Composites Part A 29A ( 1998) 485-494

0 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Limited

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
ELSEVIER
PII: S1359-835X(98)00001-3 1359~835x/98/$19.00

Modelling face-core bonding in sandwich

manufacturing: thermoplastic faces and rigid,
closed-cell foam core

Malin ikermo* and 6. Tomas htriim

Department of Aeronautics, Kungl Tekniska Hijgskolan, SE- 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
(Received 23 June 1997; revised 75 December 1997; accepted 22 December 1997)

A model to predict the bond strength between thermoplastic faces and rigid, closed-cell foam cores in structural
sandwich components is presented. The model is based on the assumption that the bond strength is proportional to
the amount of resin that flows during manufacturing into the open surface cells of the core to bond the constituents
to each other. Following model formulation, a numerical example considering bonding of glass reinforced
polyamide 12 faces to an expanded polymethacrylimide core is used to illustrate the relative influence of the
independent processing parameters. The numerical example is compared to a preliminary experimental
investigation carried out with the same material system and a favourable, albeit preliminary, correlation between
model predictions and experimentally determined bond strengths is found. 0 1998 Published by Elsevier Science
Limited. All rights reserved.

(Keywords: E. thermoplastic resin; E. resin flow; rigid foam core: sandwich)

Nomenclature
A Permeation area [m’] P Permeabi ‘ty coefficient of?core
material Barrer, 10 - lo m]
P
‘4: First permeation area of surface cell
1m’l P Pressure [Pa. N/m’]

A‘ Second permeation area of surface P. Ambient pressure [Pa. N/m’]

cell [m’]
p “PP Applied processing pressure [Pa. N/
In-core cell permeation area [m*] m-1

b Position of matrix flow front and PP Gas pressure within each cell [Pa. N/
matrix penetration depth [m] m’]

c Gas concentration [cm3(STP)/cm3] Q Number of moles of gas to have per-

meated a cell wall [mol]
D Diffusion coefficient [m*/s]
4r Volume flux m cylindrical or spheri-
Acceleration of gravity [m/s21 cal channel [m’/s]

h Height of matrix layer adjacent to R Molar gas constant (J/mol K]

core [m]
R Radius of flow channel [m]
ho Initial height of matrix layer adjacent
to core [m] r Radius of spherical core cells [m]

Dh Activation energy of matrix [Umol] T Instantaneous temperature [K]

K Gas solubility coefficient [s] t Time [sl

n Number of moles of gas [mol] T, Ambient temperature [K]

nu Initial number of moles of gas in one T ret Reference temperature [K]

open cell [mol]
V Cell volume lm’]

Y Velocity vector [m/s]

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed
Modeling face-core bonding: M. Akermo and B. T. htrom

Nomenclature continued Following model formulation, a numerical example is

presented to illustrate the predicted matrix flow in bonding
“, Volume of gas in one cell [m’]
of glass fabric reinforced polyamide 12 (PA 12) faces to an
W Thickness of core cell wall [m] expanded closed-cell polymethacrylimide (PMI) foam core.
The results of the numerical example is compared to results
Greeks
a Angle between flow lines and channel
of an initial experimental study on compression moulding of
axis [Radians] sandwich components using the same materials as used in
the numerical example.
P Matrix viscosity [Pa*s, Ns/m’]

