Home Numerical simulation of composite grid sandwich structure under low-velocity impact
Article Open Access

Numerical simulation of composite grid sandwich structure under low-velocity impact

  • Wei Gao , Zhiqiang Yu , Aijie Ma EMAIL logo and Zhangxin Guo EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: December 31, 2022
Download Article (PDF)
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Submit Manuscript Author Information
Science and Engineering of Composite Materials
From the journal Science and Engineering of Composite Materials Volume 29 Issue 1

Abstract

The low-velocity impact finite element model of the carbon fiber-reinforced composite grid sandwich structure was established by ABAQUS. Its panels and grid are both carbon fiber-reinforced composite laminates. The constitutive relation of composite laminates is written into the VUMAT user subroutine using the Fortran language. Simulation of intralaminar failure behavior of composite laminates using the three-dimensional Hashin failure criterion. The quadratic stress criterion and the B-K energy criterion were used to simulate the interlaminar failure behavior, and the delamination damage of the composite panel and the interface debonding damage were simulated. The finite element models of four different types of composite grid sandwich structures, including quadrilateral configuration, triangular configuration, mixed configuration, and diamond configuration, were established. The influence of the single grid width and the height of the grid on the impact resistance of each composite grid configuration was studied. Compared with other geometric configurations, triangular grid sandwich structure provides the best energy absorption characteristics, and T-6-10 has the highest fracture absorption energy (15816.46 mJ). The damage propagation law of carbon fiber-reinforced composite grid sandwich structure under impact load is analyzed.

Keywords: carbon fiber-reinforced composite; grid; sandwich structure; impact; numerical simulation

1 Introduction

The carbon fiber-reinforced composite grid sandwich structure is composed of composite panels and grid cores. The composite grid sandwich structure has various configurations such as quadrilateral configuration, triangular configuration, mixed configuration, and diamond configuration, as shown in Figure 1. Because of its open space structure, the designability is greatly improved, and its energy absorption effect is good [1,2], the structural stability is good, the bearing capacity is strong [3,4], and the anti-instability ability is strong [5,6]. By changing the composite material panel and the grid core, the mechanical performance requirements for various engineering applications can be obtained, which has broad application prospects [7,8,9,10,11]. Some scholars have studied the mechanical properties of composite sandwich structures [12,13,14,15,16].

Figure 1 Models of four grid configurations. (a) Quadrilateral configuration, (b) triangular configuration, (c) mixed configuration, and (d) diamond configuration.
Figure 1

Models of four grid configurations. (a) Quadrilateral configuration, (b) triangular configuration, (c) mixed configuration, and (d) diamond configuration.

Abrate [17], Moreau and Caillerie [18] have carried out a series of studies on the equivalent mechanical calculation and analysis of grid structures, and put forward four basic calculation methods for the material continuous equivalent analysis of lattice structures. On the basis of Hill theory, Hohe and Becker [19] proposed the equivalent energy method, which assumes that the deformation energy of all elements in the grid cell is equal to the deformation energy of the element on the macro equivalent homogeneous scale and calculates the stress of the equivalent medium element, strain, and strain energy. Wang and Mcdowell [20] considered the uniaxial tension and pure shear deformation state, selected the local deformation of representative elements from the grid structure for research and analysis, and obtained the equivalent modulus of the grid by using the equivalent stress and strain. Li and Chakka [21] obtained an equivalent continuum calculation model, which treats the grid structure as a continuous and uniform medium, and treats the axial force and deformation in each direction on the rod as the difference between stress and strain relationship to calculate the equivalent stiffness and strength of the grid structure.

Sun et al. [22] used a finite element model to study the performance of composite grid sandwich structures under low-velocity impact. Based on the initial failure criterion and the progressive failure criterion, Mohammadi and Sadeghi [23] and Guo et al. [24] predicted the axial compression behavior of carbon fiber-reinforced composite grid structures. The effects of geometric parameters such as core thickness, height, and short span length of the novel sandwich structure were studied [25]. Çetin [26,27,28] explored the bonding characteristics of adhesive on sandwich structure absorbed. Under low-speed impact, energy balance modeling proved that energy absorbed in the bending and shear deflections increased as the resistance at the core/facing interface is increased. Meram et al. [29,30,31,32,33,34,35] established a combined 3D finite element model based on interlaminar and intralaminar damage models. The 3D Hashin criterion is used to predict intralaminar damage, while the bonding zone element is used to evaluate interlaminar damage.

In this study, ABAQUS/Explicit is used to establish the low-velocity impact finite element model of the carbon fiber-reinforced composite lattice sandwich structure. Its panels and grid cores are carbon fiber-reinforced composite laminates. The effects of grid type, grid height, and the single grid width on the impact response and damage of the carbon fiber-reinforced composite grid sandwich structure under low-velocity impact were studied. From the contact, force–time, velocity–time, energy absorption, and overall damage are analyzed.

