Experimental and numerical study of the response to various impact energy levels for composite sandwich plates with different face thicknesses

Abstract

Composite sandwich structures find wide application in the aerospace sector thanks to their lightweight characteristics. However, composite structures are highly susceptible to low-velocity impact damage and therefore thorough characterization of the impact response and damage process for the used material configurations is necessary. The present study investigates the effect of face-sheet thickness on the impact response and damage mechanisms, experimentally and numerically. A uni-directional, non-crimp fabric is used as reinforcement in the face-sheets, and a closed cell Rohacell 200 Hero polymer foam is used as core material. Low-velocity impact tests are performed in a novel instrumented drop-weight rig that is able to capture the true impact response. A range of impact energies are initially utilized in order to identify when low level damage (LLD), barely visible impact damage (BVID) and visible impact damage (VID) occur. A thorough fractography investigation is performed to characterize the impact damage using both destructive and non-destructive testing. The damage from the impacts in terms of dent depth, peak contact force, deflection and absorbed energy is measured. The results show bilinear responses in dent depth vs. impact energy and absorbed energy vs. impact energy. It is found than the BVID energy works well as an indication for the onset of excessive damage. Fractography reveals that there is a failure mode shift between the LLD and the VID energy levels, and that delaminations predominantly grow along the fiber direction and rotate in a spiral pattern through the thickness, following the laminate ply orientations. Finally, a progressive damage finite element model is developed to simulate both the impact response and the delamination extent, incorporating both intra-laminar and inter-laminar damage modes. The simulation shows good agreement with the experiments.

Keywords

Non-crimp fabric drop-weight rig low-velocity impact fractography barely visible impact damage X-ray micro-tomography foam core

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Zenkert

An introduction to sandwich construction. UK: Engineering Materials Advisory Services, 1995.

Zenkert

Shipsha

Bull

et al . Damage tolerance assessment of composite sandwich panels with localised damage. Compos Sci Technol 2005; 65: 2597–2611.

Shipsha

Hallström

Zenkert

Failure mechanisms and modelling of impact damage in sandwich beams – A 2D approach: part I – experimental investigation. J Sandwich Struct Mater 2003; 5: 7–31.

Shipsha

Hallström

Zenkert

Failure mechanisms and modelling of impact damage in sandwich beams – a 2D approach: part II – analysis and modelling. J Sandwich Struct Mater 2003; 5: 33–51.

Abrate

Localized impact on sandwich structures with laminated facings. Appl Mech Rev 1997; 50: 69–82.

Chai

Zhu

A review of low-velocity impact on sandwich structures. Proc Inst Mech Eng L 2011; 225: 207–230.

Atas

Potoğlu

The effect of face-sheet thickness on low-velocity impact response of sandwich composites with foam cores. J Sandwich Struct Mater 2016; 18: 215–228.

Rajput

Burman

Köll

et al . Compression of structural foam materials – Experimental and numerical assessment of test procedure and specimen size effects. J Sandwich Struct Mater 2019; 21: 260--288.

Anderson

Madenci

Experimental investigation of low-velocity impact characteristics of sandwich composites. Compos Struct 2000; 50: 239–247.

10.

Caminero

García-Moreno

Rodríguez

GP.

Damage resistance of carbon fibre reinforced epoxy laminates subjected to low velocity impact: effects of laminate thickness and ply-stacking sequence. Polym Test 2017; 63: 530–541.

11.

Lopes

Seresta

Coquet

et al . Low-velocity impact damage on dispersed stacking sequence laminates. Part I: experiments. Compos Sci Technol 2009; 69: 926–936.

12.

Nettles

Normalizing impact energy by face sheet thickness for composite sandwich structure compression after impact testing. J Sandwich Struct Mater 2013; 15: 340–358.

13.

Ozdemir

Karakuzu

Al-Shamary

AKJ.

Core-thickness effect on the impact response of sandwich composites with poly(vinyl chloride) and poly(ethylene terephthalate) foam cores. J Compos Mater 2015; 49: 1315--1329

14.

Mohmmed

Zhang

Sun

et al . Static and low-velocity impact on mechanical behaviors of foam sandwiched composites with different ply angles face sheets. J Compos Mater 2014; 48: 1173–1188.

15.

Xia

Work on low-velocity impact properties of foam sandwich composites with various face sheets. J Reinf Plast Compos 2010; 29: 1045–1054.

16.

Al-Shamary

AKJ

Karakuzu

Özdemir

Low-velocity impact response of sandwich composites with different foam core configurations. J Sandwich Struct Mater 2016; 18: 754–768.

17.

Shipsha

Zenkert

Compression-after-impact strength of sandwich panels with core crushing damage. Appl Compos Mater 2005; 12: 149–164.

18.

Bru

Hellström

Gutkin

et al.

Characterisation of the mechanical and fracture properties of a uni-weave carbon fibre/epoxy non-crimp fabric composite. Data Brief 2016; 6: 680--695.

19.

Technical Standard ASTM D7136/D7136M-15. Standard test method for measuring the damage resistance of a fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composite to a drop-weight impact event. ASTM Digital Library, 2015.

20.

Rajput

Burman

Segalini

et al . Design and evaluation of a novel instrumented drop-weight rig for controlled impact testing of polymer composites. Polym Test 2018; 68: 446–455.

21.

AC 25.571-1D – damage tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure – document information, www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/865446 (accessed 18 January 2018).

22.

Jian

Yao

Study on airworthiness requirements of composite aircraft structure for transport category aircraft in FAA. Proc Eng 2011; 17: 270–278.

23.

ISO 18352:2009 – carbon-fibre-reinforced plastics – determination of compression-after-impact properties at a specified impact-energy level, www.iso.org/standard/38658.html (2009, accessed 28 February 2019).

24.

Elliott

Dover

SD.

X‐ray microtomography. J Microsc 2011; 126: 211–213.

25.

Flannery

Deckman

Roberge

et al . Three-dimensional x-ray microtomography. Science 1987; 237: 1439–1444.

26.

Maire

Withers

PJ.

Quantitative X-ray tomography. Int Mater Rev 2014; 59: 1–43.

27.

ABAQUS 6.13, Hibbit, Carlsson and Sorensen, 2003.

28.

Hashin

Rotem

A Fatigue failure criterion for fiber reinforced materials. J Compos Mater 1973; 7: 448–464.

29.

Hashin

Failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composites. J Appl Mech 1980; 47: 329–334.

30.

Camanho

Davila

CG.

Mixed-mode decohesion finite elements for the simulation of delamination in composite materials. NASA/TM-2002–211737. 2002; 1–37.

31.

Turon

Dávila

Camanho

et al . An engineering solution for mesh size effects in the simulation of delamination using cohesive zone models. Eng Fract Mech 2007; 74: 1665–1682.

32.

Hillerborg

Modéer

Petersson

P-E.

Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements. Cem Concr Res 1976; 6: 773–781.

33.

Benzeggagh

Kenane

Measurement of mixed-mode delamination fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites with mixed-mode bending apparatus. Compos Sci Technol 1996; 56: 439–449.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB