journal article·2021-02

Experimental investigation on flexural behaviour of spherical core sandwich structure

V Pandyaraj, A Rajadurai

Publisher page

Abstract

The flexural behaviour of a novel spherical core sandwich structure made up of glass fibre reinforced plastic is investigated. The core orientation is modified into four different types called as regular, inverted, interlock and stagger. Vinyl ester resin is used as a matrix and two glass fibre reinforcements, namely chopped strand mat and woven fabrics, are used. The spherical core diameter is taken as 16 mm, whereas 24 and 32 mm are taken as the pitch distances. Three-point and four-point configurations are taken for the flexural tests. The flexural stiffness of these 16 different types of cored structures is found as per the ASTM D7250 standard. The failure patterns are analysed as per the ASTM C393 standard. In both the loading configuration of interlock model with 32 mm pitch, distance shows an improved flexural stiffness. Most of the failures are observed to be debonding between the facing sheet and the core, whereas in the interlocking model with 32 mm pitch, the failure is due to the fracture of the facing sheet.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Cellular and Composite Structures · Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Structural Analysis and Optimization

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Production Technology, MIT – Anna University, Chennai, India

References (70)

Show source-provided references
1. Li Z Wang T, Jiang Y, et al · Compos Struct · 2018 · 18 · 429
2. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.05.01410.1016/j.compstruct.2013.05.014 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2008.07.01810.1016/j.compstruct.2008.07.018 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.07.00810.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.07.008 ↗
5. Keskes B · Mater Technol · 2007 · 41 · 157
6. 10.1016/S0020-7683(97)00062-010.1016/S0020-7683(97)00062-0 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.02.05710.1016/j.compstruct.2015.02.057 ↗
8. 10.1177/109963620606586210.1177/1099636206065862 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.msea.2012.01.07010.1016/j.msea.2012.01.070 ↗
10. 10.1088/1757-899X/197/1/01204610.1088/1757-899X/197/1/012046 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.10.04610.1016/j.compstruct.2017.10.046 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.01.03310.1016/j.compstruct.2015.01.033 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.03.00810.1016/j.compositesb.2012.03.008 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.01.00710.1016/j.commatsci.2012.01.007 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.01.04410.1016/j.compositesb.2019.01.044 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2009.11.00910.1016/j.ijmecsci.2009.11.009 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.matdes.2009.11.06110.1016/j.matdes.2009.11.061 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2005.07.01110.1016/j.ijsolstr.2005.07.011 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.11.02410.1016/j.matdes.2017.11.024 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.11.06610.1016/j.compstruct.2017.11.066 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.10595410.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.105954 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.matpr.2017.11.56110.1016/j.matpr.2017.11.561 ↗
23. Pandyaraj V, Rajadurai A. Experimental investigation of the spherical sandwich structure by Beam flexure. In: Vijay Sekar kS,Gupta M, Arockiarajan A. (Eds.) Advances in the manufacturing process 2019, pp.333–339.10.1007/978-981-13-1724-8_32 ↗
24. Pandyaraj V, Rajadurai A. Experimental investigation of core shear properties and facing sheet fracture stress of spherical sandwich structure. In: Shunmugam MS, Kantha Babu M. (Eds) Advances in simulation and product design development . Chapter 62. Berlin: Springer, 2020, pp.753–758.10.1007/978-981-32-9487-5_62 ↗