Pmf Matrix viscosity at reference tem-

perature [Pa-s, Ns/m’] PROBLEM STATEMENT

P Matrix density [kg/m31

The techniques used to manufacture sandwich components
differ widely depending on the application and the
processing requirements of the materials used. A review
INTRODUCTION of the current state-of-the-art of sandwich manufacturing,
which largely involves thermoset rather than thermoplastic
matrices, can be found in reference 6. However, in the
Bonding of two thermoplastic polymer components is model presented herein, quite general processing conditions
primarily established through intimate, molecular contact are considered. The thermoplastic faces are heated to a
between the components and diffusion of polymer mole- temperature above the matrix melting point using a
cules across the interface, which upon cooling results in dedicated oven. Faces and core are then stacked and
molecular interlocking’. The degree of diffusion (or mixing) placed in the cooled mould, where the sandwich component
of molecules at the interface depends on the compatibility of is consolidated under constant pressure. To enable making
the two surfaces to be bonded and on the bonding the necessary assumptions on problem geometry, the model
temperature, which must be above the glass transition is limited to unreinforced or fabric reinforced thermoplastic
temperature of the polymer. In bonding of two identical faces and rigid, expanded closed cell foam cores (or similar
polymer components, mixing may be complete, i.e. the materials). However, the model is easily adopted to other
components are bonded into one solid component without face material systems by making appropriate assumptions
any boundary visible in-between. At this stage the interface regarding the matrix pressure gradient within the face.
has reached the same strength as that of the virgin material*- While some assumptions are introduced during model
4. Based on the theory of molecular diffusion between two formulation, the ones defining model geometry, boundary
components of the same polymer, a model of bonding of all- conditions and fluid behaviour are stated below:
thermoplastic honeycomb core sandwich components has
?? Figure 2 shows that the core surface cells are similar to
been developed by the authors5. In the bonding of
irregular polyhedrons cut open at different locations.
incompatible polymers, the degree of molecular mixing at
the interface is limited and a weak bond is thus established.
However, a second, and often dominating, bonding
mechanism may occur as matrix from one surface flows
into and solidifies in irregularities of the other surface and
thus mechanically locks the components together.
This paper considers bonding of thermoplastic faces to a
rigid closed-cell foam core. Bonding is in this case governed
by matrix flow into the core during processing, since the
flow both increases the contact area between face and core,
making a limited degree of molecular mixing possible and,
at the same time, enabling mechanical locking of the
components. No further effort is dedicated to determining
the actual bonding mechanism, but it is assumed that the
bond strength is to some extent proportional to the matrix
penetration depth into the open surface cells of the core. The
matrix flow at the face-core interface has therefore been
modelled with the intent of developing a tool to determine
how process parameters and material properties influence
the matrix penetration depth into the core and thereby
indirectly the face-core bond strength. That matrix really
does how into the open surface cells during processing is
Figure 1 Matrix bubbles remaining on the face fracture surface following
illustrated by Figure 1, showing a near half-spherical matrix face-core failure. The face material is glass fabric reinforced PA 12 with a
bubble left on the face following face-core failure. PA 12 resin film added on top

466
 Modeling face-core bonding: M. Akermo and B. T. Astrom

However, to simplify model formulation, the surface cells
are assumed to be perfect half-spheres, whose shape
remains unaffected by the process.
In order to model the matrix flow into the core the matrix
pressure gradient must be known. Composite laminates
often have matrix-rich surfaces and face-core bonding is
generally enhanced when a neat resin film is added
between face and core. Figure 3 shows a glass fabric
reinforced PA 12 laminate with a black PA 12 resin
film (pigmented for visibility) laminated onto one side.
Since the transverse permeability of tight fabrics is quite
low and melted thermoplastics generally have very high
viscosities, transverse flow within the face during mould-
ing is assumed negligible. The pressure in the matrix-rich
layer adjacent to the core is therefore assumed equal to
the applied moulding pressure.
Although thermoplastic melts are generally shear thin-
ning, this tendency is in this model version neglected
and a Newtonian fluid model is consequently used.
The face-core consolidation step in sandwich manufac-
turing is assumed isothermal. Whereas heat transfer
during compression moulding of foam core sandwich
components has been modelled globally as part of an
extensive in-house study, microscopic modelling consid-
ering the irregular geometry of the core surface and
including material convection is beyond the scope of
this model version. Temperature nevertheless remains a
parameter in the model.
THEORETICAL APPROACH
Matrix jlow into open s&ace cell
Consider the matrix-rich layer adjacent to the core and
one half-spherical surface cell, as illustrated in Figure 4.
Initially the matrix is concentrated to the matrix-rich layer.
By applying consolidation pressure onto the face, a gradient
develops within the matrix, thus forcing the matrix into the
cell. Assuming that every surface cell has the same radius.
the flow can be considered as restricted to the v-direction,

Figure 2 Machined surface of expanded closed-cell polymer foam. The tigure shows a PM1 core (Rohacell’” I lOA). but the general ceil structure is shared by
most expanded polymers. Published with permission from RGhm, Darmstadt. Germany

Figure 3 Glass fabric reinforced PA 12 laminate. The woven fabric is visible as white layers. An extra PA 12 resin layer, in this case pigmented black for
visibility. has been added on top as a bonding aid

487
Modeling face-core bonding: M. Akermo and B. T. Astrom

i.e. into the core. The pressure in the gas (air) initially between the two ends of this virtual flow channel is
trapped in the cell increases when matrix flows into the cell, determined by integrating over its length:

