previous years has been the introduction of interlayers
between the face sheets and the core material. These
hybrid sandwich panels have shown some remarkable
properties, mainly superior impact and blast resistance.
Consequently, researchers in past years have mainly
focused on the impact response of such hybrid sandwich
panels. For example, Lim et al.[230] prepared hybrid sand-
wich specimens with rolled homogenous steel (RHA)
face sheets, an aluminum alloy foam core and interlayers
of PUF, and then investigated the blast resistance using
FEA. A major enhancement in blast resistance was
observed for hybrid sandwich panels with PUF inter-
layers compared to conventional sandwich panels.
Hybrid sandwich panels exhibited superior performance
in terms of energy absorption and deflection compared to
normal sandwich panels for a fixed value of overall thick-
ness. An optimization study was also performed in the
research using the Kriging simulation and results were
found to be in total agreement with the outcomes of the
KHAN ET AL.
FIGURE 32 A 3D
sandwich panel of glass woven
fabric. A, Weft. B, Weft direction
views. The failure mode for
sandwich specimen C, Without
PUF and D, with PUF under
low-velocity impact testing.
Adapted from Reference [225]
[Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FEA. It was observed that bonding strength also had an
influence on the blast performance of hybrid sandwich
composites. An increase in interlayer thickness resulted
in an enhancement in deflection and an increase in
energy absorption.
Another interlayer study to investigate the low-
velocity impact of sandwich composites using FEA was
conducted by Suvorov and Dvorak.[231] Two different
types of interlayer materials (PUF and compressible elas-
tomeric foam [EF]) were used in the study. A comparison
of two interlayers was made in terms of bending deflec-
tions and impact resistance. Simulations were carried out
on different kinds of sandwich specimens and it was
observed that the impact performance of specimens with
the PUF interlayer was significantly improved. The addi-
tion of the PUF interlayer reduced the deflections of face
sheets as well as the compression in the core material,
whereas the EF interlayer showed an increase in both
local and overall deflections compared to the PUF inter-
layer, but gave better results in terms of compression of
the core material. It was concluded from the study that
both types of interlayers provided an impressive decrease
in strain energy release rates from the interfacial cracks
and hence gave better performance than conventional
sandwich structures. A schematic representation of a
sandwich specimen with interlayers is given in Figure 33.
Sandwich composites with a truss core comprising
different shapes are widely preferred in various structural
and civil infrastructures. These sandwich panels are
made by repeating a single 3D unit cell throughout the
structure. The overall structure can carry higher struc-
tural loads and provides a superior blast resistance. The
addition of a polymer into these hollow truss cores has
shown further improvement in different properties over
the years. A detailed study was carried out by Yungwirth
KHAN ET AL.
TABLE 3 Results of three-point bending and compression tests[229] (Specimens without PUF: 89021-UF and 86005-U. Specimens with
PUF: 89021-F and 89018-F)
Material Core shear Compression
(panel) modulus Gc (MPa) strength σ'c (MPa)
89 021-UF 1.2 ± 0.3 0.40 ± 0.05
89 021-F 21.2 ± 3.5 2.5 ± 0.1
89 018-F 14.8 ± 1.5 3.4 ± 0.2
86 005-UF 6.2 ± 1.0 1.0 + 0.3
F I G U R E 3 3 Schematic view of a hybrid sandwich panel with
interlayers[230] [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
et al.[232] to investigate the ballistic response of sandwich
panels with a pyramidal lattice truss core. Furthermore,
the influence of the infiltration of polymers and ceramics
was also studied in the research. Conclusions were made
based on the exit velocity of the projectile from the back
face sheet. From the test results, it was observed that
sandwich specimens without any addition to the core
showed a reduction of around 25% in the projectile veloc-
ity but could not prevent perforation. With the addition
of the PU elastomer—having a higher glass transition
temperature than the test temperature—provided a much
higher ballistic resistance and stopped the projectile,
whereas the best ballistic performance was observed for
sandwich specimens with added alumina prisms into the
lattice core showing minimal damage to the back face
sheet. This research indicated that such hybrid sandwich
panels could be used very effectively as blast resistance
load-bearing structures in various applications. A sche-
matic of the manufacturing process used to prepare pyra-
midal lattice truss core sandwich specimens in the study
is given in Figure 34. A double layer pyramidal truss core
sandwich composite filled with PU elastomer is shown in
Figure 35, before and after ballistic impact testing.
Another study carried out on pyramidal sandwich
composites by Yang et al.[233] focused on the damping
response. Hybrid sandwich panels were filled with sili-
cone rubber, soft and hard PUF. Modal and quasi-static
compression tests were performed on all the specimens.
Experimental results showed that sandwich panels filled
with hard and soft PUF exhibited the best performance
33
Ultimate
load 3 PB Pu (N) Failure mode in 3 PB tests
151 ± 6 Core pile failure (some panels
failed by partial skin failure)
653 ± 43 Skin failure after limited core failure
258 ± 9 Skin failure after limited core failure
201 ± 10 Core pile failure and skin failure
F I G U R E 3 4 Schematic of the manufacturing process used to
prepare pyramidal lattice core sandwich specimens. A, Process
sequence. B, Single layer panel. C, Double layer panel[232] [Color
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
and gave 2 to 4 times better results than a base sandwich
structure without any filler. A detailed numerical study
was also performed in the research to validate the results.
Also, it was observed that increasing the face sheet thick-
ness resulted in an increase in natural frequencies and
improved the overall damping response. A very recent
study on truss-core hybrid sandwich structures filled with
PUF was conducted by Arunkumar et al.[234] to investi-
gate the vibro-acoustic response. Different truss-core
types were studied in the research. Initially the vibration
response was calculated by using harmonic excitation,
and later on, the acoustic response was investigated for
all the specimens. Experimental results showed that by
filling the empty spaces of the truss core with PUF pro-
vided a major reduction in amplitudes for vibrational
responses as well as acoustic responses. Also, a signifi-
cant reduction in sound power level was observed as a
result of the foam filling. It was concluded from the study
that for all types of truss cores, an impressive reduction
34
FIGURE 35 Impact testing at 613 ms−1 velocity. A, Double
layer pyramidal truss core filled with PU elastomer before test
and B, after test[232] [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
could be achieved when the sandwich panels were filled
with PUF. The effect of adding PUF on sound power
levels is given in Table 4.
Other very similar hybrid sandwich configurations to
truss cores are tubular cores and ribs with different
shapes that can be filled with a polymeric foam in a simi-
lar way to improve their properties. Sandwich panels
with tubular cores were manufactured by Yuen et al.[235]
Three different kinds of polymeric foams (PUF, expanded
polystyrene and polyethylene) were used to fill the tubu-
lar cores and all the specimens were subjected to a uni-
form blast load. Different specimens, in terms of the
distance between the tubular cores, were tested and it
was observed that the sandwich specimens with con-
strained cores showed higher energy absorption because
of extra tubular cores. Moreover, it was seen that by fill-
ing the tubular cores with a polymeric foam provided a
further increase in energy absorption and hence
enhanced the performance. Similar results were observed
for different kinds of polymeric foams. These outcomes
indicated that such sandwich panels with tubular cores
could be used very effectively as an alternative for blast
barriers.
A different approach was used by Sharaf and Fam[236]
to manufacture hybrid sandwich panels. GFRP ribs hav-
ing different patterns were introduced into PUF cores of
different densities and the flexural behavior of all the
KHAN ET AL.
T A B L E 4 The reduction in the sound power level in terms of
decibels (dB) of sandwich panels by foam filling[234]
Sound power level (dB)
Cellular Trapezoidal Triangular
Influence core core core
Without foam 106.65 105.52 106.43
With foam 94.65 93.67 93.99
Reduction in SPL 12 11.85 12.44
sandwich specimens was studied in detail. A numerical
model was also proposed and was successfully validated
with experimental outcomes. It was observed from the
experiments that the addition of ribs provided stability to
the overall structure and prevented the wrinkling of the
face sheets. It also allowed the upper face sheet to reach
its maximum strength. Results of a parametric study in
the research also showed that the flexural strength
increased with a decrease in rib spacing. All the above
results have indicated that hybrid sandwich composites
could be very easily used as alternatives to conventional
sandwich panels and could give superior performance in
different applications (Table 5).
