This work was aimed at investigating damage evolution within sandwich panels consisting of aluminum skins and Nomex™ honeycomb core, with three different values of the core densities, subjected to multiple impacts. Repeated impacts at low energy were conducted using an impact fatigue machine. Bending tests were conducted to determine the residual stiffness after impacts in order to analyze the evolution of a damage parameter D. A model was therefore proposed for describing the changes in this parameter as a function of impact cycles N. After repeated impacts, the D(N) curves are characterized by an S-shaped curve. A good agreement is observed between model and experimental results, the maximum standard deviation being less than 7% for different densities. Microscopic observations of the impacted specimens were conducted in order to evaluate the crater growth (associated with permanent indentation). The influence of the number of impacts on the dimensions of the impact zone has also been evaluated. For all the core densities, the permanent indentation gradually increases as a function of impact cycles.
ZenkertD.An introduction to sandwich construction. Solihull, UK: EMAS, 1995.
2.
KaczyńskiPPtakMGawdzińskaK.Energy absorption of cast metal and composite foams tested in extremely low and high-temperatures. Mater Des2020; 196: 109114.
3.
KongCKimJParkH.Preliminary design for the fuselage of a small scale WIG craft using composite materials. Sci Eng Compos Mater2008; 15: 189–205.
4.
ParkHKongC.A study on repair technique after damage of aircraft sandwich composite structure. J Aerosp Syst Eng2013; 7: 39–43.
5.
HuangWZhangWHuangX, et al. Dynamic response of, aluminum corrugated sandwich subjected to underwater impulsive loading: experiment and numerical modelling. Int J Impact Eng2017; 109: 79–91.
6.
HeWYaoLMengX, et al. Effect of structural parameters on low-velocity impact behavior of aluminum honeycomb sandwich structures with CFRP face sheets. Thin-Walled Struct2019; 137: 411–432.
7.
LiuLQWangHGuanZW.Experimental and numerical study on the mechanic response of Nomex™ honeycomb core under transverse loading. Compos Struct2015; 121: 304–314.
8.
OuaddayRMaroueneAMoradaG, et al. Experimental and numerical investigation on the impact behavior of dual-core composite sandwich panels designed for hydraulic turbine applications. Compos Struct2018; 185: 254–263.
9.
HuangWZhangWLiD, et al. Dynamic failure of honeycomb-core sandwich structures subjected to underwater impulsive loads. Eur J Mech A Solids2016; 60: 39–51.
10.
NaikNKRaoGNAgarwalU, et al. Sandwich structures with composite inserts: experimental studies. Polym Compos2009; 30: 639–648.
11.
AhmadiHLiaghatG.Analytical and experimental investigation of high velocity impact on foam core sandwich panel. 2019; 40(6): 2258–2272.
12.
KiratisaeveeHCantwellWJ.The impact response of aluminum foam sandwich structures based on a glass fiber‐reinforced polypropylene fiber‐metal laminate. Polym Compos2004; 25: 499–509.
CrupiVEpastoGGuglielminoE.Collapse modes in aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels under bending and impact loading. Int J Impact Eng2012; 43: 6–15.
21.
WuYHLiuQFuJ, et al. Dynamic crash responses of bio-inspired aluminum honeycomb sandwich structures with CFRP panels. Compos B Eng2017; 121: 122–133.
22.
HeWLiuJWangS, et al. Low-velocity impact response and post-impact flexural behaviour of composite sandwich structures with corrugated cores. Compos Struct2018; 189: 37–53.
23.
KhanMASyedAKIjazH, et al. Experimental and numerical analysis of flexural and impact behaviour of glass/pp sandwich panel for automotive structural applications. Adv Compos Mater2018; 27: 367–386.
24.
WangJFShiCYYangN, et al. Strength, stiffness, and panel peeling strength of carbon fiber-reinforced composite sandwich structures with aluminum honeycomb cores for vehicle body. Compos Struct2018; 184: 1189–1196.
25.
ZhangGQWangBMaL, et al. The residual compressive strength of impact-damaged sandwich structures with pyramidal truss cores. Compos Struct2013; 105: 188–198.
26.
HeWLuSYiK, et al. Residual flexural properties of CFRP sandwich structures with aluminum honeycomb cores after low-velocity impact. Int J Mech Sci2019; 161–162: 105026.
