Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth (2018) International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference www.isope.

org
Sapporo, Japan, June 10-15, 2018
Copyright © 2018 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-87-6; ISSN 1098-6189

Low-velocity Impact Response and Residual Flexural Behavior of

Composite Sandwich Structures with Corrugated Core

Wentao He1*, Shuqing Wang1, Jingxi Liu2, De Xie2 and Zhe Tian1
1
College of Engineering, Ocean University of China
Qingdao, China
2
School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology
Wuhan, China.

ABSTRACT: A lightweight sandwich structure is fabricated with
carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) face sheets and aluminum
alloy corrugated core. This hybrid design enables such structures to
maximize the stiffness/strength-to-weight ratios and improve impact
resistance properties. The impact damage and residual flexural strength
of such structures are systematically investigated by experimental and
numerical methods under various impact energy levels. The low-
velocity impact tests are carried out to evaluate the impact-induced
damage resistance and tolerance with respect to impact load and failure
mode. Subsequently, three-point bending tests are performed to assess
the residual bearing ability of sandwich beams. Simultaneously, a
progressive damage model involving damage initiation and damage
evolution of composite laminates is implemented in ABAQUS/Explicit
by using user subroutine VUMAT to simulate low-velocity impact
response and residual flexural behavior of the composite sandwich
structure. Comparing the experimental measurements and numerical
predictions, reasonably good agreement is achieved in terms of failure
modes and damage mechanisms for the impact response and post-
impact flexural behavior of such structures. These studies reveal that
the impact-induced damage is closely related to the impact energy
level. For the lower impact energy case (10 J), delamination is the
predominant damage pattern; as the impact energy level increases, fiber
breakage and matrix cracking gradually become the dominant damage
modes. The top face sheet fracture is crucial to determining ultimate
load carrying capacity. There is a drastic reduction in residual flexural
strength and stiffness even though the impact energy is lower (10 J),
which indicates that impact damage is very sensitive to the residual
flexural behavior of corrugated sandwich structures.
KEYWORDS: Corrugated core sandwich structure; Low-velocity
impact; Residual flexural strength; Impact response; Flexural behavior
INTRODUCTION
Sandwich structures have been widely used for lightweight
constructions in the aerospace, automotive and marine fields due to
their specific bending stiffness/strength and good energy-absorbing
capability (Schneider, Kazemahvazi, Russell, Zenkert and Deshpande,
2016; He, Liu, Tao, Xie, Liu and Zhang, 2016; Xiong, Ma, Wu, Liu
and Vaziri, 2011). Corrugated core sandwich structures exhibit
extremely anisotropic behavior, so they have good application
prospects in the field of shipbuilding and ocean engineering as beam
components (Zhou, Guan and Cantwell, 2016; Liu, He, Xie and Tao,
2017; Park, Jung and Kim, 2016). Composite structures are vulnerable
to suffer from impact damage from foreign objects, and their residual
strengths have significant reduction, possibly causing catastrophic
failure (Liu, Zhang and Li, 2017). Therefore, it is necessary to
investigate the impact response and resulting damage state, evaluating
the post-impact flexural properties of the structure.
Regarding composite structures with impact-induced damage, the
residual compressive (Abir, Tay, Ridha and Lee, 2017), tensile (Zhang,
Wang, Ma, Xiong and Wu, 2013) and flexural properties (Zhang and
Richardson, 2007) are used to evaluate the residual load-bearing
capacity of a structure. Most studies have been conducted on the
compression properties after impact, while fewer studies concern the
residual tensile and flexural properties. With respect to residual
compression properties, many researchers have performed a great deal
of work to assess the influence of skin/core thickness, impact energy,
impact site, impactor size on the impact response and compression-
after-impact (CAI) behavior (González, Maimí, Camanho, Turon and
Mayugo, 2012; Rozylo, Debski and Kubiak, 2017). For example,
Davies, Hitchings, Besant, Clarke and Morgan (2004) presented a
comparative study on the CAI strength of honeycomb sandwich
structures with various face sheet and core thickness. It was found that
the energy absorption was related to the core thickness values. Zhang,
Wang, Ma, Xiong, Yang and Wu (2013) studied the impact damage
and CAI strength of pyramidal truss core sandwich structures under
various impact energy levels. Wang, Waas and Wang (2013) and
Wang, Wang, Chen, Huang and Liu (2017) investigated the impact
damage and CAI strength of woven polymer-based foam-core
sandwich panels. They pointed out there was a complex relationship
between CAI strength and the possible relevant parameters. As another
measuring standard of the impact-damaged composite laminates and
structures, the residual tensile response has been investigated by several
researchers (Liu, Lin, Zong, Sun and Li, 2013; Wang and Callinan,
2014). Wang, Wu and Ma (2010) studied the impact response and the

