Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace

Engineering
http://pig.sagepub.com/

Compressive and lamination strength of honeycomb sandwich panels with strain energy calculation
from ASTM standards
M K Khan
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering 2006 220: 375
DOI: 10.1243/09544100JAERO76

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://pig.sagepub.com/content/220/5/375

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Additional services and information for Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering
can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://pig.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://pig.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://pig.sagepub.com/content/220/5/375.refs.html

>> Version of Record - May 1, 2006

What is This?

Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
 375

Compressive and lamination strength of honeycomb

sandwich panels with strain energy calculation
from ASTM standards
M K Khan
Space Structure Lab, Satellite Research and Development Center, Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research
Commission (SUPARCO), PO Box No. 8402, Karachi 75270, Pakistan. email: kashoo@engineer.com

The manuscript was received on 26 December 2005 and was accepted after revision for publication on 25 April 2006.

DOI: 10.1243/09544100JAERO76

Abstract: The experiments were designed and performed to find the material properties of
honeycomb sandwich panels and to find the difference in properties between aluminium and
of glass fibre facing honeycomb sandwich panels, so as to get a path for consideration of
panel containing maximum stiffness to weight ratio which is the main idea behind material
selection for a spacecraft/satellite structure. Flatwise and edgewise compressive tests were
performed on aluminium and glass fibre facing honeycomb sandwich panels of different core
thickness to investigate the out-of-plane and in-plane compressive strength. The strain
energy and the critical stress were calculated in one of the compression mode. Another set of
experiments was performed to find the lamination strength of bond used for joining facing
and core of honeycomb sandwich panels. Again the tests were performed on both facing
types of sandwich panels to check the difference in strength with the change in core thickness
and facing type of the honeycomb sandwich panel. Different ASTM standards for testing
honeycomb sandwich panels were used.

Keywords: honeycomb sandwich panel, facesheet wrinkling, shear crimping, intracell

buckling, bending stiffness

1 INTRODUCTION which is the strongest axis under different kind of

Sandwich construction is an attractive structural
design concept, as by the proper choice of materials
and geometry, constructions having high ratios of
stiffness-to-weight can be achieved. The sandwich
panel is the composition of a weak core material
with strong and stiff faces bonded on the upper and
lower sides. The facings provide practically all of
the overall bending and in-plane extensional rigidity
to the sandwich. Sandwich construction is com-
monly used in structures where strength, stiffness,
and weight efficiency are required. Low-density,
hexagonal honeycombs are preferred as the core
material on a performance basis. Honeycomb
materials have been extensively used as energy
absorbers to resist external loads due to their high
energy absorption capacity. The bare core of honey-
comb specimen is shown in Fig. 1.
The behaviour of honeycomb sandwich panels
under compressive loads, against out-of-plane axis
support and against edgewise configuration, has
been investigated by many researchers analytically
or experimentally [1 –10] for bare honeycomb core
and on honeycomb sandwich panels [11 – 17]. Hoff
and Mautner [1, 2] studied the edgewise com-
pression mode and investigated the buckling of
sandwich panels. Birman [3] gave a solution based
on simultaneous wrinkling of both facings during
edgewise compressive mode. Baker et al. [4] deve-
loped a method for measuring mechanical properties
of high-density honeycomb for quasi-static and
dynamic loading and then compared the stresses
for quasi-static and dynamic loading. Zhao and
Gerard [5] presented a new application of split
Hopkinson pressure bar for testing honeycombs
and compared out-of-plane and in-plane crushing
behaviour with loading rate. Goldsmith and Louie
[6] studied the axial perforation in aluminium honey-
comb cores under quasi-static and ballistic con-
ditions and investigated in-plane and out-of-plane

