A numerical model for the quasi-static indentation and compression-after-impact behaviour of a composite sandwich panel is presented, using cohesive surfaces for interlaminar damage prediction. Intra-laminar damage and core crushing is also included. The models show generally good agreement with experimental results for residual strength, performing best when two cohesive surfaces are used in the impacted skin, but tend to over-estimate the undamaged panel strength. Damage extent predictions from the indentation phase of the analysis are often quite poor, but do not necessarily correlate with the accuracy of the strength estimates. The model provides a promising basis for further development.
AbrateS. Localized impact of sandwich structures with laminated facings. Appl Mech Rev1997; 50: 69–82.
2.
ZhouGHillMD. Impact damage and energy-absorbing characteristics and residual in-plane compressive strength of honeycomb sandwich panels. J Sandwich Struct Mater2009; 11: 329–356.
3.
ZhouGHillMLoughlanJ. Damage characteristics of composite honeycomb sandwich panels in bending under quasi-static loading. J Sandwich Struct Mater2006; 8: 55–90.
4.
SchubelPMLuoJDanielIM. Impact and post-impact behaviour of composite sandwich panels. Compos Part A2006; 38: 1051–1057.
5.
GonzalezEVMaimiPCamanhoPP. Simulation of drop-weight impact and compression after impact tests on composite laminates. Compos Struct2012; 94: 3364–3378.
6.
LacyTEHwangY. Numerical modelling of impact-damaged sandwich composites subjected to compression-after-impact loading. Compos Struct2003; 61: 115–128.
7.
Czabaj MW, Zehnder AT, Davidson BD, et al. Compression after Impact of Sandwich Composite Structures: Experiments and Modelling. In: 51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials conference, Orlando, Florida, 2010.
8.
Anon. Structural design and test factors of safety for spaceflight hardware. NASA Technical Standard 2008; NASA-STD-5001A.
9.
HintonMJSodenPD. Predicting failure in composite laminates: the background to the exercise. Compos Sci Technol1998; 58: 1001–1010.
10.
SodenPDKaddourASHintonMJ. Recommendations for designers and researchers resulting from the world wide failure exercise. Compos Sci Technol2004; 64: 589–604.
11.
HwangYLacyTE. Numerical estimates of the compressive strength of impact-damaged sandwich composites. J Compos Mater2007; 41: 367–388.
12.
McQuigg TD. Compression after impact experiments and analysis on honeycomb core sandwich panels with thin facesheets. NASA, Langley 2011; NASA/CR-2011-217157.
13.
CzabajMW. Damage and damage tolerance of high temperature composites and sandwich composite structures, New York, NY: Cornell University, 2010. .
14.
LeeSAnsariMZWangN. A computational study on residual strength of sandwich composite panel. Adv Mater Res2012; 393–395: 521–525.
15.
GopalakrishnanKRamesh KumarRAnil LalS. Cohesive zone modelling of coupled buckling - debond growth in metallic honeycomb sandwich structure. J Sandwich Struct Mater2012; 14: 679–693.
16.
Singh AK, Davidson BD, Eisenberg DP, et al. Barely visible impact damage evaluation of composite sandwich structures. In: 51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, Orlando, Florida, 2010, pp.1–17.
17.
PriorAM. Applications of implicit and explicit finite element techniques to metal forming. J Mater Process Technol1994; 45: 649–656.
TuronADavilaCGCamanhoPP. An engineering solution for mesh size effects in the simulation of delamination using cohesive zone models. Eng Fract Mech2007; 74: 1665–1682.
20.
HarperPWHallettSR. Cohesive zone length in numerical simulations of composite delamination. Eng Fract Mech2008; 75: 4774–4792.
21.
Hill MD. Damage resistance and tolerance investigation of carbon/epoxy skinned honeycomb sandwich panels. Loughborough University, UK, 2007.
22.
Camanho PP and Davila CG. Mixed-mode cohesion finite elements for the simulation of delamination in composite materials. NASA 2002;NASA/TM-2002-211737.
23.
Lloyd JC. Impact damage and damage tolerance of fibre reinforced advanced composite laminate structures. Loughborough University, UK, 2002.
24.
BenzeggaghMLKenaneM. Measurement of mixed-mode delamination fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites with mixed-mode bending apparatus. Compos Sci Technol1996; 56: 439–449.
25.
HashinZRotemA. A fatigue criterion for fibre-reinforced materials. J Compos Mater1973; 7: 448–464.
MatzenmillerALublinerJTaylorRL. A constitutive model for anisotropic damage in fibre-composites. Mech Mater1995; 20: 125–152.
28.
HwangSLieG. Buckling behaviour of composite laminates with multiple delaminations under uniaxial compression. Compos Struct2001; 53: 235–243.
29.
Pinho ST, Davila CG, Camanho PP, et al. Failure models and criteria for FRP under in-plane of three-dimensional stress states including shear non-linearity. NASA, Langley 2005;NASA/TM-2005-213530.
30.
Davila CG and Camanho PP. Failure criteria for FRP laminates in plane stress. NASA 2003; NASA/TM-2003-212663.