4.5 | Impact response of PUF core
sandwich structures
As mentioned previously, PUFs are widely used in aero-
space, marine, automotive and many other industrial
applications due to their high strength to weight ratio,
excellent insulation properties and superior energy
absorption capabilities. Also, it has been found from the
literature investigation of PUFs in previous sections that
a wide range of studies have been carried out to find out
the impact response of these structures. It is very impor-
tant to determine the impact behavior of these structure
in order to ensure their safe and beneficial use. Like
many other construction materials, these structures react
differently to different strain rates. Since PUFs are mostly
used as core materials in sandwich structures, the impact
response PUF core-based sandwich structures has been
investigated in most of the previous researches. Even
though nanostructured PUFs having different reinforce-
ments exhibit improved mechanical properties, the stain
rate effect on different mechanical properties of these
foams is not yet fully understood. Therefore, researchers
are consistently trying to study the strain rate effect on
certain mechanical properties. In this regard, a study was
conducted to investigate the compressive and low veloc-
ity impact response of RPUFs nanostructured with
KHAN ET AL. 35

TABLE 5 Summary of the studies of PUF in hybrid core sandwich structures

S. No. Face material Core geometry Hybridization Test(s)/analysis Ref.

1. Aluminum Aluminum honeycomb PUF filling High velocity impact [219]
2. Carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy Kraft paper honeycomb PUF filling High velocity impact [220]
3. Moveable rigid plate Aluminum honeycomb PUF filling Compression [221]
Aluminum circular tubes Low velocity impact
Numerical analysis
4. Unspecified face material Aluminum honeycomb PUF filling Numerical analysis [222]
5. Aluminum Aluminum honeycomb PUF filling Experimental modal analysis [223]
Numerical modal analysis
6. Nanotitanium powder / Unspecified honeycomb PUF filling Microwave absorption [224]
hydrogenation Characterization
acrylonitrile-butadiene
rubber composite
7. Glass fiber-reinforced epoxy 3D woven glass fabric PUF filling Low velocity impact [225]
8. Glass fiber-reinforced epoxy 3D woven glass fabric PUF filling Experimental modal analysis [226]
9. Glass fiber-reinforced 3D woven glass fabric PUF filling Tensile [227]
polyester Three-point bending
10. Glass fiber-reinforced epoxy / 3D woven glass fabric PUF filling Compression [228]
polyamide 3D polyester filament Three-point bending
Polyester filament- reinforced
epoxy / polyamide
11. Glass fiber-reinforced epoxy 3D woven glass fabric PUF filling Shear [229]
Compression
Three-point bending
Fatigue
12. Rolled homogeneous armor Al alloy foam structure Interlayer hybridization Numerical analysis [230]
steel
13. Graphite-reinforced epoxy PVC foam structure Interlayer hybridization Numerical analysis [231]
14. Stainless steel Steel truss core PU elastomer filling, High velocity impact [232]
Alumina addition
15. Carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy Al truss core PU foam filling, Experimental modal analysis [233]
Interlayer hybridization, Quasi-static compression
Silicon rubber addition Numerical analysis
16. Aluminum Al truss core PUF filling Acoustic [234]
Al honeycomb Experimental modal analysis
Numerical analysis
17. Steel Al tubular core PUF filling Tensile [235]
Steel tubular core Polystyrene foam filling Compression
Polyethylene foam filling Blast
18. Glass fiber-reinforced epoxy GFRP ribs structure PUF filling Three-point bending [236]
Four-point bending
Uniform load bending
Numerical

bacterial cellulose at both low and intermediate strain
rates. In the study, it was observed that both neat and
nanostructured bacterial cellulose PUFs exhibited strain
rate effect on yield stress and densification stress, which
was primarily associated with the strain rate sensitivity of
the base polymer.[237] It has also been observed in a
recent study that strain rate has a great influence on
other mechanical properties of PUFs and their direction
dependence (parallel and perpendicular to the foam rise
directions). The overall elastic stiffness, yield stress and
the effective energy absorption capacity were observed to
increase linearly with an increase in the strain rate for all
36
loading angles. Also, it was found that the strain rate
influenced the deformation modes of the foam cells.[238]
Therefore, it is critically important to consider the strain
rate parameter while investigation the response of PUFs
and PUF core based sandwich composites under different
mechanical loadings, especially under impact loading
conditions.
Based on their working requirements, PUF core
sandwich structures can be subjected to different kinds
of impact loadings. The impact response of these sand-
wich structures is generally investigated under two
groups: low velocity impact test and high velocity
impact test. Low velocity impact response is generally
related to the damages, hardness and toughness, contact
forces and energy absorption rates that result from the
low velocity impacts during maintenance and service
procedures. Non-penetrating low velocity impact load-
ings can damage the internal structure of these sand-
wich composites and these internal damages can in turn
cause stresses, which may ultimately lead to serious
unexpected hazards during their service. The low veloc-
ity impact tests are generally performed at a speed range
of 1-10 m/s. The high velocity impact behavior is related
to the damage mechanisms resulting from sudden high
impacts of small particles. These high velocity impact
tests are generally performed to investigate the response
to high-velocity impacts such as aircraft bird strikes,
bullet strikes, aircraft accidents, ammunition explo-
sions, automotive accidents, etc. The tests are carried
out at high velocities ranging from 50 to 1000 m/s.
When an object hits a moving aircraft, the relative
velocities of the two moving bodies are so high that the
impact can lead to a drastic damage.
While examining the studies conducted to find the
impact response of sandwich composites, following
important factors should be considered;
• Energy absorbed as a result of non-penetration low
velocity impacts and a thorough analysis of the dam-
aged area
• Energy absorbed during the penetration
• Residual stresses in the sandwich structures after the
impact and the damage caused to internal structure
The impact performance of the sandwich structures
generally depends of different parameters such as the
type of the material used in face sheets, structure of the
core materials, and the interfacial adhesion between the
face sheets and the core material. In a broader perspec-
tive, the important parameters that affect the impact
behavior of sandwich composites, the energy transfer
between the sandwich structure (target) and the tip of
the impactor, the energy absorption capability of the
KHAN ET AL.
target, the resulting damage mechanism and the strain
rate are presented below.
• Impact energy, shape and diameter of the impactor's
tip, contact angle, and the velocity of the impactor.
• Hardness, thickness and density of the face sheet
material.
• Thickness, density, porosity, and the type of chain for-
mation within the porous structure of the core
material.
• Type of bonding between the face sheets and the core
material.
Furthermore, while metals tend to absorb energy in
the elastic and plastic regions, composite materials usu-
ally absorb energy in the elastic region. In sandwich com-
posites, the face sheets absorb energy in the elastic region
whereas the core material exhibits metal-like behavior
and absorbs energy in booth elastic and plastic
regions.[239,240] Along with this, strain rate is another
important factor that should be considered while investi-
gating the impact response of the sandwich composites.
The strain rate is related to the amount of deformation
that takes place in the structure and it dependent on the
loading conditions and time.
In a study conducted by Mane et al. 2017, the impact
response of PUFs that are commonly used due to their
superior thermal insulation and energy absorption capa-
bilities was experimentally investigated under different
strain rates. For this purpose, uniaxial compression tests
were performed at semi-static (0.0033 s-1) and dynamic
(800 s-1) strain rates. The results of the study showed that
there was a significant difference in the mechanical prop-
erties of the PUFs that were compressed with different
strain rates. It was observed that the PUFs that were
compressed with dynamic strain rates exhibited high
energy absorption capabilities compared to the PUFs that
were compressed with semi-static strain rates. Also, it
was found that useful range of the PUFs was decreased
with an increase in the strain range. However, the energy
absorption capability and the yield strength of the PUFs
were increased with an increase in the strain rate. It was
concluded that the impact behavior of the PUFs varied
depending on the density of the PUF, strain rate, and the
temperature.[241]
The impact response of the PUF core based sandwich
structures with different types of face sheets, different
core densities, different reinforcement materials and the
types of reinforcements has been already discussed in
detail in the above sections. Therefore, those details will
not be repeated here and only some additional informa-
tion regarding the impact behavior will be briefly dis-
cussed in this section.
KHAN ET AL.
It has been stated in a study conducted by Nemes
et al.[242] that the energy absorption capability of the sand-
wich panels increased with an increase in the impact veloc-
ity, which resulted from high strain rate due to an increase
in the core material's crushing stresses and face sheet's
stresses. Within a sandwich structure, the upper face sheets
have the highest strain rates. Also, the core material parts
that are closer to the impact site provide greater progression
in the dynamic yield strength and are subjected to higher
strain rates.[108] In addition, exposure of the sandwich com-
posites to higher velocity impacts results in higher strain
rates.[109] Another study conducted by Houser et al.,[172]
reported that the change in the energy absorption results
from strain rate effects due to the deformation in geometry
and material of the sandwich composites.
Dean et al.[243] conducted an interesting study on
high velocity impact response of sandwich composites
and investigated the amount of energy absorbed during
the entry of bullet into a metal fiber core sandwich struc-
ture, both numerically and experimentally. The experi-
mental results showed that the energy absorption rates
were maximum at speeds closer to the ballistic limit
range. Furthermore, results of the numerical study indi-
cated that this increase was related to the kinetic energy
of the separated particles and to the strain rate. In
another study conducted by Nia et al.,[215] it was observed
that an increase in the impact velocity resulted in an
increase in the absorbed energy. This behavior was
reported to be caused by the strain rate effect. Another
high velocity impact study on PUF core based sandwich
composites was conducted by Roudbeneh et al.[219] It was
observed in the study that the absorbed energy and the
structural efficiency of the sandwich composites
increased with an increase in the density of the PUF core.
