Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 17 (2009) 15331547

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/simpat

Experimental and numerical characterization of honeycomb sandwich

composite panels
Ahmed Abbadi a, Y. Koutsawa a, A. Carmasol b, S. Belouettar a, Z. Azari b,*
a

Centre de Recherche Public Henri Tudor, 29, Avenue John F. Kennedy, L-1855, Luxembourg
LaBPS (Laboratoire de mcanique, Biomcanique, Polymres, Structures), Ecole Nationale dIngnieurs de Metz, Universit Paul Verlaine-Metz,
Ile du Saulcy, F-57045 Metz, France
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 3 June 2008
Received in revised form 30 April 2009
Accepted 8 May 2009
Available online 21 June 2009

Keywords:
Sandwich
Honeycomb
Mechanical properties
Modelling
Plate theory

a b s t r a c t
In this paper, an experimental investigation, an analytical analysis and a numerical model
of a typical four-point bending test on a honeycomb sandwich panel are proposed. The
honeycomb core is modelled as a single solid layer of equivalent material properties. Analytical and numerical (nite element) homogenization approaches are used to compute the
effective properties of the honeycomb core. A general kinematic model (unied formulation) has been adopted and used for the modelling of honeycomb sandwich panel submitted to the bending test. A comparative study of major classes of representative theories has
been considered. Qualitative and quantitative assessments of displacement, stress have
been presented and discussed.
2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Honeycomb (HC) sandwich structures consist of a thick layer (core) intercalated between thin-stiff layers (skins) (Fig. 1).
They are produced by bonding metal or composite laminate skins to a honeycomb core. These layered-like materials are
characterized by lightweight, high exural stiffness and can support classical loadings like tension and bending. The many
advantages of honeycomb sandwich constructions, the development of new materials and the industrial needs for high performance and low-weight structures ensure that honeycomb sandwich construction will continue to be in demand. HC composites are increasingly being used to replace traditional materials in highly loaded applications [1,2]. Honeycomb cores are
described as cellular solids [2,4], that make use of voids to decrease mass, whilst maintaining qualities of stiffness and energy
absorption. This improvement, at relatively little expense, in terms of mass, is of great interest in aerospace, automotive and
many other applications [2]. In order to use these materials in different applications, the knowledge of their mechanical
behaviour is required. This calls for the development of rigorous mathematical and experimental methods capable of characterizing, modelling, designing and optimising of the composite under any given set of conditions. Numerical simulation of
these structures requires, rstly, a proper experimental identication of the core and the skins material behaviors, and secondly an adequate kinematic model to obtain a reasonable computational cost. In the present paper, we propose to experimentally investigate and to identify the basic mechanical properties of the honeycomb sandwich panels and to analytically
describe the response of HC sandwich panel submitted to a four-point bending test. The experimental investigations carried
out consist in four-points bending static tests on two types of HC (Aramide Fibre, Aluminium) sandwich panels. The
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 387 31 52 69; fax: +33 387 31 53 03.
E-mail address: azari@univ-metz.fr (Z. Azari).
1569-190X/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.simpat.2009.05.008

1534

A. Abbadi et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 17 (2009) 15331547

Nomenclature
bending moment,
Mx
transversal force.
Tx
D
indicates the bending stiffness
Efi i 1; 2 Young modulus of the face i
t fi i 1; 2 thickness of face i
core Young modulus
Ec
core thickness
Tc
rx
stress inside the bottom skin
sxz
shear stress
B(z)
the surface moment
S
shear stiffness
G
shear modulus
h
thickness of the beam
k
shear correction factor
L
length of specimen
distance between applied loads
L1
distance between the inner supports
L2 = a
rf
tensile (or compressive) strength of the skins
sc
shear strength of the core
displacement according to directions
x1, x2
transversal displacement
x3
r11, r22, r33, s12 stress components
s13, s23 shear stress components
U
displacement eld
ua, w, ca functions of x1, x2
f(z)
shear function
virtual work of acceleration quantities
W acc
virtual work of interior forces
W int
virtual work of exterior forces
W ext
eij
virtual deformations
e a generalized efforts
e ab ; Q
Nab ; Mab ; M
e a generalized vectors in the form
Pa ; ma ; m
e
B, B
generalized constitution matrices
q(x, y)
sinusoidal function

additional outcome of the experimental study carried out is the analysis of the core density and the cell orientation (L and W)
effects on the maximum load as well as on damage processes.
The effective mechanical properties of the honeycomb have been estimated based on the work of Gibson and Ashby [4],
Masters and Evans [5] and Grdiac [6]. For the modelling of the HC sandwich panel, an attempt has been made to propose a
high order unied kinematical formulation able to describe the local (e.g. shear deformation) and global (e.g. deection)

Aluminium skin

Nomex/Aluminium
honeycomb core
Aluminium skin

Glue

T
W
Direction
Cell Size
L
Direction

Fig. 1. Schematic detailed description of the honeycomb sandwich structure.