J_,P&
thus reducing the pressure gradient and consequently the b b
matrix flow rate. Due to the increased gas pressure in the
surface cell, the gas is assumed to permeate through the thin
Pg-papp= -WY:
J- -L-Iv+
h R(=J)~
(3)

cell walls further into the core. Integration of eqn (3), using R(y) = r for - h I y 5 0 and
The matrix flow into the half-spherical cell is neither R(y) = (r’ - y*)“* (cf. Figure 4) for 0 I y 5 b yields
laminar nor steady, which makes the problem difficult to
solve analytically. Therefore, in order to further simplify the sY = (pg(b + h) - (Ps -pap,))
problem, two additional assumptions are made: r4
XT (4)
During a sufficiently short time increment, the flow into 8~
h-
and within the half-sphere is assumed to be steady. The
non-steady process can thus be solved by discretizing the
where the expression for the instantaneous gas pressure, pg,
process with respect to time, solving the steady-state
is derived below.
problem for each time increment and summing up the
Since the matrix is assumed to be incompressible, the
contributions. The increasing gas pressure within the
matrix volume is conserved during processing and the
cell and the position of the matrix flow front thus needs
volume flux of matrix can also be expressed in terms of the
to be recalculated for each time step.
y-position of the matrix flow front. However, due to the
During each incremental time step, the matrix flow within
spherical geometry, an exact calculation of how much
the cell is assumed to be laminar. This might seem a crude
further into the surface cell the matrix has flowed during a
approximation, but it can be explained by considering the
time increment requires solution of a third degree equation.
Navier-Stokes equation describing the motion of
Considering the matrix flow during a very short time
Newtonian fluids. The non-laminar flow gives rise to
increment, the change in channel radius at the flow front is
inertia forces expressed as nonlinear terms [vVV] in the
acceleration force term of the Navier-Stokes equation (v
is the velocity vector). Considering steady flow through a
channel of varying radius it can be shown that these iner- Table 1 Data corresponding to a closed cell PM1 foam core and glass/
tia forces can be neglected if7 PA12 faces, used in numerical example

Variable Value Reference

PVR 1
ff-< (1) Core thickness 1omm
Dh 23 kJ/mol eqn (14)*
175 Nm/s’ *
where (Yis angle between flow lines and channel axis, p Pref

Pa 0.1 MPa
density, v velocity, R channel radius, p Newtonian visc- 0.8 MPa
PaPP
0.01 Barrer 8
osity. This expression was determined by considering the P(PMMA)
y-component of the flow given by the Navier-Stokes r 0.13 mm ggure 2
P 1.01 kg/m
equation, balancing its components and requiring the T, 23°C
acceleration force term to be negligibly small. Eqn (1) T ref 220°C
may be interpreted as stating that the acceleration force w 0.004 mm Figure 2

can be neglected if the variation in cross-section area with *Based on experimental data from Hills.
streamwise distance within the channel is ‘sufficiently
slow’. Keeping in mind that the viscosity of melted ther-
moplastics is on the order of lo’-105, their density on the
order of unity, the channel radius on the order of 10v4, and
PWP
the velocity intuitively high only when the change in chan-
nel radius, (Y,is slow, one finds that eqn (1) always holds
true for the present flow situation. (Representative numer-
ical data are given in Table I.)

These approximations reduce the equation of motion

within each time step to the Hagen-Poiseuille equation,
thus giving the volume flux of matrix, qyr as

(2)

where R is the average radius during the time step, p the

matrix pressure and g the acceleration of gravity.
The matrix flow front, at y = b (cf. Figure 4), supports the
gas pressure, while the top of the matrix-rich layer (at y = -
h), supports the applied pressure, papp. The pressure drop
Figure 4 Matrix flow into one half-spherical open surface cell. The radius
of the sphere is r and the instantaneous channel radius R. The matrix-rich
layer adjacent to the core is of instantaneous height h and in the figure the
matrix has flowed distance b into the cell. pw and ps denote applied
pressure and gas pressure in the open cell, respectively

