1.

Rough Outline of report

1. Introduction
1.1 Sandwich structures
1.2 Types of sandwich structures
1.3 Application and Advantages of Honeycomb structures
Brief description regarding sandwich materials and honeycomb structures application and impact
/ energy absorption of materials and uses

2. Literature review on previous work

3.1 Quasi static
3.2 low velocity Impact studies
3.3 few studies on high velocity impact
http://www.timelines.ws/subjects/Aircrashes.HTML
http://www.timelinesdb.com
Literature on low velocity impact due to bird strike , hails, maintenance tools impact

3. Hertzian contact law theory

Theory and its application in hc panels

4. Shock tube theory

5. Objectives along with problem statement

Justification stating why I have chosen low velocity impact ( since there is less studies on the low
velocity impact and mathematical modelling of hc panels.) Commented [AR1]: Includes both high and low velocity…

Work done to show

 Low velocity impact by drop weight (Exp. Vs simulation)-at least one
 High velocity impact by shock tube (Exp. Vs simulation)-at least one
 Experimental and numerical investigations of impact
analysis on sandwich structure

Chapter 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Research background

Sandwich panels were first used in second world war for the first major structure
“Mosquito “a renowned fighter aircraft. Sandwich constructions has been used in
many earlier but less spectacular circumstances. Fairbairn (1849)1 was the first person
to describe the principle of sandwich constructions which was recorded from the
reviewers of the history. It appears seemingly, however, that the thought of sandwich
construction has occurred severally to several engineers at completely different times;
probably a tenacious specialist will inevitably discover it underway of the pervasive
Leonardo da Vinci.
The simplest kind of sandwich consists of two thin, stiff, strong sheets of dense
material separated by a thick layer of low density material which may be much less
stiff and strong Figure. 1.1. As a rough aide of the proportions, an efficient sandwich
is obtained when the weight of the core is roughly equal to the combined weight of
the faces. Clearly the bending stiffness of this arrangement is very much greater than
that of a single solid plate of the same total weight made of the same material as the
faces.
 Figure 1.1.1 Exploded view of Honey comb structure

The core has many important functions. It should be stiff enough within the
direction perpendicular to the faces to confirm that they remain the proper distance
apart. It should be stiff enough in shear to confirm that once the panel is bent the faces
do not slide over one another If this last condition is not fulfilled the faces merely
behave as two independent beams or panels and the sandwich effect is lost. The core
must also be stiff enough to keep the faces nearly flat; else it is feasible for a face to
buckle locally (wrinkle) underneath the influence of compressive stress in its own
plane. The core should satisfy of these needs and it's additionally important that the
adhesive shouldn't be sufficiently versatile to allow substantial relative movements of
the faces and also the core.

1.2 Sandwich composite Structures

Sandwich structures involve two or more layers of the same or different materials.
Fibrous form results mainly in fiber reinforcement direction. Of course one can
arrange fibers in two dimensional or even three dimensional arrays, but this still does
not gainsay the fact that one is not getting the full reinforcement effect in directions
other than the fiber axis. If a less anisotropic behavior is the objective, then perhaps
sandwich composites made of, say two different materials would be more effective. It
consists of high strength facings or skins, being adhesively bonded to the low density
core.
Core: A centrally located layer of a sandwich construction, usually low density, which
separates and stabilizes the facings and transmits shear between the facings and
provides most of the shear rigidity of the construction.
Facing (skin/face/face sheet): The outermost layer, generally thin and of high density,
which resists of most of the edgewise loads and flatwise bending moments.
Adhesives: The adhesives are used to bind the Core and Facing.
Sandwich panels are used in bending and compression dominated components.
The face sheets carry the applied in-plane and bending loads. The core resists the
transverse shear and transverse normal loads, as well as keep the facings supported
and working as a single unit.
Sandwich panels for aircraft structures nearly invariably use metal faces with
metal honeycomb or corrugated shaped cores. The honeycomb is made from strips of
skinny aluminum alloy or steel foil deformed and joined together as shown in the
Figure 1.2 The corrugated core could be a fluted metal sheet connected alternately to
the higher and lower faces Figure 1.2. Sandwich construction is favored for just about
the heaviest load intensities as a result of, not like skin- stringer construction, it's
comparatively free from buckling deformations at working loads.

Figure 1.2 Manufacturing process of Honeycomb structure (Stress Book LLC)

1.3 Types of Sandwich Structures

Application of Honeycomb structures

Honeycomb structures nearly takes after the honey bee's honeycomb found in
nature, from which it gets its name. The basic reason to use this type of sandwich
structure is to save weight, smooth skins, excellent fatigue resistance. Its properties
are compressive and shear strengths and moduli. It can be produced using any thin
flat material, and in the past more than 500 various types of honeycomb have been
made. Paper honeycomb was first made around 2000 years’ prior by the Chinese, who
utilized it for decorations/cladding works and not structurally as it is today. The first
honeycomb core patent, covering a producing methodology for the assembly of Kraft
paper honeycomb, is most likely the Budwig Patent, issued in 1905 in Germany. One
of the earliest man-made sandwich structures of that we have a tendency to have a
record was a tubular railroad bridge in Wales, in-built 1845. It comprised of a giant
rectangular tube, the floor of that supported railroad tracks, and through that trains
ran.
The first aircraft sandwich panel was fabricated in the year 1919, as the primary
structure of the pontoons of a seaplane. Later, between World War I and World War
II, plywood skins glued to a balsa wood core were used as the primary structure in
Italian seaplanes. An entire squadron of these aircraft was flown to Brazil in the 1920s
and another squadron was flown to the Chicago World's Fair in the 1930s truly a
remarkable demonstration of flight time of that period.
At the outbreak of World War II paper honeycomb was used as structural
enclosures for radar antennas in radomes and was quite successful. By the end of
World War II, Martin had produced honeycomb cores made of cotton fabric, glass
fabric and aluminum foil. In 1945 the first all-aluminum sandwich panel was
produced and the real breakthrough came just before with the development of better
adhesives to attach the facesheet to the cores.