1535

A. Abbadi et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 17 (2009) 15331547

responses of a given sandwich panel under a four-points bending static test. 3D nite element simulations of these structures, using ANSYS and CASTEM 2003 nite element codes, are also proposed.
2. Materials and experimental method
2.1. Materials
The honeycomb sandwich panels have been provided by Euro-Composites S.A. (Luxembourg) and are intended for the
aircraft industry. The geometrical dimensions of the specimen are shown in Table 1. The faces of a thickness equal to
0.60 mm are made of aluminium (AlMg3) (Table 2), the core structure is made either from aluminium (ECM) sheets or from
aramide bres (ECA) [3] folded and glued together (Fig. 1) forming a hexagonal cell structure. As in the standard layout for
commercial honeycombs, the assembly of the structure produces some cell walls with double thickness. In the tested conguration these double thickness walls were parallel to the specimen longitudinal axis. The honeycomb core is an opened
cell with various densities of 55 kg/m3 and 82 kg/m3 of aluminium core and 48 kg/m3 of aramide bre core, respectively.
The cell size is 6.4 and 9.6 mm for aluminium core and 3.2 mm for aramide bres core. The geometrical and mechanical
properties of the panels are depicted in Tables 13.
2.2. Experimental methodology
Tests were carried out through a four-point bending testing xture device schematically shown in Fig. 2. The device, designed and built expressly for these tests, was connected to a servo-hydraulic universal testing machine INSTRON 4302 controlled by an INSTRON electronic unit. The electronic unit performs the test control and the data acquisition. A PC equipped
with a NI acquisition device was used to acquire the load and stroke signals. Load was measured with a 10 kN strain-gage
load cell directly mounted on the testing machine cross head, while stroke was measured by means of a LVDT transducer
directly connected between the frame of the testing machine and the head of the hydraulic actuator. The design of the xture
device allows the inner supports to rotate around the neutral axis of the specimen. Static tests were carried out on all congurations at room temperature in stroke control mode at a constant displacement rate of 2 mm mn1 in order to archive a
quasi-static loading condition according to the military standards: MIL-STD-401 DIN 53291. The following condition was imposed so that the rupture takes place in the core:

2t f bdrf ;max
 P rup;core sc;max bd;
L2  L1
2t f rf ;max
with L2  L1 
:
where P rup;face

1
2

sc;max

Table 1
Specimen dimensions.
L (mm)

b (mm)

h (mm)

Hc (mm)

tf (mm)

L2 (mm)

L1 (mm)

d = hc + tf (mm)

500

250

10

8.80

0.60

420

210

9.40

Table 2
Mechanical properties of faces made of aluminium.
Young modulus (MPa)

Strength to failure (MPa)

Max. elongation (%)

70,000

367

13

Table 3
Mechanical properties of the cores [3].

Core
Cell size
Density (kg/m3)
Shear resistance L (MPa)
Shear modulus L (MPa)
Shear resistance W (MPa)
Shear modulus W (MPa)
Compression resistance (MPa)

Aluminium core

Fibre aramide core

ECM
6.4
82
2.40
430
1.40
220
1.50

ECA
3.2
4.8
1.32
51
0.56
49
2.10

9.6
55
1.48
253
0.88
170
2.75

3.2
144
3.50
128
2.20
94
15.20

1536

A. Abbadi et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 17 (2009) 15331547

tf
d

Ec, Gc
H

tc

Ef

Fig. 2. Sketch of the four-point bending test and specimen dimensions.

Four replicate sandwich specimens of different densities and in two different congurations were tested. During the tests
the displacement of the inner supports of the four-point bending rig and the total applied load were acquired.
2.3. Experimental results
A typical loading maximum displacement curves are shown in Figs. 35. The analysis of the experimental results of the
static four-points bending tests permit use to make the following statements: the sandwich composite stiffness increases
when increasing the core density and the load to failure increases with increasing cores densities; the maximum loads
are higher in the L-direction than in the W-direction for low densities and almost of the same order of higher core densities
values and the maximum deection is higher in L-conguration than in the W one for the same sandwich core. Considering
together aramide bres and aluminium cores, the sandwich panels with aramide bres are almost more ductile than those
made of aluminium cores.

Loads (kN)

density 82kg/m

(Alu-Alu)

55kg/m3

(Alu-Alu)

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

max. deflection (mm)

Fig. 3. Evolution and comparison of the deection according to the applied vertical load for the L- and W-directions. The cores are made of aluminium
(55 kg/m3 and 82 kg/m3).

1537

A. Abbadi et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 17 (2009) 15331547

Loads (kN)

w
1

0
0

10

15

20

25

max. deflection (mm)

Fig. 4. Comparison of the deection according to the applied vertical load. The cores are made of aluminium (55 kg/m3) and L-oriented.