very small and the time derivative of the position
matrix flow front can be approximated by
db qy
dt=7FR(b)2
Gas permeation
If a thin wall of thickness w separates two chambers
containing gas at different pressure, the gas will permeate in
the direction of the negative pressure gradient. In the
problem considered herein, the gas permeates into the core
since the matrix inflow increases the gas pressure in the
surface cells. The matrix flow is assumed uniform over the
core surface, meaning that the gas pressure within one layer
of cells in the core is uniform and that gas permeation
parallel to the core surface therefore may be neglected.
Since cores are normally stored in ambient conditions for a
long time prior to processing the gas diffusion may be
considered steady. It is also assumed that Henry’s law ’
applies to both interfaces of the cell wall, i.e. that a
solubility coefficient, K, exists so that
K=S=c?
PI P?
where Cl and C2 are the gas concentrations and p , and p,
the gas pressures at the respective surfaces. Henry’s law was
developed for rubbery polymer membranes at temperatures
above their glass transition temperature, but describes one
of the two contributions to the sorption of gases in glassy
polymers with intersegmental packing defects frozen into
the structure. The other contribution comes from the so-
called Langmuir sites arising from the packing defects dur-
ing solidification of the polymer. The permeating molecules
trapped in the Langmuir sites are much less mobile than
those obeying Henry’s law and molecules in the Langmuir
sites are therefore for the purpose of this treatment consid-
ered immobile ‘. Fick’s first law then holds, stating that for
steady-state diffusion the gas flux through the thin wall is
proportional to the gas concentration gradient through the
wall. i.e. ’
Q = - DAt(C2 - C,)/w
where Q is the number of moles of gas that has diffused
through a wall of area A and thickness w during time t,
cell layer
:
3
i-l
I
i+l
Figure 5 The core cells are idealised as arranged in layers. The increased
within the surrounding cells, here ps,+, 5 peC 5 pgl_,
Modeiiing face-core bonding: M. hkermo and 6. T. hrom
of the where D is the diffusion coefficient. The permeability
coefficient of the core wall, P, is defined as the product of
the diffusion coefficient and the solubility coefficient’.
(5) Using eqns (6) and (7), the total number of moles of gas
that has passed through the wall separating the surface cell
from the immediately underlying cell at ambient pressure pa
during time t can therefore be expressed as
Q= _,,,!%@
w
In reality the core cells are more similar to polyhedrons than
half-spheres and the contact areas between different cells
within one layer are therefore not single points, as for
spheres. but rather surfaces. Since no permeation occurs
between cells within one layer, the initial permeation area
between surface cells and underlying cells. A: is assumed
equal to the projected area of the half-sphere, i.e. At = 1rr’.
However, the permeation area decreases as the matrix fills
the cell. At b > r/2 the surface area of the gas filled part of
the half-spherical cell given by A: = 2mfr - b) (cf. Figure
4), decreases below the assumed initial permeation area.
The latter permeation area, AZ, is therefore from that point
on used to calculate the permeation area between the cells.
(6) As gas permeates into the next layer of cells, the gas
pressure is built up also within these cells, thus forcing the
gas to permeate further into the core. see Figure 5. The
increased number of moles of gas within cell layer i in the
core at time f is
Qi= _pA*,(2P& -P&+1 -p,,
w
The permeation area between two cells within the core, A,,
is equal to the projected area of the sphere. Note that two
different permeation areas, equal to the surface cell permea-
tion area, A,, and the in-core cell permeation area, A,, must
be considered when calculating the increased number of
moles of gas within the second layer of cells (immediately
below the surface cells).
Gas pressure in open cell
(7)
Before faces and core are brought together, the surface
cells are filled with air at ambient temperature, T,, and
ambient pressure, pa. By considering the air as an ideal gas,
--
core surface
number of moles of gas within cell layer i, pi, depends on the gas pressure. pg.
Modelling face-core bonding: M, Akermo and B. T. Astrom
the instantaneous gas pressure can be determined by
recalculating the original pressure, volume and temperature
into the instantaneous volume and temperature of the gas.
The ideal gas law gives the initial number of moles of gas no
in a cell as
P,V
(10)
no= RT,
where R is the molar gas constant and V the cell volume.
During processing air permeates through the core wall and
the remaining moles of gas in the cell continuously
decreases. The instantaneous gas pressure within each cell
is given by
nRT
Pg = - (11)
Vzs
where V, is gas volume, T instantaneous gas temperature
and n instantaneous number of moles of gas in the cell,
which is given by
n=no-Q (12)
Predicted matrix penetration depth
Eqn (5) provides an expression for the matrix penetration
depth (distance) into the core. In the model, the process is
discretized with respect to time and the final penetration
depth is therefore found by summing up the contributions
from each time increment:
where qy is given by eqn (4). The boundary conditions, i.e.
the position of the matrix flow front and the gas pressure, are
recalculated in-between each time step. The instantaneous
gas pressure is calculated using eqns (8), (9) and (11). Note
that this expression for the matrix penetration depth is only
valid if the amount of matrix initially available at the face-
core interface exceeds the amount needed to fill every open
cell at the core surface. Since the matrix viscosity is strongly
temperature dependent, the instantaneous viscosity should
be used in eqn (13).
NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
This section provides a numerical example using the
presented model. The material data used correspond to
glass fabric reinforced PA 12 faces, in this case Vestopreg@
from Hi&, and a closed cell PM1 foam core, in this case
Rohacell@ 1lOA from Rohrn. While this core is partly
crosslinked and therefore cannot melt, it softens upon
excessive heating. For the purpose of the model presented
herein it is nevertheless considered rigid throughout
processing. The average cell radius and cell wall thickness
were determined from Figure 2. It is assumed that extra
PA 12 resin is added to the face-core interface as a bonding
aid. The available amount of matrix at the face-core
490
interface thus exceeds the amount needed to fill every open
cell at the core surface and the matrix content at the
interface does not limit the flow into the cells. Matrix
viscosity data for three different temperatures as function of
shear rate (provided by Htils) were fitted to the Carreau-
Yasuda model”. Since the presented model only considers
Newtonian fluid behaviour, the zero-shear rate viscosity was
used in the predictions. The temperature dependency of the
viscosity was accounted for using the Arrhenius shift
factor”:
(14)
The behaviour predicted by the Arrhenius shift factor is
observed in molten polymers 100°C or more above their
respective glass transition temperatures”. Eqn (14) was
herein used to predict the matrix viscosity at temperatures
above the melting temperature of PA 12, which at about
180°C is more than 120°C above the glass transition
temperature of 54°C’‘. The reference viscosity, pref, and
temperature, TIef, used in this example are given in Table
I, together with the activation energy, &, which was
calculated from the viscosity data. Since the permeability
coefficient of PM1 could not be found in the literature, its
value was approximated by the permeability coefficient of a
chemically related polymer, poly(mety1 metbacrylate),
PMMA. The permeability coefficient is reported in the
customary unit Barrers9, where 1 Barrer equals lo-
“[cm3(STP) cm/(cm2s cm Hg)]. The permeability
coefficient depends on the permeating medium and the
value given in Table I corresponds to the coefficient for
nitrogen (Nz).
The model was numerically implemented in MATLAB
using a time increment of 10e5 s. First the new position of
the matrix flow front after one time increment is calculated
and then the gas pressure within the surface cell and
underlying cells is calculated. This procedure is repeated
until the entire surface cell is filled, until a set processing
time is reached or, more likely, until the matrix solidifies.
The temperature within the gas filled cell is in this example
assumed equal to the face temperature, which is an
overestimation. The real gas temperature is probably close
to the average temperature of face and core, but exact
determination of the gas temperature requires more detailed
heat transfer modelling than so far carried out.
Two different values for the gas permeability coefficient
of PMMA were found in the literature. In addition to the
value given in Table I, reference 8 gives the gas
permeability of PMMA as 0.1 Barrer, i.e. an order of
magnitude higher. In this reference the permeating medium
is not stated and the lower value of the gas permeability is
therefore used in most of the examples, although both values
are used for the predictions in Figure 6 to illustrate the
importance of gas permeation. The figure shows the
predicted matrix penetration depth for two different
pressures, 0.2 MPa and 0.8 MPa, and for both gas
permeabilities. In these calculations, the process is assumed
isothermal at 200°C and the matrix within the face is
consequently assumed melted throughout the process. The
 Modeling face-core bonding: M, hermo and B. T. horn

