INVESTIGATION OF IMPACT PERFORMANCE OF CYLINDER CORRUGATED SANDWICH STRUCTURES WITH DIFFERENT GEOMETRIC CONFIGURATIONS

Abstract

The aim of this study is to numerically investigate and compare the impact performance of CFRP composite cylinder sandwich structures with five different geometric configurations. The impact performances and damage types of composite cylinder structures for different core configurations were determined. The impact analyses were performed in LS DYNA finite element program using MAT-54 material model with Progressive damage analysis based on the combination of Hashin damage criterion, Cohesive zone model and Bilinear traction-separation law. Among the five different specimens in the study, the highest peak force (PF) value of 1.88 kN was obtained at impact point P2 of the Trapeozidal sandwich structure. The lowest value was obtained at P1 impact point in Triangular sandwich structure with 0.62 kN. The highest and lowest energy absorption efficiency occurred in the Triangular structure, 78% and 38% respectively. The PF value at P2 point is higher than P1. The effect of core support on PF is very important. Since point P1 is not supported by the core, it is determined that the deformation is larger than P2.

Keywords

• Sandwich Cylinder Composite
• Impact Test
• Progressive Damage Analysis
• Finite Element Method
• Cohesive Zone Model (CZM)

References

1. Y. Rong, J. Liu, W. Luo, and W. He, “Effects of geometric configurations of corrugated cores on the local impact and planar compression of sandwich panels,” Compos B Eng, vol. 152, no. August, pp. 324–335, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.08.130.
2. W. He, J. Liu, B. Tao, D. Xie, J. Liu, and M. Zhang, “Experimental and numerical research on the low velocity impact behavior of hybrid corrugated core sandwich structures,” Compos Struct, vol. 158, pp. 30–43, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.09.009.
3. X. Xue, C. Zhang, W. Chen, M. Wu, and J. Zhao, “Study on the impact resistance of honeycomb sandwich structures under low-velocity/heavy mass,” Compos Struct, vol. 226, no. May, p. 111223, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111223.
4. A. Tarafdar et al., “Quasi-static and low-velocity impact behavior of the bio-inspired hybrid Al/GFRP sandwich tube with hierarchical core: Experimental and numerical investigation,” Compos Struct, vol. 276, p. 114567, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1016/J.COMPSTRUCT.2021.114567.
5. W. Chen, F. Wan, F. Guan, X. Liu, Y. Yang, and C. Zhou, “The effect of seabed flexibility on the impact damage behavior of submarine sandwich pipes,” Applied Ocean Research, vol. 142, p. 103838, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1016/J.APOR.2023.103838.
6. D. K. Korupolu, P. R. Budarapu, V. R. Vusa, M. K. Pandit, and J. N. Reddy, “Impact analysis of hierarchical honeycomb core sandwich structures,” Compos Struct, vol. 280, p. 114827, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.COMPSTRUCT.2021.114827.
7. J. S. Yang et al., “Low velocity impact behavior of carbon fibre composite curved corrugated sandwich shells,” Compos Struct, vol. 238, no. August 2019, pp. 1–16, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112027.
8. I. Bozkurt, “Effect of geometric configurations and curvature angle of corrugated sandwich structures on impact behavior,” Polym Compos, pp. 1–24, 2024.

9. A. İ. Ayten, “Investigation of mechanical properties and damage types of E-glass fiber reinforced epoxy matrix composites under various loadings,” International Advanced Researches and Engineering Journal, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 185–190, 2023, doi: 10.35860/iarej.1334883.
10. L. Gemi, M. Kara, and A. Avci, “Low velocity impact response of prestressed functionally graded hybrid pipes,” Compos B Eng, vol. 106, pp. 154–163, Dec. 2016, doi: 10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2016.09.025.
11. L. Zheng, F. Q. Li, W. Da Wang, and Y. L. Shi, “Bionic corrugated sandwich cylindrical tubes subjected to transverse impact,” Structures, vol. 64, p. 106599, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1016/J.ISTRUC.2024.106599.
12. W. He, J. Liu, S. Wang, and D. Xie, “Low-velocity impact response and post-impact flexural behaviour of composite sandwich structures with corrugated cores,” Compos Struct, vol. 189, no. January, pp. 37–53, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.01.024.
13. W. He, J. Liu, S. Wang, and D. Xie, “Low-velocity impact behavior of X-Frame core sandwich structures – Experimental and numerical investigation,” Thin-Walled Structures, vol. 131, no. July, pp. 718–735, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2018.07.042.
14. I. Bozkurt, M. O. Kaman, and M. Albayrak, “Low-velocity impact behaviours of sandwiches manufactured from fully carbon fiber composite for different cell types and compression behaviours for different core types,” Materialpruefung/Materials Testing, vol. 65, no. 9, pp. 1349–1372, 2023, doi: 10.1515/mt-2023-0024.
15. H. JO., LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual Volume II Material Models, Version 971. Livermore Software Technology Corporation; . [24]. 2017.
16. L. Gemi, M. Kayrıcı, M. Uludağ, D. S. Gemi, and Ö. S. Şahin, “Experimental and statistical analysis of low velocity impact response of filament wound composite pipes,” Compos B Eng, vol. 149, pp. 38–48, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2018.05.006.
17. F. Dogan, H. Hadavinia, T. Donchev, and P. S. Bhonge, “Delamination of impacted composite structures by cohesive zone interface elements and tiebreak contact,” Central European Journal of Engineering, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 612–626, 2012, doi: 10.2478/S13531-012-0018-0.
18. I. Bozkurt, M. O. Kaman, and M. Albayrak, “Experimental and numerical impact behavior of fully carbon fiber sandwiches for different core types,” Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, vol. 46, no. 5, p. 318, May 2024, doi: 10.1007/s40430-024-04865-3.
19. Z. Hashin, “Failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composites,” Journal of Applied Mechanics, Transactions ASME, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 329–334, 1980, doi: 10.1115/1.3153664.
20. M. Albayrak, M. O. Kaman, and I. Bozkurt, “Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the Geometrical Effect on Low Velocity Impact Behavior for Curved Composites with a Rubber Interlayer,” Applied Composite Materials, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 507–538, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10443-022-10094-5.
21. B. A. Gama, T. A. Bogetti, and J. W. Gillespie Jr, “Progressive Damage Modeling of Plain-Weave Composites using LS-Dyna Composite Damage Model MAT162,” 7th European LS-DYNA Conference, no. August 2014, 2009.
22. A. M. Bozkurt İ, Kaman MO, “LS-DYNA MAT162 Finding Material Inputs and Investigation of Impact Damage in Carbon Composite Plates. XVI. international research conference 2022.,” 2022.
23. J. Liu, W. He, D. Xie, and B. Tao, “The effect of impactor shape on the low-velocity impact behavior of hybrid corrugated core sandwich structures,” Compos B Eng, vol. 111, pp. 315–331, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.11.060.
24. T. Zhao et al., “An experimental investigation on low-velocity impact response of a novel corrugated sandwiched composite structure,” Compos Struct, vol. 252, no. June, p. 112676, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112676.
25. M. O. Kaman, M. Y. Solmaz, and K. Turan, “Experimental and numerical analysis of critical buckling load of honeycomb sandwich panels,” J Compos Mater, vol. 44, no. 24, pp. 2819–2831, 2010, doi: 10.1177/0021998310371541.