JAERO76 # IMechE 2006 Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
376
Fig. 1 Bare core of sandwich panels
modes of deformation. Zhang and Ashby [7] predicted
the different failure modes under compression and
showed that out-of-plane strength (compressive and
shear) is independent of height of the honeycomb
and totally dependent on density of honeycomb.
They also studied the stress–strain behaviour in
different modes of failures. Goldsmith and Sackman
[8] experimentally investigated static and dynamic
loading on honeycomb cores and panels to determine
the energy dissipation and force level transmission
characteristics. Wierzbicki [9] derived a formula
which is very useful in determining mean crushing
strength of metal honeycombs and considered a
shear failure mechanism. Enboa and Jiang [10]
studied the behaviour of aluminium honeycomb
under static and dynamic loading. Hong et al. [11]
studied the effects of dynamic crush tests on alu-
minium honeycomb specimens and concluded simi-
lar crush behaviour for honeycomb under pure
compressive and inclined loads. Mouring et al. [13]
studied the effect of impact damage under edgewise
compression tests on composite honeycomb sand-
wich panels. Ley et al. [15] performed several com-
pressive tests to predict facesheet wrinkling in
sandwich panels. Walker [16] studied edgewise com-
pressive load behaviour at different temperatures to
honeycomb sandwich panels.
Different ASTM standards were followed to
perform tests on different facing types of honeycomb
sandwich panels which are most commonly used in
structures of aircraft, spacecraft, and satellites. The
sandwich panels used in the tests were procured
from M/S Good Fellow Corporation having the
following characteristics.
1. Sandwich panel of aluminium facings (Al 5052)
(a) thickness ¼ 26.4 mm, cell size ¼ 6.3 mm,
adhesive (Resin) ¼ phenolic, core ¼ Al 3003,
core density ¼ 0.083 g/cm3, cell wall thickness ¼
0.064 mm, facing thickness ¼ 0.5 mm;
(b) thickness ¼ 14 mm, cell size ¼ 6.3 mm,
adhesive (resin) ¼ phenolic, core ¼ Al 3003,
core density ¼ 0.083 g/cm3, cell wall
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
M K Khan
thickness ¼ 0.064 mm, facing thickness ¼
0.5 mm.
2. Sandwich panel of glass fiber facings
thickness ¼ 26.5 mm, cell size ¼ 6.3 mm, adhesive
(resin) ¼ phenolic, core ¼ Al 3003, core density ¼
0.083 g/cm3, cell wall thickness ¼ 0.06 mm,
facing thickness ¼ 0.55 mm.
Flatwise compressive tests were performed on
sandwich panel of each category along with on bare
core (without facings) according to ASTM standard
[18]. Edgewise compressive tests were performed
according to ASTM standard [19] on three specimens
of each category. The critical values of stresses were
calculated to predict the possible mode of failure
and then compared with experimental data. Mid-
span loading flexure test was performed on both
facing types of honeycomb sandwich panels accord-
ing to ASTM standard [20]. Facing bending stresses
were calculated according to ASTM standard [20].
To determine the strength of the bond, the flatwise
tensile test was done as specified in ASTM standard
[21]. The tensile loading is applied to the two oppo-
site ends of the fixture until the failure of bond
between facing skin and honeycomb core occurs.
From the lamination strength test, it is concluded
that all panels have the same lamination strength.
Results of compressive loading on honeycomb
sandwich panels indicate that the compressive
strength of honeycomb sandwich panels primarily
depend upon the facing type and slightly on core
thickness. From bare core compressive strength
tests, it is concluded that the thicker core has slightly
more compressive strength when compared with
thinner core. Results of compressive loading on hon-
eycomb sandwich panels in edgewise mode indicate
that edgewise compressive strength of aluminium
facing honeycomb sandwich panels is almost equal
to that of glass fibre facing, as both have almost
the same value of modulus of elasticity (for
aluminium, E ¼ 70
109 Pa and for glass fibre,
E ¼ 81.3
109 Pa). From flexure tests, bending stres-
ses and deflection are calculated and comparison
between deflection values from graph and formulae
is presented. From lamination strength test, it is con-
cluded that all the sandwich panels have almost the
same bond strength between facing and core. The
experimental data can be used to select the more
light and stiff combination of sandwich panels
according to the environmental conditions of
aircraft, spacecraft, and satellites.
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
In edgewise compression [19], the following mode of
failures can occur
JAERO76 # IMechE 2006
 Compressive and lamination strength of honeycomb sandwich panels 377

Panel buckling Therefore

P P
p2 D p2 D sb1 ¼ and sb2 ¼ (6)
P¼ 2 þ (1) tb tb
L Gc hb
For exact solution [22]
where D is the bending stiffness given by

  
d  t1 bEc
y ¼ bt1 þ tc ½t2 þ d  t1  t2 
Ef th2 b 2 E1
D¼ (2)    
2 (bE2 =E1 )t2 (t2 =2) bEc bE2
þ þ tc þ t2 (7)
bt1 E1 E1
Shear crimping
For same facing type of sandwich panels
P ¼ tc Gc b (3)
bt½d  t=2 þ bt 2 =2
y¼ (8)
Intracell buckling 2bt

and
tf
s ¼ 2Ef (4)
s M(d  y) My E2
fb1 ¼ , fb2 ¼
(9)
I I E1
Skin wrinkling
For flexural test [20] in bending mode
Shear stiffness
s ¼ 0:5{Gc Ec Ef }1=3 (5)
S ¼ bhGc (10)
The formula for skin wrinkling is valid for W equal
to or less than b/2. According to Hoff and Mautner Deflection
[1], reasonable safe values of buckling stress can be
obtained by using simple approximate formula. kb PL3 ks PL
Figure 2(a) shows the end-loading response and d¼ þ (11)
D S
Fig. 2(b) shows the coordinate geometry of honey-
comb sandwich panels. Facing bending stress
From the values of stresses obtained from these
expressions, the values of bending stresses obtained M
from different solution methods at failure load s¼ (12)
htf b
values obtained from the tests are compared. The
bending stresses produced due to edgewise where
compressive loading have two types of solution, i.e.
standard and exact. According to standard or PL
approximate solution [22] M¼ (13)
4

M M The bending coefficient kb and ks can be obtained

sb1 ¼ and sb2 ¼ where M ¼ Ph by boundary conditions of beam. For flexure test,
tbh tbh
values of kb and ks are 1/48 and 1/4, respectively.

