LOAD AND GEOMETRY EFFECT ON THE FAILURE OF

SANDWICH STRUCTURES



M.S. Konsta-Gdoutos, School of Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, GR-671 00 Xanthi,
Greece, mkonsta@civil.duth.gr
E.E. Gdoutos, School of Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, GR-671 00 Xanthi, Greece,
egdoutos@civil.duth.gr


ABSTRACT
Facing compressive failure, facing wrinkling and core shear failure are the most commonly encountered failure modes in
sandwich beams with facings made of composite materials. The occurrence and sequence of these failure modes depends on
the geometrical dimensions, the form of loading and type of support of the beam. In this paper the above three failure modes
in sandwich beams with facings made of carbon/epoxy composites and cores made of aluminum honeycomb and two types of
foam have been investigated. Two types of beams, the simply supported and the cantilever have been considered. Loading
included concentrated and uniform. It was found that in beams with foam core facing wrinkling and core shear failure occur,
whereas in beams with honeycomb core facing compressive failure and core shear crimping take place. Results were obtained
for the dependence of failure mode on the geometry of the beam and the type of loading. The critical beam spans for failure
mode transition from core shear to wrinkling failure were established. It was found that initiation of a particular failure mode
depends on the properties of the facing and core materials, the geometrical configuration and loading of composite sandwich
beams.
Key words: Sandwich structures, composite plates, foam materials, facing compressive failure, facing wrinkling, core shear
failure
INTRODUCTION
Sandwich beams subjected to a combination of bending, shear and in-plane loading exhibit various failure modes. They in-
clude tensile or compressive failure of the facings, debonding at the core/facing interface, indentation failure under localized
loads, shear core failure, wrinkling of the compression facing and global buckling. Initiation of a particular failure mode de-
pends on the constituent material properties, geometry and type of loading. Following initiation of a failure mode, this mode
may trigger another mode until catastrophic failure occurs. For the prediction of failure modes and their initiation a thorough
stress analysis must first be conducted. The results of stress analysis are coupled with appropriate failure criteria applied in
the critical regions of the beam. A general review of failure modes in sandwich structures was presented by Allen [1], Hall and
Robson [2] and Zenkert [3]. The various failure modes have been analyzed and critical failure loads have been determined.
Recently, failure modes in composite sandwich beams consisted of carbon/epoxy facings and honeycomb or foam cores have
been studied by Gdoutos et al. [4-6]. In the present paper an investigation of failure modes of a composite sandwich beam
including facing compressive failure, wrinkling and core shear failure was undertaken. The cases of simply supported and can-
tilever beams subjected to a concentrated and uniform load were studied. Results were obtained for the dependence of failure
mode on the geometry of the beam and the type of loading.
COMPRESSION FACING VERSUS CORE SHEAR FAILURE
Consider a sandwich beam of rectangular cross section with facings of equal thickness subjected to a bending moment, M,
and shear force, V. The facing and core materials are assumed to display linear elastic behavior. For relatively thin facings and
relatively low core stiffness, the bending moment is mainly taken up by the facings, while the shear stress is mainly taken up
by the core. When the normal stress in the core is small relative to the shear stress, it can be assumed that core failure occurs
when the shear stress reaches its critical value. On the other hand, failure in the facings occurs when the normal tensile or
compressive stress reaches its critical value. For composite sandwich beams made of carbon/epoxy facings the compressive
strength of the composite is lower than its tensile strength [3] and, therefore, the critical value of the facing stress is the com-
pressive strength. In the following it is assumed that the beam is adequately reinforced locally at the points of load application
and supports, to suppress premature failure due to indentation. Under such circumstances the failure mode transition from
core shear failure to compression facing failure occurs when


cs
f
f max
max
F
F
h V
M
= (1)
where M
max
and V
max
are the maximum bending moment and shear force of the beam, F
f
is the facing strength in compression
and F
cs
is the core shear strength. The maximum bending moment and the maximum shear force may take place in different
cross sections of the beam. Equation (1) may be put in the form

cs
f
f
F
F
C
h
L
= (2)
where L is the length of the simply supported or cantilever beam and C is a constant that depends on the form of the beam
and the type of the applied load. Values of C for a simply supported beam loaded in three-point bending, by a uniform load and
a triangular load, and a cantilever beam loaded by an end load, a uniform load and a triangular load peaking at its built-in end
are given in Table 1.
Table 1: Values of C