However, it was also indicated that an increase in the
density of the PUF core increased the overall weight,
which could limit the use of such sandwich structures.
It can be concluded from the literature available on
the impact response of PU core sandwich composites that
there are certain important parameters that should be
considered while investigating the impact behavior of
these composites. All of these-above mentioned parame-
ters have their own effect on the performance of the
sandwich composites. By changing these parameters, a
sandwich structure for a particular application requiring
specific properties can be easily achieved.
5 | A P PL I C A T I O N S O F P U F - B A S E D
S A NDW IC H S T R UC T UR ES
Polyurethanes (PU) provide sustainable energy use and
energy conservation along with making life more
37
comfortable, safer and more enjoyable. PU structures
have a wide range of use in different industrial applica-
tions due to their superior properties such as light weight,
insulation, high abrasion resistance, self-adhesion, shear
strength, elasticity and low cost. PU structures can be
obtained with different hardness and densities by varying
the ratio of constituents (isocyanate and polyol). If the
reaction process is designed so that no voids (gas bubbles)
remain in the structure, a solid elastomeric structure is
obtained, as in skateboard wheels. If the reaction is
designed to form gas bubbles in the structure, then a
structure called polyurethane foam (PUF) is obtained.
The majority of the commercially used PU is used in PUF
form. PUFs are used for various surface coatings such as
metal, composite, plastic, cloth and as insulation of struc-
tures such as roofs, walls and floors, furniture, land, air
and sea vehicles, sports equipment, refrigerators and
freezers along with their major use as a core material for
sandwich structures.
For applications where comfort and sound insula-
tion are desired, flexible PUF is preferred, hard PUF is
used for heat isolation and cavity filling, while elasto-
meric PU constructions are preferred for wear resis-
tance applications. Information about the common
uses of PUF sandwich structures are given below.[244]
The most important advantages of PUF sandwich struc-
tures can be expressed as follows: high heat insulation
capacity to save more heating energy, resistance to
thermal heat transfer, having superior load-carrying
capacity, high resistance to pressure, light weight, long
life, ease of production and installation, excellent fire
resistance with proper additives, good bonding ability
with doors and windows, the possibility of various sur-
face coatings with almost no maintenance, and reduc-
tion in CO2. All these impressive properties contribute
to the preservation of the environment. Some applica-
tions of PUF core sandwich structures can be seen in
Figures 36 and 37.
5.1 | Construction applications
Polyurethanes—being basic building elements, insulation
elements, adhesive and sealing materials—are very
important structural materials that are needed almost
everywhere in construction applications. Especially in
floor, wall and roof applications, they are widely used
because of their insulation and lightweight. The use of
PUF is more prominent in buildings where energy effi-
ciency is required. Due to their excellent insulation prop-
erties, hard PUF sandwiches are preferred in many
applications for protection against hot and cold tempera-
tures. They have extremely low thermal conductivity
38 KHAN ET AL.

FIGURE 36 Some applications of PUF core sandwich structures. A, An insulating panel. B, Thermal insulation of a building.[245] C,
An interior part in an automobile.[246] D, Surfboard construction[247] [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 37
Demonstration of industrial
applications of PUF core
sandwich structures in: A,
Rotor blade. B, Acoustic
insulation. C, Water
resistance. D, Aircraft
fuselage[248] [Color figure can
be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
KHAN ET AL.
FIGURE 38 Wet module[249] [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
values compared to conventional insulation materials.
The insulation properties are very high even when the
sandwich construction is thin. These constructions are
used almost everywhere in prefabricated buildings, cold-
air warehouses, factory buildings, containers, from floors
to interior-exterior roof walls, and sloped and flat
roofs.[244] Another major application of PUF based sand-
wich panels is the panelized residential roofs. These
panels have additional advantages of reduced air infiltra-
tion and improved thermal insulation that result in major
energy savings. These energy savings are even more
prominent when the air conditioning ducts are placed in
the attic. These insulated attics provide higher energy
savings for both heating and cooling compared to the
conventional vented attic.[77] In recent years, many inno-
vative techniques have been applied in the construction
applications that have revolutionized this sector. One of
these innovative techniques is the application of offsite
manufacturing (OSM) in construction sector to produce
the sandwich panels. The OSM technique provides a
major advantage of centralizing repeatable processes,
which results in low cost, higher standards, rapid delivery
and speedy production. By utilizing the OSM technique,
RPUF core based sandwich panels are being used in sev-
eral industrial and commercial construction applications
such as hospitals, farming buildings, recreational struc-
tures, equestrian hangers etc. Another recent innovative
building process that used RPUF based sandwich panels
is known as “industrialized wet area module” (Figure 38)
that is fabricated by using OSM technique and consists of
a kitchen, bathroom and laundry. This approach drasti-
cally reduces the price and enables more efficient use of
resources.[249]
39
5.2 | Furniture applications
A person spends an average of 200 000 hours on beds,
seats, couches and chairs during his/her lifetime. There-
fore, the highest quality is demanded in these products.
Polyurethanes offer superior quality applications to a
wide range of these basic products and systems. These
structures provide comfortable, durable and light surfaces
in the furniture. Different types of PUF constructions are
used in different areas, such as seats, chairs, car seats,
interior trim and bedding materials, whereas hard PUF
sandwich composites are used in doors, window frame
railings and the exterior skeleton panels of furniture.[244]
In the furniture sector, a wide range of PUF hard struc-
tures with a density of 800 kg/m3 to softer foams with a
density of 10 kg/m3 for filling and packaging purposes.
PUF sandwich panels used in furniture can be in the
form of wood-coverings or may be of a very different
material, such as aluminum foil, fabric or coated paper.
Window frames are building elements that are contin-
uously exposed to external influences such as hot and
cold temperatures, wind and sunlight. Also, windows are
the components with the lowest thermal insulation in
most residential buildings. For this reason, polyurethane
rigid foam is a good insulating material for window
frames. PUF-cored frames have very good heat and sound
insulation, are easy to clean and require low mainte-
nance, have high durability and exhibit exceptional dura-
bility against mechanical stress generated by weather
conditions such as snow, rain and wind.[250]
5.3 | Vehicle applications
PUF has a wide range of uses in different fields for land,
air and sea because of its superior properties and it offers
impressive alternatives for unusual designs. Flexible and
semi-flexible PUFs are widely used in parts such as bum-
pers, mudguards, the interior and exterior components of
sidewalls, floor and ceiling coverings, armchairs and arm-
rests. Vehicles with exterior finishes and extremely com-
fortable interiors require more qualified PUF sandwich
constructions.[251] Acoustic foams are used to reduce
sound and vibration levels. Acoustic foams form the core
of insulating sandwich panels used especially for insula-
tion of structural noises in vehicles. Another promising
feature of PUF is that it has high impact resistance even
at extremely low temperatures when it is produced as a
micro-celled, almost pore-free solid material. The rigidity
of these products can be further increased by using rein-
forcements such as glass and natural fibers. These struc-
tures are mainly used in automobile exteriors (front and
40
rear panels, door joint plates) and commercial vehicles
(wide format coverings and mudguards).[244]
To increase the safety of passengers and pedestrians
in case of accidents, parts with energy absorbing features
like PUFs are required. Innovative integrated PUF sys-
tems are also used to hold the vehicle window frames
more tightly. Sandwich constructions are another area of
use in which the complex voids in the structural parts
and the horizontal and vertical shell parts are filled with
foam. With this method, a more stable vehicle structure
is achieved by adding a little more weight to the overall
structure. Properties like lightweight, ease of formability
and strength make PUFs one of the most suitable mate-
rials for vehicle aerodynamics. These products allow the
flow of air around the body of the vehicle above a certain
speed and provide a strong grip. Front and rear body kits
and fins are made of PUF. By mounting these elements
together, the vehicle's handling is improved by increasing
the force applied to the road. This results in greater fric-
tional forces between the tires and the asphalt. PUF
spoilers can easily be produced by coating and painting
processes. Even in the wings of aircrafts, spoilers with
more aerodynamic features can be produced by different
methods compared to that of automobiles.[250]
In addition to these uses, flexible and rigid PUF core
sandwich constructions are used in commercial vehicle
cabins, caravans, buses and trains. Although damage cau-
sed to the PUF sandwich construction used in vehicles is
not very frequent, removal and replacement of all compo-
nents can be regarded as a disadvantage of PUF sandwich
structures when damage does occur.[244] It is also possible
to recycle these materials by demolishing them in an
environmentally friendly manner at the end of their ser-
vice life.[251] RPUFs, aluminum, steel and glass fiber-
reinforced polymer (GFRP) are also used as surface plates
to meet the high strength requirements of road vibration,
and to absorb the impacts, especially in load-carrying
refrigerated vehicles.