2.1 Flatwise compressive test

Flatwise compressive tests were performed to find
difference in strength of the sandwich panel when
compressive loading is applied in out-of-plane
direction. The purpose of the test was to investigate
the difference in strength with respect to core
thickness and facing type of the sandwich panels.
Fig. 2 (a) Approximate bending stress and (b) Tests were performed according to ASTM standard
Cartesian coordinate system [18] on sandwich panel of aluminium facings

JAERO76 # IMechE 2006 Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
378 M K Khan

Fig. 5 Thick and thin core specimen during testing

Three specimens of each category were tested

Fig. 3 Graphical representation of compressive
strength for flatwise compressive test
(thickness 26.4 and 14 mm) and glass fibre facings
(thickness 26.4 mm) (Fig. 3). The compressive load-
ing is applied to the specimen until the failure of
core occurs. The tests were done with a rate of
25 kg/s using a 117.6 kN load cell with a 23.5 kN
range. After installing the specimens into the test-
ing machine, the force was ramped up until failure
of the interface occurred. The specimens are shown
in Figs 4 and 5.
Fig. 4 Specimen during and after compressive test
using this procedure for which description is given
in Table 1, whereas Fig. 6 is the comparison
between strength of different specimens. The
flatwise compressive strength was computed by
dividing the failure load by the area of the
specimen. Average nominal compressive strength
of aluminium (thickness 26.4 mm), glass fibre (thick-
ness 26.4 mm), and aluminium (thickness 14 mm)
was found to be 4.99, 3.55, and 4.2 MPa, respectively,
with standard deviation of 0.21, 0.19, and 0.18 MPa,
respectively.
Bitzer [22] found that the compressive properties
and shear moduli do not vary much with thickness
changes, but shear strength becomes lower as thick-
ness increases due to which slight difference in
strength of thick and thin core aluminium facing
sandwich panels are obtained.
From experimental data, it is concluded that for
equal core thickness, flatwise compressive strength
of aluminium facing sandwich panels is higher
than that of glass fibre facing panel, which reflects
that for sandwich panels compressive strength
depends upon facing type. The thin core aluminium
facing panel showed greater compressive strength
when compared with thick core glass fibre facing
panel, which reflects that there is no such effect of
thickness of core on compressive strength. Similarly,
almost the same compressive strength of thick and
thin core aluminium facing honeycomb sandwich
panels is obtained.

Table 1 Results of flatwise compressive test on sandwich panels

Size of specimen Failure load Strength Mean Standard COV ¼ standard

(mm2) (kg) (MPa) (u) deviation deviation/mean (%)

Al facing (thickness 50
50 1270 4.97

26.4 mm) 70
70 2400 4.80 4.99 0.21 4.2
60
100 3200 5.22
Glass fibre facing 54.5
5.35 1055 3.41
(thickness 26.4 mm) 55
54 1072 3.47 3.55 0.19 5.35
55
57 1210 3.78
Al facing (thickness 55
53.5 1280 4.26
14 mm) 53
54.5 1285 4.35 4.20 0.18 4.28
54.5
54 1203 4.00

Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering JAERO76 # IMechE 2006
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
 Compressive and lamination strength of honeycomb sandwich panels
Fig. 6 Graphical representation of
strength for bare core
2.2 Bare compression method
Flatwise compressive tests were performed to find
difference in strength of the core of the sandwich
panel when compressive loading is applied in
out-of-plane direction (Fig. 6). The purpose of the
test was to investigate the difference in strength
with respect to core thickness. Compressive loading
is applied to the specimen until the failure of core
occurs. The tests were done with a rate of 60 N/s
using a 117.6 kN load cell with a 23.5 kN range.
After installing the specimens into the testing
machine, the force was ramped up until failure of
the core occurred as shown in Fig. 5.
Six specimens of different core thickness were
tested according to ASTM standard [18] on honey-
comb core of aluminium for which details of results
are given in Table 2. The compressive strength of alu-
minium (thick and thin core) was found to be 2.67
and 2.42 MPa, respectively, with standard deviation
of 0.12 and 0.37 MPa, respectively.
Compressive strength obtained in this case is less
when compared with sandwich panels. According
to Bitzer [22], adhesive fillet stabilizes the honey-
comb cell walls and produces slightly higher results
than bare compression test. From experimental
Table 2 Results of flatwise compressive test on bare core
Size of specimen (mm2) Core thickness (mm)
56
37
33.7
44.6 22.2
49.7
48.9
33
65 10.2
36.6
72.3 9.6
33.5
62.4 10.2
JAERO76 # IMechE 2006
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
379
data, it is concluded that flatwise compressive
strength of thick and thin core is almost the same,
giving again the same idea that compressive strength
is not a function of core thickness (Fig. 3).
2.3 Edgewise compressive test
Edgewise compressive tests were performed to find
difference in strength of the sandwich panel when
compressive loading is applied in in-plane direction.
The purpose of the test was to investigate the differ-
ence in strength with respect to core thickness and
facing type of the sandwich panels and to predict
the expected failure mode a sandwich panel can
suffer in this kind of compressive loading. The stres-
ses were calculated according to standard and exact
solutions, as described by Bitzer [22]. Edgewise com-
compressive pressive test consists of compressively loading the
panel to the facing plane. Sandwich panels in this
mode of loading usually fails by facing wrinkling
(dimpling), shear crimping, or overall buckling.
Therefore, it is rare to obtain the ultimate compres-
sive strength of the facing material, but results give
a near value of compressive strength (Fig. 7).
Edgewise compressive tests were performed
according to ASTM standard [19] on sandwich
panels of each category. The compressive loading is
applied to the specimen until the failure of core
occurs. The tests were done in load control with a
rate of 12.5 kg/s using a 250 kN load cell with a
45 kN range. After installing the specimens into the
testing machine, the force was ramped up until fail-
ure occurred. To prevent buckling of facings, the core
of a small part around 10 mm is removed from both
the edges and then adhesive Araldite 2013 is inserted
in that empty region and the specimens allowed to
cure at 50 8C. After curing, the facings of the part
enclosed with adhesive is removed, so as to get
cured Araldite on both the edges of specimen. For
proper surface finish at both the edges, the adhesive
part is properly machined to get a smooth surface as
shown in Fig. 8.
Nine specimens were tested (three of each
category) according to this procedure for which the
mean strength is obtained as 1.45 MPa with standard
deviation of 0.26 MPa for sandwich panel of alu-
minium facing (thickness 26.4 mm), 1.44 MPa with
Breaking load (kg) Strength (MPa) Mean (u) Standard deviation COV (%)
600 2.83
390 2.54 2.71 0.12 4.49
690 2.78
500 2.28
770 2.85 2.42 0.37 15.2
460 2.15
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering
380 M K Khan

The description of the test results is given in

Table 3. The load deflection curve of some speci-
mens is given in Fig. 9, and different specimens
after testing are shown in Fig. 10.
The critical stress values at which different failure
mode can occur for first specimen in Table 3
are D ¼ 657.39 N mm2, sbuck ¼ 0.31 MPa, scrimp ¼
124.46 MPa, swrinkle ¼ 1445 MPa, and sintra ¼
881 MPa.
Now, calculating the stress at which failure
occurred according to ASTM standard [15]

P
Facing stress ¼ sf ¼ ¼ 186:4 MPa
tf b

Fig. 7 Graphical representation of edgewise Comparing the value of facing stress with the
compressive strength above values of critical stress, it was found that
both panel buckling and shear crimping can be
obtained as a possible failure mode, as critical
stress values for these failure modes are lower than
critical values of the remaining failure mode. There-
fore, from this method, the failure mode of any
specific honeycomb sandwich panel can be
predicted.
Three specimens of each category are tested
according to ASTM standard [19] and it was con-
cluded that the edgewise compressive strength of
aluminium facing honeycomb sandwich panels is
equal to that of glass fibre facing honeycomb sand-
wich panels, as both have same facing thickness
Fig. 8 Specimen with cured Araldite 2013 at both ends and this kind of loading is primarily supported by
the core and not the facings. The strength of thick
core honeycomb panel is slightly higher than that
standard deviation of 0.14 MPa for sandwich panel of of thin core honeycomb panels, as there is some
glass fibre facing (thickness 26.4 mm), and 1.32 MPa account of core thickness in shear crimping as
with standard deviation of 0.29 MPa for sandwich reflected in equation (3). The comparison in
panel of aluminium facing (thickness 14 mm). edgewise compressive strength is given in Fig. 7.

