journal article·2020-09

Equivalent properties of composite sandwich panels with honeycomb–grid hybrid core

Shanshan Shi, Bingzhi Chen, Zhi Sun

Publisher page

Abstract

Combining the complementary properties of honeycomb cores and grid cores, a composite sandwich panel with honeycomb–grid hybrid core was proposed to enhance the structural performance of composite sandwich panels. However, important gaps remain in calculating the structural performance of the composite sandwich panels. In this paper, an equivalent stiffness model was proposed to analytically estimate the stiffness matrix of composite sandwich panels with honeycomb–grid hybrid core. The reliability and accuracy of the equivalent stiffness model were verified by experimental measurements from three-point bending tests. Furthermore, the effects of face-sheet thickness, core height, grid spacing, rib width and material properties on structural stiffness were investigated for the design of sandwich structures with hybrid core. The parameter studies demonstrated that core height had the most significant influence on the specific bending stiffness, while grid spacing was most important for specific in-plane stiffness of sandwich panels with carbon-fiber grid. Moreover, using carbon-fiber grid, although increases manufacturing cost, could further enhance the specific stiffness.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Cellular and Composite Structures · Polymer composites and self-healing · Structural Analysis of Composite Materials

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

Affiliations

School of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, Dalian Jiaotong University, Dalian, P.R. China

State Key Laboratory of Structural Analysis for Industrial Equipment, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, P.R. China

Funding

China Postdoctoral Science Foundation · National Natural Science Foundation of China

References (27)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1177/109963621562381610.1177/1099636215623816 ↗
2. 10.1177/109963621561348610.1177/1099636215613486 ↗
3. 10.1177/109963621454136710.1177/1099636214541367 ↗
4. 10.1016/S0263-8223(01)00111-810.1016/S0263-8223(01)00111-8 ↗
5. Meink TE, Gregoreck G. Composite Grid vs. Composite sandwich: a comparison based on payload shroud requirements. In: IEEE aerospace conference proceedings , USA, March 21st–28th 1998.
6. 10.1016/j.tws.2014.07.01510.1016/j.tws.2014.07.015 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.03.05410.1016/j.compositesb.2016.03.054 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.11.01610.1016/j.compstruct.2013.11.016 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.matdes.2013.06.06710.1016/j.matdes.2013.06.067 ↗
10. 10.1016/S1003-6326(09)60308-310.1016/S1003-6326(09)60308-3 ↗
11. Xiong J · Des · 2011 · 32 · 592
12. 10.1016/j.commatsci.2008.08.01810.1016/j.commatsci.2008.08.018 ↗
13. 10.1016/0020-7683(94)00202-810.1016/0020-7683(94)00202-8 ↗
14. 10.1007/s10443-010-9180-910.1007/s10443-010-9180-9 ↗
15. 10.1007/s10443-016-9582-410.1007/s10443-016-9582-4 ↗
16. 10.1007/BF0264554610.1007/BF02645546 ↗
17. 10.1016/0266-3538(96)00063-210.1016/0266-3538(96)00063-2 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.09.05210.1016/j.compositesb.2012.09.052 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.07.04410.1016/j.compositesb.2012.07.044 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.04.01510.1016/j.compstruct.2010.04.015 ↗
21. 10.1177/00219983960300040510.1177/002199839603000405 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2012.04.03310.1016/j.scriptamat.2012.04.033 ↗
23. 10.1016/S1359-6454(03)00441-510.1016/S1359-6454(03)00441-5 ↗
24. 10.1016/S0997-7538(00)00158-310.1016/S0997-7538(00)00158-3 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2017.01.02910.1016/j.compscitech.2017.01.029 ↗
26. Gibson RF. · 1994
27. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2014.08.01710.1016/j.compositesa.2014.08.017 ↗