5.4 | Marine applications
Insulation, lightweight, and body strength are required in
all ships ranging from small boats to large transatlantic
freight containers. In these marine vehicles, these proper-
ties can be obtained by filling polyurethane between two
hard surfaces. PUF-reinforced sandwich constructions
are used in the walls, ceilings and floor coverings of the
skeleton structures, which constitute the main body of
the vessels. In recent years, apart from conventional sur-
face coatings, sandwich constructions have been made
using hard PUF cores compressed between fiber-
reinforced polymer composite surface plates such as glass
KHAN ET AL.
and carbon fibers. PUF provides structural strength to
the body, heat and sound insulation, and lightweight,
which helps in floatation. Different PUF-based filling
materials are used in many marine vehicles, including
fishing boats, to avoid situations like continuous mois-
ture, hard-abrasive sea/ocean impacts and water leakage
to undesired areas. Hard PUFs are widely used in marine
applications because of their closed cell structure, which
makes them suitable against perforation, along with
lightweight and impact resistance.[252] By using these
structures, it is possible to provide lightness, durability
and insulation to the body of the marine vessels.[253] PUF
sandwich constructions, being the main elements provid-
ing heat insulation, are also used in freezer compart-
ments, especially in cold rooms and freezers in land and
sea vehicles.
5.5 | Other applications
Apart from the basic usage areas described above, PUF
core sandwich constructions have a wide range of appli-
cations ranging from wind turbine blades to sports equip-
ment, from cold air storage to cooling machines, from
storage tanks to fluid-carrying pipes and mold-making
elements in the manufacturing sector. Polyurethane
foams are used to form integral surfaces that provide
effective sealing against leaks. Sprayed polyurethane
foams can be easily applied to surfaces with irregularly
shaped structures. The foam layer completely adheres to
the horizontal or vertical surfaces and is resistant to high
wind stresses.[244] All these properties make PUF suitable
for a versatile range of applications. Some of the major
industrial uses of PUF in different sectors are given as
following.
• Sports equipment such as surf boards, snowboards and
ski gear are examples of PUF core sandwiches.
• These constructions can be produced in flexible or
hard form according to their use in cable and pipe
insulation applications that require long-distance fluid
and energy transfer, where they provide resistance to
high temperature, durability and good insulation
properties.
• The PUFs used for insulation and protection on the
outer surfaces of fluid pipes are circular shaped struc-
tures and can be considered as sandwich structures
because their outer surfaces are covered with harder
surface elements.
• PUFs protect containers and storage tanks from exter-
nal influences and transportation damage. They are
also preferred for thermal insulation in storage. For
many years, direct foam molding has been performed
KHAN ET AL.
to ensure that hot water tanks with outer metal sur-
faces are well insulated.
• Almost all refrigerators and freezers are manufactured
using hard PUF. The thermoplastic inner surface and
the thin-walled steel outer casing are pre-mounted to
inject PUF into the gap between the inner and outer
surfaces. Thus, the existing structure is transformed
into a sandwich structure. The low density hard PUF
is an excellent insulating material and thanks to its
adhesive structure, it bonds the inner and outer sur-
faces to each other to provide the structural integrity of
the cabinet. High strength and a low weight are
obtained by using PUF sandwiches in refrigerators.
6 | C ON C L U S I ON S
A detailed investigation of research related to PUF-based
sandwich composites up to the present has been carried
out, with a major focus on research in the past decade. It
has been observed that a wide range of studies have been
carried out on these structures in previous years. From
published literature, it can be seen that these structures
have grown from simple sandwich composites that were
used for basic applications to advanced and complex
engineering materials used for multiple applications
today. Many techniques have been used by many
researchers in past years to improve the performance of
these sandwich composites for particular applications
and very successful results have been achieved. This
ongoing research has consistently helped in the develop-
ment of these PUF-based sandwich composites into very
important engineering materials in the modern world.
General trends that have been found through litera-
ture investigation have allowed some important conclu-
sions to highlighted, as follows:
PUF core-based sandwich composites are lightweight
structures that are highly preferred in aerospace, con-
struction and automotive applications etc., where weight
is of critical importance. The flexural properties of PUF
sandwich composites are mainly affected by the geomet-
rical and material properties of the test specimens. By
changing the type of material in the face sheets, the
thickness of both face sheets and core material, and the
density of the core material, the PUF sandwich compos-
ites can be manufactured with superior flexural strength.
Experimental parameters such as processing temperature
also have a great influence on the flexural performance
of PUF sandwich composites and should be considered.
In addition, the fatigue behavior of PUF sandwich struc-
tures is mainly dependent on the ultimate load. It is
observed that for a lower value of applied load, PUF
sandwich composites show a longer fatigue life.
41
Impact behavior and energy absorption of PUF sand-
wich composites is mainly influenced by the test parame-
ters (such as impact energy, peak load, size and shape of
impactor, etc.). Material properties and geometries of the
PUF core, like density and thickness, also affect the over-
all energy absorption of the sandwich structure. How-
ever, the buckling phenomenon in PUF sandwich
composites under axially loaded conditions is totally
dependent on geometric configurations (mainly slender-
ness) of the test specimens. Also, it can be said that when
subjected to moisture of a long period of time, PUF sand-
wich composites show a noticeable degradation in
mechanical properties such as strength and stiffness.
The damping response of PUF sandwich composites
also varies with a change in PUF core density. As a gen-
eral trend, it can be said that a PUF core with a higher
density in a sandwich structure exhibits better damping
characteristics. In curved sandwich beams, damping
response is also dependent on the curvature. In terms of
insulation behavior, it is observed from past research that
PUF-based sandwich composites show superior insulat-
ing properties compared to other insulating materials
and can result in energy savings.
Even though PUF core-based sandwich composites
have shown some remarkable properties over the years,
researchers have felt the need to further improve their
properties in different applications by mainly reinforcing
the PUF core with different materials such as particles,
fibers, fabrics, solid inserts and bio-additives etc. These
reinforcements have shown some remarkable improve-
ments to different properties in the resulting reinforced
sandwich structures. It can be concluded that particle
reinforcements to the PUF core in small weight percent-
ages can improve the mechanical, electrical, thermal,
dynamic, magnetic and interlayer properties of sandwich
composites. A major improvement in impact response
has been observed with particle reinforcement with
nanoclay, graphene, CNTs, metallic oxides and ceramics.
One important parameter to be considered during parti-
cle reinforcement is to avoid the phenomenon of agglom-
eration, which can have a negative effect on the desired
parameters.
Another successful way to enhance the properties of
PUF core-based sandwich composites in previous years
has been the addition of different kinds of fibers into the
core material. A vast variety of fibers, such as short fibers,
chopped fibers, long fibers and natural fibers have been
used by different researchers. It can be concluded that
major improvements in flexural performance and com-
pressive behavior of fiber-reinforced sandwich compos-
ites has been achieved.
One of the most effective ways to manufacture sand-
wich specimens of superior performance is to use hybrid
42
cores. These hybrid cores can have different configura-
tions such as foam-filled honeycombs, corrugations, truss
and webbed cores, interlayers and 3D woven cores etc.
All these hybrid structures have different advantages
based on the type of application. For example, 3D woven
sandwich composites filled with PUF have shown
remarkable interlayer strength, which can be very effec-
tively used to avoid the delamination failure mode.
Hybrid sandwich structures with interlayer configura-
tions have shown very impressive improvements in
impact properties, whereas other PUF-filled hybrid sand-
wich structures such as truss cores can also be used to
achieve superior flexural properties, impact response and
other mechanical properties.
It can be concluded from the use of PUF-based sand-
wich composites that these structures have a very diverse
range of applications and their properties can be
enhanced on a very large scale using simple techniques.
These structures are very cost effective, easy to manufac-
ture, are very lightweight and exhibit remarkable proper-
ties that makes these structures suitable for many
industrial applications.
A C K N O WL E D G M E N T
This work was supported by Izmir Katip Çelebi Univer-
sity Research Grant [Grant Number: 2016-ÖNP-
MÜM-0002].
ORCID
Volkan Acar https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7412-301X
R EF E RE N C E S
[1] L. Gibson, M. Ashby, Introduction. in Cellular solids: struc-
ture and properties, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1997, p. 1.
[2] A. Jamil, Z. Guan, W. Cantwell, Compos. Struct. 2017, 161, 85.
[3] https://www.ceresana.com/en/market-studies/plastics/pur-
isocyanates/ (accessed: 01.02.2019).