A Brief historical backdrop of honeycomb innovation is given below:

 1845 - First known man-made sandwich structure - wood egg-container core

utilized for top pressure board.
 1919 - First aircraft machine sandwich board - thin mahogany confronted balsa
wood core utilized on seaplane pontoons.
 1941 - Military aircraft machine utilized plywood facings on balsa wood core.
 1945 - First all-aluminum sandwich board made - aluminum facings clung to
aluminum honeycomb.

Advantages of Honeycomb structures

Honeycombs are not only just using for sandwich panels but also for many other
applications such as energy absorption, acoustic panels, thermal panels, radio
frequency shielding. Light diffusion, air directionalisation etc., Some of the
advantages of honeycomb structures were, they are light, shock and vibration
absorbers, accept significant distortions without breaking. They exhibit good
resistance against most acids, bases, water and corrosion.
 Chapter 2

2 Literature Review

2.1 Objective of Sandwich composite structures

The utilization of sandwich composite materials and their structural parts over
commercial transport aircraft is engaging since reduced airframe weight empowers
preferred fuel economy and therefore lowers the operating costs. Particularly the
provision for polymeric composite sandwich structures in aviation industry has been
perpetually escalating as new fibre types, resin systems, adhesives, new lightweight
core materials and propelled manufacturing strategies are being created and
introduced into the market. Composite sandwich development comprises of a
lightweight core material sandwiched between two stiff facings. As far as structural
efficiency, with a little extra weight in the core it is potential to produce an enhanced
shell structure compared with a solid composite laminate, especially under transverse
and bending loads.

Objectives of composite sandwich materials for aerospace application (Baker

(2004) [43])

Weight Reduction Improved Performance

 Increased flying range
 Fuel efficiency
 Higher pay load
 Increased maneuverability
Reduced Acquisition Cost
 Reduced fabrication cost
 Improved fly-to-buy ratio
 Smoother more aerodynamic form
 Special aero-elastic properties
 Increased temperature capability
 Improved damage tolerance
 Reduced detectability
Reduced Through Support Cost
 Resistance to fatigue and corrosion
  Reduced assembly cost  Resistance to mechanical damage

Early 1920s aircrafts were generally fabricated of metal particularly steel and
aluminium. Initially composites of boron in mid 1960s in F-14 and later in early 1970s
carbon fiber in F-15 were manufactured for military aircrafts, resulted in substantial
weight savings. However, the utilization of sandwich composite materials increased
from 2% on F-15 to 27% ahead AV-8B Harrier by 1980s. The historical development
of using sandwich composites from the centuries were been shown in the (Figure 3.1).
Most advancing aircrafts use more than 20% sandwich composites. (Campbell Jr and
F. C. (2011) [45]).

Figure 2.1 Historical development of using sandwich composites

Identical trend has been followed for commercial aircrafts. Airbus were a greater
amount hostility than The Boeing in utilizing composite materials for different
components of on A3XX aircrafts models, yet all the as of late Boeing may be conferred
to utilize up to 50% composite materials ahead its approaching 787, including
composite wing and fuselage. (FAA (2016) [46]). In aircraft structures, sandwich
materials may be acclimated in ailerons, spoilers, passenger floors, abundant nacelles
and fairings. The most recent business aeroplane projects of The Boeing and Airbus,
the B787 Dreamliner and A350 (Figure 3.2) hint at that evolutionary development
from the past decades in the utilization of sandwich composites materials. The
principle structure from claiming The Boeing B787 and Airbus A350 (Figure 3.3)
incorporates 50% and 53% respectively.

Figure 2.2 Composite materials evolution in The Boeing B787 and Airbus A350 airlines [44]

An incredulous and critical loading case in aircraft structures is impact from birds,
hailstones and foreign objects such as tyre burst, runway debris and tool or
component drops. Aircraft designers has the necessity of reliable methods for
predicting the impact damage in aircraft components. Crashworthiness and impact
resistance are demanding issues specifically identified with structural integrity and
passenger wellbeing. The key fact of these themes roused researchers with focus on
efficiently designed structures or structural components to serve the optimal
performance during an operation.
 Figure 2.3 Sandwich Composites content in The Boeing B787 and Airbus A350 airlines [44]

Sandwich structures acclimated within aerospace, automotive and more marine

provisions are frequently exposed to low-velocity impacts (below 10 m/s). In
aerospace structures, the low velocity impact causing sources were bird impact, hails
and space debris etc., These can be replicated in laboratory using a drop weight
mechanical assembly. To the best of authors knowledge, abstract on the low-velocity
impact response of sandwich structures is all-inclusive and can be disconnected in
three categories aiming at:

1. Quantifying the damage initiated by a localized impact on a sandwich panel or

2. Contrasting the quasi-static and low-velocity responses of a sandwich
structure.

3. Analytical model to estimate the peak dynamic contact force induced in the
honeycomb structure subjected to low velocity impact.

The first classification regroups a lot of abstract on low-velocity impacts and will
be essential intrigued by composite sandwich panels utilized within those aviation
industries. These structures generally accept a Nomex or aluminum honeycomb core,
which is glued to the face-sheets that can be fabricated from graphite, glass or carbon
fibre fortified polymers. When these panels are subjected to a localized impact,
delamination, core crushing and debonding of the core and faces can occur. Several
 studies have proposed methods to quantify and measure the damage inferred to the
sandwich panel (Hazizan and Cantwell (2003) [27]; Meo et al., (2005) [28]; Castanie et al.,
(2008) [29]; Park et al., (2008) [30]; Shin et al., (2008) [31]).

Even though, the second category includes a few papers there has been a good
research published by some authors. The quasi-static and low-velocity impact
responses of simply supported sandwich beams with a metal foam core were
investigated by Yu et al. (2008) [32]. The authors showed that the collapse mechanism
obtained during drop weight tests at 5 m/s is the same as the one observed quasi-
statically. This finding was corroborated by other experimental studies on sandwich
beams with a metal foam core (Yu et al., (2003)[33]; Crupi and Montanini, (2007) [34]) or
a honeycomb core (Crupi et al., (2012) [35]). The first two studies are not of primary
interest in this thesis; the third category is more relevant.

The third category is regarding the estimation of peak dynamic force induced due
to low velocity impact. In specific an analytical model to predict the dynamic force
caused due to low velocity impact which can also incorporates with the uncertainties
involved in material, geometrical, and initial conditions. Writing on this specific
research was very less. So, taking this topic as a major part of the thesis our work was
carried out.

