In this study, recycled Ti6Al4V alloy powder was utilized as a reinforcement to enhance the mechanical and modal properties of polyurethane foam (PUF) core-based sandwich composites. Sandwich composite having carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) composite face sheets and Ti6Al4V powder-reinforced PUF cores were manufactured. The PUF cores were reinforced with two different variants of Ti6Al4V powder based on particle sizes from 1 to 3 wt.%. The dispersion quality was investigated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). A detailed experimental modal analysis was conducted to evaluate the modal properties in terms of the natural frequencies and damping ratios of the sandwich specimens. A comprehensive mechanical study was also conducted in terms of compression, buckling, flexural, and impact tests according to the relative ASTM standards. The experimental results demonstrated that the Ti6Al4V reinforced sandwich specimens exhibited superior mechanical and modal properties with enhanced PUF cores. Improvements in excess of 21%, 37%, and 24% were recorded in the compression, buckling, and flexural response of the reinforced specimens, respectively, compared to those of their neat counterparts. Similarly, remarkable improvements were also observed in the experimental modal and impact properties of the Ti6Al4V alloy powder-reinforced sandwich composites.
AndersonTMadenciE. Experimental investigation of low-velocity impact characteristics of sandwich composites. Compos Struct2000; 50(3): 239–247. DOI: 10.1016/S0263-8223(00)00098-2.
2.
WangEGardnerNShuklaA. The blast resistance of sandwich composites with stepwise graded cores. Int J Solid Struct2009; 46(18–19): 3492–3502. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2009.06.004.
AydınTAcarAydın, et al.Experimental investigation of mechanical and modal properties of Al2O3 nanoparticle reinforced polyurethane core sandwich structures. Mater Today Commun2020; 24: 101233. DOI: 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.101233.
5.
KazemiM. Experimental analysis of sandwich composite beams under three-point bending with an emphasis on the layering effects of foam core. Structures2021; 29: 383–391. DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2020.11.048.
6.
SharmaSCMurthyHNNKrishnaM. Interfacial studies in fatigue behavior of polyurethane sandwich structures. J Reinforc Plast Compos2004; 23(8): 893–903. DOI: 10.1177/0731684404033958.
BartonARDCBartonDC. Failure initiation and propagation characteristics of honeycomb sandwich composites. Compos Struct2008; 85(2): 126–138. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2007.10.034.
10.
GizynskiMRomelczyk-BaishyaB. Investigation of carbon fiber–reinforced thermoplastic polymers using thermogravimetric analysis. J Thermoplast Compos Mater2021; 34(1): 126–140. DOI: 10.1002/pc.27210.
11.
KhanTFikriAIrfanMS, et al.The effect of hybridization on microstructure and thermo-mechanical properties of composites reinforced with different weaves of glass and carbon fabrics. J Compos Mater2020; 55: 1635–1651. DOI: 10.1177/0021998320974728.
RaghupathyRSVRaghupathyVP. Influence of core density, core thickness, and rigid inserts on dynamic characteristics of sandwich panels with polyurethane foam as core. J Reinforc Plast Compos2010; 29(21): 3226–3236. DOI: 10.1177/0731684410370904.
15.
NewazGSGMNewazGM. Flexural response of degraded polyurethane foam core sandwich beam with initial crack between facesheet and core. Materials2020; 13(23): 5399. DOI: 10.3390/ma13235399.
16.
KhanTAcarVAydinMR, et al.A review on recent advances in sandwich structures based on polyurethane foam cores. Polym Compos2020; 41(6): 2355–2400. DOI: 10.1002/pc.25543.
17.
Nik PauziNNPNMajidRADzulkifliMH, et al.Development of rigid bio-based polyurethane foam reinforced with nanoclay. Compos B Eng2014; 67: 521–526. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.08.004.
18.
MahfuzHUddinMFRangariVK, et al.High strain rate response of sandwich composites with nanophased cores. Appl Compos Mater2005; 12(3–4): 193–211. DOI: 10.1007/s10443-005-1123-5.
19.
SinarAASamsudinSNZainuddinF, et al.Effect of carbon nanotubes on the compression test and energy absorption of aluminium/polyurethane-carbon nanotubes foam sandwich. Key Eng Mater2013; 594–595: 686–690. DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.594-595.686.
20.
SachseSPoruriMSilvaF, et al.Effect of nanofillers on low energy impact performance of sandwich structures with nanoreinforced polyurethane foam cores. J Sandw Struct Mater2014; 16(2): 173–194. DOI: 10.1177/1099636213512497.
21.
NjugunaJMichałowskiSPielichowskiK, et al.Fabrication, characterization and low-velocity impact testing of hybrid sandwich composites with polyurethane/layered silicate foam cores. Polym Compos2011; 32(1): 6–13. DOI: 10.1002/pc.20995.
22.
ZhangGWangBMaL, et al.Energy absorption and low velocity impact response of polyurethane foam filled pyramidal lattice core sandwich panels. Compos Struct2014; 108(1): 304–310. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.09.040.
23.
YungwirthCJRadfordDDAronsonM, et al.Experiment assessment of the ballistic response of composite pyramidal lattice truss structures. Compos B Eng2008; 39(3): 556–569. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2007.02.029.
24.
MaJ-SSchmidtQi, et al.Hybrid lightweight composite pyramidal truss sandwich panels with high damping and stiffness efficiency. Compos Struct2016; 148: 85–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.03.056.
25.
WaasRJAMWaasAM. Synergistic energy absorption in the axial crush response of filled circular cell honeycombs. Compos Struct2012; 94(5): 1669–1676. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.12.009.
26.