The visual and optical observations (Figs. 6 and 7) made on the damaged honeycomb sandwich panels point out that all
the specimens failed due to face wrinkling: a local buckling of the compressed face. We have also observed an indentation
and plastic deformations of faces at the loads application area as well as cell walls wrinkling in the zone between the load
application zone and the support zone. It appears from these observations that the failure modes depend essentially on the

loads (kN)

144kg/m

W
3

48kg/m3
W

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

max. deflection (mm)

Fig. 5. Evolution and comparison of the deection according to the applied vertical load. The cores are made of aramide bres (48 kg/m3 and 144 kg/m3)
and W-oriented.

1538

A. Abbadi et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 17 (2009) 15331547

Fig. 6. Failure modes of sandwich with aramide bre honeycomb core of 48 kg/m3 density.

W-Direction

L-Direction

Fig. 7. Failure modes of sandwich with aluminium honeycomb core of 55 kg/m3.

nature of core itself: material, density and cells orientation. Indeed, for honeycomb cores made of aramide bre of a density
of 48 kg/m3 and W-oriented the failure is almost characterized by cell walls buckling (Fig. 6), small indentation of the faces in
the vicinity of the loading application and a plastic deformation of the sandwich skins. On the other hand, for L-oriented
conguration the failure is essentially due to a signicant faces wrinkling in the vicinity of the load application area
(Figs. 6 and 7). Fig. 7 illustrates the failure modes of L-oriented and W-oriented aluminium core of a density of 55 kg/m3.
These damages are essentially characterized by cell walls buckling in the zone between the load application and the xed
support and by a signicant skins wrinkling [22].
3. Effective properties of the honeycomb core
3.1. Analytical homogenization approach
The development of constitutive material models for honeycomb materials is complicated due to the highly anisotropic
properties of the material. Computationally efcient modelling methods and constitutive laws are required to reduce CPU

1539

A. Abbadi et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 17 (2009) 15331547

X2
t'

P
M1

11

X1
b
M1

11
P

Fig. 8. Analytical the homogenization procedure.

time and whilst being accurate enough to realistically represent the overall structural behaviour. The analytical expressions
used for the determination of the effective elastic properties of cellular hexagonal honeycomb core, are based on the important works of [410]. The elemental beam theory has been adopted (Fig. 8) for each component inside the unit-cell to arrive
at the different expressions for effective properties utilizing the strain energy concept. The length of the diagonal struts, vertical struts, and included angle, as well as the thickness of the struts have been kept as variable, so various forms of hexagonal honeycomb cellular structures can be investigated. The presented analytical approach is simple and computes the
effective properties in a fraction of the time that is required for FE analysis with a minimum change in the input le.
The proper implementation of this method embedded in large quasi-static or dynamic simulations (where part of the
structure could be modelled with detailed nite element mesh and the rest could be modelled with a single solid layer of
equivalent material properties) would give high computational advantage, which is essential in large-scale modelling and
simulation environment.
3.2. Numerical homogenization approach
It is well known that the previous analytical results are restricted to the extreme density limits (very low and very high
densities) because analytical expressions are more difcult to obtain at intermediate densities. In addition, the well-known
HashinShtrikman bounds provide analytic information on the possible range of the effective properties. In parallel, very recently Balawi and Abot [11] have shown experimentally that the effective elastic moduli for honeycombs with low relative
densities are not similar in the two in-plane directions as predicted by previous studies. Thus, conventional nite element
approaches and numerical homogenization methods are proposed to assess, and update if needed, the analytical effective
properties. The Representative Volume Element (RVE) consists in 40 cells meshed with plate nite elements with 4 nodes
and 6 degrees of freedom per node. Every foil contains 12 elements: 4 according to the height and 3 according to the length.
To estimate the various elastic moduli, a displacement is imposed on the face of the RVE in a given direction while the opposite face is being xed. Symmetries are taken into account by using the appropriate boundary conditions. Nine simulations
are necessary to determine the nine elastic moduli of the honeycomb. Once the honeycomb core is homogenized, the whole
sandwich panel is likened to a beam constituted of three elastic layers: isotropic/orthotropic/isotropic, that will be used in
numerical and analytical models described below. The FE results are depicted in Table 4. The values of the plane stresses in
the skins, shear stresses in the core, deformations and displacements in the structure are represented, Table 5.
4. Analytical modelling of the four-points bending test
Honeycomb sandwich is basically a layered composite. The most important feature of HC sandwich construction is that
these materials are relatively weak in shear due to their low shear modulus compared to that of extensional rigidity. The
modelling of HC sandwich materials is seen to follow the same path of laminated composites. Comprehensive reviews
and assessments of the modelling of multi-layered and sandwich composites can be found in the survey paper by Noor
et al. [12] and in Reddy [13] and in the very recent paper of Hu et al. [14]. In [15], Carrera and co-authors uses a unied formulation to compare about 40 theories for multi-layered, composites and sandwich plates which are loaded by transverse
pressure with various in-plane distributions (harmonic, constant, triangular and tent-like). Also classical laminate theory