2 Finite element model

The finite element model of the carbon fiber-reinforced composite grid sandwich structure was established in the finite element software ABAQUS/Explicit. The size of the carbon fiber-reinforced polymer panels is 100 mm × 100 mm × 1 mm, and the layup sequence of the panels is [0°/90°/0°/90°]. Four different types of composite grid sandwich structures including quadrilateral configuration grids, triangular configuration grids, mixed configuration grids, and diamond configuration grids were established, as shown in Figure 1. The configurations of several composite grid sandwich structures, the single grid width (W), and core layer height (H) of each configuration are shown in Table 1. The wall thickness of the composite grid is 0.5 mm. The front end of the punch is hemispherical with a radius of 7.5 mm, a height of 15 mm, and a mass of 2.76 kg.

Table 1

Classification and size of composite grid sandwich structure

Type Shape W (mm) H (mm)
Q-6-10 Quadrilateral configuration 6 10
Q-8-10 Quadrilateral configuration 8 10
Q-10-10 Quadrilateral configuration 10 10
Q-10-5 Quadrilateral configuration 10 5
Q-10-15 Quadrilateral configuration 10 15
T-6-10 Triangular configuration 6 10
T-8-10 Triangular configuration 8 10
T-10-10 Triangular configuration 10 10
T-10-5 Triangular configuration 10 5
T-10-15 Triangular configuration 10 15
M-6-10 Mixed configuration 6 10
M-8-10 Mixed configuration 8 10
M-10-10 Mixed configuration 10 10
M-10-5 Mixed configuration 10 5
M-10-15 Mixed configuration 10 15
D-6-10 Diamond configuration 6 10
D-8-10 Diamond configuration 8 10
D-10-10 Diamond configuration 10 10
D-10-5 Diamond configuration 10 5
D-10-15 Diamond configuration 10 15

In the analysis of explicit dynamics, VUMAT user subprograms are written in Fortran language to describe the constitutive relation of carbon fiber-reinforced composites. The initial damage and intralaminar damage failure behavior of composite laminates are modeled using the strain-based three-dimensional Hashin criterion and stiffness degradation due to fracture. Delamination damage and interlaminar progressive failure behavior of adhesive cohesive elements are modeled using the quadratic stress criterion and the B-K energy criterion.

Because the deformation of the punch is not considered during impact, the punch is set up as a discrete rigid body with a reference point at its center of mass to facilitate velocity loads and constraints. The finite element model consists of punch, composite panel and grid core. The simulation analysis was performed using the kinetic display analysis step. In the field output, the scalar stiffness degradation variable of the composite laminate, the related solution-dependent state variable of the matrix, and the element deletion STATUS are set. In the process output, the total displacement, velocity, contact force, energy, etc., of the punch during the impact process are output. We apply a velocity load to the punch and restrict it to strike only along the Z-axis. The upper and lower panels of the composite grid sandwich structure are fixed and restrained. The composite panel uses an eight-node 3D solid element (C3D8R), and the interface bonding layer uses an eight-node 3D bonding element (COH3D8). We set general contact properties between the punch and the composite panel with a coefficient of friction of 0.3. Setting the contact between the punch and the internal unit of the grid ensures that the punch remains in contact with the interior of the grid structure after the failure of the grid core is removed, so as to continuously output parameters such as contact force. We take Q-8-10 as an example, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Finite element model of low-velocity impact of composite grid sandwich structure.
Figure 2

Finite element model of low-velocity impact of composite grid sandwich structure.

3 Result analysis and discussion

3.1 Influence of single lattice width of grid sandwich

The contact force–time curves and velocity–time curves of the quadrilateral grid sandwich structures Q-6-10, Q-8-10, and Q-10-10 are shown in Figure 3(a) and (b).

Figure 3 Comparison between contact force–time and velocity–time curves of Q-6-10, Q-8-10, and Q-10-10. (a) Contact force–time curves and (b) velocity–time curves.
Figure 3

Comparison between contact force–time and velocity–time curves of Q-6-10, Q-8-10, and Q-10-10. (a) Contact force–time curves and (b) velocity–time curves.