2.2 Contact Mechanics of Sandwich Structures

Hertz published his research about indentation of two elastic balls in 1829.
Classically, indentation has been acclimated fundamentally for the analysis of
hardness and quality examination of metal materials. Nowadays, nano indentation
tests have been broadly utilized for defining the properties of tested specimens,
particularly for micro structural material, thin film, and so forth throughout this way.
Theoretically, elastic indentation of spherical objects has been extended to elastic-
plastic indentation of assorted appearance of objects, layered structures. Shuaeib and
Soden (1997) [53] performed experimental and numerical studies on sandwich beams
 with glass composite facesheets. Thomsen (1995) [54] exhibited those outcomes from
a accumulated experimental investigation and theoretical of local bending effects in a
clamped circular foam core sandwich plate subjected to an axial point load, and a
simple two-parameter elastic framework model was utilized within request on
incorporate the shear interaction between the skin and core. Olsson and McMamus
(1996) [55] produced a simplified approach describing the contact indentation of
sandwich plates based on a single-parameter frame model for the core. Anderson
(2000) [56] likewise conducted investigations around indentation over sandwich
structures in which the deflection of the sandwich panel was numerically computed
to match the rigid indenter surface. Swanson (2004) [57] led research on indentation
over sandwich structures, in which the core was analysed.

2.3 Low velocity impact studies

Honeycomb structures are broadly acclimated as shock absorbers in air- planes

and top acceleration trains due to their lightweight, high strength to mass ratio and
favorable cushioning properties Wang, D (2009)5. Impact energy is captivated through
large compressive deformation of honeycomb materials and adapted into plastic
strain energy. Crashworthiness is forcefully influenced toward the mechanical
properties of the material, thickness of each cell wall and the geometric parameters
from claiming honeycomb cell Meran, A.P (2014)6.

Honeycomb structures are abnormally affected and accessible to low-velocity

impact loadings Crupi, V et al., (2014)7, which may be caused by tools falling down
during maintenance, hail striking in service, unidentified objects impact when the
plane is landing or taking off. The low-velocity impact damage is generally
centralized and invisible, but can significantly abate the stiffness, strength and fatigue
life of the structures. For this reason, low-velocity impact was abundantly advised in
literatures [7–11].
 Generally, for the analysis and investigation of low-velocity impact on honeycomb
sandwich panels are conducted by employing experimental, numerical and analytical
methods. Impact responses such as impact history, peak load and deformation at peak
load are analyzed in many experimental and numerical studies. Foo et al., [9,12]

acquainted those spring-mass models and energy-balance model to predict the impact
response, those impact load–time history is embraced to confirm the accurateness of
the finite element model. Wang et al.,(2013) [13] described the contact force-history and
also absorbed energy, numerous impact responses such as impactor diameter, impact
energy as well as sandwich panel parameters were contemplated. Impact tests about
uncovered specimens were performed by Liu et al.,(2014) [14], those impacts about the
exposure temperature, impact energy on the damage mechanism, absorbed energy
and maximum impact force were analyzed. Limited component demonstrating is All
the more advantageous What's more efficient should acquire those honeycomb
sandwich conduct contrasted with trials. Finite element modeling is more acceptable
and efficient to access the honeycomb sandwich behavior compared to experiments.

An incredible number for impact issues were investigated to understand the

energy dispersal patterns Furthermore energy absorption properties Jing (2013) and
Reddy (2014) [16,17]. These investigations need aid extremely critical in order to raise
safer sandwich structures and assessing existing ones for specific utilization. It is
found that during the low-velocity impact events, honeycomb sandwich structures
might convert, absolutely or partially, dynamic vitality under different types about
energy, such as plastic deformation energy and elastic strain energy. Several energy
absorption capability factors such as core thickness, facing thickness and laminate
thickness were investigated by Gilkie (1971) [18], and shown that sandwich plates were
considerably more safe to impact failure than simple laminates. Goldsmith (1992) [19]
tentatively concentrated on the energy absorption in impact on sandwich plates and
furthermore accounted that the best correlation from claiming energy absorption
ability without acknowledging areal thickness might have been the energy absorbed
per unit of crush.

Cellular materials are as well acclimated to absorb energy in adventitious impacts,

for example, in the un expectable crash of top acceleration vehicles, in the bird impact
design of aircrafts as able-bodied as the crashworthiness architecture of airframes etc.
In such uses, the behavior of vast deformity (up on 80%) is desired. Under quasi-static
assumptions, abounding analysis works are performed in the accomplished decades.
While under dynamic loading, which is the absolute working condition for energy
absorbing systems fabricated of cellular materials, some investigations bound to
uniaxial compression are appear in the accessible literatures [19-21].

An investigation for energy absorbed and depth of ultimate indentation achieved

by experimental tests furthermore numerical techniques might have been led to admit
the finite element model along with the initiation and also propagation of indentation
was simulated and mechanism of the formation of indentation. Over which the
greater part of the energy absorbed by sandwich panels is exhausted as plastic
dispersal and rest will be converted under strain energy Zhang, D (2016) [22].

For energy absorption, the behavior of large deformations is desired. Under quasi-
static assumptions, Wierzbicki (1983) [23] has produced an out-of-plane large
deformation crushing model that provides an analytic anticipation of the crush
pressure. Klintworth and Stronge (1988,1989) [24, 25] have formulated a large-
deformation self-destructive considerations and conduct of the in-plane crushing that
takes account for localized deformation band effects. However, because the activity
adsorber works under dynamic loading, it is advantageous to abstraction the crushing
behavior under high loading rates. Few hypothetical investigations have been
performed in this zone due to analytical challenges. Goldsmith and co-workers have
reported some experimental work on out-of-plane crushing Goldsmith (1997) [19] and
on the ballistic perforation Goldsmith (1995) [26] of honeycombs. They have fired a
rigid projectile to a target made of honeycombs and have shown that mean crushing
pressures sometimes increase up to 50% with respect to the static results, but they
have warned that the accurateness of the technique is not always good. Wu, E (1997)
[20] have likewise examined out-of-plane crushing with a comparable experimental
technique. Their effects affirm significant upgrade of the out of plane crushing
strength. Such substantial contrasts call for more investigations in this Web-domain.