527
post-impact tensile strength of carbon/epoxy composite beams. Caprino material is described in Fig. 2, and its mechanical properties are given
and Teti (1994) studied residual tensile behavior of foam core sandwich in Table 1.
panels. It pointed out that residual strength was closely related to the
impact damage. Wang, Wu, Ma and Feng (2011) studied the impact The CFRP panels are manufactured from T700/3234 carbon
response and the residual tensile behavior of composite lattice core fiber/epoxy prepregs, with the stacking sequence [0o/90o/0o/90o]s. The
sandwich structures. material properties of the unidirectional laminate are listed in Table 2.
Face sheets and the core are bonded together by using a two-part epoxy
Although post-impact flexural behavior is not as common as adhesive under a certain pressure. The prepared sandwich beam is
compression for residual strength assessment, it is necessary to evaluate displayed in Fig. 1(a).
the residual flexural properties, particularly for sandwich structures
intended to be used as beams. With respect to the residual flexural (a) Short span (b)
strength assessment of composites, most research so far has focused on
impact damaged composite laminates, while few studies involved
sandwich structures after impact. Santiuste, Sánchez-Sáez and Barbero
(2010) investigated the impact damage and the residual flexural
strength of glass/polyester composite beams under various impact
Web member Long span
energy levels. They stated that the residual flexural strengths were
related to the impact damage. Sarasini, Tirillò, D'Altilia, Valente,
Santulli, Touchard and Gaudenzi (2016) studied the impact response Fig. 1 (a) Corrugated sandwich structure. (b) Configuration of the
and residual flexural behavior of carbon/flax composite beams. They trapezoidal core cell.
pointed out that hybridization can improve impact performance. Klaus,
500
Reimerdes and Gupta (2012) studied the impact response and residual
flexural behavior of composite foldcores sandwich structures. It was 400
found that the bending strength depended on impact damage. Vachon,

True stress (MPa)

Brailovski and Terriault (2013) presented a comparative study on the 300
post-impact flexural properties among three different carbon/epoxy
structures. Hart, Chia, Sheridan, Wetzel, Sottos and White (2017) 200
studied the impact response and residual flexural behavior of the woven
fiber-reinforced composites. They pointed out that the latter had larger 100
reduction than the former under the impact loading. However, to the
best knowledge of the authors, only a few research efforts focus on 0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
bending behavior after impact (Xu, Yang, Zeng, Cheng and Wang, True strain
2016; Boorle and Mallick, 2016), but a study on the residual flexural
strength regarding corrugated core sandwich structures has not yet been Fig. 2 True stress-strain curve of core material.
reported.
Table 1. Material properties of 2A12-T4 aluminum.
This paper aims to investigate the low-velocity impact response and
residual flexural strength behavior of sandwich structures consisting of ρ E v Su
CFRP face sheets and aluminum alloy corrugated cores. This hybrid
design enables such structures to maximize the stiffness/strength-to- 2700 kg/m3 70 GPa 0.3 460 MPa
weight ratios and improve impact resistance properties. The impact
damage and residual flexural strength of such structures are Table 2. Material properties of composite laminates.
systematically investigated by experimental and numerical methods
under various impact energy levels. The low-velocity impact tests are E11 E22 E33 v12, v13 v23
carried out to evaluate the impact resistance and three-point bending
tests are conducted to assess the residual bearing ability of sandwich 123 GPa 8.4 GPa 8.4 GPa 0.32 0.3
beams. Simultaneously, a progressive damage model involving damage G12, G13 G23 Xt Xc Yt
initiation and damage evolution of composite laminates is implemented
in ABAQUS/Explicit by using user subroutine VUMAT to simulate 4 GPa 3 GPa 2100 MPa 800 MPa 25 MPa
low-velocity impact response and residual flexural behavior of the Yc Zt S12, S13, S23 ρ
composite sandwich structure. Finally, based on the experimental and
numerical results, the failure modes and damage mechanisms of the 120 MPa 50 MPa 40 MPa 1560 kg/m3
impact response and residual flexural behavior of such structures are
elucidated in detail. Impact tests
EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY Impact testing is conducted using a drop hammer impact test
equipment, as depicted in Fig. 3(a). A rebound system is used to avoid
Materials and specimens multiple impacts. The specimens are clamped by pneumatic clamping
fixture with 75 mm diameter testing area. A clamping pressure of
The sandwich beam with 3 unit cells is fabricated with an aluminum 0.02MPa is imposed by the steel panels of the pneumatic clamping
alloy trapezoidal corrugated core and two CFRP face sheets, as shown fixture. The drop hammer weighs 13.2 kg with a hemispherical tip of
in Fig. 1(a). The core walls are made of 0.5 mm thick 2A12-T4 12 mm impactor tip. A force sensor with a maximum loading capacity
aluminum and its configuration is depicted in Fig. 1(b), with L1=7 mm, of 10 kN is used to record the impact load-time response. Three impact
L2=25 mm and ω=55o. The true stress-strain response of the core energy levels (10 J, 20 J and 70 J) are chosen to impact the specimens.