The heights of the grids are all 10 mm, and the simulation results of the quadrilateral grid sandwich structures with a single grid width of 6, 8, and 10 mm in the grid core under low-velocity impact are shown in Figure 3. It can be seen from Figure 3(a) that the specimen Q-6-10 reaches the ultimate load of 906 N for the upper panel at 0.325 ms and reaches the ultimate load of 1,112 N for the lower panel at 1.61 ms. Specimen Q-8-10 reached the upper panel ultimate load of 741 N at 0.571 ms and the lower panel ultimate load of 1,162 N at 1.62 ms. Specimen Q-10-10 reached the upper panel ultimate load of 536 N at 0.442 ms and the lower panel ultimate load of 1,147 N at 1.61 ms. The failure modes of the three grid sandwich structures are the same, and the failure evolution process is also similar. The trend of the curves is roughly the same. They all show an oscillating rise, reaching the first peak and then falling, and then rising to the second peak, then falling and then becoming stable. The punch contacts the upper panel, and the upper panel is subjected to a strong load impact in a short period of time. The load on the upper panel rises rapidly to reach the first peak, and the carbon fiber bears the maximum load. The carbon fiber in the impact area is partially broken, and the bearing capacity of the carbon fiber panel decreases. The upper panel was damaged and failed, so its contact force fluctuated and vibrated. As the punch continues to penetrate into the core, the impact load is transmitted to the inner carbon fiber plate, the panel is damaged and fractured, and the carbon fiber is partially damaged and fractured. The contact force fluctuation and vibration are reduced, and the damaged carbon fiber panels are stacked and superimposed. After the increase of the second peak load reached the peak, the lower panel broke at the impact area, the punch broke through the specimen, and the contact force gradually decreased and stabilized.

It can be seen from Figure 3(b) that the velocity–time curves of the three grid sandwich structures have the same trend, and the velocity decreases with time and finally tends to a constant value. When the punch is in contact with the upper panel, the kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy of the punch are converted into energy absorbed by the grid structure. The velocity of the punch is attenuated, and the attenuation range from large to small is Q-6-10, Q-8-10, and Q-10-10. When the velocity of the punch reaches a stable stage, it indicates that the punch has broken through the lower panel of the specimen.

By comparing the contact force–time curve and velocity–time curve of Q-6-10, Q-8-10, and Q-10-10 specimens under low-velocity impact, it is found that the ultimate load of the panel on the quadrilateral grid decreases with the increase of the single lattice width. The upper panel of the specimen with a single lattice width of 8 mm reaches the ultimate load later; that is, the displacement of the upper panel of the Q-8-10 specimen is larger when it is damaged, and the impact resistance is better. There is little difference between the lower panel in terms of failure time and failure ultimate load. The velocity attenuation of the punch decreases with the increase in the width of a single grid; that is, the smaller the width of a single grid, the more energy absorbed by the quadrilateral grid sandwich structure.

The contact force–time curves and velocity–time curves of the triangular grid sandwich structures T-6-10, T-8-10, and T-10-10 are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Comparison between contact force–time and velocity–time curves of T-6-10, T-8-10, and T-10-10. (a) Contact force–time curves and (b) velocity–time curves.
Figure 4

Comparison between contact force–time and velocity–time curves of T-6-10, T-8-10, and T-10-10. (a) Contact force–time curves and (b) velocity–time curves.

The heights of the grids are all 10 mm, and the simulation results of the triangular grid sandwich structures with a single grid width of 6, 8, and 10 mm in the grid core under low-velocity impact are shown in Figure 4. It can be seen from Figure 4(a) that the specimen T-6-10 reaches the ultimate load of 1,443 N for the upper panel at 0.332 ms, and reaches the ultimate load of 1,660 N for the lower panel at 1.60 ms. Specimen T-8-10 reached the upper panel ultimate load of 938 N at 0.598 ms and the lower panel ultimate load of 1,164 N at 1.62 ms. Specimen T-10-10 reached the upper panel ultimate load of 655 N at 0.332 ms and the lower panel ultimate load of 1,402 N at 1.61 ms. The failure modes of the three specimens are the same, and the failure evolution process is also similar. The trend of the curve changes is slightly different. Between the first peak and the second peak, T-6-10 first oscillated down and then rose to the second peak. However, T-8-10 and T-10-10 fluctuated and oscillated and then rose, mainly due to the grid configuration and parameters; the upper panel failure load was close to the core failure load; and the curve did not drop significantly.

It can be seen from Figure 4(b) that the velocity–time curves of the three grid sandwich structures have the same trend, and the velocity decreases with time, and finally tends to a constant value. The velocity of the punch is attenuated, and the attenuation range from large to small is T-6-10, T-8-10, and T-10-10. By comparing the contact force–time curve and velocity–time curve of T-6-10, T-8-10, and T-10-10 grid sandwich structures under low-velocity impact, it is found that the ultimate load of the panel on the triangular grid decreases with the increase of the single lattice width. The failure time and failure displacement of the upper panel of the T-8-10 grid sandwich structure are longer, and the failure time of the lower panel is not much different. The second peak ultimate load of T-10-10 is about 260 N less than that of T-6-10 and T-8-10. The velocity attenuation of the punch decreases with the increase of the width of a single grid; that is, the smaller the width of a single grid, the more energy absorbed by the triangular grid sandwich structure.

The contact force–time curves and velocity–time curves of the mixed grid sandwich structures M-6-10, M-8-10, and M-10-10 are shown in Figure 5(a) and (b).

Figure 5 Comparison between contact force–time and velocity–time curves of M-6-10, M-8-10, and M-10-10. (a) Contact force–time curves and (b) velocity–time curves.
Figure 5

Comparison between contact force–time and velocity–time curves of M-6-10, M-8-10, and M-10-10. (a) Contact force–time curves and (b) velocity–time curves.