Honeycombs are then tested at impacting velocities from 2 with 28 m/s, and
original results are acquired not just in the out of plane as well as in the in-plane
directions. Contrasts for the quasi-static effects would watched and examined.
Honeycombs are then tested at impacting velocities from 2 to 28 m/s, and original
results are obtained not only in the out of plane but also in the in-plane directions.
Differences with the quasi-static results are observed and discussed Zhao (1998) [21].

Amir et al., (2013) [36] led low velocity drop weight effect testing ahead glass
fiber/epoxy polypropylene honeycomb sandwich panels with varying core
thicknesses and found that real failures had a tendency to occur in the upper region
(towards those impact side) of the sandwich structures, and the thicker core structures
exhibited higher resistance to out-of- plane deformity for low velocity impact. On the
other hand, Othman and Barton (2008) [37] led quasi-static and low-velocity drop
weight impact tests on carbon/epoxy Nomex honeycomb sandwich panels for
varying thicknesses and found that the impact tests processed exceedingly restricted
localized damage, and accordingly the varying thicknesses were discovered should
help a very little to the overall energy absorbing abilities of the sandwich structure.
The distinction on conclusions may be inclined because of those facts that Othman
and Barton (2008) [37] impact tests included an impact energy about 1800 J while the
tests conducted by Amir et al., (2013) [36] involved impact energies two orders of
magnitude smaller, ranging from 15-45 J.

Anderson and Madenci (2000) [38] also used drop weight low velocity impact tests
looking into an assortment about separate composite sandwich panels. Their impact
tests had energy levels extending from 8 will 26 J and brought about specimens that
didn't outwardly show a great deal surface damage but after sectioning, uncovered
noteworthy core damage such as cell wall buckling and core crushing adjacent to the
impact site. This recommends that visual inspections could be misdirecting since
significant inner damage might be concealed. They additionally investigated a
number of panel configurations: 3-ply and more 6-ply face sheets, foam and
honeycomb cores, as well as high density and low forms of every of the core types,
and discovered that notwithstanding thicker and denser specimens requiring higher
energy levels to produce damage, similar sorts of damage modes were available on
the whole configurations because of those small size for their specimens (76. 2 mm x
76. 2 mm), an extra kind of damage struck them the place the core specimens exhibited
splitting or tearing down starting with the focal point of the overlay of the edges.
Therefore, it is paramount to explore those impacts for effect ahead larger specimens
in place should observe nearby impacts that are not clouded by different undesirable
defects.

McQuigg et al.,(2013) [39] led drop weight low velocity impact tests with respect to
carbon/epoxy Nomex honeycomb sandwich panels with increasing levels of energy
and also two distinctive core densities about 3 pounds per every cubic foot (lbs/cu.m)
and 6 lbs/cu.m. These tests brought about standard damage modes from claiming
skin penetration and core crushing, anyhow interestingly those profundity of core
crushing might have been more or less those same level whatsoever the distinctive
effect energies. Likewise expected, those higher density core resulted in a higher
impact resistance. They also went compression after impact (CAI) tests to determine
remaining strength and found that compared for the compressive strength of
undamaged specimens, significantly small amounts of damage resulted an observable
decline in panel strength. However, increasing levels for damage resulted in smaller
decreases in residual strength.

Raju et al., (2008) [40] similarly used drop weight tests and CAI testing to study
carbon/epoxy Nomex honeycomb core sandwich panels at escalating levels of impact
 energy. Through non-destructive C-scans and destructive sectioning, they discovered
those measure of the residual dent region on the surface might have been constantly
under or equivalent to the damage region uncovered through C-scans, and this
damage region might have been consistently more diminutive over those core
damage regions when facesheet fracture occurred. Five damage states were
recognized from escalating levels about impact energy: start about damage
(delamination) Previously, facesheet and start of core crushing, damage progression
through the facesheet and actual core crushing, facesheet fracture, penetration about
facesheet and core crushing/consolidation, and at long last damage start in the
bottom facesheet. However, the facesheet to core bond stayed soundness altogether
of these situations.

2.4 High velocity impact studies

Kim et al., (2003) [41] conducted high velocity hail impact tests (from 30-200 m/s)
on carbon/epoxy panels Furthermore discovered that the failure threshold energy of
the panels scaled linearly with panel thickness, the failure threshold energy of
glancing impacts was scalable from ordinary impacts with a trigonometric
relationship, and the limit states of the panel don't bring an extensive impact on the
experimental results because of those localized effect of the dynamic impact.

Rhymer et al., (2012) [42] likewise led high velocity hail ice impact tests for
carbon/epoxy panels about diverse thicknesses and material building design utilizing
projectiles with different diameters. There were instances to which comparative
impact energy levels produced results with damage and results without damage, and
moreover this might have been liable because of variations in the panels as well as ice
projectiles. The failure threshold energy might have been specifically identified with
projectile diameter and the panel thickness, and the development of delamination is
mostly directed by matrix materials properties rather than the fiber
architecture/properties. Even though their studies are more aligned with the
experimental research conducted in the hail ice impact, they have focused on the
energy levels required for initiation of delamination damage, which provide an
acceptable and a great beginning stage for those exploration depicted herein focused
on characterizing the damage developed in the composite sandwich structures
because of hail ice effect.

Figure 2.4 Probable Impact loading cases on aircraft

Johnson, A.F & Holzapfel, M (2003) [47] The possible impact scenarios for an aircraft
structure are hard projectiles like representative of runway, engine debris impactors,
soft projectiles like bird strike or burst tyre rubber fragments, machine tools dropped
during maintenance works. Several tests were conducted at German Aerospace center
i.e., Das Deutsche Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) that carries out high
velocity (HV) gas gun impact tests, expecting to determine the failure modes, impact
resistance, contact force-time curves and total energy dispersal claiming from impact
events. In these tests different projectiles, to be specific hard and soft, would fired
against a test structure or against a plate specimen mounted on a load cell.

