The Mechanics and Behavior of Hybrid Sandwich

Structures
Michael Rice
Corey Fleischer
Professor Marc Zupan
26 October 2006
FEMCI Workshop 2006

Funding provided by: NASA Goddard SFC DDF Program and

Lockheed-Martin Maritime Systems

Introduction to Sandwich Panels

The equations governing the
response of a beam in bending can be
given by:
Face
Sheets
Core

Core

Define the relative density, , of a

panel as the mass of the panel divided
by the mass of a solid block with the
same enclosed volume.

c
=
s

48 EI
= 3
l

bh 3
My
;I =
=
12
I
E f f f
t
y

Ec c c

Core Topologies

10 mm
150 m

15 mm
50 mm
50 mm
Metallic face
sheets

Polymer foam and

carbon fiber pins

10 mm

20 mm

Core Classification
Bending
Architecture

Stretching
Architecture

Load

Load

10 mm

Load

5 mm

Stretching Dominated
Architectures

1
1

3/2
1

Bending Dominated
Architectures

Relative Density, c / s

For the same relative density

material the modulus and initial
yield strength of a stretchingdominated core is much greater
than that of bending dominated
core.
Deshpande, V.S., Ashby, M.F., and Fleck, N.A. Foam
Topology bending vs stretching dominated architectures,
Acta Materialia, Volume 49, 2001.

Material Property 1

Hybrid Materials

BB

RM
WL

WB

Material Property 2
Adapted From Ashby

Hybrid Sandwich Panels

Insertion of the rods

Polymer foam
Lay-up and cure face sheets

Specifics: Foam Density 31kg/m3

Pin Volume Fraction 3%
Pin Angle 22
Face Sheet
Thickness 1.5mm

Uniaxial Compression Results:

Pins can be thought of as Euler
columns on an elastic
foundation.

Stress (MPa)

(b) 10mm Core

Pin Reinforced Core

Synergistic interactions between

the pins and foam.

The foam reinforces the Euler

columns by stabilization against
buckling.

Pins Only

Polymer Foam
0

0.2

Strain

0.4

Sandwiches in Three-Point Bend:

In order to take full advantage
of the structural efficiency gains
offered by sandwich panels, a
robust understanding of the
bending response is needed.

Ef f f
t
E c c c

We identify possible collapse

modes for each beam geometry
and use an upper bound work
balance analysis to predict
collapse loads.

Sandwich Beam Collapse Modes:

INDENTATION:

F = 4bt f c

Indentation is likely
to occur in panels
with weak cores
and
thin
face
sheets, or in panels
with high core
thickness to span
ratios.

CORE SHEAR:

FACE FAILURE:

4bt 2
4bc
f +
c
F=
3
l

bc 2
4bt (c + t )
F=
f +
c
l
l

Relatively thick panels

loaded
transversely
carry the shear loading
primarily in the core of
the panel and can
initiate collapse by the
shearing failure of the
core.

Failure of the face

sheets is typical of
beams with thin
cores and long spans
owing to the tensile
or
compressive
stresses
resulting
from the bending
moment.

Failure Mode Map

Face
Yield

0.15

t=t/c

Map displays the initial

collapse of a simply supported
sandwich beam.

Core
Shear

0.1

Indentation

Map takes axes of nondimensional ratios of core

thickness
to
face
sheet
thickness as a function of core
thickness to beam span.

0.05

0.1

0.2

c=c/l

0.3

Plotting
non-dimensional
parameters, the map displays
all possible beam geometries
0.4 for a given material.

Bend Experimental Results:

Face
Yield

(A) Failed by Core Shear

40

0.15

20

0.1

Core
Shear C

Indentation

0.05

Load / Width (N/mm)

t=t/c

0
60

(B) Failed by Indentation

40

20

0
(C) Failed by Core Shear

30

0.1

0.2

c=c/l

0.3

0.4

20
10
0

10

Displacement (mm)

15

Analysis of Failure Modes:

Face
Yield
A

t=t/c

0.15

0.1
C

Core
Shear

0.05

0.1

Indentation
Central Roller

0.2

0.3

0.4

c=c/l

20mm

Three-Point Bend

200

Compression

X-cor

X-cor (20 mm thick)

Al Honeycomb

Stress (MPa)

Force/(Width*Density) (Nm /kg)

Comparison with Competing Cores:

100
Metal
Foam
Nomex

0.02

PVC

0.04

Displacement/Span (mm/mm)

3
2

Al Honeycomb
(25.4 mm thick)

Unreinforced Foam

0.1

0.3

Strain (mm/mm)

Pin reinforced cores exhibit a dramatic increase in stiffness

as well as a much higher failure load prior to collapse.
References: Tagarielli, V.L. and Fleck, N.A., 2003
Steeves, C. A and Fleck, N.A., 2004

0.5

Stochastic Cores- Pumice

Pumice is a natural aggregate formed during
volcanic eruptions with properties similar to an
engineering ceramic foam.
Very Inexpensive
Can be combined with a pyramidal core to
produce a hybrid type sandwich structure

500 mm

50 mm

Pumice Pyramidal Hybrid

Hybrid Pumice-Pyramidal

Nominal Stress

10

Wv=6.43 MJ/m3
Wm=17.5 kJ/Kg

8
6

Pumice acts as a reinforcing

phase to the pyramidal cores.

Pyramidal

Wv=2.24 MJ/m3
Wm=12.3 kJ/Kg

The resultant strength

behavior is additive.

Pumice

Wv=0.886MJ/m3
Wm=1.18 kJ/Kg

2
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Nominal Strain

0.4

0.5

Conclusions:
Hybrid sandwich structures offer exciting
potential in weight critical applications.
Comparison of the hybrid pin reinforced
sandwich core response with competing cores
demonstrates that the panels outperform
other sandwich structures in both stiffness
and load carry capacity.
Hybrid Pumice Pyramidal panel results show
that this topology can exhibit increased
strength and energy absorption capabilities.
Future studies on these hybrid panels are
required for further understanding of the
deformation mechanisms.

Lower Pin Higher Pin

Density
Density