model predicts that the main part of the matrix flow occurs
during the first tenth of a second of processing (which is
difficult to make out from the figure). The linear increase in
matrix penetration depth occurring thereafter is due to gas
permeation from the surface cell, which reduces the gas
pressure in the cell and thus enables further matrix flow.
Figure 7 is essentially a magnification of the time axis for
the first 0.06 s of the predictions in Figure 6, but only the
predictions employing the lower permeability coefficient
are shown. The figure clearly illustrates that under these
processing conditions little additional matrix flows into the
surface cells after the first few hundredths of a second.
The time until the matrix solidifies mainly depends upon
the temperatures of mould, faces and core. Both through
heat transfer modelling and experimental work, it was found
that with realistic face temperatures and the mould at
ambient temperature, the sandwich component is cooled to
below the matrix melting temperature within a matter of
seconds following mould closure. The gas permeation
during such a short time frame is negligibly small according
to the curves corresponding to the lower permeability
coefficient in Figure 6. Using a cooled mould, the matrix
flow most probably ceases at a point where the gas pressure
in the surface cell is balanced by the applied processing
pressure; this point is hereinafter referred to as the
equilibrium point. Figure 8 shows the predicted equilibrium
point for two different temperatures, 200°C and 250°C as
function of moulding pressure. The figure shows that the
predicted matrix penetration depth at the equilibrium point
increases with increasing pressure. The increase is sig-
nificant at low pressures, but levels off above 1.5 MPa to
asymptotically approach the core cell radius. Figure 8 also
suggests that the equilibrium point exhibits a weak
temperature dependency, which is further illustrated in
Figure 9 (note the different length scales of these two
figures). The reason for this dependency is that, although the
initial flow rate increases with increasing face temperature
due to the reduced matrix viscosity, the equilibrium point is
reached sooner since the gas pressure within the cell also
increases with temperature. Observe once again that if the