1540

A. Abbadi et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 17 (2009) 15331547

Table 4
Mechanical properties of a honeycomb core made of aluminum 82 kg/m3, L-direction.
Aluminum core 82 kg/m3 L-direction

FE code (Ansys)

Gibson

E1 (MPa)
E2 (MPa)
E3 (MPa)

1.304
1.334
1733.24
1
0.0002
1
0.0002
0.33
0.33
0.346
0.178
309.22
23
472.72

1.332
1.332
1617.2
1
0.0002
1
0.0002
0.33
0.33
0.333

c12
c13
c21
c23
c31
c32
G12 (MPa)
G21 (MPa)
G32 (MPa)
G32 (MPa)
G13 (MPa)
G13-min (MPa)
G13-max (MPa)

308.99

462.59
513.99

Table 5
Comparison between the analytical, nite element and experimental results obtained for three honeycomb cores densities.
Materials

Fmax (kN)

rp,max (MPa)

ep,max (%)

sc;max (MPa)

cc,max (%)

Analytical (mm)

Experimental (mm)

FE (mm)

AluAlu 82 kg/m3
AluAlu 55 kg/m3
AluFibber 48 kg/m3

6.299
4.307
3.278

469.14
320.72
244.1

0.714
0.488
0.371

1.34
0.916
0.697

1.20
1.07
2.80

11.10
7.58
6.79

12.36
10
8.68

14.02
12.30
10.68

(CLT) and First-order shear deformation theory (FSDT) based models fail to yield accurate results for thick cores and severe
anisotropy. On the other hand, several studies published in the literature ([1214,16,17] to cite only few) have shown that
most of the higher models (HOT) (e.g. Reddy [13] or Touratier [21]), while adding more effort in the analysis, do not result in
higher accuracy than the rst-order shear deformation model, used in conjunction with a post-processing approach based on
3D equations. To overcome these limitations, we adopt in the present study a unied formulation, similar to the one proposed by Hu et al. [14], where major existing models (CLT, FSDT, HSDT) could be represented only by choosing the appropriate mathematical form of the shear function f(z).
4.1. Formulation and kinematics
In the following, the sandwich structure is considered to be plane, three-dimensional with an orthotropic elastic core and
elastic isotropic skins. hs and hc are, respectively, the thicknesses of the skins and the core. The coordinates system is chosen
so that (x1, x2) is the middle plane. The derivation of the general governing equations is based on the following restrictive
assumptions common to many authors (we cite for instance [14,16]):
The core thickness is much higher than the skins thickness (hc  hs).The (x1 and x2) components of the displacements eld
in the core are linear functions of the z coordinate.
The transversal displacement is independent of the (x3 = z) coordinate. Thus e33 can be neglected.
The stress components r11, r22, r33, s12 are neglected in the core.
The transversal shear stress components s13 and
s23 are neglected in the skins.
In addition to the previous assumptions, we suppose that the thickness of the beam (H) is uniform and very small with
regard to the other dimensions. The medium plane X is a domain of R  R limited by a smooth contour U and that the Cartesian reference is associated to the volume V of the sandwich. The displacement eld is expressed by the following unied
formulation:


U

U a ua  z  w;a f z  ca ;
U 3 w;

a 2 f1; 2g;

where ua, w, ca could be functions of x1, x2 and t (time); w,a = ow/ oxa, ca = xa + w,a. ua represents the membrane displacement, ca is the transversal shear strain in the middle plane. f(z) is the shear function that can describe by the following
expressions depending on the considered theory [23]:

1541

A. Abbadi et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 17 (2009) 15331547

Model-1:
Model-2:
Model-3:
Model-4:

f (z) = 0, KirchhoffLove Theory [18];

f (z) = z,hMindlin rst-order
theory [20];
  i
4 z 2
f z z 1 
,
Reddy
high
order theory [13];
3
H
 
f z Hp sin pHz , Touratier high order theory [21].