The height of the grid sandwich is 10 mm, and the width of the single grid of the mixed grid sandwich structure is 6, 8, and 10 mm, respectively. It can be seen from Figure 4(a) that the mixed grid sandwich structure M-6-10 reaches the ultimate load of 1,347 N for the upper panel at 0.358 ms and reaches the ultimate load of 1,742 N for the lower panel at 1.63 ms. Mixed grid sandwich structure M-8-10 reached the upper panel ultimate load of 967 N at 0.651 ms and the lower panel ultimate load of 1,250 N at 1.75 ms. Mixed grid sandwich structure M-10-10 reached the upper panel ultimate load of 765 N at 0.384 ms and the lower panel ultimate load of 1,083 N at 1.56 ms. When the punch hits the lower panel of the grid sandwich structure, part of the carbon fiber breaks, and the panel stiffness decreases. At this time, the impact load peaks and then decreases. After impacting another part of the unbroken carbon fiber, the load increases again, showing two wave peaks.

In Figure 5(b), for the grid sandwich structure M-10-10, at 2.1 ms, the velocity of the punch tends to be stable and the punch breaks through the lower panel. For the grid sandwich structure M-6-10 and M-8-10, the velocity of the punch gradually becomes flat in a curve. It shows that after the punch head breaks through the lower panel of the grid structure, the tail of the punch still contacts the remaining grid cores until the grid cores are completely destroyed.

By comparing the contact force–time curve and velocity–time curve of M-6-10, M-8-10, and M-10-10 grid sandwich structures under low-velocity impact, it is found that the ultimate load of the panel on the mixed grid decreases with the increase of the single lattice width. The upper panel of the grid sandwich structure M-8-10 has a longer failure time and better impact resistance. The ultimate load of the lower panel of the mixed grid structure is different from that of the quadrilateral grid and the triangular grid. The ultimate load of its lower panel decreases with the increase of the single grid width of the core. The punch velocity decay decreases as the individual lattice width of the core increases. The smaller the width of a single grid of the core, the more energy the mixed grid absorbs.

The contact force–time curves and velocity–time curves of the diamond grid sandwich structures D-6-10, D-8-10, and D-10-10 are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Comparison between contact force–time and velocity–time curves of D-6-10, D-8-10, and D-10-10. (a) Contact force–time curves and (b) velocity–time curves.
Figure 6

Comparison between contact force–time and velocity–time curves of D-6-10, D-8-10, and D-10-10. (a) Contact force–time curves and (b) velocity–time curves.

The heights of the grids are all 10 mm, and the simulation results of the diamond grid sandwich structures with a single grid width of 6, 8, and 10 mm in the grid core under low-velocity impact are shown in Figure 6. It can be seen from Figure 6(a) that the grid sandwich structure D-6-10 reaches the ultimate load of 1,057 N for the upper panel at 0.451 ms, and reaches the ultimate load of 1,457 N for the lower panel at 1.71 ms. Grid sandwich structure D-8-10 reached the upper panel ultimate load of 725 N at 0.575 ms and the lower panel ultimate load of 1,294 N at 1.69 ms. Grid sandwich structure D-10-10 reached the upper panel ultimate load of 745 N at 0.325 ms and the lower panel ultimate load of 1,261 N at 1.61 ms. In the diamond configuration grid, the first peak load of 745 N for D-10-10 is similar to the first peak load of 725 N for D-8-10.

In Figure 6(b), the change rule of the punch velocity–time curve of the diamond configuration grid is similar to that of the mixed configuration grid. In the grid sandwich structure D-10-10, after the punch head broke through the lower panel, the internal elements of the core failed, and the elements were deleted. The tail of the punch does not continue to maintain contact with the grid structure, so the grid sandwich structure D-10-10 has no velocity change after 1.86 ms.

The contact force–time curves and velocity–time curves of the three groups of specimens D-6-10, D-8-10, and D-10-10 were compared for low-velocity impact failure. It is found that the ultimate load of the upper panel of diamond configuration grids D-8-10 and D-10-10 is similar, and the ultimate load of the upper panel of D-6-10 is the largest. The upper panel of the D-8-10 has a longer failure time and failure displacement. The failure time of the panel under the diamond grid configuration is similar, and the ultimate load decreases with the increase of the core diameter. The velocity decay of the punch decreases with the increase of the core diameter; that is, the smaller the core diameter, the more energy is absorbed by the diamond configuration grid.

We integrate the contact force–displacement curve, intercept the displacement of 0–30 mm, and obtain the absorbed energy when the specimen penetrates completely, as shown in Figure 7. The ultimate load, failure time, and energy parameters of the upper and lower panels of the specimen affected by the grid aperture are shown in Table 2.

Figure 7 Energy absorption of different specimen types.
Figure 7

Energy absorption of different specimen types.