0.14
cell radius 1
f 0.12 ~E0.1 Barrer

g p=O.8 MPa
5 0.10 -
% eO.01 Barrer
u
c 0.08
.g

$ 0.06
E
.?!
p 0.04 @=O.lBarrer
t p=O.2 MPa
$ 0.02
eO.01 Barrer
n
-0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Processing time (8)

Figure 6 Predicted matrix penetration depth into the core as function of time for two different pressures, two different gas permeabilities and a face
temperature of 200°C

0.14
P
cell radius 1
g 0.12 -
5 p=O.8 MPa
g 0.10 -_-.---- -_---_-_-_._---_- ____
u

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Processing time (8)

Figure 7 Predicted matrix penetration depth as function of processing time during the first 0.06 s for two different pressures and a face temperature of 200°C

491
Modeling face-core bonding: M. Akermo and B. T, As from

available amount of matrix at the face-core interface is
limited, predictions such as these may not hold, since the
matrix penetration depth into the core cannot significantly
exceed the initial height of the matrix-rich layer.
COMPARISON TO EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
The aim of developing the presented model was to increase
the understanding of bonding of thermoplastic faces to rigid,
closed-cell foam cores. To further this goal, some of the
results of the numerical example above have therefore been
compared to an initial experimental study on compression
moulding of glass/PA12-PM1 foam core sandwich compo-
nents” , i.e. the same material system as considered in the
numerical examples above. In this study, a two-level
Taguchi design13 was used to investigate which processing
parameters most significantly influence the transverse
tensile strength of the manufactured components. Consoli-
dation was performed either keeping the mould at ambient
temperature or heated to 80°C and the consolidation time
was therefore short. The transverse tensile strength was
characterized according to ASTM C297. The weaker
specimens all failed at the face-core interface, whereas in
the stronger specimens failure took place in the core and the
face-core bond strength was then apparently higher than the
tensile strength of the core. In this initial study several
different processing variables were investigated and in order
to reduce the number of experiments, a fractional factorial
design was used13. This study therefore cannot provide
unambiguous information on how the processing para-
meters influence the bond strength and the results are
therefore merely used for qualitative comparisons in order
to detect trends in the bond strength dependency on the
investigated parameters.
Not surprisingly, the study indicates that the parameters
most significantly influencing the bond strength are those
determining the amount of matrix at the face-core interface.
Two different kinds of face materials were used in the study:
preconsolidated 1 mm thick faces and single prepreg plies.
The preconsolidated faces appeared to have resin rich
surfaces, while the unconsolidated prepregs, which are
powder impregnated, appear resin starved on the surface
prior to consolidation. Through microscopy it was observed
that neither of these materials seemed to have enough resin
on the surface to allow filling of the open cells of the core

0.14
cell radius
E-
L 0.12 T=200"C
c
= 0.10
4
5 0.08 pr
'E
E 0.08
t
g 0.04 I
;

z
X
0.02 I
i
I

0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Pressure (MPa)

Figure 8 The predicted equilibrium point as function of the applied pressure for two different face temperatures

0.100 I

2
E. 0.098 -
c
Z
* 0.098 -
c
.s
52 0.094 -
5
IL
.!! 0.092 -

2
m
I I I I I c I
= 0.090 I I I I

180 180 200 220 240 260 280 300

Temperature (“C)