4.2. Problem formulation

The principle of virtual works (PVW) is used to formulate the problem in order to investigate the ability of the various
models to analyse properly the behaviour of sandwich panels when subjected to a bending load. For this purpose and considering the previous introduced unied formulation, a virtual displacement eld is introduced as:

U

U a ua  z  w;a f z  ca ;

U 3 w ;

a 2 f1; 2g:

The principle of virtual works is written as:

W acc W int W ext

W acc :

5
W int :

W ext :

where
the virtual work of the acceleration quantities,
the virtual work of the interior forces
the virtual work
of the exterior forces.
The mathematical details of the analytical modelling are presented in the Annex I. Referring to the development presented in Annex I, the investigated problem could be solved entirely by solving the following PDE system:

8ua ; ca etw :

e
e 11  c
e
e
e
0 E11  w;111  E12 2  E66  w;122 D
1;11 D 12 D 66  c2;12 D 66  c1;22  A 55  c1 ;
e
e 12 D
e 66  c
e
e
0 E12 2  E66  w;112  E22  w;222 D
1;12 D 66  c2;11 D 22  c2;22  A 44  c2 ;
0 D11  w;1111  2  D12 2  D66  w;1122  D22  w;2222 E11  c1;111

E12 2  E66  c1;122 c2;112 E22  c2;222 q

The boundary conditions at the panel edges y = b/2 and y = b/2:

e 1;
e 66  c  D
e 66  c C
0 2  E66  w;12  D
1;2
2;1
e 2;
e 12  c  D
e 22  c C
0 E12  w;11 E22  w;22  D
1;1
2;2
0 D12 4  D66  w;112 D22  w;222  E12 2  E66  c1;12  2  E66  c2;11  E22  c2;22 T z C 1;1 ;

0 D12  w;11  D22  w;22 E22  c2;2 E12  c1;1  C 2

Considering a four-point bending test conguration, the sandwich panel is simply supported at the end edges (x1 = 0 and
x1 = a). This condition could be expressed mathematically by:

8x; Ce 1 Ce 2 T z C 2 0 and y b=2:

For solving this PDE system, we consider a load given by the following sinusoidal function:

qx; y Q m sin

 
pe
p 
8q0
pl
P
sin
sin
and q0
:
x
where Q m
a
2a
2be
a
p

The following close form, similar to the one proposed by Idlbi et al. [23], must satisfy the load balance equations and the
boundary conditions.

wx; y Wy sin

p 
p 
p 
x ; c1 x; y C1 y cos
x ; c2 x; y C2 y sin
x :
a
a
a

This complex PDE system is solved using Mathematica 5.1. The response in terms of displacement eld has permitted to
characterize the entire response of the sandwich panel. The results are presented in Tables 6 and 7.

5. Finite element modelling and analysis

For the purpose of comparison, FE calculations are also performed on CASTEM 2003. The HC sandwich structure is modelled using 3D solid (eight nodes and six DOFs per node) elements. For symmetry reasons, only a quarter of the sandwich
panel (Fig. 9) is considered in the present analysis. The applied boundary conditions are as follows: at the level of the sup-

1542

A. Abbadi et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 17 (2009) 15331547

Table 6
The displacement (U1, U2, U3) eld obtained using the different analytical models and the FE model (CASTEM 2003).
AluAlu 6.482 (load = 1000 N)
Displacement: U1(3a/4,0,H/2), U2(3a/4,b/2,H/2), U3(a/2,0,0)
L-Conguration

FE Castem
Kirchhoff
Reddy
Touratier

W-Conguration

U1 (lm)

Error (%)

U2 (lm)

Error (%)

U3 (mm)

Error (%)

U1 (lm)

Error (%)

U2 (lm)

Error (%)

U3 (mm)

Error (%)

58.30
57.48
57.94
57.95

0.604
0.811
0.017
Ref.

15.03
13.45
14.48
14.49

3.726
7.18
0.069
Ref.

2.31
2.174
2.222
2.223

3.91
2.204
0.045
Ref.

59.03
57.48
57.94
58.07

1.653
1.016
0.224
Ref.

15.06
13.45
14.48
14.68

2.59
8.379
1.362
Ref.

2.35
2.174
2.222
2.241

4.864
2.989
0.848
Ref.

Table 7
Comparison of stress values obtained using the different analytical models and the FE model (CASTEM 2003).
Models

Alu-Alu 6.4-82 (load = 1000 N)

r11(a/2, 0, H/2), r22(3a/4, 0, H/2), s13 (3a/4, b/2, hc/2)
L-Conguration

Castem
Kirchhoff
Reddy
Touratier

W-Conguration

r11 (MPa)

Error (%)

r22 (MPa)

Error (%)

s13 (MPa)

Error (%)

r11 (MPa)

Error (%)

r22 (MPa)

Error (%)

s13 (MPa)

Error (%)

44.70
44.66
44.75
44.76

0.134
0.223
0.0223
Ref.

3.85
4.487
3.965
3.958

2.729
13.365
0.177
Ref.

5.07

5.204
4.595

2.238

13.254
Ref.

45.46
44.66
44.75
44.80

1.473
0.3125
0.1116
Ref.

3.70
4.487
3.965
3.853

3.971
16.455
2.907
Ref.