Bull & Hallstrom (2004) [48] performed a high-velocity and quasi-static impact of
ample sandwich panels. The acknowledgment of sandwich structures subjected to
impact velocities of about 1000 m/s was conducted. After impact, those panels were
tested in in-plane compression together with particular case undamaged panel for
reference. Residual strength of affected panels was analyzed by finite element analysis
using simulation software. It was observed that the damage from high-velocity
impact was limited, and it was accessible to achieve most of the undamaged strength
by repair. The natural frequencies and corresponding vibration modes of a cantilever
sandwich beam with a soft polymer foam core were explored by Vladimir S et al.,
(2004) [49] using the higher-order theory for sandwich panels, a two-dimensional
finite element analysis, and classical sandwich theory. Concerning illustration an
extraordinary case, those vibration Investigation under attention about damping of
cylindrical, conical and spherical sandwich shells was performed by the authors.
Results for sandwich shells demonstrated a satisfactory consenting with various
reference results.

Several investigations were carried out on application of sandwich composite

panel specimens, comprising about both polyurethane foam core (PUF) and aramid
honeycomb core (Nomex) kind of constructions by Raju et al., (2006) [50]. Those
specimens were subjected to impact damage at energy levels ranging between 7.56
and 15.6 J. It was affirmed that in flexure, strength recoveries up to 97% to PUF core
and 90% in honeycomb core sandwich specimens were acknowledged then after
repair, whereas in compression, those comparing values were up to 90% to PUF core
and 88% to honeycomb core sandwich specimens. A repair effectiveness variable was
considered and presented to quantify the effectiveness of the repair technique.
Closed-form formulations for 2-D higher-order shear deformity hypotheses for the
free vibration analysis of simply supported cross ply laminated composite and
sandwich doubly curved shells were introduced by Garg et al (2006) [51].

Sung-Tae Hong et al (2008) investigated the quasi-static and changing squash

qualities from claiming al 5052-H38 HCS board under out-of-plane slanted loads.
Those element squash tests outcomes were shown that Similarly as the effect velocity,
those squash quality expands and the shear quality stays the same. The pattern of the
normalized squash quality conduct technique under the provided for slanted loads to
board for distinctive in-plane course angles as capacities of the sway speed are
fundamentally the same on one another. In view of those investigation, An perceptible
yield paradigm Similarly as An work of the sway. Speed may be likewise suggested.
However, honeycomb sandwich board under slanted loads hint at slanted stacking
designs from claiming folds because of those deviated areas of level plastic pivot lines.
These test investigations. Give a exceptional Comprehension of the squash qualities
of AHCS board under multi pivotal loads.

Sung-Tae Hong et al (2008) [52] investigated the quasi-static and dynamic crush
characteristics of Al 5052-H38 HCS panel under out-of-plane inclined loads. The
dynamic crush tests results were indicated that as the impact velocity, the crush
strength increases and the shear strength remains the same. The trend of the
normalized crush strength behavior under the given inclined loads for panel with
different in-plane direction angles as functions of the impact velocity are very similar
to each other. Based on the investigation, a macroscopic yield criterion as a function
of the impact velocity is also proposed. However, honeycomb sandwich panel under
inclined loads show inclined stacking patterns of folds due to the asymmetric
locations of horizontal plastic hinge lines. These experimental investigations provide
a better understanding of the crush characteristics of AHCS panel under multi axial
loads.

Buitrago et al (2010) [58] accentuated that in the composite sandwich panels

subjected to high-velocity impact was investigated utilizing a three-dimensional FE
modelling approved in ABAQUS/Explicit. The experimental impact test effects were
accepting the numerical demonstrating. The numerical simulation prediction was
able to predict the limit of the sandwich. panel with a variation of 2%. They
concentrated on those energy-absorption done in both skins and the core.
 Harrigan et al (1999) [59] and Reid and peng (1997) [60] Under relative high impact
velocity (>50m/s), observed in wood the substantial dynamic enhancement induced
by shock wave effect. In their experiments, the wood projectile was launched at a
speed of 250m/s to impact the target, and a Hopkinson bar was anchored behind the
target for data quantification. A simple RPPL has been suggested by them to analyze
the propagation process of shock wave. Tan and Harrigan (2002) [61] affirmed this
shock wave hypothesis in their investigations on Cymat and resolute the critical
impact velocity for the manifestation of shock wave, which was between 44m/s and
108m/s. Lopatnikov and Gama (2003) [62] employed the so called Taloy-Hopkinson
mechanical assembly to perform the shock wave research on a closed-cell aluminum
foam under impact velocities from 26m/s to 200m/s. Further investigations by
Lopatnikov and Gama (2004) [63] distributed the impact velocity into four ranges to
explain the states for generating shockwave, and the deformation and energy
absorbing properties of cellular materials in range 2 and range 3 were introduced.
Radford and Fleck (2005) [64] concentrated on the initiation and propagation of shock
wave in aluminum foam by introducing a foam projectile to propel the Hopkinson
bar as well as a free mass. The effect of impact velocity, projectile length and the
density of foams on shock wave were also incorporated. Basing on the direct impact
Hopkinson bars, Elnasri et al (2007) [65] and Pattofatto et al (2007) [66] intended new
experiments with two different configurations which can be used to measure
respectively the information before and behind the shock wave front generated. Their
test outcomes affirmed the presence of shock wave in aluminum foams and the shock
wave speed was also evaluated. Zou et al (2009) [67] conducted the in-plane behavior
of honeycombs under high impact velocity (about 100m/s) by FEM and the shock
wave effect was well contemplated. Liu et al (2009) [68] performed similar works by
FEM to explore the shock wave impact in cellular materials.
 Chapter 3

3 Impact mechanics

3.1 Hertzian contact law

When two granular particles approach one another under no external loading, the
initial contact made between their surfaces is that the purpose of contact (or probably
a line contact). The first paper on “Contact between solid elastic bodies," was
published by Hertz in 1882 which describes the local elastic deformation relation
between two spherical particles. Since then, Hertz's law has been used extensively in
various fields of contact mechanics, such as for wheel-rail contact, metal forming,
gasket seals.

Contact of two curved surfaces

Figure 3.1Contact between two curved surfaces

From Szuladzinski (2009)[15], He considered two bodies with spherical surfaces of

radius r1 and r2 as shown in fig that are in contact. The contact force 𝑊𝑚 can be given
as

Wm  k0 3/ 2

Where, 𝑊𝑚 is in N.
 The  is the relative displacement between two spherical bodies and k0 represents

the stiffness.