Figure 9 The predicted temperature dependency of the equilibrium point

492
 Modeling face-core bonding: M. Akermo and B. T. istrom

surface. A 0.1 mm thick PA 12 resin film was therefore
added to the interface as a bonding aid in some of the
specimens. The results show that the transverse tensile
strength of the components increases significantly with
increasing amount of matrix available at the face-core
interface, see Figure 10. The single prepreg faces without
resin film added did not seem to bond to the core at all.
However, use of prepreg faces and an extra resin film
resulted in higher strength than when using preconsolidated
faces without resin film added. The highest strength was
achieved with preconsolidated faces and resin film added.
The experimental study also shows that the processing
pressure influences the bond strength in the fashion
predicted by the model. The transverse tensile strength
increased by 25% when the pressure was increased from
0.55 to 0.9 MPa. The model predicts that the matrix
penetration depth should increase by 0.02 mm, equal to
24%, for such a pressure increase.
As the face preheating temperature was increased from
200°C to 220°C the transverse tensile strength decreased.
Part of the explanation might be referred to Figure 9, which
shows that increasing moulding temperature also reduces
matrix penetration into the core. However, the predicted
dependency is far too weak to account for the significant
decrease in bond strength observed and some other
mechanism must at least be partially responsible.
DISCUSSION
In the model presented above the matrix viscosity is
assumed Newtonian, although polymer melts, including
the one considered in the numerical example, are shear-
thinning (non-Newtonian). This assumption simplifies
modelling but of course makes the result less exact. The
main purpose of developing the model was to gain
understanding of how the process parameters influence
bonding between thermoplastic faces and a rigid foam core.
It is argued that bonding is proportional to the amount of
matrix penetrating into the core surface during processing
and the final penetration depth is therefore of greatest
importance. However, the presented model, which, due to
the Newtonian assumption, overestimates the matrix
viscosity, shows that matrix penetration is a very rapid
process and that the final penetration depth may be reached
within less than 1 s. Incorporating the instantaneous shear
rate dependent viscosity into the model will not alter the
predicted ultimate penetration depth, although it will be
reached in an even shorter time. Thus, for the purpose of
gaining a qualitative understanding of bonding through
matrix flow, this simplified model version is likely
sufficient. However, in order to enable quantitatively
realistic predictions of all aspects of the matrix flow
during processing. a non-Newtonian fluid description
should be used.
Since the gas permeability coefficient of PMI. needed in
the model, was not available from the core manufacturer
and could not be found in the literature, it had to be
approximated using the permeability coefficient of a
chemically related polymer, PMMA. Two different values
of the permeability coefficient for PMMA were found in the
literature, each giving its specific required processing time
to till the core surface cells. The difference between the two
predictions is quite significant. The lower of the two values
indicates that gas diffusion between adjacent cells may be
neglected under conditions such as those investigated
herein, whereas the higher of the two values suggests the
opposite, since gas diffusion already plays an important role
for short consolidation times. This difference illustrates that
the permeability coefficient of the core in question must be
known to allow accurate predictions.
The model does not include modelling of heat transfer
during processing. The material temperature is of interest
for several reasons: the gas pressure in the surface cells
depends on gas temperature, the matrix can only flow at
temperatures above its melt temperature (or glass transition
temperature for amorphous thermoplastics ) and rapid cooling
of the manufactured sandwich component thus effectively
limits the matrix penetration into the core. Considering all
these temperature-dependent parameters. not knowing the

2 1200-
s5 Increasing matrix content
at face-core interface
5 lOOO-
F
E
fn EOO-
P,
‘5 600-
s

laminate
www laminate n%XrZn matrix film

Figure 10 Experimentally determined transverse tensile strength of sandwich panels with different face material configurations and different matrix content
at face-core interface. Tensile strength of virgin core is 2.8-3.5 MPa

