Impact damage processes in composite sheet and sandwich honeycomb materials
Introduction
Increasingly, lightweight composite and sandwich materials are used in structures and other products that have to withstand demanding working and environmental stresses. Often, this is when the risk of some impact damage is unavoidable. The need in these cases is to determine the impact damage threshold for different failure processes in the materials to be used. Of particular interest in this study are the threshold conditions and the extent of damage that can be inflicted on the contact surface, through thickness and rear surface of the materials by the impacts and also the extent the materials have been deprived of their structural integrity. Needed for some of these studies are data from experiments using both drop-weight and servo-hydraulic machines. The latter provides for recording impact damage stage by stage as the impactor deforms the specimen. Related drop-weight and controlled servo-hydraulic impact experiments are helpful in obtaining data revealing the development of damage throughout the impact event. This is for minor to full penetration damage of the different materials studied. Obtaining these sets of impact damage data, is helpful, for example, in matching and combining several types of material in one product to achieve the overall required integrity and structural performance.
The choice of materials for this study is for the following reasons. Glass-fibre composites, for example, are now increasingly used in many kinds of transport vehicles. An advantage of SMC and GMT materials for many applications is that the available sheets of these materials can, with ease and low cost, be formed into products of many different shapes. An advantage of honeycomb sandwich structures is that the materials have a very high stiffness to weight ratio. As the quality, toughness and cost competitiveness is improved, so these materials are gaining new markets. For some applications, impact toughness is particularly important, for example, when the materials are handled a great deal in the assembly of large structures and if the end product is likely to be subjected to impact damage. Not to be understated is that the safe and functional effectiveness of stressed structures can often depend on the retention of integrity of each of the different materials used in its manufacture.
There has been considerable research on the impact performance and damage development in carbon-fibre composite materials—see for example Refs. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Corbett et al. [8] have reviewed comprehensively the impact loading of plates by projectiles with particular reference to damage induced in metallic plates. Many of the failure and damage processes identified are also evident in composite and laminate materials. Harrigan et al. [9] have studied crush processes in aluminium honeycomb showing the good energy absorbing properties of these lightweight materials. Langdon et al. [10] have shown that combining glass-fibre reinforced polypropylene composites and aluminium layers to produce fibre–metal laminates can give very high impact energy absorption ability. This ability to absorb impact energy is linked to the presence of many interfaces e.g. delamination in the composite, debonding between aluminium and composite as well as spalling and petalling of the aluminium. Such failure mechanisms are also observed in laminated glass and other composite structures [11], [12]. Herup and Palazotto [13] have studied the low velocity impact performance of laminates with a composite skin and Nomex honeycomb and found the c-scan technique most useful in observing development of damage. Mines et al. [14], Abrate [15] and Olsson [16] have independently compared for sandwich panels of both aluminium and Nomex honeycomb the impact conditions for upper skin failure, core crush, lower skin failure and perforation and have linked the different stages of failure to the force–time traces. The objective in this paper was to relate for SMC, GMT and a variety of honeycomb sandwich materials the types of damage observed to force–time–displacement traces. Both c-scan and optical techniques are employed to observe the development of damage.
Section snippets
Material specification
Table 1(a) characterises the constituents of sheet moulding compound (SMC) as well as a glass mat thermoplastic (GMT) material. The SMC sheet materials were cured at 140 °C with an applied pressure of 7 MPa for 2 min. The GMT sheet material is consolidated at 210 °C with an applied pressure of 17 MPa for 40 s.
Table 1(b) shows the constituents and the dimensions of the components for the sandwich structures, which have composite or metallic skins and aramid or metallic honeycomb cores. This selection
Results
Fig. 2 shows, for SMC material, a comparison between drop-weight impact experiments using a mass of 5 kg at an initial velocity of 4.4 m s−1 and servo-hydraulic impact experiments at a constant velocity of 1 m s−1. Force–time, force–displacement, displacement–time and energy–displacement data are shown in Fig. 2 for the drop-weight and the servo-hydraulic experiments.