528
 Xiong, 2015; Zhang, Lu and Zhang, 2013) can be written using the
Three-point bending tests failure factor, R, and is given below:
Fiber tensile failure:
Three-point bending testing is carried out to evaluate the residual 2

2
  
2
 
flexural properties after impact tests, as depicted in Fig. 3(b). The R 2ft   11    12    13  11  0 (2)
 X       
cylindrical indenter and both cylindrical supports are 20 mm in  T   S12   S13 
diameter and the support span between the cylindrical supports is 200 Fiber compressive failure:
mm. The applied speed for the indenter is 1 mm/min on the impacted 2
side of the specimen. Similarly, non-damaged specimens are also tested   
to give the baseline strength for the sandwich beams. Briefly, the R 2fc   11  11  0 (3)
 X 
specimen impacted on the short span under the impact energy of 10J is  C 
marked as S-SS-10J. Matrix tensile failure:
2   2 2
        
2
  22 33    1  2 E 22 E33
 22 33    12   13 
Rmt      23      
 Y  S 2  2
G23   S
 T   23    12   S13 

Indenter  22   33   0 （4）
Impactor Matrix compressive failure:
Specimen
      E Y   
2 2 2
     1 
2  E   E33 33   22 33   22 C 
Rmc   22 22        1    
 
2G12 S12 Y  
   C   2G12 S12    S 23 

Support （5
2 2
 E 22 E33     
 2   12   13 
Pneumatic

 23 
2
 22  33           22   33   0
clamping fixture  G 23   S12   S13 
）
(a) (b) Yeh delamination failure:
2 2 2
     
     23 
Fig. 3. Test setups: (a) Impact Testing Machine; (b) Tensile testing
2
Rld   33
   13       33  0 (6)
 Z   S
machine.  T   13   S 23 
Where, X T , X C , YT and YC are the tension and compression strain
NUMERICAL SIMULATION
strengths in the longitudinal and transverse directions, respectively;
  
Damage model for aluminum core S12 , S13 and S 23 are the shear strain strength components, and ZT is
the tension strain strength in thickness direction. The failure factor (i
The ductile damage model is adopted to describe failure initiation and = ft, fc, mt, mc, ld) denotes the levels of failure. The strain strength
damage evolution of core material. In this model, the damage initiation components are written as:
occurs once the following is satisfied, X T  X T / E11 ,   X /E
XC C 11
pl
d
D 
 pl pl
D ( ,  )
1 （1） YT  YT / E 22 ,
  S /G ,
YC  YC / E 22 ,
  S /G ,
Z T  Z T / E33
  S /G
(7)
S12 12 12 S13 13 13 S 23 23 23
where  pl
is the equivalent plastic strain, pl is the equivalent plastic
when the failure factor Ri  1 , the damage initiates and the material
strain rate and  Dpl is the equivalent plastic strain at the onset of stiffness degrades based on the corresponding failure modes. Therefore,
damage; is the stress triaxiality. When damage initiation criterion is the damage variable d i is defined to characterize the damage
met at an integration point, the stress-strain response of the aluminum evaluation according to the failure factor,
alloy is softened according to the exponential damage evolution law, 1
and thus the material stiffness at that point is degraded. Once the di  1  Ri  1, n  1; i  ft , fc , mt , mc , ld  (8)
stiffness degradation at any one integration point reaches a critical Rin
value, the elements are removed from the finite element model. where d ft , d fc , d mt , and d mc are the damage variables in the tension
and compression modes for the fiber and matrix, respectively; d ld is
Damage model for composite face sheets
the damage variable for delamination. The parameter n=1 is adopted to
control material damage according to the trial.
In order to simulate the damage of composite laminate, a progressive
damage model including 3D Hashin failure criteria and Yeh
Once strains of the element satisfy the Hashin or Yeh failure criteria in
delamination failure criteria is implemented in ABAQUS/Explicit
the calculation process, material failure occurs and the stiffness of the
through an user-defined VUMAT subroutine. The progressive damage
structure is degraded. Therefore, the stress values of the element are
model involves five damage modes, namely fiber tension and
also updated in the next calculation iteration. The stiffness degradation
compression, matrix tension and compression, and delamination.
Strain-based failure criteria are used to characterize impact damage of material is associated with the damage parameter i (i=1…6), and
because they are more continuous and smoother than stresses. The therefore the stress-strain relations of the laminate can be expressed as
strain-based damage initiation (Huang and Lee, 2003; Yu, Wu, Ma and following,