Table 2

Influence of single grid width on ultimate load and energy parameters

Type Upper panel destruction time (ms) Upper panel ultimate load (N) Lower panel destruction time (ms) Lower panel ultimate load (N) Energy absorption (mJ)
Q-6-10 0.325 906 1.61 1,112 9103.27
Q-8-10 0.571 741 1.62 1,162 7684.91
Q-10-10 0.442 536 1.61 1,147 6277.63
T-6-10 0.332 1,443 1.60 1,660 15816.46
T-8-10 0.598 938 1.62 1,664 12695.05
T-10-10 0.332 655 1.61 1,402 9980.28
M-6-10 0.358 1,347 1.63 1,742 15965.98
M-8-10 0.651 967 1.47/1.75 1,250 12246.19
M-10-10 0.384 765 1.56 1,083 9138.23
D-6-10 0.451 1,057 1.71 1,457 13347.56
D-8-10 0.575 725 1.69 1,294 10504.62
D-10-10 0.325 745 1.61 1,261 8334.66

It can be seen from Figure 7 and Table 2 that the energy absorption of the grid structure decreases with the increase of the core pore size, and this is because with the decrease of the core aperture (i.e., the increase of the equivalent density of the core), the resistance of the positive transmission core/panel interface to the bullet caused by the impact damage increases, resulting in an increase in the absorbed energy. The failure time of the upper panel of the grid structure, Q-8-10, is excellent, and the failure time is later than that of the Q-6-10 and Q-10-10 types of grids. That is, the impact resistance in terms of load-bearing failure displacement is good. Except for the diamond configuration grid, the ultimate load of the upper panel decreases with the increase in the grid aperture. The ultimate failure loads of the quadrilateral grids are similar, and the effect of the aperture is small, and the ultimate loads of the other configuration grids decrease with the increase of the aperture of the grid.

3.2 Influence of height of grid sandwich

The contact force–time curves and velocity–time curves of the quadrilateral grid specimens Q-10-5, Q-10-10, and Q-10-15 are shown in Figure 8(a) and (b).

Figure 8 Comparison between contact force–time and velocity–time curves of Q-10-5, Q-10-10, and Q-10-15. (a) Contact force–time curves and (b) velocity–time curves.
Figure 8

Comparison between contact force–time and velocity–time curves of Q-10-5, Q-10-10, and Q-10-15. (a) Contact force–time curves and (b) velocity–time curves.

In Figure 8(a), the single grid width of the quadrilateral grid specimen is 10 mm, and the height of the core is 5, 10, and 15 mm, respectively. Specimen Q-10-5 reached the ultimate load of 606 N for the upper panel in 0.401 ms and 923 N for the lower panel in 0.976 ms. Specimen Q-10-10 reached the upper panel ultimate load of 536 N at 0.442 ms and the lower panel ultimate load of 1,147 N at 1.61 ms. Specimen Q-10-15 reached the upper panel ultimate load of 539 N at 0.402 ms and the lower panel ultimate load of 1,159 N at 2.26 ms.

In Figure 8(b), the velocity–time curves of the three specimens have the same trend. The Q-10-5 specimen showed a slowing down of the speed in a shorter period of time and tended to a stable stage. The Q-10-10 sandwich structure is second, and the Q-10-15 is the last.

Comparing the contact force–time curves and velocity–time curves of the three groups of Q-10-5, Q-10-10, and Q-10-15 specimens under low-velocity impact failure, it is found that the ultimate load of the upper panel of the quadrilateral grille is similar to the failure time. The ultimate load and failure time of the lower panel increase with the increase of the height of the grid core. The punch velocity attenuation increases with the height of the grid core; that is, the higher the core height, the more energy the quadrilateral grid absorbs.

The contact force–time curves and velocity–time curves of the triangular grid structures T-10-5, T-10-10, and T-10-15 are shown in Figure 9(a) and (b).

Figure 9 Comparison between contact force–time and velocity–time curves of T-10-5, T-10-10, and T-10-15. (a) Contact force–time curves and (b) velocity–time curves.
Figure 9

Comparison between contact force–time and velocity–time curves of T-10-5, T-10-10, and T-10-15. (a) Contact force–time curves and (b) velocity–time curves.

In Figure 9(a), the single grid width of the triangular grid specimen is 10 mm, and the height of the grid core is 5, 10, and 15 mm, respectively. The T-10-5 reached a limit load of 577 N for the upper panel at 0.371 ms and a limit load of 1,188 N for the lower panel at 1.05 ms. The T-10-10 reached an upper panel limit load of 655 N at 0.332 ms and a lower panel limit load of 1,402 N at 1.61 ms. The T-10-15 reached an upper panel limit load of 654 N at 0.771 ms and a lower panel limit load of 1,477 N at 2.20 ms. The contact force–time curves of the three specimens are basically the same, and the punch decreases after reaching the first peak when the punch contacts the upper panel. The curve oscillates as the punch hits the carbon fiber core. When the bullet punch reaches the lower panel, the ultimate load rises rapidly. The second peak is reached, and then, the panel is broken, and the contact force declines to a gentle level.