[4] Z. Wang, X. Li, Polym.-Plast. Technol. Eng. 2018, 57, 884.
[5] S. Sair, A. Oushabi, A. Kammouni, O. Tanane, Y. Abboud,
A. E. Bouari, Case Studies Construct. Mater. 2018, 8, 203.
[6] P. Zhang, H. Fan, K. Hu, Y. Gu, Y. Chen, J. Yan, S. Tian,
Y. He, Prog. Org. Coat. 2018, 120, 88.
[7] J.-M. Kim, J.-H. Kim, J.-H. Ahn, J.-D. Kim, S. Park,
K. H. Park, J. M. Lee, Compos. Part B Eng. 2018, 136, 28.
[8] A. Nacas, S. Vidotti, A. Chinellato, D. Santos, J. Adhesion
2018, 94, 880.
[9] Z. Xu, X. Tang, A. Gu, Z. Fang, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2007,
106, 439.
[10] D. Ramirez, F. Jaramillo, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2018, 135,
46180.
[11] L. Meng, W. Li, R. Ma, M. Huang, Y. Cao, J. Wang, Polym.
Adv. Technol. 2017, 29, 843.
[12] P. Szatkowski, K. Pielichowska, S. Blazewicz, J. Mater. Sci.
2017, 52, 12221.
KHAN ET AL.
[13] V. Dolomanova, J. C. M. Rauhe, L. R. Jensen, R. Pyrz,
A. B. Timmons, J. Cell. Plast. 2011, 47, 81.
[14] R. Vaithylingam, M. N. M. Ansari, R. A. Shanks, Polym.-
Plast. Technol. Eng. 2017, 56, 1528.
[15] M. Shariyat, M. Roshanfar, Thin-Walled Struct. 2018,
127, 157.
[16] M. Yossef, A. Chen, Eng. Struct. 2018, 162, 135.
[17] T. Scalici, V. Fiore, A. Valenza, Compos. Part B Eng. 2018,
144, 29.
[18] T. Suzuki, H. Mahfuz, Int. J. Fatigue 2018, 111, 124.
[19] J. Liu, J. Liu, J. Mei, W. Huang, Compos. Sci. Technol. 2018,
159, 87.
[20] A. Shams, A. Stark, F. Hoogen, J. Hegger, H. Schneider, Com-
pos. Struct. 2015, 121, 271.
[21] M. O. Seydibeyo
glu, M. Misra, A. Mohanty, J. J. Blaker,
K. Y. Lee, A. Bismarck, M. Kazemizadeh, J. Mater. Sci. 2013,
48, 2167.
[22] R. B. Gimenez, L. Leonardi, P. Cerrutti, J. Amalvy,
L. M. Chiacchiarelli, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2017, 134(25), 44982.
[23] A. I. Cordero, J. I. Amalvy, E. Fortunati, J. M. Kenny,
L. M. Chiacchiarelli, Carbohydr. Polym. 2015, 134, 110.
[24] A. Uzal, F. O. Sonmez, F. E. Oz, K. Cinar, N. Ersoy, Compos.
Struct. 2018, 193, 198.
[25] A. Haldar, Z. Guan, W. Cantwell, Q. Wang, Compos. Part B
Eng. 2018, 144, 143.
[26] P. K. Gianchandani, V. Casalegno, M. Salvo, G. Bianchi,
A. Ortona, M. Ferraris, Mater. Lett. 2018, 221, 240.
[27] J. L. Fernandez-Cabo, A. Majano-Majano, L. S.-S. Ageo,

M. Avila-Nieto, Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2010, 69, 459.
[28] D. Li, Z. Deng, H. Xiao, P. Jin, Thin-Walled Struct. 2018,
122, 8.
[29] Z.-X. Wang, H.-S. Shen, Compos. Struct. 2018, 192, 642.
[30] M. Osei-Antwi, J. D. Castro, A. P. Vassilopoulos, T. Keller,
Construct. Build Mater. 2014, 71, 194.
[31] D. Höwer, B. A. Lerch, B. A. Bednarcyk, E. J. Pineda,
S. Reese, J.-W. Simon, Compos. Struct. 2018, 183, 568.
[32] M. Harhash, A. Carradò, H. Palkowski, Compos. Struct. 2017,
160, 1084.
[33] S. Mousa, N. Scheirer, G.-Y. Kim, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
2018, 255, 463.
[34] J.-H. Lee, S.-H. Kang, Y.-J. Ha, S.-G. Hong, Int. J. Concr.
Struct. Mater. 2018, 12, 21.
[35] T. Reyno, C. Marsden, D. Wowk, NDT & E Int. 2018, 97, 11.
[36] J. Liu, Z. Wang, D. Hui, Compos. Part B Eng. 2018, 145, 261.
[37] Z. Sun, S. Shi, X. Guo, X. Hu, H. Chen, Compos. Part B Eng.
2016, 94, 245.
[38] J. Xiong, A. Vaziri, R. Ghosh, H. Hu, L. Ma, L. Wu, Extreme
Mech. Lett. 2016, 7, 114.
[39] R. A. W. Mines, S. Tsopanos, Y. Shen, R. Hasan,
S. T. McKown, Int. J. Impact Eng. 2013, 60, 120.
[40] Y. Shen, W. Cantwell, R. Mines, Y. Li, J. Compos. Mater.
2014, 48, 3153.
[41] F. Jin, H. Chen, L. Zhao, H. Fan, C. Cai, N. Kuang, Compos.
Struct. 2013, 98, 53.
[42] M. Jin, Y. Hu, B. Wang, Compos. Struct. 2015, 124, 337.
[43] J. Xiong, L. Ma, S. Pan, L. Wu, J. Papadopoulos, A. Vaziri,
Acta Mater. 2012, 60, 1455.
[44] M. S. Mohammadi, J. A. Nairn, Compos. Part B Eng. 2017,
122, 165.
KHAN ET AL.
[45] C. Yan, X. Song, C. Jing, S. Feng, J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2017,
32, 673.
[46] C. Liu, Y. Zhang, J. Li, Compos. Struct. 2017, 182, 183.
[47] S. Raeisi, J. Kadkhodapour, A. Tovar, Compos. Struct. 2019,
214, 34.
[48] A. Xu, T. Vodenitcharova, K. Kabir, E. A. Flores-Johnson,
M. Hoffman, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2014, 599, 125.
[49] O. Castro, J. M. Silva, T. Devezas, A. Silva, L. Gil, Mater. Des.
2010, 31, 425.
[50] E. A. Flores-Johnson, Q. M. Li, Composites B 2011, 42, 1212.
[51] J. Wang, B. Chen, H. Wang, A. M. Waas, J. Sandwich Struct.
Mater. 2015, 17, 446.
[52] S. Członka, M. F. Bertino, J. Kosny, A. Strąkowska,
M. Masłowski, K. Strzelec, Ind. Crop Prod. 2018, 115, 40.
[53] A. Prociak, E. Malewska, M. Kura nska, S. Bąk, P. Budny, Ind.
Crop Prod. 2018, 115, 69.
[54] Chen Y, Li L, Xu L, Qian L. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2018;135:
46334.
[55] S. W. Choi, J. M. Jung, H. M. Yoo, S. H. Kim, W. I. Lee,
J. Therm. Anal. Calorimetry 2018, 132, 1253.
[56] H. Tian, Y. Yao, S. Zhang, Y. Wang, A. Xiang, Polym. Test.
2018, 67, 68.
[57] M. M. A. Ahmed, M. Safiulla, Mater. Today 2018, 5, 429.
[58] P. Sharafi, S. Nemati, B. Samali, A. Bahmani, S. Khakpour,
Y. Aliabadizadeh, Eng. Solid Mech. 2018, 6, 113.
[59] S. Piovár, E. Kormaníková, Adv. Mat. Res. 2014, 969, 316.
[60] X. X. Zha, P. C. Qin, H. X. Wang, Adv. Mat. Res. 2010,
168-170, 1051.
[61] H. Q. Li, X. M. Wang, Z. G. Sun, Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012,
174-177, 1042.
[62] M. Garrido, J. R. Correia, T. Keller, F. A. Branco, Compos.
Struct. 2015, 134, 255.
[63] Fam A, Sharaf T, Sadeghian P. J. Eng. Mech. 2016;142:
04016015.
[64] A. Fathi, F. Wolff-Fabris, V. Altstädt, R. Gätzi, J. Sandwich
Struct. Mater. 2013, 15, 487.
[65] A. Mostafa, K. Shankar, E. V. Morozov, Mater. Struct. 2014,
48, 1545.
[66] R. Studzinski, Z. Pozorski, A. Garstecki, J. Constr. Steel Res.
2015, 104, 227.