Expressions for  and k0 are given by following equations

2/3
w
  
 ko 

Here  is in mm.

1/3
 3  1  12 1  2 2  * 
a   Wr 
 4  E1 E2  

Where,

1 , 2 are the poisons ration of 1st and 2nd spherical bodies.

E1 , E2 are the modulus of elasticity in MPa.

r1 , r2 are radius of bodies in mm.

The increase in contact area during interaction process is responsible for geometric
nonlinearity. The maximum contact radius is given by

1/3
 3  1  12 1  2 2  * 
a   Wr 
 4  E1 E2  

Where,

1 1 1
 
r * r1 r2
 Contact between curved surface and plane surface

The interaction between spherical impactor on plate is a contact between curved

surface and plate. Depending on plate material conditions two cases are considered.
One case with plate as a rigid surface and other as elastic surface.

a) Spherical striker impacting rigid surface

b) Spherical striker impacting an elastic surface

a) Spherical striker impacting rigid surface

Figure 3.2 Spherical ball impacting on rigid surface

The interaction behavior of spherical impactor on rigid plate is same as the

interaction of two spherical impactors i.e. spheres moving at same velocity towards
each other as shown in Figure 2.2

1 3  1 2  2
  
ko 2  E  r2

0.4
 5Mvo 2 
m   
 2k0 
 5Mv 2 0
Wm  ( )0.6 k 0.4 o
2

3.214 M
to   
0.4

(2vo )0.2 2ko

5Mvo 2
a 
0.2
r2
2ko

a = contact radius in mm.

M =mass of Spherical Striker in gm

E =modulus of elasticity in MPa of Spherical Striker.

 = poisons ration of Spherical Striker.

v0 =velocity of Spherical Striker.

r2 = radius of Spherical Striker.

b) Spherical striker impacting an elastic surface

Figure 3.3 Spherical ball impacting elastic surface

 When the surface on which spherical striker is impacting is elastic then this
condition is considered. The plane surface can be of plate or semi-infinite mass. The
thickness of formula is not given in the formula. As thickness of plate doesn’t affect
the interaction of spherical impactor and plate if thick plate is used but when thickness
reduces below certain range it significantly affects the interaction of impactor and
plate. So we have studied validity of this formula ahead.

1 3  1  2 1  2  1
   
ko 4  E1 E2  r2

0.6
5 
Wm   Mvo 2  k0 0.4
4 

0.4
3.214  M 
t0   
vo0.2  ko 

Peak surface contact stress  cm

M 0.2 0.8 0.4

 cm  0.499 ko vo
r2

Peak surface tension  tm

1  2v
 tm   cm
3

1 , 2 are the poisons ratio of spherical bodies and Elastic Surface.

E1 , E2 are the modulus of elasticity in MPa.