529
11  
 1 
 12

 13 0 0 0

 11  Once the impact simulation is completed, the impact boundary

   E11 1  1  E 22 E 33    conditions are replaced by the new boundary conditions of three-point
     
 22    12  1   22  bending simulation. The rate of loading for the indenter is 1 mm/ms in
 23 0 0 0 
   E 22 E 22 1  1  E 22   
      order to save time. Similarly with the impact case, material properties
     1  
 13  23 0 0 0  and general contact are employed in the bending process.
 33   E 33 E 22 E 33 1   3    33 
    
   1  

 12  
0 0 0
G12 1   4 
0 0
  12  RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
     
   1   
 23    23 
0 0 0 0 0
G 23 1   5   Low-velocity impact characterization
     
   1   
0 0 0 0 0
 13   G13 1   6    13 
 
(a) 4 12
(9)
where the damage parameter i (i=1…6) is expressed as follows, S-SS-10J

1  max 0.0, d f ,  2  max0.0, d f , d m , 3  max0.0, d f , d d  3 9
  
4  max 0.0, d f , d m , 5  max 0.0, d f , d d ,  6  max0.0, d f , dd 

Impact load (kN)

 max0.0, d ft , d fc , d m  max0.0, d mt , d mc , d d  max0.0, dld 

Energy (J)
df
2 6
(10)
Finite element model
1 3
This simulation is performed in three steps, namely the impact step, the Simulation
Experiment
step of changing boundaries and the bending step. The finite element
models of the sandwich beam for low-velocity impact simulation and 0 0
three-point bending simulation are illustrated in Fig. 4. Face sheets and 0 3 6 9 12
Time (ms)
core are all meshed with 8-node linear brick reduced integration (b) 6 24
elements, with finer meshes around the impact region. During the
testing process, there is only limited debonding failure at the face sheet- S-SS-20J
core interfaces of the specimens, so interface elements are not used
between the interfaces. Instead, surface-based tie constrains are 4 16
employed at the interfaces. In the whole model, general contact is used
Impact load (kN)

Energy (J)
as the contact condition. Two plates are established to simulate the
clamping boundary and a uniform pressure of 0.02 MPa is applied on
the top clamp. The impactor is allowed to move only in 3-direction and
2 6
its mass is defined by the reference point of the impactor. Impact
energies are also defined by assigning the initial velocity to the Simulation
reference point. The impactor and pneumatic clamps are modeled as Experiment
rigid bodies.
0 0
0 3 6 9 12
Time (ms)
(a) (c) 6 90
Impactor
S-SS-70J
Clamps

4 60
Impact load (kN)

Energy (J)
Simulation
3 Experiment
2
Specimen
1
2 30

(b)
Indenter

0 0
Impacted specimen 0 4 8 12 16
Time (ms)

Fig. 5. Impact response of specimens (a) 10 J; (b) 20 J; and (c) 70 J.

