journal article·2026-02

Thermal and mechanical insights into sandwich structures: A comparison of XPS foam and Prisma composite cores

Marc Al Ghazal, Georges Chahine, Brandon White, Abdallah Ragab, Pritesh Yeole, Diana Hun, Uday Vaidya

Publisher page

Abstract

Buildings are responsible for approximately 40% of global energy consumption and 30% of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions, with a significant portion of this energy dedicated to maintaining thermal comfort. Retrofitting existing buildings with sandwich panels offers a practical solution to reduce thermal loads and, consequently, energy consumption. In this study, sandwich structures composed of glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) skins and polymeric foam cores were fabricated using the vacuum assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM) process. Two core materials, extruded polystyrene (XPS) foam and polyurethane (PU) foam integrated within Prisma beams, were evaluated through thermal and mechanical testing. The panels achieved thermal resistances ranging from 3.62 to 4.66 h.ft 2 . °F/Btu (0.64-0.82 K.m 2 /W) per inch. Under quasi-static loading, XPS samples exhibited 24%–40% higher strength and 16%–28% greater brittleness compared to PU. In low-velocity impact (LVI) tests, PU cores absorbed 11% more energy than XPS. However, flatwise tensile testing showed that the bonding strength between XPS and GFRP was 47% higher than that of PU. Overall, the findings indicate that XPS is the more effective core material for sandwich panel retrofits, offering superior thermal insulation and mechanical performance.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Cellular and Composite Structures · Polymer composites and self-healing · Aerogels and thermal insulation

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

Affiliations

University of Tennessee

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

The Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation

Funding

Institute of Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation · Building Technologies Office · Division of Engineering Education and Centers

References (50)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.10943010.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109430 ↗
2. Al Ghazal M Modular composite sandwich structures for thermal and structural retrofitting of existing buildings. 2023.
3. 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.03.05510.1016/j.enbuild.2017.03.055 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.05.01110.1016/j.enbuild.2017.05.011 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.10260410.1016/j.jobe.2021.102604 ↗
6. 10.3390/polym1617239110.3390/polym16172391 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.jobe.2022.10527410.1016/j.jobe.2022.105274 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.04610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.046 ↗
9. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/guide_to_home_insulation.pdf
10. 10.1177/0021998325131959010.1177/00219983251319590 ↗
11. 10.3390/polym1110166710.3390/polym11101667 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2024.10854010.1016/j.compositesa.2024.108540 ↗
13. 10.1007/s11029-025-10250-510.1007/s11029-025-10250-5 ↗
14. 10.1080/00405167.2024.231818210.1080/00405167.2024.2318182 ↗
15. 10.1007/s11029-024-10227-w10.1007/s11029-024-10227-w ↗
16. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.000010110.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000101 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.05.00410.1016/j.compstruct.2010.05.004 ↗
18. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.000017610.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000176 ↗
19. Reeve S. New FRP pedestrian bridge deck improves safety and provides critical connecting link: construction. JEC Compos 2012; (77).
20. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.000042310.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000423 ↗
21. Van Erp G, McKay M. Reinforced lignin polymer beams: a direct replacement for hardwood bridge beams. In: Australian Small Bridges Conference, 5th, 2012, Surfers Paradise 2012.
22. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.000030710.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000307 ↗
23. 10.56748/ejse.13161110.56748/ejse.131611 ↗
24. 10.1080/15583058.2020.185327810.1080/15583058.2020.1853278 ↗
25. 10.3844/ajeassp.2016.713.72310.3844/ajeassp.2016.713.723 ↗
26. 10.1177/109963621562187110.1177/1099636215621871 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.07.00510.1016/j.compstruct.2017.07.005 ↗
28. 10.1177/002199831036957710.1177/0021998310369577 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.04.02310.1016/j.compositesb.2015.04.023 ↗
30. 10.3390/ma1308187010.3390/ma13081870 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.09.03510.1016/j.compstruct.2013.09.035 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.10.03410.1016/j.compstruct.2013.10.034 ↗
33. Bedon C, Agullo CP, Luna-Navarro A, et al. Thermo-mechanical investigation of novel GFRP-Glass sandwich facade components. Challenging Glass Conference Proceedings 2018; 6: 501–512.
34. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.07.01310.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.07.013 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.09.00310.1016/j.buildenv.2015.09.003 ↗
36. Küçüktopcu E, Cemek B. A study on environmental impact of insulation thickness of poultry building walls. Inside Energy 2018; 150: 583–590.
37. Amir AH, Alibaba HZ. Comparison between heat conductivity of EPS (expanded polystyrene) and XPS (extruded polystyrene). International Journal of Recent Research in Civil and Mechanical Engineering (IJRRCME) 2018; 4(2): 24–31.
38. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.02.02710.1016/j.compstruct.2014.02.027 ↗
39. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000198410.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001984 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.12.05710.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.12.057 ↗
41. 10.1520/STP11449S10.1520/STP11449S ↗
42. 10.1016/j.jobe.2023.10714210.1016/j.jobe.2023.107142 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.03.05510.1016/j.enbuild.2018.03.055 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.10.03710.1016/j.enbuild.2015.10.037 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.proenv.2017.03.12110.1016/j.proenv.2017.03.121 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.36210.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.362 ↗
47. 10.1177/0892705725135156010.1177/08927057251351560 ↗
48. 10.1177/0021998325132911410.1177/00219983251329114 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.11841210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118412 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2007.01.00910.1016/j.compositesa.2007.01.009 ↗