 Chapter 4

4 Shock tube
References

1. Fairbairn, W. (1849). An account of the construction of the Britannia and Conway

tubular bridges.
2. Allen, H. G. (2013). Analysis and Design of Structural Sandwich Panels: The
Commonwealth and International Library: Structures and Solid Body Mechanics
Division.
3. Gibson, L. J., & Ashby, M. F. (1999). Cellular solids: structure and properties.
Cambridge university press.
4. Bitzer, T. N. (2012). Honeycomb technology: materials, design, manufacturing,
applications and testing. Springer Science & Business Media.
5. Wang, D. (2009). Impact behavior and energy absorption of paper honeycomb
sandwich panels. International Journal of Impact Engineering,36(1), 110-114.
6. Meran, A. P., Toprak, T., & Muğan, A. (2014). Numerical and experimental study
of crashworthiness parameters of honeycomb structures. Thin-Walled
Structures, 78, 87-94.
7. Crupi, V., Epasto, G., Guglielmino, E., Mozafari, H., & Najafian, S. (2014).
Computed tomography-based reconstruction and finite element modelling of
honeycomb sandwiches under low-velocity impacts. Journal of Sandwich Structures
and Materials, 1099636214531515.
8. Herup, E. J., & Palazotto, A. N. (1998). Low-velocity impact damage initiation in
graphite/epoxy/nomex honeycomb-sandwich plates. Composites Science and
Technology, 57(12), 1581-1598.
9. Foo, C. C., Chai, G. B., & Seah, L. K. (2006). Quasi-static and low-velocity impact
failure of aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials Design and Applications, 220(2), 53-
66.
10. Xu, A., Vodenitcharova, T., Kabir, K., Flores-Johnson, E. A., & Hoffman, M. (2014).
Finite element analysis of indentation of aluminium foam and sandwich panels
with aluminium foam core. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 599, 125-133.
11. Chai, G. B., & Zhu, S. (2011). A review of low-velocity impact on sandwich
structures. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of
Materials Design and Applications, 225(4), 207-230.
12. Foo, C. C., Seah, L. K., & Chai, G. B. (2011). A modified energy-balance model to
predict low-velocity impact response for sandwich composites.Composite
Structures, 93(5), 1385-1393.
13. Wang, J., Waas, A. M., & Wang, H. (2013). Experimental and numerical study on
the low-velocity impact behavior of foam-core sandwich panels.Composite
Structures, 96, 298-311.
14. Liu, J., Zhu, X., Li, T., Zhou, Z., Wu, L., & Ma, L. (2014). Experimental study on the
low velocity impact responses of all-composite pyramidal truss core sandwich
panel after high temperature exposure. Composite Structures, 116, 670-681.
15. Szuladzinski, G. (2009). Formulas for mechanical and structural shock and impact. CRC
Press.
16. Jing, L., Xi, C., Wang, Z., & Zhao, L. (2013). Energy absorption and failure
mechanism of metallic cylindrical sandwich shells under impact loading.Materials
& Design, 52, 470-480.
17. Reddy, B. V., Sharma, K. V., & Reddy, T. Y. (2014). Deformation and impact energy
absorption of cellular sandwich panels. Materials & Design, 61, 217-227.
18. Gilkie, R. C., & Sundararaj, P. (1971). The impact resistance of plastics sandwich
constructions using low density urethane foam cores. Journal of Cellular
Plastics, 7(6), 313-318.
19. Goldsmith, W., & Sackman, J. L. (1992). An experimental study of energy
absorption in impact on sandwich plates. International Journal of Impact
Engineering, 12(2), 241-262.
20. Wu, E., & Jiang, W. S. (1997). Axial crush of metallic honeycombs.International
Journal of Impact Engineering, 19(5), 439-456.
21. Zhao, H., & Gary, G. (1998). Crushing behaviour of aluminium honeycombs under
impact loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 21(10), 827-836.
22. Zhang, D., Jiang, D., Fei, Q., & Wu, S. (2016). Experimental and numerical
investigation on indentation and energy absorption of a honeycomb sandwich
panel under low-velocity impact. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design,117, 21-30.
23. Wierzbicki, T. (1983). Crushing analysis of metal honeycombs. International Journal
of Impact Engineering, 1(2), 157-174.
24. Klintworth, J. W., & Stronge, W. J. (1988). Elasto-plastic yield limits and
deformation laws for transversely crushed honeycombs. International Journal of
Mechanical Sciences, 30(3), 273-292.
25. Klintworth, J. W., & Stronge, W. J. (1989). Plane punch indentation of a ductile
honeycomb. International journal of mechanical sciences, 31(5), 359-378.
26. Goldsmith, W., & Louie, D. L. (1995). Axial perforation of aluminum honeycombs
by projectiles. International Journal of Solids and Structures,32(8), 1017-1046.
27. Hazizan, M. A., & Cantwell, W. J. (2003). The low velocity impact response of an
aluminium honeycomb sandwich structure. Composites Part B: Engineering, 34(8),
679-687.
28. Meo, M., Vignjevic, R., & Marengo, G. (2005). The response of honeycomb
sandwich panels under low-velocity impact loading. International journal of
mechanical sciences, 47(9), 1301-1325.
29. Castanié, B., Bouvet, C., Aminanda, Y., Barrau, J. J., & Thévenet, P. (2008).
Modelling of low-energy/low-velocity impact on Nomex honeycomb sandwich
structures with metallic skins. International Journal of Impact Engineering,35(7), 620-
634.
30. Park, J. H., Ha, S. K., Kang, K. W., Kim, C. W., & Kim, H. S. (2008). Impact damage
resistance of sandwich structure subjected to low velocity impact.Journal of
materials processing technology, 201(1), 425-430.
31. Shin, K. B., Lee, J. Y., & Cho, S. H. (2008). An experimental study of low-velocity
impact responses of sandwich panels for Korean low floor bus.Composite
Structures, 84(3), 228-240.
32. Yu, J., Wang, E., Li, J., & Zheng, Z. (2008). Static and low-velocity impact behavior
of sandwich beams with closed-cell aluminum-foam core in three-point
bending. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 35(8), 885-894.
33. Yu, J. L., Wang, X., Wei, Z. G., & Wang, E. H. (2003). Deformation and failure
mechanism of dynamically loaded sandwich beams with aluminum-foam
core. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 28(3), 331-347.
34. Crupi, V., & Montanini, R. (2007). Aluminium foam sandwiches collapse modes
under static and dynamic three-point bending. International Journal of Impact
Engineering, 34(3), 509-521.
35. Crupi, V., Epasto, G., & Guglielmino, E. (2012). Collapse modes in aluminium
honeycomb sandwich panels under bending and impact loading.International
Journal of Impact Engineering, 43, 6-15.
36. Amir, F. A., Othman, A. R., & Akil, H. M. (2013). Damage Characterization of
Polypropylene Honeycomb Sandwich Panels Subjected to Low-Velocity
Impact. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2013.
37. Othman, A. R., & Barton, D. C. (2008). Failure initiation and propagation
characteristics of honeycomb sandwich composites. Composite Structures,85(2),
126-138.
38. Anderson, T., & Madenci, E. (2000). Experimental investigation of low-velocity
impact characteristics of sandwich composites. Composite Structures, 50(3), 239-
247.
39. McQuigg, T. D., Kapania, R. K., Scotti, S. J., & Walker, S. P. (2013). Compression
After Impact Experiments on Thin Face Sheet Honeycomb Core Sandwich
Panels. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 51(1), 253-266.
40. Raju, K. S., Smith, B. L., Tomblin, J. S., Liew, K. H., & Guarddon, J. C. (2008). Impact
damage resistance and tolerance of honeycomb core sandwich panels. Journal of
composite materials, 42(4), 385-412.
41. Kim, H., Welch, D. A., & Kedward, K. T. (2003). Experimental investigation of high
velocity ice impacts on woven carbon/epoxy composite panels.Composites Part A:
applied science and manufacturing, 34(1), 25-41.
42. Rhymer, J., Kim, H., & Roach, D. (2012). The damage resistance of quasi-isotropic
carbon/epoxy composite tape laminates impacted by high velocity ice. Composites
Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 43(7), 1134-1144.
43. Baker, A. A. B. (2004). Composite materials for aircraft structures. AIAA
44. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/717605/000110465908021748/a08-
9785_1defa14a.htm [Accessed : 03 July 2016]
45. Campbell Jr, F. C. (2011). Manufacturing technology for aerospace structural
materials. Elsevier.
46. FAA 2016, New Large Aircraft Composite Fire Fighting report of Airport
Technology Research and Development Branch [Online] Available at
[http://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/Airport-Safety/Operation-of-New-Large-
Aircraft/New-Large-Aircraft-Composite-Fire-Fighting [Accessed: 03 July 2016]
47. Johnson, A. F., & Holzapfel, M. (2003). Modelling soft body impact on composite
structures. Composite Structures, 61(1), 103-113.
48. Bull, P. H., & Hallstrom, S. (2004). High-velocity and quasi-static impact of large
sandwich panels. Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials, 6(2), 97-113.
49. Sokolinsky, V. S., Von Bremen, H. F., Lavoie, J. A., & Nutt, S. R. (2004). Analytical
and experimental study of free vibration response of soft-core sandwich
beams. Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials, 6(3), 239-261.
50. Raju, M., Reddy, C. R., Swamy, M. N., Giridhar, G., Srikanth, L., Prakash, M. R., &
Rao, R. M. V. G. K. (2006). Repair effectiveness studies on impact damaged
sandwich composite constructions. Journal of reinforced plastics and composites,
25(1), 5-16.
51. Garg, A. K., Khare, R. K., & Kant, T. (2006). Higher-order closed-form solutions for
free vibration of laminated composite and sandwich shells.Journal of Sandwich
Structures and Materials, 8(3), 205-235.
52. Hong, S. T., Pan, J., Tyan, T., & Prasad, P. (2008). Dynamic crush behaviors of
aluminum honeycomb specimens under compression dominant inclined
loads. International journal of plasticity, 24(1), 89-117.
53. Shuaeib, F. M., & Soden, P. D. (1997). Indentation failure of composite sandwich
beams. Composites science and Technology, 57(9), 1249-1259.
54. Thomsen, O. T. (1995). Theoretical and experimental investigation of local bending
effects in sandwich plates. Composite Structures, 30(1), 85-101.
55. Olsson, R., & McManus, H. L. (1996). Improved theory for contact indentation of
sandwich panels. AIAA journal, 34(6), 1238-1244.
56. Anderson, T., & Madenci, E. (2000). Graphite/epoxy foam sandwich panels under
quasi-static indentation. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 67(4), 329-344.
57. Swanson, S. R. (2004). Core compression in sandwich beams under contact
loading. Composite structures, 64(3), 389-398.
58. Buitrago, B. L., Santiuste, C., Sánchez-Sáez, S., Barbero, E., & Navarro, C. (2010).
Modelling of composite sandwich structures with honeycomb core subjected to
high-velocity impact. Composite structures, 92(9), 2090-2096.
59. Harrigan, J. J., Reid, S. R., & Peng, C. (1999). Inertia effects in impact energy
absorbing materials and structures. International Journal of Impact
Engineering, 22(9), 955-979.
60. Reid, S. R., & Peng, C. (1997). Dynamic uniaxial crushing of wood.International
Journal of Impact Engineering, 19(5), 531-570.
61. Tan, P. J., Harrigan, J. J., & Reid, S. R. (2002). Inertia effects in uniaxial dynamic
compression of a closed cell aluminium alloy foam. Materials science and
technology, 18(5), 480-488.
62. Lopatnikov, S. L., Gama, B. A., Haque, M. J., Krauthauser, C., Gillespie, J. W.,
Guden, M., & Hall, I. W. (2003). Dynamics of metal foam deformation during
Taylor cylinder–Hopkinson bar impact experiment. Composite Structures, 61(1), 61-
71.
63. Lopatnikov, S. L., Gama, B. A., Haque, M. J., Krauthauser, C., & Gillespie, J. W.
(2004). High-velocity plate impact of metal foams. International Journal of impact
engineering, 30(4), 421-445.
64. Radford, D. D., Deshpande, V. S., & Fleck, N. A. (2005). The use of metal foam
projectiles to simulate shock loading on a structure. International Journal of Impact
Engineering, 31(9), 1152-1171.
65. Elnasri, I., Pattofatto, S., Zhao, H., Tsitsiris, H., Hild, F., & Girard, Y. (2007). Shock
enhancement of cellular structures under impact loading: Part I
Experiments. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 55(12), 2652-2671.
66. Pattofatto, S., Elnasri, I., Zhao, H., Tsitsiris, H., Hild, F., & Girard, Y. (2007). Shock
enhancement of cellular structures under impact loading: Part II analysis. Journal
of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 55(12), 2672-2686.
67. Zou, Z., Reid, S. R., Tan, P. J., Li, S., & Harrigan, J. J. (2009). Dynamic crushing of
honeycombs and features of shock fronts. International Journal of Impact
Engineering, 36(1), 165-176.
68. Liu, Y. D., Yu, J. L., Zheng, Z. J., & Li, J. R. (2009). A numerical study on the rate
sensitivity of cellular metals. International journal of solids and structures, 46(22),
3988-3998.
Objectives
The main aim of the thesis is to design, development and fabricate an impact
resistive structure. The performance of impact resistive structure will be evaluated
for low and high velocity impacts. The structure will comprise of aluminum
honeycomb composites sandwich with aluminum plates. Experimental and
numerical investigations will be conducted to evaluate the response of the
structure against the impact. Based, on the responses, novel structure will be
designed to enhance the impact resistive performance using hybrid sandwich
structure reinforced with pyramidal lattice structure. The final outcome will be
development of sacrificial protective systems for light weight mechanical and
aerospace structure subjected to impact loads.
Organization
Stage I
a) Mechanical characterization of aluminum honeycomb sandwich
structure
b) Experimental investigations of low velocity impact on sandwich structure
c) Numerical analysis of low velocity impact analysis on sandwich structure
d) Theoretical formulation for prediction of contact force
e) Development of contact force demand model for low velocity impact on
sandwich structure