3
2 The low-velocity impact responses of specimens under three
representative impact energy levels are described in Fig. 5. For all
1
Support impact load curves, a small drop emerges once the load reaches the first
peak point, which is predominately attributed to the plastic buckling of
web members when the contact force reaches to 2.6 kN. It is found that
Fig. 4. Finite element model (a) Impact simualtion; (b) Bending the maximum contact force increases as the impact energy increases
simulation. before the top face sheet is subjected to serious damage. For the 10 J

530
and 20 J cases, the top face sheets and cores are not perforated; the
damage images are described in Fig. 6. For the 10 J case, a barely
visible indentation can be found in the top surface of the specimen, but
the cracks take place around the impact zone. As the impact energy
increases, the indentation and the plastic buckling of web members
become more and more apparent accompanied with the intricate
damage in the top face sheet. For the 70 J case, face sheets and the core
are perforated and the impact load curve exhibits a sudden load drop
where the core is perforated completely. The primary damage modes
for the composite laminates are intricate, in the form of fiber breakage,
matrix cracking and delamination. For all cases, the buckling of core
members only appears in the impact zone, and no visible debonding is
found in the interfaces between the face sheets and the cores. This
shows that there is a strong bonding for the specimens even though
they are subjected to impact loading.
Fig. 6. Impact damage of specimens under various impact energy
levels.
Fig. 7. Predicted impact damage of specimens under various impact
531
energy levels.
To gain a better knowledge of the damage mechanisms, the simulation
for the impact response under various impact energy levels has been
conducted. The predicted impact load and absorbed energy curves are
consistent with the experimental results, as shown in Fig. 5. However,
the predicted initial stiffness of the load curve before the plastic
buckling occurs is slightly overestimated compared to the experiment
measure. This is primarily due to manufacturing defects of the
specimens and slight debonding of the interfaces between the face
sheets and the core, which are not considered in the numerical
simulation.
The numerical damage representations for the composite laminates are
also depicted in Fig. 7. The rainbow colors represent solution
dependent variables of failure modes for the composite laminates. For
the 10 J case, no element is deleted from the laminate. From the
numerical and experimental results, it is clearly found that the dominant
failure mode for this lower impact energy is delamination. As the
impact energy increases (20 J case), the elements around the impact
zone are removed, which indicates that the face sheet suffers serious
damage. The primary failure mode becomes fiber damage, which is
consistent with the experimental results. For the 70 J case, the specimen
is completely penetrated, leaving a hole with almost the same diameter
in the face sheets and the core. The intricate failure modes can be found
from the numerical simulation, in the forms of fiber breakage and
matrix damage. Generally, the predicted damage state is similar to the
experimental result, including the profile and size of the composite
damage.
Post-impact flexural behavior
8
0J
10 J
20 J
6 70 J
Load (kN)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 8. Load-displacement curves in the bending process.
The residual flexural strength is investigated for the specimens
subjected to low-velocity impact. In addition, non-impacted specimen
testing is also conducted to provide the baseline strength. The typical
load-displacement curves are shown in Fig. 8. For such structures, the
ultimate load-bearing capability (maximum contact force) can be
considered as the residual flexural strength. Obviously, the residual
flexural strength for damaged specimens is about 5.2kN no matter how
much impact energy is applied to the specimens. Although only slight
damage can be produced by the low impact energy (10 J case), it leads
to a dramatic reduction in residual flexural strength. As the impact
energy increases, the residual bending strength exhibits no significant
reduction until the specimen is penetrated (70 J case). However, the
initial bending stiffness decreases significantly even though the
specimen is impacted by the 10 J impact energy. This is mainly due to
the plastic buckling of the core members under the impact loading,
which is very sensitive to bending response of the corrugated sandwich
structures. For the 70 J case, the initial bending stiffness shows a
dramatic reduction, which indicates that the entire specimen has
suffered severe impact damage. However, from the load-displacement
curves, there is a similar trend whether they are impacted or not, which
indicates similar failure mechanisms for the sandwich structures in the
bending process.
For a better indication of the influence of the impact damage on the
residual properties, load-displacement curve and damage images of
representative specimen S-SS-0J are selected to illuminate the failure
mechanism, as shown in Fig. 9. Obviously, the bending process can be
divided into three distinct stages. The first stage is the elastic deflection
of the entire sandwich structure. In this section, the applied force curve
is almost linear until the top face sheet initiates damage. With the
loading increasing, the top face sheet begins to exhibit damage with the