In Figure 9(b), the velocity–time curves of the three specimens have the same trend of change, and the velocity decay ranges from large to small as T-10-5, T-10-10, and T-10-15. The slope of the T-10-5’s curve is getting smaller and smaller, and the speed is gradually flattened. While the curves of T-10-10 and T-10-15 firstly increase and then decrease, there is a process of increasing the descending speed during the impact damage, and then, the descending speed slows down until it becomes gentle.

The contact force–time curves and velocity–time curves of the three groups of T-10-5, T-10-10, and T-10-15 specimens under low-velocity impact were compared. It was found that the limit load of the upper panel of the triangular grid was similar, and the failure time of the T-10-15 was a little later. The ultimate load and failure time of the lower panel increase with the increase of the height of the grid core. The punch velocity decay increases with increasing grid core height. The higher the core height, the more energy the triangular grid absorbs.

We integrate the contact force–displacement curve, intercept the displacement of 0–30 mm, and obtain the absorbed energy when the specimen penetrates completely, as shown in Figure 10. The influence of the height of the grid core on the ultimate load, failure time, and energy parameters of the upper and lower panels is shown in Table 3. It can be seen from Figure 10 and Table 3 that the energy absorption of the grid structure increases with the increase of the core height, and this is because the increase of core height significantly increases the impact time of the interlayer, resulting in higher energy absorption of the specimen. In terms of ultimate load, except for the quadrilateral grille, the ultimate load of the 10 mm height grille is slightly higher than the other two, and the overall difference is not much different. The failure time of the lower panel increases with the increase of the height of the grid. In terms of ultimate load, the four types of grids all fluctuate within a certain range.

Figure 10 Energy absorption of different specimen types.
Figure 10

Energy absorption of different specimen types.

Table 3

Influence of grid height on ultimate load and energy parameters

Type Upper panel destruction time (ms) Upper panel ultimate load (N) Lower panel destruction time (ms) Lower panel ultimate load (N) Energy absorption (mJ)
Q-10-5 0.401 606 0.976 923 4973.19
Q-10-10 0.442 536 1.61 1,147 6277.63
Q-10-15 0.402 539 2.26 1,159 7901.72
T-10-5 0.371 577 1.05 1,188 7806.91
T-10-10 0.332 655 1.61 1,402 9980.28
T-10-15 0.771 654 2.20 1,477 11736.08
M-10-5 0.332 520 0.931 1,140 7448.47
M-10-10 0.384 765 1.56 1,083 9138.23
M-10-15 0.318 553 2.25 1,323 11251.90
D-10-5 0.375 468 0.948 1,200 5834.61
D-10-10 0.325 745 1.61 1,261 8334.66
D-10-15 0.325 599 2.18 1,175 10633.62

3.3 Low-velocity impact damage analysis of grid sandwich

The damage forms of carbon fiber-reinforced composite grids under impact load include fiber tension–compression fracture, matrix tension–compression fracture, interlaminar delamination damage, and core damage. In the initial stage when the punch is in contact with the grid structure, the tensile and compressive damage of the matrix and the interlayer delamination damage will occur, and then, as the punch rushes into the grid, fiber breakage, and core damage will occur. The following takes Q-8-10 as an example to discuss the impact failure process of the overall structure, the upper and lower panels, and the core, as shown in Figures 11 and 12.

Figure 11 Impact damage expansion process of grid sandwich structure Q-8-10. (a) t = 0.25 ms, (b) t = 0.75 ms, (c) t = 1.25 ms, (d) t = 1.75 ms, (e) t = 2.25 ms, and (f) t = 2.75 ms.
Figure 11

Impact damage expansion process of grid sandwich structure Q-8-10. (a) t = 0.25 ms, (b) t = 0.75 ms, (c) t = 1.25 ms, (d) t = 1.75 ms, (e) t = 2.25 ms, and (f) t = 2.75 ms.

Figure 12 Impact damage expansion process of upper and lower panels and the core of grid sandwich structure Q-8-10. (a) t = 0.25 ms, (b) t = 0.75 ms, (c) t = 1.25 ms, (d) t = 1.75 ms, (e) t = 2.25 ms, and (f) t = 2.75 ms.
Figure 12

Impact damage expansion process of upper and lower panels and the core of grid sandwich structure Q-8-10. (a) t = 0.25 ms, (b) t = 0.75 ms, (c) t = 1.25 ms, (d) t = 1.75 ms, (e) t = 2.25 ms, and (f) t = 2.75 ms.

Figures 11 and 12 are the stress cloud diagrams of the impact damage process of the whole, upper and lower panels, and the core of the quadrilateral configuration Q-8-10, respectively. It can be seen from the figure that at 0.25 ms, the punch contacts the upper panel, the panel is damaged, the fibers are broken, the rigidity of the panel decreases, and then, the panel is completely destroyed. The damage of the core continued from the beginning to the end, and the stress continuously fluctuated during the period. The lower panel was not damaged at the beginning. As the punch continued to penetrate, the stress of the lower panel increased until the maximum stress was reached, and damage occurred. The punch penetrated the entire structure and some units were deleted.