5.70

5.204
5.877

3.012

11.451
Ref.

Fig. 9. Sketch of a four-point bending test modelling and notations.

port, the transversal displacement Uz is xed to zero; at the symmetry level on the face 1, the in-plane displacementUx and
the rotations hy and hz are xed to zero; then on the face 2, the in-plane displacement Uy and the rotation hx and hz are also
zero.

1543

A. Abbadi et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 17 (2009) 15331547

Kirchoof
Reddy

0.0

Touratier
Castem

-0.5

U3 [mm]

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

-2.5
250

300

350

400

450

X [mm]
Fig. 10. Evolution of the deection U3, x considering the different theories.

Prior to initiating the evaluation study, an analysis of mesh convergence is carried out to ensure the accuracy of the proposed nite element solution since it is considered in the present study as the reference. The convergence was achieved with
9000 elements: 50 elements following the x-axis, 12 elements in the thickness of the core, 3 elements in the thickness of
each skin and 10 elements following the y-axis.
6. Results and discussion
Some of the obtained results obtained using the various theories as well as using FE modelling are depicted in Tables 6
and 7. In the proposed comparison effort, the 3D FE results are considered as the reference and serves to validate the analytical results. The curves of (Fig. 10 and 11) give the variation of the displacements U3, U1 and U2 and for some positions in
the sandwich panel according to the different models. In Figs. 12 and 13 are presented the in-plane stress and the shear
stress, respectively. Form these results we could observe that in Model-1 (KirchhoffLove theory based model or CLT based
model) the deformations due to the transverse shear are neglected and therefore the deection is underestimated (error of
3% on the transversal displacement and from 1% to 8% on U1 and U2). Considering the importance of the transverse stress in
the modelling of honeycomb sandwich composites, we state that Model-1 is unsuited for the core modelling. Nevertheless, it
could be adequate for modelling the faces. Model-2 is a rst-order shear deformation theory (FSDT) based model. This model
considers a linear variation of the shear stress in the core. Model-3 and Model-4 are higher order theory based models. They
are mainly based on hypothesis of non-linear stress variation through the thickness. The third-order theory by Reddy [13]

60

20
Love
Reddy
Touratier
Castem

20

15
10

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

-20

U2[ m]

U1[ m]

40

5
0
-6

-4

-2

-5 0
-10

-40
-60

z[mm]

-15
-20

Love
Reddy
Touratier
Castem

z[mm]

Fig. 11. Evolution of the in-plane displacements (U1 and U2) elds versus z coordinate (x = 3a/4 and y = b/2.) considering the different theories.

1544

A. Abbadi et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 17 (2009) 15331547

8

60

Kirchhoff
Reddy

Touratier
Castem

Kirchhoff
Reddy

Touratier
Castem

40

4
20

0
-6

-4

-2

22 [Mpa]

11 [Mpa]

-6

0
-4

-2

-2

-20

-4
-40

-6
-8

-60

Z[mm]

Z [mm]

Fig. 12. In plane stress evolution (r11, r22) according to z face for x = a/2 and y = 0.

6
5
13[Mpa]

4
3
2
1
0
-6

-4

-2

z[mm]

Reddy

Touratier

Catem

Fig. 13. Evolution of the shear stress in the honeycomb sandwich (analytical and FE results).

(Model-3) is based on the same assumptions as than classical and rst-order theories, except that the assumption of straightness and normality of a transverse normal after deformation is relaxed by expanding the displacements as cubic functions of
the thickness coordinate. Model-3 satises zero transverse shear stresses on the bounding planes and the equations of motion are derived from the principle of virtual displacements. As with the CLT and FSDT, HOT based model does not satisfy the
continuity conditions of transverse shear stresses at layer interfaces. In Model-3, Touratier [21] suggested trigonometric
functions instead of polynomial developments of the transverse coordinate. The proposed theory recovers the classic thin
plate and ReissnerMindlin [19] theories and satises zero transverse shear stress conditions on the top and bottom surface
of plates and avoids shear correction factor.
7. Conclusion
Experimental, analytical and numerical modelling of a typical four-points bending test of honeycomb sandwich structure
have been investigated. The honeycomb core is modelled as a single solid layer of equivalent material properties. Analytical
and numerical (FE) homogenization approaches have been used to compute the effective properties of the honeycomb core.
Beside the analysis of various in-the-literature models and theories, 3D governing equations of four-points bending test have
been derived by using the virtual work principle and solved. A general kinematic model (unied formulation) has been
adopted and used the static test analysis of honeycomb sandwich panel. Various kinematics (CLT, FSDT, HOT) have been considered and compared and the results have been presented. It comes out from this assessment process that models based on
high order theories are more accurate than CLT and FSDT based models and that CLT and FSDT models always overestimate
global stiffnesses and do not enable a valid description of the distribution of the transverse shear stress.

