Buckling of Disbonds in Honeycomb-core Sandwich Beams
Source abstract
Abstract
The buckling behavior of a disbond in a sandwich beam is analyzed by modeling the sandwich as a beam on a Winkler foundation. The foundation stiffness is derived through a stress function approach, modeling the core as a two-dimensional, orthotropic material in plane strain. When the resulting stiffness term is used in the Winkler foundation model, the predicted buckling loads vary from the specimen test results by only 1.7% (with a standard deviation of 2.3%). This is the most accurate published prediction of disbond buckling and is discussed in terms of previous studies. An extensive specimen test program is described, the results of which are used to validate the Winkler foundation model. The buckling load, as a function of core thickness, is found to have a minimum when the core thickness is approximately equal to the natural wrinkling half-wavelength of the sandwich. Further, a characteristic curve is found using the wrinkling wavelength and the Euler buckling load as normalizing values. A semi-empirical formula for the buckling load is developed from a non-dimensional analysis and predicts the specimen test results to within 2.8% (standard deviation of 3.6%).
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Cellular and Composite Structures · Structural Load-Bearing Analysis · Composite Structure Analysis and Optimization
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Mechanical Engineering The University of Auckland, New Zealand,
Department of Mechanical Engineering The University of Auckland, New Zealand
Air New Zealand Engineering Services, Auckland, New Zealand
References (20)
Show source-provided references
1. Burman, M. · 1998
2. Han, T.S., Ural, A., Chen, C.S., Zehnder, A.T., Ingraffea, A.R. and Billington, S.L. (2002). Delamination Buckling and Propagation Analysis of Honeycomb Panels using a Cohesive Element Approach International Journal of Fracture, 115: 101-123.
3. 10.1177/10996362990010040210.1177/109963629900100402 ↗
4. 10.1177/00219983910250070810.1177/002199839102500708 ↗
5. 10.1177/00219983920260100810.1177/002199839202601008 ↗
6. 10.1177/00219983870210120210.1177/002199838702101202 ↗
7. Sleight, D.W. · 1995
8. 10.1016/S0020-7683(96)00005-410.1016/S0020-7683(96)00005-4 ↗
9. 10.2514/3.1115310.2514/3.11153 ↗
10. 10.1177/00219983950290150610.1177/002199839502901506 ↗
11. 10.1016/0263-8223(91)90024-S10.1016/0263-8223(91)90024-S ↗
12. 10.1177/00219983880220060110.1177/002199838802200601 ↗
13. Frostig, Y. · Advances in Aerospace Materials and Structures ASME · 1999 · 58 · 23
14. 10.1177/00219983000340140210.1177/002199830003401402 ↗
15. 10.1177/10996362000020010310.1177/109963620000200103 ↗
16. 10.1016/0020-7683(93)90061-B10.1016/0020-7683(93)90061-B ↗
17. 10.1007/s00419990006510.1007/s004199900065 ↗
18. Aitken, R.R. · 2000
19. White, F.M. · 1994
20. Hetenyi, M. · 1946