Experimental study on the low-velocity impact failure mechanism of foam core sandwich panels with shape memory alloy hybrid face-sheets
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Superelastic shape memory alloy (SMA) as an advanced smart material has been used to improve the impact performance of fiber-reinforced composites in recent decades. Due to the low impact toughness of the thin composite face-sheet and the poor strength of the foam core, sandwich panels are sensitive to the transverse loading. SMA fibers were embedded into the composite laminated to improve the impact resistance of the traditional foam core sandwich panel in this work. Five new types of SMA hybrid panels were prepared, and the testing panels with penetration failure were observed at the impact energy of 50 J. The impact mechanical responses and the damage morphology were analyzed, and the impact failure mechanism was also revealed. Results show that all sandwich panels were failed, the fiber breakage occurred at the impact region in the traditional panels, while part plies of the rear face-sheets split-off in the SMA hybrid panels. The impact performance of the SMA hybrid panels is improved when compared with the traditional panel, the reduction of the delamination area by 48.15% and the increase of the load-bearing threshold by 32.75% are acquired for the hybrid sandwich panel with two layers of SMA fibers in the rear face-sheet.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Cellular and Composite Structures · Polymer composites and self-healing · Mechanical Behavior of Composites
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, East China Jiao Tong University , Nanchang 330013 , China
School of Civil and Architecture Engineering, Nanchang Institute of Technology , Nanchang 330029 , China
References (36)
Show source-provided references
1. Leijten J, Bersee HE, Bergsma OK, Beukers A. Experimental study of the low-velocity impact behaviour of primary sandwich structures in aircraft. Compos A Appl S. 2009;40(2):164–75.10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.10.019 ↗
2. Ramnath BV, Alagarraja K, Elanchezhian C. Review on sandwich composite and their applications. Mater Today Proc. 2019;16:859–64.10.1016/j.matpr.2019.05.169 ↗
3. San HaN, Lu G. A review of recent research on bio-inspired structures and materials for energy absorption applications. Compos B Eng. 2020;181:107496.10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107496 ↗
4. Yang P, Shams S-S, Slay A, Brokate B, Elhajjar R. Evaluation of temperature effects on low velocity impact damage in composite sandwich panels with polymeric foam cores. Compos Struct. 2015;129:213–23.10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.03.065 ↗
5. Liu J, He W, Xie D, Tao B. The effect of impactor shape on the low-velocity impact behavior of hybrid corrugated core sandwich structures. Compos B Eng. 2017;111:315–31.10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.11.060 ↗
6. Taraghi I, Fereidoon A. Non-destructive evaluation of damage modes in nanocomposite foam-core sandwich panel subjected to low-velocity impact. Compos B Eng. 2016;103:51–9.10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.08.009 ↗
7. Wang J, Waas AM, Wang H. Experimental and numerical study on the low-velocity impact behavior of foam-core sandwich panels. Compos Struct. 2013;96:298–311.10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.09.002 ↗
8. He W, Lu S, Yi K, Wang S, Sun G, Hu Z. Residual flexural properties of CFRP sandwich structures with aluminum honeycomb cores after low-velocity impact. Int J Mech Sci. 2019;161:105026.10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.105026 ↗
9. Klaus M, Reimerdes HG, Gupta NK. Experimental and numerical investigations of residual strength after impact of sandwich panels. Int J Impact Eng. 2012;44:50–8.10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2012.01.001 ↗
10. Gilioli A, Sbarufatti C, Manes A, Giglio M. Compression after impact test (CAI) on NOMEX™ honeycomb sandwich panels with thin aluminum skins. Compos B Eng. 2014;67:313–25.10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.07.015 ↗
11. Atas C, Potoğlu U. The effect of face-sheet thickness on low-velocity impact response of sandwich composites with foam cores. J Sandw Struct Mater. 2016;18(2):215–28.10.1177/1099636215613775 ↗
12. Lascoup B, Aboura Z, Khellil K, Benzeggagh M. Impact response of three-dimensional stitched sandwich composite. Compos Struct. 2010;92(2):347–53.10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.08.012 ↗
13. Yang B, Wang Z, Zhou L, Zhang J, Tong L, Liang W. Study on the low-velocity impact response and CAI behavior of foam-filled sandwich panels with hybrid facesheet. Compos Struct. 2015;132:1129–40.10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.07.058 ↗