C=2 C=4 C=33

C=1 C=2 C=3
qq qq P P q q
q q
P P


1
2
Core Shear Failure
L/h
f



F
f


/

F
c
s

L
26.56
Facing
Compression
Failure
(a)
P
Core Shear
Failure
L/h
f



F
f

/

F
c
s

L
45
Facing
Compression
Failure
(b)
P
1
1


Fig. 1: Failure envelopes for failure mode transition from core shear failure to compression facing failure for a simply supported
and a cantilever beam subjected to a uniform load.
When the left hand term of Equation (2) is smaller than the right hand term, failure occurs by core shear, whereas in the re-
verse case failure occurs by facing compression. Equation (2) suggests that in the plane with axes L/h
f
and F
f
/F
cs
the envelope
separating core shear failure from facing compressive failure is a straight line starting from the origin. Failure mode transition
according to Equation (2) is shown in Figure 1 for a simply supported beam and a cantilever under uniform load. From Figure
1 we observe that core shear failure dominates compression facing failure for small values of L/h
f
and F
f
/F
cs
. From Table 1 we
observe that in the plane with axes L/h
f
and F
f
/F
cs
the straight line separating the area of core shear failure from the area of
facing compressive failure rotates toward the L/h
f
axis and, therefore, the area of the core shear failure increases in both the
simply supported and the cantilever beams as the load changes from concentrated to uniform to triangular.

COMPRESSION FACING WRINKLING VERSUS CORE SHEAR FAILURE
For the case when the beam is subjected to bending Heath [7] gave the following expression for the calculation of the critical
wrinkling stress

( )
2 1
31 13
1 3
1 3
2
/
f c
c
f
cr
E E
h
h

= (3)
where E
c3
is the core elastic modulus in the rise direction and
ij
(i, j = 1,3) is the core Poisson ratio (associated with loading in
the i-direction and strain in the j-direction). In the case when the sandwich beam is subjected to bending and shear a more
appropriate relation that takes into account the influence of the transverse shear modulus of the core was provided by Hoff and
Mautner [8]
(4)
3 1
13 3 1
/
c c f cr
) G E E ( c =
where G
c13
is the transverse shear modulus of the core. The constant c takes the values 0.5, 0.6, or 0.65. From the above
expression we observe that the critical wrinkling stress depends only on the elastic moduli of the facing and core materials.
Note that the effect of the core material enters in the expression through two moduli, while the effect of the facing enters
through one modulus. This indicates that the effect of the core material on the wrinkling stress is more pronounced than the
effect of the facing material.
CONSTITUENT MATERIALS
The sandwich beam facings were unidirectional carbon/epoxy plates (AS4/3501-6), of equal thickness fabricated separately by
autoclave molding. Uniaxial tensile and compressive tests were conducted in the longitudinal direction in order to obtain the
relevant constitutive behavior of the facing material [9]. Three core materials were investigated. One of them was aluminum
honeycomb (PAMG 8.1-3/16 001-P-5052, Plascore Co.). The other core materials were two types of PVC closed-cell foam,
Divinycell H100 and H250, with densities of 100 and 250 kg/m
3
, respectively. The three principal moduli E
1
, E
2
and E
3
(along
the cell axis) were obtained by means of four-point bending, three-point bending and pure compression tests [10]. The out-of-
plane shear modulus G
13
was obtained by means of a rail shear test [10].
EXPERIMENTAL
The honeycomb core was 2.54 cm wide and was machined from a 2.54 cm thick sheet along the stiffer in-plane direction. The
2.54 cm wide composite facings were machined from unidirectional plates, bonded to the top and bottom faces of the honey-
comb core with FM73 M film adhesive and the assembly was cured under pressure in an oven following the recommended
curing cycle for the adhesive. Sandwich beams were also prepared by bonding composite facings to foam cores of 2.54 x 2.54
cm cross section using an epoxy adhesive (Hysol EA 9430). Special fixtures were fabricated for beams subjected to three-
point and four-point bending and for end-loaded cantilever beams. In studying the effects of pure bending special reinforce-
ment was provided for the core at the outer sections of the beam to prevent premature core failures. Also, under three-point
bending, the faces directly under concentrated loads were reinforced with additional layers of carbon/epoxy to suppress and
prevent indentation failure. Only in the case when the indentation failure mode was studied there was no face reinforcement.
RESULTS
The critical wrinkling stress for the honeycomb core calculated from Equation (4) when the sandwich beam is subjected to
bending and shear loads using the values of material constants of Table 1 is 2,952 MPa. This stress is higher than the com-
pressive strength of the facings of 1,930 MPa. Thus the sandwich beam with honeycomb core does not fail by wrinkling, but by
facing compressive failure. This is due to the high value of the elastic modulus of the aluminum honeycomb core in the trans-
verse direction. The critical wrinkling stress for the two types of foam core materials studied in this work is according to Equa-
tion (4) 497 MPa for Divinycell H100 and 953 MPa for Divinycell H250. These critical stresses are lower than the critical failure
stress of the materials in compression. Therefore, contrary to the honeycomb core, sandwich beams with Divinycell foam core
do not fail by compression facing failure, but by compression facing wrinkling. Thus the dominant failure modes are core shear
failure and compression facing wrinkling.
The critical failure load for both failure modes depends on the end supports of the beam (simply supported or cantilever), its
length and the type of loading. Figure 2 presents the variation of the critical load, P
cr
, versus span length for initiation of core
shear failure and compression facing wrinkling for a simply supported beam loaded by a concentrated load P for Divinycell
H100 and H250 core materials. The critical failure load of the beam is the smaller of the two values predicted by the two failure
modes. The two curves of the critical load versus beam span intersect at a critical span at which transition from one failure
mode to the other takes place. For beam spans smaller than the critical span failure initiation of the beam takes place by core
shear failure, while for beam span greater than the critical span failure starts by compression facing wrinkling. Note that the
critical span for failure mode transition from core shear failure to compression facing wrinkling is higher for the H100 than the
H250 core material. This is explained from the fact that H100 presents lower shear strength than H250, and therefore, the
realm of core shear failure for H100 is more extended than for H100. For both materials for short spans core failure occurs
first, while for high spans failure starts by compression facing wrinkling. Results for a cantilever beam loaded by a uniform and
a triangular load q and are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Table 3 presents values of the critical beam span for which transition
from core shear failure to compression facing wrinkling tales place. Note that the critical span increases which means that the
realm of failure initiation by core shear failure increases as the type of load changes from concentrated, to uniform, to triangu-
lar. Also, note that the critical span is smaller for the cantilever than the simply supported beam for the same type of loading.
This is explained from the fact that in the cantilever the shear force to bending moment ratio is higher than in the simply sup-
ported beam subjected to the same type of loading.