emergence of visible and audible signs of failure, which leads to a
sudden load drop in the bending curve. The second stage is the
compression fracture of the face sheet. As the compressive loading
increases, the carrying capacity of the sandwich beam gradually
decreases until a prolonged load plateau is reached. The first load drop
is related to the initial damage of the composite laminate taking the
form of matrix cracking and delamination. As the load increases, the
failure modes are replaced by extensive fiber breakage, matrix cracking
and delamination. The top face sheet continues to damage until the
final rupture of the top face sheet. The third stage is the plastic
deformation of the core. In this prolonged load plateau section, the
plastic collapse of the core is the dominant failure mode, forming
plastic hinges. Thus, the residual load-carrying capacity of such
structure can be sustained by progressive plastic collapse of the core
and further delamination of the face sheet. From the failure process of
such structures under bending loading, the top face sheet fracture is
crucial in determining ultimate load carrying capacity.
8
Crack
6 shown in Fig. 12. Obviously, the compressive stresses in the top face
Fracture
Load (kN)
4 damage appears in the contact area between the top face sheet and
2
Stage I Stage II Stage III
0 the bending stiffness of such structure in the bending process. Similarly
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 9. Typical damage process of specimen S-SS-0J.
From the observation of damage morphology for each sample, it is
found that a crack with fiber breakage and delamination in the top face
sheet spans the width of top skin. Damage images of specimen S-SS-0J
and specimen S-SS-20J are shown in Fig. 10. Comparing damage
morphologies, is can be seen that the crack initiation location in the
face sheet is different between the impacted and non-impacted
specimens. For the impacted case, the crack initiates at the impact
damage zone, and grows towards the free edge; however, for the non-
impacted case, the crack originates at the free edge and extends very
532
fast to the center of face sheet. Except for the difference in crack
initiation location of the top face sheet, failure mechanism for all
samples remains similar in the bending process.
(a) (b)
Crack induced Crack induced
by compression by compression
Damage induced
by impact
20mm 20mm
Fig. 10. Damage image of the top face sheet: (a) Specimen S-SS-0J; (b)
Specimen S-SS-20J.
For a better understanding of the influence of the impact damage on the
residual properties, the numerical simulation is conducted to evaluate
the residual flexural strength. The predicted load-displacement curves
for all cases are compared with the experimental results, as exhibited in
Fig. 11. A generally good agreement can be achieved, except the
prolonged load plateau section. In this stage, it seems that the numerical
load values are overestimated when compared to the measured results.
This is mainly attributed to the face that the interface debonding
between face sheets and the core is not taken into account in predicted
results, particularly after the face sheet fracture. The interface
debonding leads to diminishing transfer of traction between the core
and the top face sheet, which causes the subsequent decrease in the
stiffness of the sandwich structure. However, the reduction in initial
stiffness and the residual flexural strength can be well captured by the
numerical simulation, which indicates that numerical simulation could
be a promising tool for the bending strength evaluation.
Because of the similar damage characteristics for all cases based on the
measured results described above, a non-impacted specimen is selected
to exhibit the deformation behavior and damage profile of the beam, as
sheet and tensile stresses in the bottom face sheet can be generated in
the bending process. In the preliminary stage of the bending, the
indenter, and spreads in the face sheet and the core as the compressive
load increasing. Both global deformation and local deformation can be
observed in the sandwich structure. The global displacement
corresponds to the overall deformation of the beam, whereas the local
deformation is dominate attributed to the core collapse. In fact, global
deformation and local deformation are coupled together, which cripples
with the experimental observation, the local collapse of the core under
the indenter speeds up after the final failure of the top face sheet.
The typical predicted bending failure modes can be illustrated by the
specimen S-SS-20J after impact, as shown in Fig. 13. The central
damaged zone in the top face sheet is generated by the impact loading.
The compression failure of the top face sheet and the plastic collapse of
the core can be identified in the numerical results. The compressive
damage of fiber and matrix and delamination are the primarily failure
modes in the bending process. A crack appearing in the middle span is
also successfully captured in the simulation analysis, which is generally
in good agreement with experimental observation. After the final
fracture of the face sheet, the plastic collapse of the core induced by the
indentation can be identified clearly, as shown in Fig. 13(f). The red Fig. 11. Impact load and absorbed energy curves under various impact
regions in the middle span (Fig. 13(g)) represent the local plastic hinges energy levels.
of the core, which are quite similar to those in the experiment in Fig.
12.