4 Conclusion

A finite element simulation study of the failure of four different configurations of carbon fiber-reinforced composite grid sandwich structures under low-velocity impact is carried out. Compared with other geometric configurations, triangular grid sandwich structure provides the best energy absorption characteristics, and T-6-10 has the highest fracture absorption energy (15816.46 mJ). Therefore, in practical engineering applications, when the grid aperture and height are determined, the grid sandwich structure with triangular core configuration can be given priority as the impact-resistant energy absorption receiver. The influence of different impact speeds and impact angles on low-velocity impact damage of carbon fiber grid structures will be investigated later.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by Fundamental Research Program of Shanxi Province (Grant No. 202103021224111).

  1. Funding information: This work is supported by Fundamental Research Program of Shanxi Province (Grant No. 202103021224111).

  2. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of financial interests.

References

[1] Xue Z, Hutchinson JW. Preliminary assessment of sandwich plates subject to blast loads. Int J Mech Sci. 2003;45(4):687–705.10.1016/S0020-7403(03)00108-5Search in Google Scholar

[2] Yungwirth CJ, Wadley HN, O’connor JH, Zakraysek AJ, Deshpande VS. Impact response of sandwich plates with a pyramidal lattice core. Int J Impact Eng. 2007;46:69–79.10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.07.001Search in Google Scholar

[3] Oftadeh R, Haghpanah B, Papadopoulos J, Hamouda AMS, Nayeb-Hashemi H, Vaziri A. Mechanics of anisotropic hierarchical honeycombs. Int J Mech Sci. 2014;81(4):126–36.10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2014.02.011Search in Google Scholar

[4] Sun Y, Wang B, Pugno N, Wang B, Ding Q. In-plane stiffness of the anisotropic multifunctional hierarchical honeycombs. Compos Struct. 2015;131:616–24.10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.06.020Search in Google Scholar

[5] Ashby MF. The properties of foams and lattices. Philos Trans R Soc A. 2006;364:15–30.10.1098/rsta.2005.1678Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[6] Lu T. Ultralight porous metals: From fundamentals to applications. Acta Mech Sinica. 2002;18(5):457–79.10.1007/BF02486571Search in Google Scholar

[7] Deshpande VS, Ashby MF, Fleck NA. Foam topology: Bending versus stretching dominated architectures. Acta Mater. 2001;49(6):1035–40.10.1016/S1359-6454(00)00379-7Search in Google Scholar

[8] Hutchinson RG, Fleck NA. The structural performance of the periodic truss. J Mech Phys Solids. 2006;54(4):756–82.10.1016/j.jmps.2005.10.008Search in Google Scholar

[9] Guo ZX, Li ZG, Zhu H, Cui JJ, Li DS, Li YC. Numerical simulation of bolted joint composite laminates under low-velocity impact. Mater Today Commun. 2020;23:1008911–8.10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.100891Search in Google Scholar

[10] Li DS, Yang Y, Jiang L. Experimental study on the fabrication, high-temperature properties and failure analysis of 3D seven-directional braided composites under compression. Compos Struct. 2021;268:113934.10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.113934Search in Google Scholar

[11] Zhu H, Li DS, Han WF, Jiang L. Experimental and numerical study of in-plane compressive properties and failure of 3D six-directional braided composites with large braiding angle. Mater Design. 2020;195:108917.10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108917Search in Google Scholar

[12] Wei XY, Xue PC, Wu QQ, Wang Y, Xiong J. Debonding characteristics and strengthening mechanics of all-CFRP sandwich beams with interface-reinforced honeycomb cores. Compos Sci Technol. 2022;218:109157.10.1016/j.compscitech.2021.109157Search in Google Scholar

[13] Guo ZX, Zhu H, Han XP, Wang ZH. Simulating initial and progressive failure of open-hole composite laminates under tension. Appl Compos Mater. 2016;23:1209–18.10.1007/s10443-016-9509-0Search in Google Scholar

[14] Zuo HM, Li DS, Jiang L. Experimental study on compressive fatigue behavior and failure mechanism of 3D five-directional braided composites. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf. 2020;139:106097.10.1016/j.compositesa.2020.106097Search in Google Scholar

[15] Guo ZX, Song LB, Chai GB, Li ZG, Li YC, Wang ZH. A new multiscale numerical characterization of mechanical properties of graphene-reinforced polymer-matrix composites. Compos Struct. 2018;199:1–9.10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.05.053Search in Google Scholar

[16] Zhu H, Guo ZX, Zhu M, Cui JJ, He Q, Li YC. A progressive FE failure model for laminates under biaxial loading. Mech Compos Mater. 2020;56(2):207–14.10.1007/s11029-020-09873-7Search in Google Scholar