Stage II
a) Design and fabrication of shock tube for conducting high velocity impact
experiments
b) Development and fabrication of instrumentation facilities for
quantification of impact force and displacement.
c) Experimental investigations of high velocity impact on sandwich
structure
d) Numerical analysis of high velocity impact on sandwich structure
e) Validation of experimental and numerical results

Stage III
a) Design and fabrication of impact resistive pyramidal lattice reinforced
hollow sandwich columns structure
b) Development and fabrication of sensors and its installation on lattice
units for measurement of dynamics force
c) Experimental investigations of low velocity impact on aforementioned
sandwich structure
Sr. Tasks (in months) 6 12 18 24 30 36
No.
1. Literature Review
2. Task 1:Numerical analysis on Performance of Honeycomb Composite Structure against Impact
a.)Core crushing mechanics of hollow honeycomb
b.)Core crushing mechanics with embedded granular chain in
honeycomb
3. Task 2: Fabrication, Calibration and Quasi-Static Experimental Evaluation of Performance of
Honeycomb Composite Structure
a.) Development, fabrication and calibration of granular sensors
b.) Quasi-Static experimental evaluation and failure mode of embedded
granular chain sensor
4. Task 3:Experimental Investigation of Terminal Ballistic Impact on Honeycomb Composite Structure
a.)Ballistic Impact Testing with embedded granular chain in honeycomb
(following text matrix table 1.)
b.)Digital imaging correlation calculating high strain rate
5. Final Report and dissemination