8
t=1.0 mm
S-SS-0J
6
Simulation
Experiment t=2.7 mm
Load (kN)

t=10.0 mm
2
Fig. 12. Captured images and numerical prediction for various stages:
t=1 mm, the elastic deflection stage; t=2.7 mm, the face fracture stage;
0 t=10 mm, the core deformation stage.
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)
5 (a) (b) (c)

S-SS-10J
4

3
Load (kN)

(d) (e) (f)

2

1 Simulation
Experiment

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm) (g)
5

S-SS-20J
4
Fig. 13. Numerically predicted failure modes on the top facesheet and
the core for the residual flextual simulation. (a) Fiber tensile failure; (b)
3
Load (kN)

Fiber compressive failure; (c) Matrix tensile failure; (d) Matrix

compressive failure; (e) delamination failure; and (f)(g) Core failure.
2
CONCLUSION
1 Simulation
Experiment This paper aims to investigate the low-velocity impact response and the
residual flexural strength behavior of hybrid sandwich structures. The
0 low-velocity impact tests are carried out to evaluate the impact
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm) resistance and three-point bending tests are conducted to assess the
5 residual bearing ability of sandwich beams. Simultaneously, a
progressive damage model is implemented in ABAQUS/Explicit by
S-SS-70J using user subroutine VUMAT to simulate low-velocity impact
4
response and residual flexural behavior of the composite sandwich
structure. Several major conclusions can be revealed:
3
Load (kN)

1. The contact force increases as the impact energy increases before the
2
top face sheet and the core suffering serious damage. For the lower
impact energy case (10 J), delamination is the predominant damage
pattern; as the impact energy level increases, fiber breakage and matrix
1 Simulation cracking gradually become the dominant damage modes.
Experiment

0
2. Three distinct stages for the three-point bending response curve can
0 2 4 6 8 10 be identified whether they are impacted or not: the elastic deflection of
Displacement (mm) the whole structure, the compressive failure of the top face sheet and
the local plastic collapse of the core. The top face sheet fracture is