493
Modelling face-core bonding: M. Akermo and B. T. htrom
temperature development at the face-core interface during
processing is a weakness of the model, which must be
overcome in order to ensure quantitatively realistic predictions.
The pressure distribution at the face-core interface is an
interaction between core, matrix and reinforcement. Apply-
ing pressure onto an unlimited amount of matrix on the core
surface, the matrix penetrates into the core, thus increasing
the gas pressure within each cell and evenly distributing the
pressure over the entire core. If the applied pressure is
excessive, the core cell walls may rupture due to the high
gas pressure. If pressure is applied by reinforcement in
direct contact with the core cell walls, the uppermost part of
the walls have to sustain the entire applied pressure, which
may cause the walls to buckle. Increasing the temperature of
the face, the core is heated further and the maximum load
the core can withstand decreases further. The model
assumes that the core cell walls remain unaffected by
pressure and temperature, which is obviously true only
within a limited processing window. It is therefore
important to consider the compressive strength of the core
before blindly implementing the model predictions to
optimize the matrix penetration depth.
This paper does not include any dedicated experimental
verification of the presented model, although initial
experimental work appears to substantiate model
predictions. However, an extensive experimental study is
underway in order to further verify the model.
CONCLUSIONS
A model has been developed to predict the matrix flow into
a rigid, closed cell foam core during bonding of sandwich
components. The model is used in a numerical example
considering bonding of glass fabric reinforced PA 12
faces to a closed cell PM1 foam core. The permeability
coefficient of PM1 could not be found and was therefore
approximated with two different permeability coefficients
found for PMMA. Matrix penetration during isothermal
processing at 200°C was predicted using these two different
values and it was found that with the lower of the two
values, the influence of gas permeation on the matrix
penetration depth is weak enough to be neglected for short
processing times. If gas permeation is neglected, matrix
flow ceases as the gas pressure within the cell is balanced by
the applied pressure.
The model predicts that the matrix penetration depth
significantly increases with increased pressure up to about
1 MPa. The model further predicts that 70% of the
maximum matrix penetration depth is reached within
0.005 s at a pressure of 0.8 MPa and a face temperature of
200°C. The model also shows that the matrix penetration
depth decreases with increasing face temperature, since the
gas pressure within the core surface cells increases when the
gas is heated by the face.
In conclusion, the model predicts that maximum matrix
penetration into the core surface cells (and thus, according
to the main model assumption, maximum face-core
interfacial bond strength) is obtained using as high a
494
pressure as the core can sustain and as low a temperature as
possible (above the matrix melting temperature). The
predicted processing time is very short, less than 0.1 s, but
needs to be substantially increased when the pressure is
reduced. Using lower pressures, the required processing
time to enable filling the core surface cells mainly depends
on the gas permeability coefficient of the core. However, in
reality the processing time may not be arbitrarily chosen,
since it is determined by the heat transfer situation at the
face-core interface.
The numerical results are compared to an initial
experimental study on compression moulding of sandwich
components using the same materials as considered in the
numerical example. The face-core interfacial bond strength
was characterized in terms of the transverse tensile strength.
It is assumed that this strength is proportional to the amount
of matrix having penetrated into the core surface cells
during processing and this assumption is partly substantiated
by the experimental study. The experiments also show the
same pressure and temperature dependence as predicted by
the model, but further experimental work is needed to draw a
firm conclusion on the quantitative accuracy of the model.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work has been supported by the Commission of the
European Union under Brite-EuRam contract no. BRB2-
CT94-0912. Material and material data were generously
supplied by Hills, Marl, Germany, and Rohm, Darmstadt,
Germany. Special thanks are due to Dr Hellermann and Mr
Seibert, who have been helpful contacts at their respective
company.
REPERENCES
Wool, R.P., Yuan, B.-L. and McGarel, O.J., Polymer Engineering
and Science, 1989, 29(19), 1340-1367.
de Gennes, P.G., Journal of Chemical Physics, 1971, 55(2), 572-
519.
Doi, M. and Edwards, SF., Journal of Chemical Sociev, 1978,
74(10), 1802-1817.
Agarwal, V., The role of molecular mobility on the consolidation
and bonding of thermoplastic composite materials. CCM Technical
Report 91-39, 1991, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA.
5. Akermo, M. and Astrom, B.T., International SAMPE Symposium,
1996,41, 1372-13tl.
6. Karlsson, K.F. and Astrom, B.T., Composites ParrA, 1997,28A(2),
97-111.
I. Batchelor, G.K., An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics. Cambridge
University press, Cambridge, UK, 1967.
8. Comyn, J., Polymer Permeability. Elsevier, New York, NY, USA,
1985.
9. Kesting, R.E. and Fritzsche, A.K., Polymeric Gas Separation
Membranes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1993.
10. Bird, R.B., Armstrong, R.C. and Hassager, O., Dynamics of
PolymerLiquids.John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1987.
11. Product Information, Vestopreg 02/94,_l994, Htils, Marl, Germany.
12. Akermo, M., Andersson, T.E.I. and Astrom, B.T., Compression
moulding of thermoplastic sandwich components. In Bonding of
Thermoplastic Sandwich Components, 1997, Report No. 97-4,
Department of Aeronautics, Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan,
Stockholm, Sweden.
13. Lochner, R.H. and Matar, J.E., Design for Quality. Chapman and
Hall, London, UK, 1990.