0
2
4
6
8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
L (cm)
P
c
r

(
k
N
)
0.38
Pcr=2.1 kN
Pcr=6.45 kN
P
cr
= 2.46/L
Pcr= 1.28/L
H250
P
25.4 (mm)
25.4
H100
0.62


Fig. 2: Critical load versus span length for failure initiation for a cantilever sandwich subjected to a concentrated load. Re-
sults for two core foam material Divinycell H100 and H250 are presented.


L (m)
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
q
c
r
(
k
N
)
,

H
2
5
0
0
1
2
3
q
c
r
(
k
N
)
,

H
1
0
0
1.24 0.76
q
cr
=4.918/ L
2
q
cr
=6.45/L
q
25.4 mm
25.4
q
cr
=2.064/L
q
cr
=2.565/L
2
L
H250
H100
L (m)
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
q
c
r
(
k
N
)
,

H
2
5
0
0
1
2
3
q
c
r
(
k
N
)
,

H
1
0
0
0.76
q
cr
=4.918/ L
2
q
cr
=6.45/L
q
25.4 mm
25.4
q
cr
=2.064/L
q
cr
=2.565/L
2
L
1.24
H250
H100
H250
H100


Fig. 3: Critical load versus span length for failure initiation for a simply supported sandwich beam subjected to a continuous
load. Results for two core foam material Divinycell H100 and H250 are presented.


0
4
8
12
16
20
24
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
2
2.4
L (m)
q
c
r
(
k
N
)
,

H
2
5
0
0
1
2
3
q
c
r
(
k
N
)
,

H
1
0
0
1.67 0.99
q
cr
=9.57/L
2
q
cr
=6.475/L
q
cr
=3.0/L
q
cr
=5/L
2 q
25.4 mm
25.4
L
H250
H100
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
2
2.4
L (m)
q
c
r
(
k
N
)
,

H
2
5
0
0
1
2
3
q
c
r
(
k
N
)
,

H
1
0
0
0.99
q
cr
=9.57/L
2
q
cr
=6.475/L
1.67
q
cr
=3.0/L
q
cr
=5/L
2 q
25.4 mm
25.4
L
H250
H100
H250
H100


Figure 4: Critical load versus span length for failure initiation for a simply supported sandwich beam subjected to a triangular
load. Results for two core foam materials Divinycell H100 and H250 are presented.


