Advertisement

An engineering vision about composite sandwich structures analysis

Technical Paper
  • 68 Downloads

Abstract

As shown in the literature, there is plentiful information about sandwich panels. Two of the most common points under discussion are the failure modes and the efficiency of numerical simulations considering the stiffness and interlaminar stress. The failure modes in the literature are not always likely to happen in practice, and representing them becomes a challenging task. Regarding the numerical simulations, new assumptions and formulations appear in order to consider the shear stress in the honeycomb CORE and to minimize processing time in 3D models. Although new mathematical solutions emerge, in some cases they are unpractical for engineering applications and must be evaluated and compared with test results in order to verify their consistency. Therefore, experimental results are necessary to validate theories to comply with the failure modes observed in sandwich panels and to validate the finite element model. Also, the main focus of the literature is on the theoretical formulation and not in engineering applications. In this sense, the main contribution of this paper is to bring forward experimental results of aeronautical sandwich panels whose data are scarce and therefore contributes to the validation of new developments. In addition, the purpose of this work contributes to the use of the finite element models with composite sandwich panels where the appropriate input for 2D (plate) and 3D (solid) elements is unclear. It should be pointed out that for failure investigation the first step is validating the finite element model. In this sense, a typical aircraft panel with experimental results is presented. The finite element model and the input parameters that are not mentioned in the classical literature are also presented. The experimental strain from specimen tested agreed well with the numerical simulations results.

Keywords

Composite materials Sandwich panel Finite element analysis Panel test Classical theory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank those who directly or indirectly were involved with this project in special to Felipe L. Silva, Rafael S. Iwamura and Gustavo Isoni. This work was partially funded by the Brazilian Agency CNPq through Grant 300886/2013-6.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Polland DR et al (1997) Global cost and weight evaluation of fuselage side panel design concepts. NASA contractor report 4730, LRCGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Matsui N, Sato K (2003) Research work of the all-composite fuselage structure. In: Proceedings of 14th international conference on composite materials—ICCM14, vol 1, ID 0900, p 270Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kupke M, Kolax M (2004) CFRP-fuselage—ensuring future competitiveness. In: SAMPE Europe conference, Paris, pp 432–437Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CMH-17 (2013) Composite materials handbook, vol 6—structural sandwich composites. SAE International Publisher, WarrendaleGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vinson JR (2005) Sandwich structures: past, present, and future. In: Thomsen OT et al (eds) Proceeding of the 7th international conference on sandwich structures. Sandwich structures 7: advancing with sandwich structures and materials, published by © 2005. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caliri MF, Ferreira AJM, Tita V (2016) A review on plate and shell theories for laminated and sandwich structures highlighting the finite element method. Compos Struct 156:63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D’Ottavio M, Dozio L, Vescovini R, Polit O (2016) Bending analysis of composite laminated and sandwich structures using sublaminate variable-kinematic Ritz models. Compos Struct 155:45–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Linke M, Wohlers W, Reimerdes HG (2007) Finite element for the static and stability analysis of sandwich plates. J Sandwich Struct Mater 9:123–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wahl L, Maas S, Waldmann D, Zürbes A, Frères P (2012) Shear stresses in honeycomb sandwich plates: analytical solution, finite element method and experimental verification. J Sandwich Struct Mater 14(4):449–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bompan BR (2017) Numerical investigation on composite sandwich panel under bending behavior. Master thesis degree, Instituto Tecnlógico de AeronáuticaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bruhn EF (1973) Analysis and design of flight vehicle structures. HardcoverGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    HyperSizer (1996–2014) Composite analysis and structural sizing software. HyperSizer documentation, Collier Research CorpGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Allen HG (1969) Analysis and design of structural sandwich panels, 1st edn. Pergamon Press, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burton SW, Noor AK (1995) Assessment of computational models for sandwich panels and shells. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 124:125–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Noor AK, Burton WS, Bert CW (1996) Computational models for sandwich panels and shells. Appl Mech Rev 49(3):155–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bitzer T (1997) Honeycomb technology: materials, design, manufacturing, applications and testing, 1st edn. Chapman & Hall, MelbourneCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    HEXCEL Composites (2000) HexWebTM honeycomb sandwich design technology. Publication no. AGU 075bGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Niu MCY (2005) Aiframe stress analysis and sizing, 2nd edn. Hong Kong Conmilit Press Ltd, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Widmaier K, Arakaki FK (2007) Composite sandwich panel test proposal. Embraer technical report, DT1-CSZ-030 Rev, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ESDU (2011) Engineering sciences data unit. ESDUscope, v4.9.2.0, release level 2011–07, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ESDU 81047 (1981) Bucling flat rectangular plates. London, UKGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ESDU 87013 (1987) Elastic wrinkling of sandwich columns and beams with unbalanced laminated fibre reinforced face plates. London, UKGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    ESDU 88015 (1988) Elastic wrinkling of sandwich panels with laminated fibre reinforced face plates. London, UKGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    HyperSizer (2004) Composite analysis and structural sizing software. HyperSizer documentation, method: sandwich facesheet wrinkling failure criteria. Collier Research CorpGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ley RP, Lin W, Mbanefo U (1999) Facesheet wrinkling in sandwich structures. NASA CR-1999-208994Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hexcel (1982) The basics of bonded sandwich construction. TSB 124Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gutierrez AJ, Webber JPH (1980) Flexural wrinkling of honeycomb sandwich beams with laminated faces. Int J Solids Struct 16:645–651CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    MSC Nastran 2008 r1 Quick reference guide. MSC Software Corporation, Santa AnaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Loughlin JP (2014) Citação de referências e documentos eletrônicos. Disponível em. http://femci.gsfc.nasa.gov/hcplate/Honeycomb_Pshell.html. Acesso em 09/09/2014 as 13:33hs
  30. 30.
    Nabarrete A, Almeida SFM, Hansen JS (2003) Sandwich-plate vibration analysis: three-layer quasi-three-dimensional finite element model. AIAA J 41(8):1547–1555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Langellotti F, Isoni G (2014) Wing stub upper skin, fwd fuselage pressure bulkhead and nose landing gear bay upper cover subcomponent test proposal. Embraer technical report, 550-SRP-014 Rev, pp 1–72Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco K. Arakaki
    • 1
  • Alfredo Rocha de Faria
    • 2
  1. 1.EMBRAER S.A.São José dos CamposBrazil
  2. 2.Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica (ITA)São José dos CamposBrazil

Personalised recommendations