[67] M. Mohamed, R. Hussein, A. Abutunis, Z. Huo,
K. Chandrashekhara, L. Sneed, J. Sandwich Struct. Mater.
2016, 18, 769.
[68] K. Padmanabhan, Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 2013, 21, 191.
[69] H. Mathieson, A. Fam, J. Compos. Construct. 2016, 20,
04015020/1.
[70] T. Sharaf, A. Fam, Thin-Walled Struct. 2013, 71, 91.
[71] C. Shan, Adv. Struct. Eng. 2017, 20, 1615.
[72] T. Sharaf, W. Shawkat, A. Fam, J. Compos. Mater. 2010, 44, 2249.
[73] Uday C, Varma CST, Varma BNSK, Ramya M,
Padmanabhan K, presented at Int. Conf. Mater. Character.
Tech. (ICMCT-2014), USA, 10-12 March 2014, pp. 3314-3317.
[74] H. Tuwair, M. Hopkins, J. Volz, M. A. ElGawady,
M. Mohamed, K. Chandrashekhara, V. Birman, Composites B
2015, 79, 262.
[75] L. Gibson, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 1984, 67, 125.
[76] S. R. Swanson, J. Kim, J. Compos. Mater. 2003, 37, 649.
[77] C. R. Briscoe, S. C. Mantell, J. H. Davidson, J. Sandwich
Struct. Mater. 2011, 13, 23.
43
[78] O. Thomsen, Y. Frostig, Compos. Struct. 1997, 37, 97.
[79] T. C. Triantafillou, L. J. Gibson, Mater. Struct. 1989, 22, 64.
[80] A. Mirzapour, M. H. Beheshty, M. Vafayan, Iran. Polym. J.
2005, 14(12), 1082.
[81] Ostwal RS, Sawant AV, Dumre AA, Takalkar AR, Ramya M,
Padmanabhan K, presented at Int. Conf. Mater. Character.
Tech. (ICMCT-2014), USA, 10-12 March 2014 pp. 3339-3342.
[82] W. Shawkat, H. Honickman, A. Fam, J. Compos. Mater. 2008,
42, 315.
[83] J. Correia, M. Garrido, J. Gonilha, F. Branco, L. Reis, Int.
J. Struct. Integ. 2012, 3, 127.
[84] A. G. Mamalis, K. N. Spentzas, D. E. Manolakos,
M. B. Ioannidis, D. P. Papapostolou, Int. J. Crashworthiness
2008, 13, 349.
[85] D. K. Harris, T. Cousins, E. D. Sotelino, T. M. Murray,
J. Bridge Eng. 2010, 15, 684.
[86] C. Shan, Y. Yi, J. Constr. Steel Res. 2016, 122, 488.
[87] H. Tuwair, J. Volz, M. A. Elgawady, K. Chandrashekhara,
V. Birman, J. Bridge Eng. 2016, 21, 04016012.
[88] H. Tuwair, J. Volz, M. Elgawady, M. Mohamed,
K. Chandrashekhara, V. Birman, Structure 2016, 5, 141.
[89] S. T. D. Freitas, H. Kolstein, F. Bijlaard, J. Sandwich Struct.
Mater. 2010, 13, 279.
[90] S. Yanes-Armas, J. D. Castro, T. Keller, Compos. Struct. 2017,
181, 214.
[91] Garrido M, Correia JR, Keller T, Cabral-Fonseca S.
J. Compos. Construct. 2017;21:04016074.
[92] M. Arruda, M. Garrido, L. Castro, A. Ferreira, J. Correia,
Compos. Struct. 2018, 183, 103.
[93] M. Garrido, J. R. Correia, F. A. Branco, T. Keller, J. Compos.
Mater. 2013, 48, 2237.
[94] J. S. Huang, L. J. Gibson, J. Mater. Civil Eng. 1990, 2, 171.
[95] A. Arjangpay, A. Darvizeh, M. Y. Tooski, R. Ansari, Compos.
Struct. 2018, 184, 327.
[96] F. Pascal, A. Rogani, B. Mahmoud, P. Navarro, S. Marguet,
J.-F. Ferrero, Compos. Struct. 2018, 190, 43.
[97] S. Feli, M. M. Jalilian, J. Sandwich Struct. Mater. 2016,
19, 261.
[98] G. Jiga, Ş. Stamin, G. Dinu, T. Dobrescu, D. Popovici,
Procedia Eng. 2015, 100, 418.
[99] S. J. Salami, M. Sadighi, M. Shakeri, M. Moeinfar, Scientific
World Journal 2013, 2013, 1.
[100] N. R. Mathivanan, J. Jerald, P. Behera, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 2010, 52, 433.
[101] A. G. Mamalis, K. N. Spentzas, D. E. Manolakos,
N. Pantelelis, M. Ioannidis, Int. J. Crashworthiness 2008,
13, 231.
[102] B. O. Baba, J. Sandwich Struct. Mater. 2013, 15, 137.
[103] M. Saadati, M. Sadighi, Proc. Instit. Mech. Eng. G: J. Aerosp.
Eng. 2011, 225, 915.
[104] Li P, Liu S, Lu Z. Appl. Sci. 2017;7:1018.
[105] A. P. Suvorov, G. J. Dvorak, J. Sandwich Struct. Mater. 2005,
7, 395.
[106] M. Sadighi, H. Pouriayevali, J. Sandwich Struct. Mater. 2008,
10, 499.
[107] J. Wang, A. M. Waas, H. Wang, Compos. Struct. 2013, 96, 298.
[108] V. Shim, K. Yap, Int. J. Impact Eng. 1997, 19, 615.
[109] R. Nasirzadeh, A. R. Sabet, Int. J. Impact Eng. 2014, 63, 129.
44
[110] S. T. D. Freitas, H. Kolstein, F. Bijlaard, J. Bridge Eng. 2017,
22, 04017092.
[111] H. Mathieson, A. Fam, J. Compos. Construct. 2014, 18,
04013046.
[112] S. T. D. Freitas, H. Kolstein, F. Bijlaard, Compos. Struct. 2013,
97, 117.
[113] D. Frank, J. Romanoff, H. Remes, Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater.
Struct. 2013, 36, 724.
[114] H. Mathieson, A. Fam, Compos. Struct. 2014, 113, 31.
[115] S. C. Sharma, H. N. N. Murthy, M. Krishna, J. Reinforced
Plast. Compos. 2004, 23, 893.
[116] H. Abdolpour, G. Escusa, J. M. Sena-Cruz, I. B. Valente,
J. A. O. Barros, J. Compos. Construct. 2017, 21, 04017009.
[117] S. M. Yadav, K. V. Arun, S. Basavarajappa, S. N, S. Kumar,
Polym.-Plast. Technol. Eng. 2011, 50, 1351.
[118] M. N. Roslan, M. Y. Yahya, Z. Ahmad, A. H. A. Rashid,
W. X. Wang, Mater. Sci. Forum 2018, 917, 7.
[119] S. T. Taher, A. A. Oshkour, R. Zahari, F. Mustapha, S. Basri,
J. Reinforced Plast. Compos. 2008, 29, 391.
[120] Z. Tang, X. Zha, J. Ma, J. Reinforced Plast. Compos. 2015, 34,
1378.
[121] C. Shan, Y. Yi, Thin-Walled Struct. 2017, 111, 138.
[122] A. Boccaccio, C. Casavola, L. Lamberti, C. Pappalettere,
Materials 2013, 6, 4545.
[123] J. Davies, R. Hakmi, J. Constr. Steel Res. 1991, 20, 75.
[124] H. Mathieson, A. Fam, J. Compos. Construct. 2015, 19(2),
04014040.
[125] A. Mamalis, D. Manolakos, M. Ioannidis, D. Papapostolou,
Compos. Struct. 2005, 71, 246.
[126] S. C. Sharma, M. Krishna, H. N. Murthy, J. Mater. Eng. Per-
form. 2006, 15, 306.
[127] R. V. Rao, B. J. Manujesh, K. S. Umashankar, M. P. S. Aan,
Trans. Indian Instit. Metals 2011, 65, 71.
[128] B. Manujesh, V. Rao, M. S. Aan, J. Reinforced Plast. Compos.
2013, 33, 479.
[129] Mohamed M, Huo Z, Hawkins S, and Chandrashekhara K.,
presented at SAMPE Conf., Long Beach, 6-9, May 2013.
[130] Z. Huo, M. Mohamed, J. R. Nicholas, X. Wang,
K. Chandrashekhara, J. Sandwich Struct. Mater. 2015, 18, 30.
[131] B. O. Baba, Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 2012, 19, 350.
[132] N. Barbieri, R. Barbieri, L. C. Winikes, L. F. Oresten, J. Mech.
Mater. Struct. 2008, 3, 527.
[133] B. Baba, S. Thoppul, R. Gibson, Exp. Mech. 2010, 51, 857.