A. Abbadi et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 17 (2009) 15331547

1545

Acknowledgments
The nancial support of the Funds National de la Recherche is acknowledged (AFR grant of Dr. Koutsawa). Part of this
research work has been achieved in the framework of Adyma project (FNR/08/01).

Appendix A. Expression of W acc

The virtual work of the acceleration quantities is dened by:

W acc

q U   U dV:

I:1

By using some classical integration theorems and introducing the following generalized vectors for, n = 0, 1, 2

In ; J n ; K

H=2

q  zn ; f zn ; z  f z  dz;

H=2

one can write W acc as:

W acc

a ua I1 u
a ca dX
a;a I0 ww
a  I1 w
;a J 1 c
a;a  I2 w
;aa K c
 J 1 u
a  K w
;a J 2 c
I0 u
Z
a na w dC:
a  I2 w
a Kc
 I1 u
X

I:2

A.1. Expression of W int

This virtual work of internal work is given as:

W int 

e : rdV:

I:3

Considering the assumption of small perturbations, one can get following relation for the virtual deformations:

eij


1 
ui;j uj;i ;
2 Z

W i 

i; j 1; 2; 3;
I:4

ua;b  z  w;ab f z  ca;b  rab f 0 z  ca  ra3  dV:

By introducing into this relation the following generalized forces and moments:

e ab
Nab ; M ab ; M
ea
Q

H=2

1; z; f z  rab  dz;

H=2
H=2

f 0 z  ra3  dz;

H=2

and considering the constitutive law:

rab Q abij  eij ; a; b; i; j 2 f1; 2; 3g

and also the generalized constitutive matrices:

e abij ; Babij ; B
e abij ; Dabij ; D
e abij ; Eabij
Aabij ; A

H=2

1; f z2 ; z; f z; z2 ; f z2 ; z  f z  Q abij  dz:

H=2

The virtual work of the interior forces yields

W i

Z 

e abij  c  u Babij  ui;jba  Dabij  w;ijba Eabij  c  w B

e abij  ui;jb  Eabij
Aabij  ui;jb  Babij  w;ijb B
i;jb
i;jba
a
Z 
e a3i3  c  c   dX 
e abij  c  c  A
e abij  c  nb  u  Babij  ui;j  Dabij
 w;ijb D
Aabij  ui;j  Babij  w;ij B
i;jb
i
i;j
a
a
a
X

 w;ij Eabij  ci;j  nb  na w;n Babij  ui;j  Dabij  w;ij Eabij  ci;j  nb  t a ;l  w Babij  ui;jb  Dabij  w;ijb Eabij

e abij  ui;j  Eabij  w;ij D
e abij  c  nb  c  dC:
 ci;jb  na  w B
i;j
a

1546

A. Abbadi et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 17 (2009) 15331547

A.2. Expression of W e
The virtual work of the external forces is dened by:

W e

! !
U  f  dV

! !
U  F  dCf :

Cf

Using the following generalized vectors:

e a
Pa ; ma ; m

H=2

1; z; f z  fa  dz; q

H=2

H=2

f3  dz; T z

H=2

H=2

F 3 dz

and

e a
T a ; C a ; C

H=2

H=2

1; z; f z  F a  dz;

H=2

We get from some integrations by parts the following:

W e

Z
X

e a  ca  dX
Pa  ua q ma;a  w m

Z
C

e a  c  dC:
T a  ua T z C a  t a ;l  ma  na  w  C a  na  w;n C
a

A.3. Balance equations and natural boundary conditions

By applying the lemma of variations calculus to the previous energy equations, one gets the following equilibrium with
their associated natural oundary conditions.

e abij  c Pa ;
a Aabij  ui;jb  Babij  w;ijb B
a  I1  w
;a J 1  c
I0  u
i;jb
e a3i3  c m
e abij  ui;jb  Eabij  w;ijb D
e abij  c  A
a B
a  K  w
;a J 2  c
e a;
J1  u
i;jb
i
a;a I0  w
a ;a  I 2  w
;aa K  c
Babij  ui;jab  Dabij  w;ijba Eabij  ci;jba q ma;a :
I1  u
A.4. Boundary conditions

e abij  c  nb T a ;
0 Aabij  ui;j  Babij  w;ij B
i;j
ea;
e
e abij  c  nb C
0  B abij  ui;j  Eabij  w;ij D
i;j

a  na Babij  ui;jb  Dabij  w;ijb Eabij  ci;jb  na

a I2  w
;a  K  c
0 I1  u
 Babij  ui;j  Dabij  w;ij Eabij  ci;j  nb  ta ;l T z C a  ta ;l T z C a  t a ;l  ma  na ;
0 Babij  u3i;j  Dabij  w;ij Eabij  ci;j  nb  na  C a  na :
A.5. Application on the modelling of a sandwich beam
e are zero. If
The considered sandwich panels have mirror symmetry. Thus, the generalized constitution matrices B and B
one considers that the volume forces are directed according to the axis z then we have:

e a 0:
Pa ma m
By using the following notation convention

ri Q ij  ej :
The equilibrium equations becomes

8ua ; ca et w :
e
e 11  c
e
e
e
0 E11  w;111  E12 2  E66  w;122 D
1;11 D 12 D 66  c2;12 D 66  c1;22  A 55  c1 ;
e 44  c ;
e 12 D
e 66  c
e 66  c
e 22  c
D
D
A
0 E12 2  E66  w;112  E22  w;222 D
1;12

