Compression and bending performance of thermoplastic corrugated sandwich panels with recycled PET foam
Source abstract
Abstract
The core topology of sandwich panels plays a pivotal role in determining their mechanical performance, weight efficiency, and multifunctional capabilities. This paper experimentally and numerically investigates the mechanical performance of corrugated core sandwich panels with varied core geometries, including triangular, trapezoidal, rectangular, and circular, under compression and bending loads. Panels were fabricated using polylactic acid (PLA) and tested both with and without the addition of recycled polyethylene terephthalate (R-PET) foam inserts. R-PET foam, a sustainable material, offers benefits in strength-to-weight ratio, moisture, thermal, and acoustic insulation. The results indicate that core geometry significantly impacts load-bearing capacity, with rectangular cores exhibiting superior compression strength while triangular cores excel under bending loads. The foam inserts, placed within the core channels, notably improved compressive and flexural load capacity by, on average, 270 and 220% across all geometries with only a 30% increase in weight. Failure modes were also observed, with initial mode 1 buckling of the core walls and localized deformation leading to subsequent failure mechanisms such as delamination and core debonding. ABAQUS was used to develop finite element models for flatwise compression and three-point bending tests for all core geometries. The numerical simulations closely aligned with the experimental results, providing insights into stress distribution, the influence of cell wall thickness, and the impact of corrugation angles on panel performance. These findings highlight the critical role of core geometry and the impact of foam inserts in enhancing structural integrity in sandwich panels.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Cellular and Composite Structures · Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Polymer Foaming and Composites
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Concordia University
Funding
PRIMA Quebec · Innovative Composite Products (ICP) Inc. · Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
References (47)
Show source-provided references
1. Krzyzak A, Mazur M, Gajewski M, et al. Sandwich structured composites for aeronautics. Int J Aerosp Eng. 2016; 7816912.
2. 10.1002/adem.20180003610.1002/adem.201800036 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.matdes.2022.11101310.1016/j.matdes.2022.111013 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.10530210.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105302 ↗
5. 10.1177/1099636224129816410.1177/10996362241298164 ↗
6. 10.1617/s11527-015-0523-810.1617/s11527-015-0523-8 ↗
7. Alphonse M, Bupesh Raja VK, Gopala Krishna V, et al. Mechanical behavior of sandwich structures with varying core material – a review. Materialtoday 2021; 44: 3751–3759.
8. 10.3390/polym1420426710.3390/polym14204267 ↗
9. 10.3390/met1109137810.3390/met11091378 ↗
10. Elghandour E, Elzayady N. Comparison between honeycomb and composite corrugated cores in sandwich panels under compression loading. Sustainable Materials and Structural Systems 2021; 5: 179–192.
11. Rejab MRM, Zaid NZM, N Mohamed NA. Sandwich structure based on corrugated-core: a review. ICMER, 2016.
12. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.09.00910.1016/j.compstruct.2016.09.009 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.10.03110.1016/j.compositesb.2012.10.031 ↗
14. 10.3390/ma1801003110.3390/ma18010031 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.09.00910.1016/j.compstruct.2016.09.009 ↗
16. 10.1177/0021998322109370610.1177/00219983221093706 ↗
17. Zhang P, Cheng Y, Jun L. Numerical analysis of dynamic response of corrugated core sandwich panels subjected to near-field air blast loading. Shock Vib. 2014; 180674.
18. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2009.10.00410.1016/j.compositesa.2009.10.004 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2015.04.01510.1016/j.compscitech.2015.04.015 ↗
20. 10.1177/0021998322108223610.1177/00219983221082236 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.11422210.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114222 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11263110.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112631 ↗
23. 10.3390/en1401021410.3390/en14010214 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.tws.2021.10774210.1016/j.tws.2021.107742 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.tws.2022.10900110.1016/j.tws.2022.109001 ↗
26. 10.1002/pc.2566210.1002/pc.25662 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.08.13010.1016/j.compositesb.2018.08.130 ↗
28. 10.1155/2023/746573710.1155/2023/7465737 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.10439210.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.104392 ↗
30. 10.1080/17452759.2022.207469810.1080/17452759.2022.2074698 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2024.10868410.1016/j.compositesa.2024.108684 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2023.10754810.1016/j.mtcomm.2023.107548 ↗
33. 10.1002/pc.2554310.1002/pc.25543 ↗
34. 10.3390/app1024906110.3390/app10249061 ↗
35. Mandegarian S, Hojjati M, Moghaddar H. Thermoplastic composite sandwich panels with recycled PET foam core: a manufacturing process assessment. J Thermoplast Compos Mater. 2024.
36. 10.2320/matertrans.MK20070610.2320/matertrans.MK200706 ↗
37. 10.3390/polym1412236610.3390/polym14122366 ↗
38. 10.1177/1477760623119539910.1177/14777606231195399 ↗
39. 10.1007/s40430-023-04172-310.1007/s40430-023-04172-3 ↗
40. 10.1177/0954406223121761410.1177/09544062231217614 ↗
41. 10.1177/109963621879267510.1177/1099636218792675 ↗
42. 10.1115/1.403029210.1115/1.4030292 ↗
43. Wang Y, Guo Y, Wu H, et al. Dynamic response of clamped sandwich beams with foam-filled sinusoidal corrugated core subjected to low-velocity impact. Mech Adv Mater Struct. 2024; 32: 2390184.
44. 10.1177/109963621770035010.1177/1099636217700350 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.tws.2018.11.01910.1016/j.tws.2018.11.019 ↗
46. 10.3390/polym1619277110.3390/polym16192771 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.01.02510.1016/j.compositesb.2019.01.025 ↗