Table 3 Results of edgewise compressive test on sandwich panels

Bending
stress

Size of Breaking load Strength Mean Standard COV D sbuck scrimp swrink sintra Standard Exact Predicted
specimen (kN) (MPa) (u) deviation (%) (N m2) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) failure mode

Aluminium facing (panel thickness ¼ 26.4 mm)

56
50 4.66 1.66 657.39 0.31 124.46 1445 881 166.4 177.0 Buck/cri
51
49 4.27 1.55 1.45 0.26 17.9 598.69 0.28 127 1445 881 167.4 182.4 Buck/cri
53
51 3.12 1.15 622.17 0.29 122.01 1445 881 115.4 133.3 Buckling
Glass fibre facing (panel thickness ¼ 26.4 mm)
55
50 4.15 1.50 824.86 0.315 124.4 1519 1239 137.1 141.8 Buck/cri
51
50 3.28 1.28 1.44 0.14 9.7 764.8 0.292 124.4 1519 1239 116.9 124.5 Buckling
55
50 4.27 1.55 824.86 0.315 124.4 1519 1239 141.1 145.9 Buck/cri
Aluminium facing (panel thickness ¼ 15.5 mm)
35
49 1.95 1.13 111.6 0.089 65 1445 881 111.4 184.2 Buck/cri
34
48 2.71 1.66 1.32 0.29 21.9 108.4 0.090 66.3 1445 881 159.4 256 Buck/cri
34
50 4.27 1.17 108.4 0.089 63.7 1445 881 251 403.4 Buck/cri

Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering JAERO76 # IMechE 2006
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
 Compressive and lamination strength of honeycomb sandwich panels 381

Fig. 9 Load –deflection curve of thick core aluminium and glass fibre facing specimen for edgewise compressive
strength

2.4 Strain energy calculation and

The mode shape of wrinkles in facings is assumed txz ¼ Gc gxz (19)
sinusoidal, that is du
ex ¼ (20)
dx
px  dv
ez ¼ (21)
v ¼ W sin (14) dz
L
du dv
gxz ¼ þ (22)
dz dx
The basic equations of stresses can be written from
the theory of elasticity for plane stress edgewise According to Hoff and Mautner [1], vertical displa-
compression cement ‘u’ at buckling is very small and can be neg-
lected. Therefore

dsx dtxz dv
þ ¼0 (15) gxz ¼ (23)
dx dz dx
dsz dtxz
þ ¼0 (16)
dz dz Assume symmetric compression as shown in
Fig. 11 as described by Hoff and Mautner [1],

whereas

sx ¼ Qxx ex þ Qxz ez (17)

sz ¼ Qxz ex þ Qzz ez (18)

Fig. 10 (a) Shear crimping failure and (b) pure

edgewise compression Fig. 11 Assumed shape of symmetric compression

JAERO76 # IMechE 2006 Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
382 M K Khan

edgewise compression mode involves bending of The strain energy of bending stored in one face is
face thickness and the elongation and compression
of horizontal fibres of the core that have initial  ð  2
Ef If L d2 vW
length ‘b’. According to Hoff and Mautner [1] displa- Uf ¼ dx
2 0 dx 2
cement occur only in marginal zones of depth ‘W ’.
The vertical displacement is negligibly small. The  2  4   3
a p t
horizontal displacement ‘v’ of the point originally ¼ Ef (31)
2 24 L
at x, y on one side of the marginal zone is given by
the equation
The shortening length DL of the distance between
the points that were originally at x ¼ 0 and x ¼ L can
z px  be calculated as
v¼a sin (24)
W L
ðL   2  2 
1 dvW 2 a p
DL ¼ dx ¼ (32)
2 0 d x 4 L
Therefore
The constant force is
dv  p  z  px 
¼a cos (25) P ¼ st
dx L W L
dv  a  px 
¼ sin (26) Now the work done by the compressive force is
dz W L
P(DL)

Put these values in equations (21) and (23) to get  2  2  

a p t
normal and shear strain Work ¼ P(DL) ¼ s (33)
2 2 L

a px  The equation is given by

ez ¼ sin (27)
W p  z L px  Work ¼ Ue þ Ug þ Uf
gxz ¼a cos (28)
L W L
From the above equation, s can be calculated
(buckling stress)
Now, work done by the compressive force during
the vertical displacement of its point of attack    2    
1 L 1 W
caused by the bending of the face layer be equal to s¼ Ec þ Gc
the strain energy of bending stored in the face p2 tW 3 t
material plus strain energy of extension and shear  2   2
p t
stored in the core. þ Ef (34)
The compressive load carried by the core is 12 L
neglected. Poisson’s ratio for the core material is
taken as zero. Because of symmetry, it is sufficient According to Hoff and Mautner [1] the actual
to calculate the work and the strain energy for one values of parameters W and L are those which
half of the cross-section. The width of the sandwich make critical stress a minimum causing ds/dW and
skin perpendicular to the plane of the drawing is ds/dL as zero
taken as unity. The strain energy can be obtained    2     
by integrating the respective strain over both ds 1 L 1 1
¼  2 Ec 2
þ Gc ¼0 (35)
horizontal and vertical displacements. dW p tW 3 t
The extensional strain energy and shear strain      2  2 
ds 2 L p t
energy within one half of the wavelength becomes ¼ Ec  Ef 3 ¼ 0 (36)
dL p2 tW 6 L