2;11

2;22

0 D11  w;1111  2  D12 2  D66  w;1122  D22  w;2222 E11  c1;111

38

E12 2  E66  c1;122 c2;112 E22  c2;222 q

For an oblong beam (the system axes represented Fig 9), the 4 boundary conditions associated to the edges y = b/2 and y = b/2 are:

e1;
e 66  c  D
e 66  c C
0 2  E66  w;12  D
1;2
2;1
e
e
0 E12  w;11 E22  w;22  D 12  c  D 22  c
1;1

2;2

e 2;
C

0 D12 4  D66  w;112 D22  w;222  E12 2  E66  c1;12  2  E66  c2;11  E22  c2;22 T z C 1;1 ;
0 D12  w;11  D22  w;22 E22  c2;2 E12  c1;1  C 2 :

A. Abbadi et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 17 (2009) 15331547

1547

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]

G. Allen, Analysis and Design of Structural Sandwich Panel, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 1969.
D. Zenkert, An Introduction to Sandwich Construction, EMAS, Solihull, UK, 1995.
ECA-Honeycomb Data Sheet, EuroComposites S.A.
L.J. Gibson, M.F. Ashby, Cellular Solids: Structure and Properties, second ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997.
I.G. Masters, K.E. Evans, Models for the elastic deformation of honeycombs, Composite Structures 35 (1996) 403442.
M. Grdiac, A nite element study of the transverse shear in honeycomb cores, International Journal of Solids and Structures 30 (13) (1993) 1777
1788.
G. Shi, P. Tong, Equivalent transverse shear stiffness of honeycomb cores, International Journal of Solids and Structures 32 (10) (1995) 13831393.
W. Becker, The in-plane stiffness of honeycomb core including the thickness effect, Archives of Applied Mechanics 68 (1998) 334341.
F.X. Xu, P. Qiao, Homogenized elastic properties of honeycomb sandwich with skin effect, International Journal of Solids and Structures 39 (2002)
21532188.
F. Meraghni, F. Desrumaux, M.L. Benzeggagh, Mechanical behaviour of cellular core for structural sandwich panels, Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 767
779.
S. Balawi, J.L. Abot, The effect of honeycomb relative density on its effective in-plane elastic moduli: an experimental study, Composite Structures 84
(4) (2008) 293299.
A.K. Noor et al, Assessment of computational models for multilayered anisotropic plates, Composite Structures 14 (1990) 233265.
J.N. Reddy, A simple higher-order theory of laminated composite plate, Journal of Applied Mechanics 51 (1984) 745752.
H. Hu, S. Belouettar, E.M. Daya, M. Potier-Ferry, Evaluation of kinematic formulations for viscoelastically damped sandwich beam modeling, Journal of
Sandwich Structures and Materials 8 (2006) 477495.
E. Carrera, Historical review of zig-zag theories for multilayered plates and shells, Applied Mechanics Review 56 (3) (2003) 287308.
A. Chen, J.F. Davalos, A solution including skin effect for stiffness and stress eld of sandwich honeycomb core, International Journal of Solids and
Structures 42 (2005) 27112739.
C.C. Chamis, R.A. Aiello, L.N. Murthy, Fiber composite sandwich thermostructural behaviour: computational simulation, Journal of Composite
Technology and Research 10 (1988) 9399.
A.E.H. Love, Treatise on the Mathematical Theory for Elasticity, fourth ed., Dover, New York, 1927.
E. Reissner, The effect of transverse shear deformation on the bending of elastic plates, Journal of Applied Mechanics 12 (1945) 6976.
R.D. Mindlin, Inuence of rotatory inertia and shear in exural motions of isotropic elastic plates, Journal of Applied Mechanics 18 (1951) 10311036.
M. Touratier, An efcient standard plate theory, International Journal of Engineering Science 29 (1991) 901916.
S. Belouettar, A. Abbadi, Z. Azari, R. Belouettar, P. Freres, Experimental investigation of static and fatigue behaviour of composites honeycomb materials
using four point bending tests, Composite Structures 87 (3) (2009) 265273.
A. Idlbi, M. Kamara, M. Touratier, Comparison of various laminated plate theories, Composites Structures 37 (1997) 173184.