25. 10.1016/S0263-8223(02)00087-910.1016/S0263-8223(02)00087-9 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.02.03610.1016/j.compositesb.2017.02.036 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.12.03310.1016/j.compstruct.2011.12.033 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.07.00310.1016/j.compositesb.2014.07.003 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.09.03510.1016/j.compstruct.2013.09.035 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.08.01710.1016/j.compstruct.2015.08.017 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.11.04310.1016/j.compstruct.2017.11.043 ↗
32. 10.1177/109963620605688810.1177/1099636206056888 ↗
33. 10.1177/109963621561348610.1177/1099636215613486 ↗
34. Tao J, Li F, Zhao Q, et al. · J Reinf Plastic Compos · 2017 · 134
35. Anandhan S, Dhaliwol G, Ganguly S, et al. Investigation of sandwich composite failure under three point bending: simulation and experimental validation. J Sandwich Struct Mater 2018; 22: 1838–1858.10.1177/1099636218791162 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.01.02710.1016/j.compositesb.2018.01.027 ↗
37. ASTM standard D7250/D7250M-16. Standard practice for determining sandwich beam flexural and shear stiffness , ASTM International, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 2009; 1: 1–8.
38. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2008.01.01510.1016/j.compstruct.2008.01.015 ↗
39. 10.1088/1757-899X/62/1/01201610.1088/1757-899X/62/1/012016 ↗
40. WangLi Z and Xiong W · Compos Part B Eng · 2018 · 164 · 280
41. Sadeghian P, Hristozov D and Woblewski L. Flexural behaviour of sandwich panels made of FRP composites: synthetic and natural fibers. In: Resilient infrastructure conference: Proceedings of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering (CSCE) Annual Conference, London, ON, Canada, 2016.
42. 10.1080/10426914.2011.56022710.1080/10426914.2011.560227 ↗
43. 10.1007/s10443-005-1120-810.1007/s10443-005-1120-8 ↗
44. 10.1163/092430409X1253006733928010.1163/092430409X12530067339280 ↗
45. 10.1016/S1003-6326(14)63368-910.1016/S1003-6326(14)63368-9 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2004.10.01110.1016/j.compstruct.2004.10.011 ↗
47. 10.3390/ma1111232510.3390/ma11112325 ↗
48. Sadighi M · AUT J Model Simul · 2010 · 42 · 37
49. ASTM standard C393/C393M. Standard test method for core shear properties of sandwich constructions by beam flexure , ASTM International, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 2012; 1: 1–8.
50. 10.1016/j.jksus.2018.05.01210.1016/j.jksus.2018.05.012 ↗
51. Toradmal KP, Waghmare PM and Sollapur SB · Int J Eng Tech · 2017 · 3 · 3
52. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.05.00110.1016/j.compstruct.2017.05.001 ↗
53. Blicblau AS, Tran L, Freischmidt G, et al. Flexural behaviour on honeycomb sandwich panels. In: Miravete A (eds.)The 9th international conference on composite materials, Madrid, zaragoza Spain, 1993, Vol. 4, pp.345–351.
54. Sun G, Huo X, Chen D · Mater Des · 2017 · 154
55. 10.1016/S0263-8231(99)00026-910.1016/S0263-8231(99)00026-9 ↗
56. Wang Z, Li Z andXiong W. Experimental investigation on bending behaviour of honeycomb sandwich panel with ceramic tile face-sheet. Compos Part B Eng 2019; 164: 280–286.10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.10.077 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.06.07710.1016/j.compstruct.2018.06.077 ↗
58. 10.1016/j.matdes.2012.02.02310.1016/j.matdes.2012.02.023 ↗
59. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.03.00610.1016/j.compstruct.2010.03.006 ↗
60. 10.1177/109963621878198110.1177/1099636218781981 ↗
61. 10.1177/109963621769958710.1177/1099636217699587 ↗
62. 10.1016/j.actamat.2011.11.02810.1016/j.actamat.2011.11.028 ↗
63. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.02.03310.1016/j.compstruct.2019.02.033 ↗
64. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.09.01110.1016/j.compstruct.2006.09.011 ↗
65. 10.1016/S0020-7683(01)00103-210.1016/S0020-7683(01)00103-2 ↗
66. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.11.05710.1016/j.compstruct.2015.11.057 ↗
67. 10.1016/j.matdes.2013.10.03510.1016/j.matdes.2013.10.035 ↗
68. Khan MA · Adv Compos Mater · 2017
69. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.05.02910.1016/j.compstruct.2017.05.029 ↗
70. 10.1016/j.matdes.2014.04.01410.1016/j.matdes.2014.04.014 ↗