27.
KlausMReimerdesHGGuptaNK.Experimental and numerical investigations of residual strength after impact of sandwich panels. Int J Impact Eng2012; 44: 50–58.
28.
SharmaNGibsonRFAyorindeEO.Fatigue of foam and honeycomb core composite sandwich structures: a tutorial. J Sandwich Struct Mater2006; 8: 263–319.
29.
PalombaGCrupiVEpastoG.Collapse modes of aluminium honeycomb sandwich structures under fatigue bending loading. Thin-Walled Struct2019; 145: 106363.
30.
JenYChangL.Evaluating bending fatigue strength of aluminum honeycomb sandwich beams using local parameters. Int J Fatigue2008; 30: 1103–1114.
31.
JenY-MTengF-LTengT-C.Two-stage cumulative bending fatigue behaviour for the adhesively bonded aluminum honeycomb sandwich panels. Mater Des2014; 54: 805–813.
32.
DemelioGGenoveseKPappalettereC.An experimental investigation of static and fatigue behaviour of sandwich composite panels joined by fasteners. ComposB Eng2001; 32: 299–308.
33.
VallonsKLomovSVerpoestI.Fatigue and post-fatigue behaviour of carbon/epoxy non-crimp fabric composites. Compos A2009; 40: 251–259.
34.
WangLZhangYWHoJCM, et al. Fatigue behaviour of composite sandwich beams strengthened with GFRP stiffeners. Eng Struct2020; 214: 110596.
35.
Found MS and Howard IC. Single and multiple impact behavior of a CFRP laminate. Compos Struct1995; 32: 159–163.
36.
WuEShyuK.Response of composite laminates to contact loads and relationship to low-velocity impact. J Compos Mater1993; 27: 1443–1464.
37.
WyrickDAAdamsDF.Residual strength of a carbon/epoxy composite material subjected to repeated impact. J Compos Mater1988; 22: 749–765.
38.
MittelmanA.Low-energy repetitive impact in carbon–epoxy composites. J Mater Sci1992; 27: 2458–2462.
39.
YaoLSunGHeW, et al. Investigation on impact behavior of FMLs under multiple impacts with the same total energy: experimental characterization and numerical simulation. Compos Struct2019; 226: 111218.
40.
ZhangYLiYGuoK, et al. Dynamic mechanical behaviour and energy absorption of aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels under repeated impact loads. Ocean Eng2021; 219: 108344.
41.
HeXSoaresCG.Experimental study on the dynamic behavior of beams under repeated impacts. Int J Impact Eng2021; 147: 103724.
42.
ZhuLShiSYYuTX, et al. A new ice load-response model for structural design of ice classed ships. In: Proceedings of the 25th international ocean and polar engineering conference, Hawaii, USA, 21–26 June 2015, pp.1792–1797. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE).
43.
GuoKZhuLLiY, et al. Experimental investigation on the dynamic behaviour of aluminum foam sandwich plate under repeated impacts. Compos Struct2018; 200: 298–305.
44.
ZhuLGuoKLiY, et al. Experimental study on the dynamic behaviour of aluminium foam sandwich plates under single and repeated impacts at low temperature. Int J Impact Eng2018; 114: 123–132.
45.
AbbadiAAzariZBelouettarS, et al. Modelling the fatigue behaviour of composites honeycomb materials (aluminium/aramide fibre core) using four-point bending tests. Int J Fatigue2010; 32: 1739–1747.
46.
AzouaouiKRechakSAzariZ, et al. Modelling of damage and failure of glass/epoxy composite plates subject to impact fatigue. Int J Fatigue2001; 23: 877–885.
AzouaouiKAzariZPluvinageG.Evaluation of impact fatigue damage in glass/epoxy composite laminate. Int J Fatigue2010; 32: 443–452.
49.
ShinHSMaekawaI.Damage behaviors in CFRP laminates due to repeated impacts of low energy. In: RossmanithHP (ed.) Damage and failure of interfaces. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1997, pp.343–350.
50.
WongBS. Non-destructive evaluation (NDE) of composites: detecting delamination defects using mechanical impedance, ultrasonic and infrared thermographic techniques. In: Non-destructive evaluation (NDE) of polymer matrix composites. 2013, pp.279–308. Woodhead Publishing Series in Composites Science and Engineering.
