In aeronautics, honeycomb sandwich structures are widely used for secondary structures such as landing gear doors, flaps or floors, and for primary structures in helicopters or business jets. These structures are generally joined by using local reinforcements of the insert type. In the present study, 50 J low velocity impact tests were performed on inserts using a drop-weight device and the impact response and failure patterns were analysed. Impacted specimens were then pull-through tested to failure. Some of the tests were stopped before final failure in order to obtain precise details on the failure scenario. It was shown that, in the cases studied, the residual strength after impact was very high (about 90%) in comparison to the large reductions habitually observed in compression after impact tests.
CastaniéBBouvetCAminandaYet al.Modelling of low energy/low velocity impact on nomex honeycomb sandwich structures with metallic skins. Int J Imp Eng2008; 35: 620–634.
2.
CastaniéBAminandaYBouvetCet al.Core crush criteria to determine the strength of sandwich composite structures subjected to compression after impact. Comp Struct2008; 86: 243–250.
3.
HaymanB. Approaches to damage assessment and damage tolerance for FRP sandwich structures. J Sand Struct Mater2007; 9: 571–595.
4.
RajuKSSmithBLTomblinJSet al.Impact damage resistance and tolerance of honeycomb core sandwich panels. J Compos Mater2008; 42: 385–412.
5.
AndersonTMadenciE. Experimental investigation of low-velocity impact characteristics of sandwich composites. Compos Struct2000; 50: 239–247.
6.
ZenkertDShipshaABullPet al.Damage tolerance assessment of composite sandwich panels with localised damage. Compos Sci Technol2005; 65: 2597–2611.
7.
McQuigg TD. Compression after impact experiments and analysis on honeycomb core sandwich panels with thin facesheets. NASA/CR–2011-217157, National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, Virginia, USA, 2011.
8.
AbrateS. Impact on composite structures, New York, USA: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
9.
Abrate S, Castanié B and Rajapakse YDS. Dynamic failure of composite and sandwich structures. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2012.
10.
ZenKertD. Sandwich construction, Cradley Heath, UK: EMAS Publishing, 1997.
11.
US Military Handbook 23A. Design of flat circular sandwich panels loaded at an insert, 1974.
12.
Insert design handbook, ESA PSS 03–1202, Noordwijk, The Netherlands: European Space Research and Technology Centre, 1987.
13.
ThomsenOT. Sandwich plates with ‘through-the-thickness’ and ‘fully-potted’ insert: evolution of differences in structural performance. Compos Struct1998; 40: 159–174.
14.
ThomsenOTRitzW. Analysis and design of sandwich plates with inserts – a high-order sandwich plate theory approach. Compos B1998; 29: 795–807.
15.
BozhevolnayaEThomsenOTKildegaardAet al.Local effects across core junctions in sandwich panels. Compos B2003; 34: 509–517.
BunyawanichakulPCastaniéBBarrauJJ. Experimental and numerical analysis of inserts in sandwich structures. Appl Compos Mater2005; 12: 177–191.
18.
BunyawanichakulPCastaniéBBarrauJJ. Nonlinear finite element analysis of inserts in sandwich structures. Compos B2008; 39: 1077–1092.
19.
RaghuNBattleyMT. Southward. Strength variability of inserts in sandwich panels. J Sand Struct Mater2009; 11: 501–517.
20.
SmithBBanerjeeB. Reliability of inserts in sandwich composite panels. Compos Struct2012; 94: 820–829.
21.
Jun WooLLeeDG. Development of the hybrid insert for composite sandwich satellite structures. Compos A2011; 42: 1040–1048.
22.
New Insert allows automatic placement in composite sandwich panels, JEC Magazine 2015, May–June, p27.
23.
Yong BinPHwe KweonJHo ChoiJ. Failure characteristics of carbon/BMI-Nomex sandwich joints in various hygrothermal conditions. Compos B2014; 60: 213–221.
24.
HeimbsSPeinM. Failure Behaviour of honeycomb sandwich corner joints and inserts. Compos Struct2009; 89: 575–588.
25.
RoyRNguyenKHParkYBet al.Testing and modeling of nomex TM honeycomb sandwich panels with bolt insert. Compos B2013; 56: 762–769.
26.
SongKIChoiJYKweonJHet al.An experimental study of the insert joint strength of composite sandwich structures. Compos Struct2008; 86: 107–113.
27.
Dols S, Bouvet C, Castanié B, et al. Post-impact behavior of insert in sandwich structures. In: Proceedings of 11th international conference on sandwich structures ICSS-11, Fort Lauderdale, 21–22 March 2016.
28.
Dols S, Bouvet C, Castanié B, et al. Impact et tenue résiduelle des inserts de structures sandwichs. In: Proceedings of JNC 18, Journées Nationales sur les composites, Nantes, 12–14 June 2013.
29.
AdamLBouvetCCastaniéBet al.Discrete ply model of circular pull-through test of fasteners in laminates. Compos Struct2012; 94: 3082–3091.
30.
HongkarnjanakulNBouvetCRivallantS. Validation of low velocity impact modelling on different stacking sequences of CFRP laminates and influence of fibre failure. Compos Struct2013; 106: 549–559.
31.
AminandaYCastaniéBBarrauJJet al.Experimental analysis and modeling of the crushing of honeycomb cores. Appl Compos Mater2005; 12: 213–217.
32.
AchardVBouvetCCastaniéBet al.Discrete ply modelling of open hole tensile tests. Compos Struct2014; 113: 369–381.
33.
SeemannRKrauseD. Numerical modeling of nomex honeycomb sandwich cores at meso-scale level. Compos Struct2017; 159: 702–718.