  ðL ðW  2    Solution of these equations gives

Ec a Ec L
Ue ¼ e2z dzdx ¼ (29)
2 2 2 W  
0 0
  ðL ðW  2  2    W Ef Ec 1=3
Gc a p W ¼ 0:91 (37)
Ug ¼ gxz dydx ¼
2
Gc t Gc2
2 0 0 2 6 L L
(30) ¼ 1:65(Ef2 Ec Gc )1=6 (38)
t

Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering JAERO76 # IMechE 2006
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
 Compressive and lamination strength of honeycomb sandwich panels
Put these values in equation of s
s ¼ 0:91(Ef Ec Gc )1=3
The above formula is valid for W equal to or less than
b/2. According to Hoff and Mautner [1], reasonable
safe values of buckling stress can be obtained by
using simple approximate formula
s ¼ 0:5(Ef Ec Gc )1=3
In Table 3, the values of intracell buckling is calcu-
lated with this simple formula rather than calculated
from relation derived by strain energy calculation.
For other values of W
   
2z px
v¼a sin
b L
and
   
Ef Ec t b
s ¼ 0:817 þ 0:166Gc
b t
2.5 Flexure test
Flexure tests were performed to find elastic deflec-
tion pattern and difference in strength of the sand-
wich panel when compressive loading is applied in
mid-span of the specimen supported on two ends.
The purpose of the test was to investigate the
nature of curvature with respect to core thickness
and facing type of the sandwich panels. Mid-span
flexure tests were performed according to ASTM
standard [20] on each sandwich panel of each cat-
egory. The sandwich specimens were placed in a
single-point bending apparatus which supported
the specimen. Mid-span loading is applied to the
specimens until a complete curvature is obtained
as shown in Fig. 12. A little part of the cell configur-
ation of honeycomb sandwich panels was also
affected by loading due to which slightly larger
Fig. 12 Specimens after single point flexure test
JAERO76 # IMechE 2006
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
383
values of deflection are obtained from the load –
deflection curve. Three specimens of each category
(39) were tested according to this procedure for which
different values of ultimate load given in Table 4
are obtained. The bending stresses were calculated
according to ASTM standard [20]. Compressive load-
ing is applied to the specimen until the failure of core
occurs. The tests were done in load control with a
rate of 0.1 kN/s using a 250 kN load cell with a
(40) 50 kN range.
As thin core aluminium facing honeycomb sand-
wich panels have low bending stiffness, less values
of failure loads and larger values of bending stresses
are obtained. Glass fibre has a large value of modulus
of elasticity (81.3 GPa), due to which glass fibre
facing honeycomb sandwich panel has more bend-
ing stiffness when compared with aluminium
(41) facing honeycomb sandwich panel of same thick-
ness, and similarly, glass fibre facing honeycomb
sandwich panels exhibit more bending stresses.
Therefore, for a case of pure bending with stiffness
to weight constraint, thin core sandwich panels
(42) and glass fibre facing sandwich panels are good
choices.
2.6 Lamination strength test of honeycomb
sandwich panels
Flatwise tensile tests were performed to find differ-
ence in bonding strength of the resin used to join
facing and core of the sandwich panel when tensile
loading is applied in out-of-plane direction. The pur-
pose of the test was to investigate the difference in
strength with respect to core thickness and facing
type of the sandwich panels. Flatwise tensile tests
provide a measure for interface strength against
loading perpendicular to the plane of the sandwich
panel. To determine the strength of the bond, nine
specimens were tested as specified in ASTM standard
[21] for which description of the results is given in
Table 5. The tensile loading is applied to the two
opposite ends of the fixture until the failure of
bond between facing skin and honeycomb core
occurs as shown in Figs 13 and 14. Transmission of
the loads to the sandwich coupon is achieved
through thick loading blocks that are bonded to the
face sheets through epoxy Araldite 2013. The tests
were done with a rate of 5 mm/min using a 6000 kg
load cell with a 12 000 kg range. The adhesive bond
strength was computed by dividing the failure load
by the bonded area. Araldite 2013 is used as bonding
of facing to fixture for aluminium facing honeycomb,
and Araldite 2015 is used as bonding of facing to
fixture for glass fibre facing honeycomb to ensure
that this bond strength is greater than the lamination
strength of honeycomb adhesive (Fig. 15). To ensure
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering
384 M K Khan