Fig. 3 compares, for SMC, front face damage and rear face damage with the associated ultrasonic c-scan image for the drop-weight
Discussion
Table 2(a) compares the drop-weight results for SMC and GMT sheet materials as determined from force–time and displacement–time data. There is a good correlation between the peak load (Fpeak), the displacement at peak load (xpeak), total energy absorbed (ETotal) and the in-plane modulus (E11) for SMC and GMT materials. The in-plane tensile modulus () and Poisson's ratio () for a uniaxial tensile test were obtained at a displacement rate of 2 mm min−1 [17]. The SMC material has a fibre
Conclusions
SMC, GMT, Fibrelam and Hexlite (H220, H620 and H640) materials have been studied in the dimensions that they are frequently used in products. There is an increase in the wider use of these lightweight honeycomb sandwich materials and there is now considerable interest in the ability of these materials to survive impact damage. In many structures, both solid composites and sandwich honeycomb material are used in the same products and in some cases aluminium skins and honeycomb core are used.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) for providing studentships and HEXCEL composites for providing samples.
References (20)
- et al.
Impact damage prediction in carbon composite structures
Int J Impact Eng
(1995) Analytical prediction of large mass impact damage in composite laminates
Compos: Part A
(2001)- et al.
Impactor mass and specimen geometry effects in low velocity impact of laminated composites
Int J Impact Eng
(1992) - et al.
Transient response of stiffened composite plates subjected to low velocity impact
Compos: Part B
(1999) - et al.
Impact loading of plates and shells by free-flying projectiles: a review
Int J Impact Eng
(1996) - et al.
Inertia effects in impact energy absorbing materials and structures
Int J Impact Eng
(1999) - et al.
The blast response of novel thermoplastic-based fibre–metal laminates—some preliminary results and observations
Comp Sci Technol
(2005) - et al.
The damage threshold of laminated glass structures
Int J Impact Eng
(1998) - et al.
Low velocity performance behaviour of polymer composite sandwich panels
Int J Impact Eng
(1998) Impact on laminated composites—recent advances
Appl Mech Rev
(1994)
Cited by (93)
Dynamic characteristics of sandwich panels with novel improved star-shaped honeycomb
2023, International Journal of Mechanical SciencesImpact resistance of single-cell and multi-cell sandwich aluminum plates filled with aluminum foam
2023, Thin-Walled StructuresAn insight from nature: Honeycomb pattern in advanced structural design for impact energy absorption
2023, Journal of Materials Research and TechnologyLessons from nature: 3D printed bio-inspired porous structures for impact energy absorption – A review
2022, Additive ManufacturingCitation Excerpt :An inner layer that is softer and more flexible is sandwiched between two strong and rigid outer layers (faces). Damage patterns during an impact loading condition involves cracking, core buckling, debonding, shearing, and damage initiation on the bottom face [145–149]. The sandwich structure improves the amount of strain energy that a material can absorb while also distributing the force of the impact across a broad region and preventing cracks from forming at the pore and layer interfaces of the material.
Thickness effect on cleavage fracture of ferritic sheet during in-plane impact tests
2021, Engineering Fracture MechanicsCitation Excerpt :Thus, the brittleness and mechanical deterioration of sheet metals form “data islands” respectively with that of other materials, though the temperature is not considered [5–7]. This predicament mainly exists in the sheet materials with necessary impact toughness, like thin-wall structures, multilayer stress structures [8–10]. For example, the lamination rotors in motors are typical composite parts of thin-wall materials, and they bear variable shock and fluctuating torsion.
Effect of geometrical parameters on the flexural properties of sandwich structures with 3D-printed honeycomb core and E-glass/epoxy Face-sheets
2021, StructuresCitation Excerpt :It was proved [11,14–16] that core design plays an important role in the flexural properties of sandwich structures. Among different shapes of core, honeycomb topology are extensively used and studied by the researchers [17–19]. The honeycomb shape cores are mainly fabricated from Nomex [20], light metals [21] or composites [22].