journal article·2022-09

The effect of manufacturing methods on the interface debonding and flexural behavior of sandwich structures: Thermography approach and three‐point‐bending experiments

Seyed Hossein Taghavian, Ahmad Reza Ghasemi

Polymer Composites· Volume 43· Issue 9
Publisher page

Abstract

Abstract In the present study, the interface debonding area between face sheets and the foam cores of the sandwich panels were inspected using the thermography method for the five groups of the samples. These samples were manufactured with different processes divided into two main groups; one‐step manufacturing process and two‐step manufacturing process. All of the specimens were subjected to the three‐point bending test after thermography detection technology. The one‐step manufactured samples presented the highest flexural strength and minimum discontinuity. Integrated infusion process in comparison with other processes shows about 40% superiority in mechanical properties at least. The results showed that Indentation beneath the loading roller is the initial failure mode of the one‐step manufactured samples. In addition, the main failure mode of the two‐step manufactured samples is the core shear mode.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Thermography and Photoacoustic Techniques · Cellular and Composite Structures · Mechanical Behavior of Composites

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

Affiliations

Composite and Nanocomposite Research Laboratory, Department of Solid Mechanics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering University of Kashan Kashan Iran

References (29)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.09.34710.1016/j.matpr.2020.09.347 ↗
2. Uzay C. · Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. · 2018 · 6 · 36
3. Zhao X. · Adv. Civ. Eng. J. · 2020 · 2020 · 1
4. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.353-358.144310.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.353-358.1443 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.10772910.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107729 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2014.08.00410.1016/j.ijmecsci.2014.08.004 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.08.05310.1016/j.compositesb.2018.08.053 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.10530710.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.105307 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.11747510.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117475 ↗
10. 10.1155/2016/781691210.1155/2016/7816912 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2004.04.00310.1016/j.ijmecsci.2004.04.003 ↗
12. 10.1007/BF0247269710.1007/BF02472697 ↗
13. 10.1016/0263-8223(94)90128-710.1016/0263-8223(94)90128-7 ↗
14. 10.1002/pc.2554310.1002/pc.25543 ↗
15. 10.1177/109963621878198110.1177/1099636218781981 ↗
16. 10.1177/1099636222107705310.1177/10996362221077053 ↗
17. 10.1002/pc.2349410.1002/pc.23494 ↗
18. 10.3390/s2022668910.3390/s20226689 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2017.10.01010.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2017.10.010 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11295110.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112951 ↗
21. 10.1016/S0963-8695(00)00082-710.1016/S0963-8695(00)00082-7 ↗
22. http://pmpcompany.com/en
23. Gibson L. J. · 1988
24. 10.1016/0025-5416(87)90496-410.1016/0025-5416(87)90496-4 ↗
25. 10.1016/0025-5416(87)90497-610.1016/0025-5416(87)90497-6 ↗
26. 10.1007/BF0232571510.1007/BF02325715 ↗
27. 10.1007/BF0013497610.1007/BF00134976 ↗
28. 10.1016/S0020-7403(00)00069-210.1016/S0020-7403(00)00069-2 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.04.06010.1016/j.compositesb.2012.04.060 ↗