[134] B. O. Baba, S. Thoppul, J. Reinforced Plast. Compos. 2010, 29,
3208.
[135] M. Sayir, M. G. Koller, J. Appl. Math. Phys 1986, 37, 78.
[136] K. Marynowski, Compos. Struct. 2012, 94, 2931.
[137] B. O. Baba, S. Thoppul, Compos. Struct. 2009, 91, 110.
[138] S. C. Sharma, H. N. N. Murthy, M. Krishna, J. Reinforced
Plast. Compos. 2004, 23, 1259.
[139] N. Barbieri, R. Barbieri, L. C. Winikes, Mech. Syst. Signal Pro-
cess. 2010, 24, 406.
[140] J. Xu, T. Wu, W. Sun, C. Peng, J. Mater. Civil Eng. 2017, 29,
04017138.
[141] W. Chen, X. Tao, Y. Liu, Compos. Sci. Technol. 2006, 66, 3029.
[142] J. Kwon, H. Kim, J. Polym. Sci. A Polym. Chem. 2005, 43,
3973.
[143] H. Koerner, W. Liu, M. Alexander, P. Mirau, H. Dowty,
R. A. Vaia, Polymer 2005, 46, 4405.
KHAN ET AL.
[144] N. G. Sahoo, Y. C. Jung, H. J. Yoo, J. W. Cho, Macromol.
Chem. Phys. 2006, 207, 1773.
[145] F. Buffa, G. A. Abraham, B. P. Grady, D. Resasco, J Polym Sci
B 2007, 45, 490.
[146] H. Liu, J. Gao, W. Huang, K. Dai, G. Zheng, C. Liu, C. Shen,
X. Yan, J. Guob, Z. Guo, Nanoscale 2016, 8, 12977.
[147] R. Verdejo, R. Stämpfli, M. Alvarez-Lainez, S. Mourad,
M. A. Rodriguez-Perez, P. A. Brühwiler, M. Shaffer, Compos.
Sci. Technol. 2009, 69, 1564.
[148] S. Shang, W. Zeng, X.-M. Tao, J. Mater. Chem. 2011, 21, 7274.
[149] S.-F. Ren, L. Zhang, Z.-H. Cheng, Y.-L. Guo, J. Am. Soc. Mass
Spectrom. 2005, 16, 333.
[150] T. K. Gupta, B. P. Singh, S. R. Dhakate, V. N. Singh,
R. B. Mathur, J. Mater. Chem. A 2013, 1, 9138.
[151] N. Sahoo, Y. Jung, H. Yoo, J. Cho, Compos. Sci. Technol.
2007, 67, 1920.
[152] Z. Liu, G. Bai, Y. Huang, F. Li, Y. Ma, T. Guo, X. He, X. Lin,
H. Gao, Y. Chen, J. Phys. Chem. C 2007, 111, 13696.
[153] Y. C. Jung, N. G. Sahoo, J. W. Cho, Macromol. Rapid
Commun. 2006, 27, 126.
[154] H. Xia, M. Song, J. Mater. Chem. 2006, 16, 1843.
[155] J.-Y. Kwon, H.-D. Kim, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2005, 96, 595.
[156] H. Xia, M. Song, Soft Matter 2005, 1, 386.
[157] N. R. Han, J. W. Cho, Compos. A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2018,
109, 376.
[158] J. Li, Z. Jiang, L. Gan, H. Qiu, G. Yang, J. Yang, Compos.
Commun. 2018, 9, 6.
[159] P. C. Ardimas, N. Muensit, Compos. Sci. Technol. 2018,
158, 164.
[160] Y. Li, J. Gao, X. Li, X. Xu, S. Lu, Polymers 2018, 10, 485.
[161] T. Wan, D. Chen, Prog. Org. Coat. 2018, 121, 73.
[162] X. Zhou, B. Hu, W. Q. Xiao, L. Yan, Z. J. Wang, J. J. Zhang,
H. L. Lin, J. Bian, Y. Lu, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2017, 135, 46149.
[163] W. Wan, J. Luo, C.-E. Huang, J. Yang, Y. Feng, W.-X. Yuan,
Y. Ouyanga, D. Chena, T. Qiuc, Ceram. Int. 2018, 44, 5086.
[164] A. V. Belyakov, Z. Y. M. Oo, N. A. Popova, R. A. Kornilov,
Refract. Ind. Ceram. 2018, 58, 534.
[165] A. Rjafallah, A. Hajjaji, F. Belhora, D. Guyomar, L. Seveyrat,
R. E. Otmani, Y. Boughaleb, J. Compos. Mater. 2018, 52(9),
1171.
[166] I. Golpazir, A. Ghalandarzadeh, M. K. Jafari, M. Mahdavi,
Construct. Build Mater. 2016, 118, 104.
[167] Z. Zhou, X. Du, S. Wang, Geotechnic. Geol. Eng. 2017, 36,
1897.
[168] X. Zhou, C. Fang, X. He, Y. Wang, J. Yang, L. Yang, J. Hu,
Y. Li, Compos. A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2017, 96, 46.
[169] M. Farukh, R. Dhawan, B. P. Singh, S. K. Dhawan, RSC Adv.
2015, 5, 75229.
[170] J. Njuguna, S. Michałowski, K. Pielichowski, K. Kayvantash,
A. C. Walton, Polym. Compos. 2010, 32, 6.
[171] S. Sachse, M. Poruri, F. Silva, S. Michalowski, K. Pielichowski,
J. Njuguna, J. Sandwich Struct. Mater. 2014, 16, 173.
[172] M. Hosur, A. Mohammed, S. Zainuddin, S. Jeelani, Mater.
Sci. Eng. A 2008, 498, 100.
[173] R. Nasirzadeh, A. R. Sabet, J. Cell. Plast. 2014, 52, 253.
[174] F. Zainuddin, S. Ahmad, R. Rasid, S. N. F. S. Adam, Adv.
Mat. Res. 2013, 795, 526.
[175] Saha MC, Kabir EM, Jeelani S. Proc. 2006 SEM Annual Conf.
Expo. Exp. Mech. 2006; 111-117.
KHAN ET AL.
[176] S. A. Adnan, S. N. Samsudin, F. Zainuddin, N. A. Azizan,
H. M. Akil, S. Ahmad, Key Eng. Mater. 2014, 594-595, 686.
[177] Y. Li, B. Shen, D. Yi, L. Zhang, W. Zhai, X. Wei, W. Zheng,
Compos. Sci. Technol. 2017, 138, 209.
[178] K. Y. Park, S. E. Lee, C. G. Kim, J. H. Han, Compos. Sci.
Technol. 2006, 66, 576.
[179] S. Zainuddin, H. Mahfuz, S. Jeelani, J. Nanomater. 2010,
2010, 712731.
[180] M. Hunjra, M. Fakhar, K. Naveed, T. Subhani, J. Sandwich
Struct. Mater. 2016, 19, 647.
[181] M. Keshavarz, S. M. Zebarjad, H. Daneshmanesh,
M. H. Moghim, J. Therm. Anal. Calorimetry 2016, 127, 2037.
[182] H. Mahfuz, M. F. Uddin, V. K. Rangari, M. C. Saha,
S. Zainuddin, S. Jeelani, Appl. Compos. Mater. 2005, 12, 193.
[183] V. Birman, K. Chandrashekhara, M. Hopkins, J. Volz, Com-
pos. Part B Eng. 2013, 46, 234.
[184] J. K. Stewart, H. Mahfuz, L. A. Carlsson, J. Mater. Sci. 2010,
45, 3490.
[185] K. E. Chan, L. A. Yong, Y. F. Ko, S. Mendez, J. Sandwich
Struct. Mater. 2016, 19, 192.
[186] A. Atiqah, M. Jawaid, S. M. Sapuan, M. R. Ishak, Bio-
Resources 2017, 13, 1.
[187] J. J. Cheng, W. J. Qu, S. H. Sun, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2018, 135,
46436.
[188] A. A. Mohammed, D. Bachtiar, M. R. M. Rejab, X. X. Jiang,
F. O. Abas, R. U. Abass, S. F. Hasany, J. P. Siregar, JOM 2018,
70, 1326.
[189] M. W. Kim, S. H. Kwon, H. Park, B. K. Kim, Express Polym.
Lett. 2017, 11, 374.
[190] T. Haghighatnia, A. Abbasian, J. Morshedian, Ind. Crop Prod.
2017, 108, 853.
[191] A. M. Radzi, S. M. Sapuan, M. Jawaid, M. R. Mansor, Fibers
Polym. 2017, 18, 1353.
[192] M. Athmalingam, W. V. Vicki, IOP Conf. Series 2018, 303,
012011.