ChangSHSHChangSH. An experimental study on energy absorbing structures made of fabric composites. Compos Struct2008; 86(1–3): 211–219. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2008.03.010.
27.
ASTM E756–05 standard test method for measuring vibration-damping properties of materials. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard, 2017.
28.
ASTM C365 standard test method for flatwise compressive properties of sandwich cores. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard, 2016.
29.
ASTM C364 standard test method for edgewise compressive strength of sandwich constructions. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard, 2016.
30.
Ribeiro da SilvaVMosiewickiMAYoshidaMI, et al.Polyurethane foams based on modified tung oil and reinforced with rice husk ash I: synthesis and physical chemical characterization. Polym Test2013; 32(2): 438–445. DOI: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2013.01.002.
31.
MeredithJ-LJCMeredithJC. High-throughput discovery of structure−mechanical property relationships for segmented poly(urethane−urea)s. Macromolecules2004; 37(6): 2186–2195. DOI: 10.1021/ma035385v.
32.
RuedaMALFernandez d’ArlasBArbelaizA, et al.Microstructure and properties of polyurethanes derived from castor oil. Polym Degrad Stabil2010; 95(11): 2175–2184. DOI: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2010.03.001.
33.
DzulkifliMHYahyaMYMd AkhirFS, et al.Development of rigid biocomposite polyurethane foam for load bearing application. Jurnal Teknologi2014; 68(3): 53–56. DOI: 10.11113/jt.v68.2929.
PitchumaniCRPitchumaniR. Experimental investigation of the damping enhancement in fiber-reinforced composites with carbon nanotubes. Carbon2013; 63: 71–83. DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2013.06.041.
36.
AhmedGHMKSAhmedKS. Evaluation of natural frequencies and damping ratios of coconut shell particles reinforced epoxy composites. Mater Today Proc2018; 5(8): 16199–16205. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2018.05.109.
37.
ZhangX-CScarpaFMcHaleR, et al.Carbon nano-ink coated open cell polyurethane foam with micro-architectured multilayer skeleton for damping applications. RSC Adv2016; 6(83): 80334–80341. DOI: 10.1039/C6RA15868D.
38.
WuGGuJZhaoX. Preparation and dynamic mechanical properties of polyurethane-modified epoxy composites filled with functionalized fly ash particulates. J Appl Polym Sci2007; 105(3): 1118–1126. DOI: 10.1002/app.26146.
39.
WangTChenSWangQ, et al.Damping analysis of polyurethane/epoxy graft interpenetrating polymer network composites filled with short carbon fiber and micro hollow glass bead. Mater Des2010; 31(8): 3810–3815. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2010.03.029.
SharmaSCMurthyHNNKrishnaM. Effect of foam density and skin material on the damping behavior of polyurethane sandwich structures. J Reinforc Plast Compos2004; 23(12): 1259–1266. DOI: 10.1177/0731684404035267.
42.
BirmanVChandrashekharaKHopkinsMS, et al.Effects of nanoparticle impregnation of polyurethane foam core on the performance of sandwich beams. Compos B Eng2013; 46: 234–246. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.09.026.
43.
LiQWuDChenX, et al.Nonlinear vibration and dynamic buckling analyses of sandwich functionally graded porous plate with graphene platelet reinforcement resting on winkler-pasternak elastic foundation. Int J Mech Sci2018; 148: 596–610. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.09.020.
44.
TangZZhaXMaJ. Buckling of axially loaded sandwich composite panels with reinforced calcium silicate faces and polyurethane cores. J Reinforc Plast Compos2015; 34(17): 1378–1391. DOI: 10.1177/0731684415592057.
VenkatachalamGReddyDMTiwariSK, et al.Fracture and flexural analysis of sandwich panel with polypropylene honeycomb as core and jute fabric reinforced epoxy matrix composite as skin layer. Mater Res Express2019; 6(11): 115348. DOI: 10.1088/2053-1591/ab4f0e.
48.
RaghupathyRSVPRaghupathyVP. Influence of rigid inserts on shear modulus and strength of sandwich beams with polyurethane foam as core. J Reinforc Plast Compos2009; 28(24): 3037–3047. DOI: 10.1177/0731684408094222.
49.
BalabanACTeeKFToygarME. Low velocity impact behaviour of sandwich composite structures with e-glass/epoxy facesheets and PVC foam. Procedia Struct Integr2019; 18: 577–585. DOI: 10.1016/j.prostr.2019.08.202.
50.
ArikanAVArikanV. Low-velocity impact response of E-glass reinforced thermoset and thermoplastic based sandwich composites. Compos B Eng2017; 127: 63–69. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.06.027.
51.
HosurMVMohammedAAZainuddinS, et al.Impact performance of nanophased foam core sandwich composites. Mater Sci Eng, A2008; 498(1–2): 100–109. DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2007.11.156.
52.
Al-ShamaryAKJKarakuzuRÖzdemirO. Low-velocity impact response of sandwich composites with different foam core configurations. J Sandw Struct Mater2016; 18(6): 754–768. DOI: 10.1177/1099636216653267.
53.
IsmailKISultanMTHShahAUM, et al.Low velocity impact and compression after impact properties of hybrid bio-composites modified with multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Compos B Eng2019; 163: 455–463. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.01.026.
54.
SevimCCSevimC. On the impact response of sandwich composites with cores of balsa wood and PVC foam. Compos Struct2010; 93(1): 40–48. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.06.018.
55.
BhuiyanMAHosurMVJeelaniS. Low-velocity impact response of sandwich composites with nanophased foam core and biaxial braided face sheets. Compos B Eng2009; 40(6): 561–571. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2009.03.010.