Table 4 Results of flexure test on sandwich panels

Bending stress
Size of specimen Breaking load D
(mm2) (kN) (N m2) S (MPa) sb (MPa) d (mm)

Al facing (26.4 mm) 140
70 2.60 821.74 444 185 100.3 0.385
140
70 2.60 821.74 444 185 100.3 0.385
140
70 2.73 821.74 444 185 105.4 0.404
Al facing (14 mm) 140
70 2.25 275.625 257 250 166.6 0.91
140
70 2.00 275.625 257 250 148.1 0.81
140
70 2.10 275.625 257 250 155.5 0.89
Glass fibre facing 140
70 2.80 1049.83 444 185 108.1 0.38
(26.4 mm) 140
70 2.60 1049.83 444 185 100.3 0.36
140
70 3.32 1049.83 444 185 128.1 0.46

Table 5 Results of lamination strength test

Type of facing Size of specimen Thickness Breaking load (kN) Strength (MPa) Mean (u) Standard deviation COV (%)

Al 50
50 1150 4.50
70
70 26.4 2535 4.47 4.40 0.2 4.54
60
100 2375 4.25
Glass fibre 54.5
5.35 2470 4.30
55
54 26.4 1100 4.31 4.45 0.25 5.6
55
57 1210 4.74
Al 55
53.5 1200 4.70
53
54.5 13.4 2700 4.70 4.74 0.08 1.68
54.5
54 2780 4.84

Fig. 13 (a) Fixture for testing and (b) specimen during Fig. 15 Load –deflection curve of thick core
testing aluminium and glass fibre facing specimen
for flexure test

sufficient bonding strength between fixture and alu-

minium facing of honeycomb, both surfaces were
treated with sand blasting.
Tests were performed on nine specimens (three of
each category) on fixture designed according to
ASTM standard [21]. Average failure load was found
to be 4.4, 4.45, and 4.75 MPa with standard deviation
of 0.2, 0.25, and 0.08 MPa for aluminium facing
(thick. 26.4 mm), glass fibre facing (thick. 26.4 mm),
Fig. 14 Aluminium and glass fibre facing specimen and aluminium facing (thick. 14 mm), respectively
after failure of bond Table 5.

Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering JAERO76 # IMechE 2006
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
 Compressive and lamination strength of honeycomb sandwich panels
From the results, it has been concluded that there
is no difference in lamination strength of bond
between facing and core of sandwich panels, as all
panels exhibit same kind of failure and strength.
The lamination strength of glass fibre facing honey-
comb sandwich panels is slightly towards higher
side which shows that phenolic resin has slightly
strong adhesion with glass fibre facing.
3. CONCLUSION
Effect of compressive and tensile loading in flatwise
and edgewise directions on honeycomb sandwich
panels of different type of facings and core thick-
nesses is investigated experimentally and analytically.
Experimental data can be used to select the more light
and stiff combination of sandwich panels according
to the environmental conditions of aircraft, space-
craft, and satellites. The analytical model of strain
energy can be used to predict possible failure mode
in edgewise compression which is a more compli-
cated pattern of loading. Results of compressive
loading on honeycomb sandwich panels indicate
that the compressive strength of honeycomb sand-
wich panels primarily depend upon the facing type
and not on the core thickness, as higher compressive
strength of thin panel of aluminium facing when
compared with thick glass fibre facing panel is
obtained. From bare core compressive strength
tests, it is concluded that the thicker core has more
compressive strength when compared with thinner
core. From edgewise tests, it is concluded that edge-
wise compressive strength of aluminium facing hon-
eycomb sandwich panels is equal to that of glass fibre
facing, as in this type of loading, facing is not involved.
From flexure test, bending stress and deflection have
been calculated. From lamination strength test, it is
concluded that there is no difference in lamination
strength of bond between facing and core of sandwich
panels, as all panels exhibit same kind of failure and
strength.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author thanks Satellite Research and Develop-
ment Center Karachi (SRDC-K) and QA&MR (Quality
Assurance and Material Research) Division of
Suparco for their continuous support during the
whole project.
REFERENCES
1 Hoff, N. J. and Mautner, S. E. The buckling of
sandwich-type panels. J. Aeronaut. Sci., 1945, 12(3),
285 – 297.
JAERO76 # IMechE 2006
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
385
2 Hoff, N. J. and Mautner, S. E. Bending and buckling of
sandwich beams. J. Aeronaut. Sci., 1948, 15, 707 – 720.
3 Birman, V. Thermo mechanical wrinkling in composite
sandwich structures. AIAA J. Spacecraft Rockets, 2004,
42(7), 1474 –1479.
4 Baker, W. E., Togami, T. C. and Weydert, J. C. Static
and dynamic properties of high density honeycomb.
Int. J. Impact, 1998, 21(3), 149 –163.
5 Zhao, H. and Gerard, G. Crushing behavior of
aluminum honeycombs under impact loading. Int.
J. Impact Eng., 1998, 2(10), 827 – 836.
6 Goldsmith, W. and Louie, D. L. Axial perforation of
aluminum honeycombs by projectiles. Int. J. Solids
Struct., 1995, 32(8/9), 1017 – 1046.
7 Zhang, J. and Ashby, M. F. The out of plane
properties of honeycombs. Int. J. Mech. Sci., 1992,
34(6), 475 –489.
8 Goldsmith, W. and Sackman, L. J. An experimental
study of energy absorption in impact of sandwich
plates. Int. J. Impact Eng., 1992, 12(2), 241 –262.
9 Wierzbicki, T. Crushing analysis of metal honeycombs.
Int. J. Impact Eng., 1983, 1(2), 157– 174.
10 Enboa, W. and Jiang, W. Axial crush of metallic
honeycombs. Int. J. Impact Eng., 1997, 19(5–6), 439–456.
11 Hong, S. T., Pan, J., Tyan, T., and Prasad, P. Effects
of impact velocity on crush behavior of honeycomb
specimens. SAE technical paper series, 2004-01-0245,
2004 SAE World Congress, Michigan, 2004.
12 Rouse, M., Ambur, D. R., Dopker, B., and Shah, B.
Response of composite fuselage sandwich side panels
subjected pressure and axial tension. AIAA/ASME/
ASCE/AHS/ASC, 35th Structures, Structural Dynamics
and Materials Conference, California, AIAA paper
no. 98-1708, 1998.
13 Mouring, S. E., Barton, O., and Joyce, P. J.
Mechanical behavior of composite sandwich structures
subjected to impact damage (US Naval Academy, Depart-
ment of Mechanical Engineering, Annapolis, MD).
14 Christian, H. L. Flatwise compression L-shear flatwise
tensile characteristics of lightweight carbon honeycomb
core, 2001 (Ultracor Incorporated, California).
15 Ley, R. P., Lin, W., and Mbanefo, U. Facesheet wrink-
ling in sandwich structures. NASA/CR-1999-208994,
Northrop Grumman Corporation, El Segundo,
California, 1999.
16 Walker, S. Evaluation of composite honeycomb
sandwich panels under compressive load at elevated
temperatures. NASA/TP-1998-207645, NASA Langley
Research Center, Virginia, 1998.
17 Ani, U., Zehnder, A. T., and Ingraffea, A. R. Fracture
mechanics approach to facesheet delamination in
honeycomb: measurement of energy release rate of
the adhesive bond. Cornell Fracture Group, Cornell
University, available from www.elsevier.com/locate/
engfracmech, New York 14583, 2002.
18 ASTM C-365-94. Standard test method for flatwise
compressive properties of sandwich cores, 1994 (American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia).
19 ASTM C-364-94. Standard test method for edgewise
compressive strength of sandwich constructions, 1994
(American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia).
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering
386 M K Khan

20 ASTM C-393-94. Standard test method for flexural I moment of inertia

properties of sandwich constructions, 1994 (American kb bending coefficient
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia). ks shear coefficient
21 ASTM C-297-94. Standard test method for flatwise ten- L length of sandwich panel
sile strength of sandwich constructions, 1994 (American
M moment
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia).
P failure load
22 Bitzer, T. Honeycomb technology, 1997, chapters 2, 3, 7
(Chapman and Hall, California). Qij reduced stiffness
s cell size
S shear stiffness
BIBLIOGRAPHY t thickness of facing
tc thickness of core
Timoshenko, S. P. and Woinowsky-Krieger, S. Theory of tf facing thickness
plates and shells, 2nd edition, 1981, chapters 2, 5, 6 u displacement in x-direction
(McGraw Hill, Japan). U1 normal strain energy in core
Accessed from www.hexcel.com. Ug shear strain energy in core
Uf bending strain energy in facing
W depth
APPENDIX
y centroidal distance
Notation
a wrinkling depth
A area of specimen g shear strain
b sandwich panel width d deflection
COV coefficient of variance 1 axial strain
d sandwich panel thickness m mean
D bending stiffness s stress
Ec core bending modulus sb bending stress
Ef bending modulus of facing si stress on i-axis
E1 bending modulus of facing 1 sbuck buckling
E2 bending modulus of facing 2 scrimp shear crimping
Gl shear modulus in l-direction sintra intracell buckling
Gw shear modulus in w-direction swrink skin wrinkling
Gc shear modulus of core tij shear stress
h distance from centre top facing to centre v displacement in z-direction
bottom facing vW displacement in z-direction at z ¼ W

Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering JAERO76 # IMechE 2006
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014