[193] A. M. Radzi, S. M. Sapuan, M. Jawaid, M. R. Mansor, Polym.-
Plast. Technol. Eng. 2017, 57, 601.
[194] A. M. N. Azammi, S. M. Sapuan, M. R. Ishak,
M. T. H. Sultan, Fibers Polym. 2018, 19, 446.
[195] S. Lurie, Y. Solyaev, A. Ustenko, Appl. Compos. Mater. 2018,
26, 389.
[196] M. Kosari, S. M. A. Mousavian, S. M. Razavi, S. J. Ahmadi,
M. Izadipanah, Plast. Rubber Compos. 2017, 46, 413.
[197] B. Mu, X. Li, B. Yang, J. Cui, X. Wang, J. Guo, X. Bao,
L. Chen, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2017, 134, 45331.
[198] P. C. Miléo, G. J. D. M. Rocha, A. R. Gonçalves, J. Nat. Fibers
2016, 14, 1.
[199] E. Buenrostro, D. Whisler, J. Compos. Mater. 2018, 52, 3429.
[200] M. A. Bhuiyan, M. V. Hosur, S. Jeelani, Composites B 2009,
40, 561.
[201] B. Dai, G. Zhou, J. Sun, M. Chen, J. Wang, J. Compos. Mater.
2015, 50, 2807.
[202] A. Henao, M. Carrera, A. Miravete, L. Castejón, Compos.
Struct. 2010, 92, 2052.
[203] S. C. Sharma, M. Krishna, H. N. N. Murthy, J. Reinforced
Plast. Compos. 2004, 23, 1267.
[204] J. H. Kim, Y. S. Lee, B. J. Park, D. H. Kim, Compos. Struct.
1999, 47, 543.
45
[205] A. Mostafa, K. Shankar, E. V. Morozov, Compos. Struct. 2013,
102, 90.
[206] A. Mostafa, K. Shankar, E. V. Morozov, Mater. Struct. 2014,
48, 2455.
[207] A. Mostafa, Eng. Struct. 2015, 101, 216.
[208] M. H. Z. Abidin, M. A. H. Mohamad, A. M. A. Zaidi,
W. A. W. Mat, Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013, 315, 612.
[209] M. Azmi, H. Z. Abdullah, M. I. Idris, Key Eng. Mater. 2011,
471-472, 391.
[210] S. C. Teo, D. N. U. Lan, P. L. Teh, L. Q. N. Tran, J. Appl.
Polym. Sci. 2016, 133, 1.
[211] T. S. Cheng, N. A. B. Nurul, D. N. U. L. Lan, T. P. Leng,
Malay. J. Analytic. Sci. 2014, 18(3), 651.
[212] T. S. Cheng, D. N. U. Lan, T. P. Leng, T. L. Q. Ngoc,
Macromol. Symp. 2017, 371, 50.
[213] B. Abdi, S. Azwan, M. Abdullah, A. Ayob, Y. Yahya, Polym.
Compos. 2014, 37, 612.
[214] B. Abdi, S. Azwan, M. Abdullah, A. Ayob, Y. Yahya, L. Xin,
Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2014, 88, 138.
[215] A. A. Nia, H. Ranjbarzadeh, M. Kazemi, Latin Am. J. Solids
Struct. 2017, 14, 1085.
[216] Y. Yuan, F. Shutov, J. Reinforced Plast. Compos. 2002, 21, 653.
[217] R. S. Sharma, V. Raghupathy, J. Reinforced Plast. Compos.
2008, 28, 3037.
[218] R. S. Sharma, V. Raghupathy, J. Reinforced Plast. Compos.
2010, 29, 3226.
[219] F. H. Roudbeneh, G. Liaghat, H. Sabouri, H. Hadavinia, Int.
J. Crashworthiness 2018, 24, 1.
[220] U. K. Vaidya, C. Ulven, S. Pillay, H. Ricks, J. Compos. Mater.
2003, 37, 611.
[221] H. Mozafari, S. Khatami, H. Molatefi, V. Crupi, G. Epasto,
E. Guglielmino, Int. J. Crashworthiness 2016, 21, 148.
[222] Z. Li, Proc. Meetings Acoust. 2011, 12, 1.
[223] M. R. Aydin, O. Gundogdu, Steel Compos. Struct. 2018,
28, 461.
[224] Y. He, R. Gong, Europhys. Lett. 2009, 85, 58003.
[225] A. Vaidya, U. Vaidya, N. Uddin, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2008,
472, 52.
[226] A. Vaidya, N. Uddin, U. Vaidya, J. Reinforced Plast. Compos.
2008, 28, 1587.
[227] M. Azadian, H. Hasani, M. M. Shokrieh, J. Ind. Textiles 2017,
48, 58.
[228] L. X. Jia, Y. J. Sun, X. Y. Yang, R. Wang, Adv. Mat. Res. 2011,
418-420, 165.
[229] H. Judawisastra, J. Ivens, I. Verpoest, Compos. Struct. 1998,
43, 35.
[230] Y. W. Lim, H.-J. Choi, S. Idapalapati, Compos. Struct. 2013,
96, 17.
[231] A. P. Suvorov, G. J. Dvorak, Int. J. Solids Struct. 2005, 42, 2323.
[232] C. J. Yungwirth, D. D. Radford, M. Aronson, H. N. Wadley,
Compos. Part B Eng. 2008, 39, 556.
[233] J.-S. Yang, L. Ma, R. Schmidt, G. Qi, K.-U. Schröder, J. Xiong,
W. LZ, Compos. Struct. 2016, 148, 85.
[234] M. Arunkumar, J. Pitchaimani, K. Gangadharan,
M. Leninbabu, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2018, 78, 1.
[235] S. C. K. Yuen, G. Cunliffe, M. D. Plessis, Int. J. Impact Eng.
2017, 110, 266.
[236] T. Sharaf, A. Fam, J. Reinforced Plast. Compos. 2012, 31, 771.
46
[237] L. M. Chiacchiarelli, P. Cerutti, E. A. Flores-Johnson, J. Appl.
Polym. Sci. 2019, 48701, 1.
[238] L. Pei, Y. B. Guo, M. W. Zhou, V. P. W. Shim, Int. J. Impact
Eng. 2019, 127, 154.
[239] S. Patil, D. M. Reddy, M. Reddy, AIP Conf. Proc. 2018, 1943,
02009.
[240] S. N. A. Safri, M. T. H. Sultan, N. Yidris, F. Mustapha, Int.
J. Eng. Sci. 2014, 3, 50.
[241] J. V. Mane, S. Chandra, S. Sharma, H. Ali, V. M. Chavan,
B. S. Manjunath, R. J. Patel, Procedia Eng. 2017, 173, 726.
[242] J. A. Nemes, K. E. Simmonds, J. Compos. Mater. 1992, 26, 500.
[243] J. Dean, A. S-Fallah, P. M. Brown, L. A. Louca, T. W. Clyne,
Compos. Struct. 2011, 93, 1089.
[244] http://www.polyurethanes.basf.us/applications (accessed:
01.02.2019).
[245] http://www.polyurethanes.basf.de/pu/solutions/en/content/
group/Arbeitsgebiete_und_Produkte/construction/spray_
foam/Elastospray (accessed: 01.02.2019).
[246] http://www.polyurethanes.basf.de/pu/solutions/en/content/
group/News_und_Medien/Presseinformationen/BASF_
Elastoflex_E_ThinLight (accessed: 01.02.2019).
[247] https://cohetesurfboards.com/pages/technology (accessed:
01.02.2019).
[248] F. Masi, P. M. Mariano, P. Vannucci, Eng. Struct. 2018, 175, 895.
KHAN ET AL.
[249] L. M. Chiacchiarelli, Sustainable, nanostructured, and bio-based
polyurethanes for energy-efficient sandwich structures applied
to the construction industry. in Biomass, biopolymer-based mate-
rials, and bioenergy (Eds: D. Verma, E. Fortunati, S. Jain,
X. Zhang), Woodhead Publishing, Duxford, 2019, p. 135.
[250] http://groupmio.com/tr/337/kimyasal-grup/polyurethane-
systems.aspx (accessed: 01.02.2019).
[251] http://www.appliedpolymers.com.au/products/typical-
application/automotive-applications/ (accessed: 01.02.2019).
[252] http://www.appliedpolymers.com.au/products/typical-
application/cavity-filling-applications/ (accessed: 01.02.2019).
[253] http://www.polyurethaneapplications.com/en/polyurethane-
filler-boats-buoyancy-insulation/ (accessed: 01.02.2019).
How to cite this article: Khan T, Acar V,
Aydin MR, Hülagü B, Akbulut H, Seydibeyo
glu M.
Özgür. A review on recent advances in sandwich
structures based on polyurethane foam cores.
Polymer Composites. 2020;1–46. https://doi.org/10.
1002/pc.25543