Table 3: Critical values l
cr
, of beam span for failure mode transition from core shear failure to compression facing
wrinkling

Simply Supported
Beam
qqqq
qq
P P
Divinylcell H100 l
cr
=0.62 m l
cr
=1.24 m l
cr
=1.67 m
Divinylcell H250 l
cr
=0.38 m l
cr
=0.76 m l
cr
=0.99 m
Cantilever Beam
qq
PP
Divinylcell H100 l
cr
=0.31 m l
cr
=0.62 m l
cr
=0.93 m
Divinylcell H250 l
cr
=0.19 m l
cr
=0.325 m l
cr
=0.57 m

CONCLUSIONS
From the results of the present investigation the following conclusions may be drawn:
i. Failure initiation of sandwich beams with aluminum honeycomb core occurs by failure of the facing in compression or
the core in shear and never by failure by wrinkling. This behavior is due to the high stiffness of the aluminum honey-
comb in the transverse direction.
ii. Core shear failure dominates facing failure in compression for relative small beam spans with respect to facing thick-
ness and relative small values of the facing strength in compression with respect to the shear strength of the core.
iii. Failure envelopes for failure transition from core shear failure to facing failure in compression are straight lines in the
plane of facing compressive strength relative to core shear strength and beam span relative to facing thickness. The
lines rotate toward the beam span axis as we move from the concentrated to the uniform and to the triangular load.
The slope of these lines with respect the beam span axis is higher for the simply supported beam than for the cantile-
ver.
iv. Sandwich beams with foam core fail by compression facing wrinkling or by core shear failure and never by failure of
the facing in compression. This is explained from the low stiffness of the foam in the transverse direction.
v. There is a critical beam span at which transition of failure from core shear to compression facing wrinkling takes
place. For beam spans smaller than the critical span failure initiation of the beam takes place by core shear failure,
while for beam spans greater than the critical span failure initiates by compression facing wrinkling.
vi. The critical length for failure mode transition from core shear failure to compression facing wrinkling is higher for the
H100 than the H250 core material.
vii. For short spans core failure occurs first, while for high spans compression facing wrinkling takes place.
viii. The critical length for failure mode transition from core shear to facing wrinkling failure increases as the type of load
changes from concentrated, to uniform, to triangular. The above critical length is smaller for the cantilever than for the
simply supported beam for the same type of loading. It is higher for Divinycell H100 than for Divinycell H250.

REFERENCES
[1] Allen, H. G., Analysis and Design of Structural Sandwich Panels, (Pergamon Press, London, 1969).
[2] Hall, D. J. and Robson, B. L., "A review of the design and materials evaluation programme for the GRP/foam sandwich
composite hull of the RAN Minehunter," Composites, Vol. 15, pp. 266-276, (1984).
[3] Zenkert, D., An Introduction to Sandwich Construction, (Chameleon, London, 1995).
[4] Daniel, I.M., Gdoutos, E.E., Wang, K.-A., and Abot, J.L., "Failure modes of composite sandwich beams", International Journal of
Damage Mechanics, Vol. 11, pp. 309-334, (2002).
[5] Gdoutos, E.E., Daniel, I.M. and Wang, K.-A., "Indentation failure in composite sandwich structures," Experimental Mechanics, Vol. 42,
pp. 426-431, (2002).
[6] Gdoutos, E.E., Daniel, I.M., Wang, K.-A., "Compression facing wrinkling of composite sandwich structures," Mechanics of Materials
Vol. 35, 511-522, (2003).
[7] Heath, W. G., "Sandwich construction, Part 2: The optimum design of flat sandwich panels," Aircraft Engineering, Vol. 32,
pp. 230-235, (1969).
[8] Hoff, N. J. and Mautner, S. E., "The buckling of sandwich-type panels," Journal of Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 12, pp. 285-
297, (1945).
[9] Gdoutos, E.E., Daniel I.M. and Wang, K.A., "Failure of cellular foams under multiaxial loading," Composites: Part A Vol. 33, pp. 163-
176, (2002).
[10]Daniel, I. M. and Abot, J. L., "Fabrication, testing and analysis of composite sandwich beams," Composites Science and
Technology, Vol. 60, No. 12-13, pp. 2455-2463, (2000).