533
crucial to determining ultimate load carrying capacity. Structures, 140, 644-654.
Rozylo, P, Debski, H, and Kubiak, T (2017). “A model of low-velocity
3. Impact damage and residual flexural strength are closely related to impact damage of composite plates subjected to Compression-After-
the impact energy level. There is a drastic reduction in residual flexural Impact (CAI) testing,” Composite Structures, 181, 158-170.
strength and stiffness even though the impact energy is lower (10 J), Santiuste, C, Sánchez-Sáez, S, and Barbero, E (2010). “Residual
which indicates that impact damage is very sensitive to the residual flexural strength after low-velocity impact in glass/polyester
flexural behavior of the corrugated sandwich structures. composite beams,” Composite Structures, 92(1), 25-30.
Sarasini, F, Tirillò, J, D'Altilia, S, Valente, T, Santulli, C, Touchard, F,
4. A generally good agreement can be achieved between the numerical and Gaudenzi, P (2016). “Damage tolerance of carbon/flax hybrid
prediction and experimental observation in terms of the low-velocity composites subjected to low velocity impact,” Composites Part B:
impact response and the residual flexural strength behavior, which Engineering, 91, 144-153.
indicates that the numerical simulation could be a promising tool for Schneider, C, Kazemahvazi, S, Russell, B P, Zenkert, D, and
the residual bending strength evaluation. Deshpande, V S (2016). “Impact response of ductile self-reinforced
composite corrugated sandwich beams,” Composites Part B:
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS Engineering, 99, 121-131.
Vachon, P L, Brailovski, V, and Terriault, P (2013). “Impact-induced
The present work is supported by the National Natural Science damage and damage propagation under flexural load in TiNi and
Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51609089, 51579110 and 51079059). Kevlar-stitched carbon/epoxy laminates,” Composite Structures, 100,
424-435.
Wang, B, Wu, L Z, Ma, L, and Feng, J C (2011). “Low-velocity impact
REFERENCES characteristics and residual tensile strength of carbon fiber composite
Abir, M R, Tay, T E, Ridha, M, and Lee, H P (2017). “Modelling
lattice core sandwich structures,” Composites Part B: Engineering,
damage growth in composites subjected to impact and compression
42(4), 891-897.
after impact,” Composite Structures, 168, 13-25.
Wang, J, and Callinan, R (2014). “Residual strengths of composite
Boorle, R K, and Mallick, P K (2016). “Global bending response of
structures subjected to ballistic impact,” Composite Structures, 117,
composite sandwich plates with corrugated core: Part I: Effect of
423-432.
geometric parameters,” Composite Structures, 141, 375-388.
Wang, J, Waas, A M, and Wang, H (2013). “Experimental and
Caprino, G, and Teti, R (1994). “Impact and post-impact behavior of
numerical study on the low-velocity impact behavior of foam-core
foam core sandwich structures,” Composite Structures, 29(1), 47-55.
sandwich panels,” Composite Structures, 96, 298-311.
Davies, G A O, Hitchings, D, Besant, T, Clarke, A, and Morgan, C
Wang, J, Wang, H, Chen, B, Huang, H, and Liu, S (2017). “A failure
(2004). “Compression after impact strength of composite sandwich
mechanism based model for numerical modeling the compression-
panels,” Composite Structures, 63(1), 1-9.
after-impact of foam-core sandwich panels,” Composites Science
González, E V, Maimí, P, Camanho, P P, Turon, A, and Mayugo, J A
and Technology, 151, 258-267.
(2012). “Simulation of drop-weight impact and compression after
Wang, S X, Wu, L Z, and Ma, L (2010). “Low-velocity impact and
impact tests on composite laminates,” Composite Structures, 94(11),
residual tensile strength analysis to carbon fiber composite
3364-3378.
laminates,” Materials & Design, 31(1), 118-125.
Hart, K R, Chia, P X, Sheridan, L E, Wetzel, E D, Sottos, N R, and
Xiong, J, Ma, L, Wu, L, Liu, J, and Vaziri, A (2011). “Mechanical
White, S R (2017). “Comparison of Compression-After-Impact and
behavior and failure of composite pyramidal truss core sandwich
Flexure-After-Impact protocols for 2D and 3D woven fiber-
columns,” Composites Part B: Engineering, 42(4), 938-945.
reinforced composites,” Composites Part A: Applied Science and
Xu, G D, Yang, F, Zeng, T, Cheng, S, and Wang, Z H (2016).
Manufacturing, 101, 471-479.
“Bending behavior of graded corrugated truss core composite
He, W, Liu, J, Tao, B, Xie, D, Liu, J, and Zhang, M (2016).
sandwich beams,” Composite Structures, 138, 342-351.
“Experimental and numerical research on the low velocity impact
Yu, G C, Wu, L Z, Ma, L, and Xiong, J (2015). “Low velocity impact
behavior of hybrid corrugated core sandwich structures,” Composite
of carbon fiber aluminum laminates,” Composite Structures, 119,
Structures, 158, 30-43.
757-766.
Huang, C H, and Lee, Y J (2003). “Experiments and simulation of the
Zhang, A, Lu, H, and Zhang, D (2013). “Effects of voids on residual
static contact crush of composite laminated plates,” Composite
tensile strength after impact of hygrothermal conditioned CFRP
Structures, 61(3), 265-270.
laminates,” Composite Structures, 95, 322-327.
Klaus, M, Reimerdes, H G, and Gupta, N K (2012). “Experimental and
Zhang, G, Wang, B, Ma, L, Xiong, J, and Wu, L (2013). “Response of
numerical investigations of residual strength after impact of
sandwich structures with pyramidal truss cores under the
sandwich panels,” International Journal of Impact Engineering, 44,
compression and impact loading,” Composite Structures, 100, 451-
50-58.
463.
Liu, C, Zhang, Y X, and Li, J (2017). “Impact responses of sandwich
Zhang, G, Wang, B, Ma, L, Xiong, J, Yang, J, and Wu, L (2013). “The
panels with fibre metal laminate skins and aluminium foam core,”
residual compressive strength of impact-damaged sandwich
Composite Structures, 182, 183-190.
structures with pyramidal truss cores,” Composite Structures, 105,
Liu, J, He, W, Xie, D, and Tao, B (2017). “The effect of impactor
188-198.
shape on the low-velocity impact behavior of hybrid corrugated core
Zhang, Z Y, and Richardson, M O W (2007). “Low velocity impact
sandwich structures,” Composites Part B: Engineering,” 111, 315-
induced damage evaluation and its effect on the residual flexural
331.
properties of pultruded GRP composites,” Composite structures,
Liu, Q, Lin, Y, Zong, Z, Sun, G, and Li, Q (2013). “Lightweight design
81(2), 195-201.
of carbon twill weave fabric composite body structure for electric
Zhou, J, Guan, Z W, and Cantwell, W J (2016). “Scaling effects in the
vehicle,” Composite Structures, 97, 231-238.
mechanical response of sandwich structures based on corrugated
Park, K J, Jung, K, and Kim, Y W (2016). “Evaluation of homogenized
composite cores,” Composites Part B: Engineering, 93, 88-96.
effective properties for corrugated composite panels,” Composite

534