14. Hosur MV, Abdullah M, Jeelani S. Manufacturing and low-velocity impact characterization of foam filled 3-D integrated core sandwich composites with hybrid face sheets. Compos Struct. 2005;69(2):167–81.10.1016/j.compstruct.2004.06.008 ↗
15. Imielińska K, Guillaumat L, Wojtyra R, Castaings M. Effects of manufacturing and face/core bonding on impact damage in glass/polyester–PVC foam core sandwich panels. Compos B Eng. 2008;39(6):1034–41.10.1016/j.compositesb.2007.11.007 ↗
16. Meram A, Cetin ME. Experimental investigation on the effects of core/facing interface performance on the low-velocity impact behavior of honeycomb sandwich panels. J Mater Eng Perform. 2020;29(11):7408–19.10.1007/s11665-020-05181-2 ↗
17. Al-Shamary AKJ, Karakuzu R, Özdemir O. Low-velocity impact response of sandwich composites with different foam core configurations. J Sandw Struct Mater. 2016;18(6):754–68.10.1177/1099636216653267 ↗
18. Ji G, Ouyang Z, Li G. Debonding and impact tolerant sandwich panel with hybrid foam core. Compos Struct. 2013;103:143–50.10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.04.006 ↗
19. Zhou J, Guan ZW, Cantwell WJ. The impact response of graded foam sandwich structures. Compos Struct. 2013;97:370–7.10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.10.037 ↗
20. Xiao Y, Jiang D. Rate dependence of transformation pattern in superelastic NiTi tube. Extreme Mech Lett. 2020;39:100819.10.1016/j.eml.2020.100819 ↗
21. Taheri-Behrooz F, Mahdavizade MJ, Ostadrahimi A. Micromechanics of stress transfer in shape memory alloy reinforced three-phase composites. J Intel Mat Syst Str. 2018;29(15):3151–64.10.1177/1045389X18783086 ↗
22. Xiao Y, Jiang D. Constitutive modelling of transformation pattern in superelastic NiTi shape memory alloy under cyclic loading. Int J Mech Sci. 2020;182:105743.10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.105743 ↗
23. Raghavan J, Bartkiewicz T, Boyko S, Kupriyanov M, Rajapakse N, Yu B. Damping, tensile, and impact properties of superelastic shape memory alloy (SMA) fiber-reinforced polymer composites. Compos B Eng. 2010;41(3):214–22.10.1016/j.compositesb.2009.10.009 ↗
24. Sun M, Wang Z, Yang B, Sun X. Experimental investigation of GF/epoxy laminates with different SMAs positions subjected to low-velocity impact. Compos Struct. 2017;171:170–84.10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.02.094 ↗
25. Kang KW, Kim JK. Effect of shape memory alloy on impact damage behavior and residual properties of glass/epoxy laminates under low temperature. Compos Struct. 2009;88(3):455–60.10.1016/j.compstruct.2008.05.005 ↗
26. Van Oosterom S, Allen T, Battley M, Bickerton S. An objective comparison of common vacuum assisted resin infusion processes. Compos A Appl S. 2019;125:105528.10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.105528 ↗
27. Lei HS, Wang ZQ, Tong LY, Zhou B, Fu J. Experimental and numerical investigation on the macroscopic mechanical behavior of shape memory alloy hybrid composite with weak interface. Compos Struct. 2013;101:301–12.10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.02.006 ↗
28. Callens MG, Gorbatikh L, Bertels E, Goderis B, Smet M, Verpoest I. Tensile behaviour of stainless steel fibre/epoxy composites with modified adhesion. Compos A Appl S. 2015;69:208–18.10.1016/j.compositesa.2014.11.022 ↗
29. Liu Y, Wang Z, Li H, Sun M, Wang F, Chen B. Influence of embedding SMA fibres and SMA fibre surface modification on the mechanical performance of BFRP composite laminates. Materials. 2018;11:70.10.3390/ma11010070 ↗
30. Wang Z, Liu Y, Lv H, Yang B. Enhancement of interface performance between shape memory alloy fiber and polymer matrix using silane coupling agent KH550 and Al2O3 nanoparticles. Polym Composite. 2018;39(9):3040–7.10.1002/pc.24308 ↗
31. Wang Z, Liu Y, Li H, Sun M. Effect of enhancement of interface performance on mechanical properties of shape memory alloy hybrid composites. Compos Interface. 2018;25(2):169–86.10.1080/09276440.2017.1353838 ↗
32. Tsoi KA, Stalmans R, Schrooten J, Wevers M, Mai YW. Impact damage behaviour of shape memory alloy composites. Mater Sci Eng A. 2003;342(1–2):207–15.10.1016/S0921-5093(02)00317-9 ↗
33. Feng D, Aymerich F. Finite element modelling of damage induced by low-velocity impact on composite laminates. Compos Struct. 2014;108:161–71.10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.09.004 ↗
34. Lopes CS, Seresta O, Coquet Y, Gürdal Z, Camanho PP, Thuis B. Low-velocity impact damage on dispersed stacking sequence laminates. Part I: experiments. Compos Sci Technol. 2009;69:926–36.10.1016/j.compscitech.2009.02.009 ↗
35. Sofocleous K, Ogin SL, Tsakiropoulos P, Draconakis V, Doumanidis C. Controlled impact testing of woven fabric composites with and without reinforcing shape-memory alloy wires. J Compos Mater. 2014;48(30):3799–813.10.1177/0021998313514253 ↗
36. Li H, Liu J, Wang Z, Yu Z, Liu Y, Sun M. The low velocity impact response of shape memory alloy hybrid polymer composites. Polymers-Basel. 2018;10(9):1026.10.3390/polym10091026 ↗