[17] Abrate S. Continuum modeling of latticed structures. Shock Vib. 1988;20(10):3–8.10.1177/058310248802001003Search in Google Scholar

[18] Moreau G, Caillerie D. Continuum modeling of lattice structures in large displacement applications to buckling analysis. Comput Struct. 1998;68(1-3):181–9.10.1016/S0045-7949(98)00041-8Search in Google Scholar

[19] Hohe J, Becker W. An energetic homogenisation procedure for the elastic properties of general cellular sandwich cores. Compos Part B Eng. 2001;32(3):185–97.10.1016/S1359-8368(00)00055-XSearch in Google Scholar

[20] Wang AJ, Mcdowell DL. In-plane stiffness and yield strength of periodic metal honeycombs. J Eng Mater Technol. 2004;126(2):137–56.10.1115/1.1646165Search in Google Scholar

[21] Li GQ, Chakka VS. Isogrid stiffened syntactic foam cored sandwich structure under low velocity impact. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf. 2010;41A(1):177–84.10.1016/j.compositesa.2009.10.007Search in Google Scholar

[22] Sun GY, Wang E, Wang HY, Xiao Z, Li Q. Low-velocity impact behaviour of sandwich panels with homogeneous and stepwise graded foam cores. Mater Design. 2018;160:1117–36.10.1016/j.matdes.2018.10.047Search in Google Scholar

[23] Mohammadi M, Sadeghi A. Progressive damage and failure modeling in composite cylindrical pyramidal lattice structure. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part L J Mater Design Appl. 2020;234(12):1515–25.10.1177/1464420720946058Search in Google Scholar

[24] Guo Z, Yu Z, Wei S, Qi G, Li Y, Luan Y. Three-dimensional finite element analysis for temperature filed of composite materials during the cure. Multidiscip Model Mater Struct. 2022;18(1):43–53.10.1108/MMMS-06-2021-0104Search in Google Scholar

[25] Zangana S, Epaarachchi J, Ferdous W, Leng JS, Schubel P. Behaviour of continuous fibre composite sandwich core under low-velocity impact. Thin Wall Struct. 2021;158:1071571–11.10.1016/j.tws.2020.107157Search in Google Scholar

[26] Çetin ME. Improvement of the structural, thermal, and mechanical properties of polyurethane adhesives with nanoparticles and their application to Al/Al honeycomb sandwich panels. Mater Test. 2022;64(2):272–83.10.1515/mt-2021-2028Search in Google Scholar

[27] Çetin ME. Fabrication, characterization and mechanical testing of carbon fiber sandwich composites with nanoparticle included polyurethane adhesives. J Compos Mater. 2021;56(4):589–603.10.1177/00219983211058801Search in Google Scholar

[28] Çetin ME. The effect of carbon nanotubes modified polyurethane adhesive on the impact behavior of sandwich structures. Polym Composite. 2021;42(9):4353–65.10.1002/pc.26153Search in Google Scholar

[29] Meram A, Cetin ME. Experimental investigation on the effects of core/facing interface performance on the low-velocity impact behavior of honeycomb sandwich panels. J Mater Eng Perform. 2020;29(11):7408–19.10.1007/s11665-020-05181-2Search in Google Scholar

[30] Maziz A, Tarfaoui M, Gemi L, Rechak S, Nachtane M. A progressive damage model for pressurized filament-wound hybrid composite pipe under low-velocity impact. Comput Struct. 2021;276:114520.10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114520Search in Google Scholar

[31] Lokman G. Investigation of the effect of stacking sequence on low velocity impact response and damage formation in hybrid composite pipes under internal pressure. A comparative study. Compos Part B-Eng. 2021;153:217–32.10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.07.056Search in Google Scholar

[32] Gemi DS, Şahin OS, Gemi L. Experimental investigation of the effect of diameter upon low velocity impact response of glass fiber reinforced composite pipes. Comput Struct. 2021;275:114428.10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114428Search in Google Scholar

[33] Gemi DS, Şahin OS, Gemi L. Experimental investigation of axial compression behavior after low velocity impact of glass fiber reinforced filament wound pipes with different diameter. Comput Struct. 2022;280:114929.10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114929Search in Google Scholar

[34] Gemi L, Kayrici M, Uludag M, Gemi DS, Sahin OS. Experimental and statistical analysis of low velocity impact response of filament wound composite pipes. Composites. 2018;149:38–48.10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.05.006Search in Google Scholar

[35] Gemi L, Kayrici M, Avci A. Low velocity impact response of prestressed functionally graded hybrid pipes. Compos Part B Eng. 2016;106:154–63.10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.025Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2022-10-09
Revised: 2022-11-20
Accepted: 2022-12-11
Published Online: 2022-12-31

© 2022 the author(s), published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Regular Articles
  2. Experimental investigations of a novel pressure microfoam preparation device for dust removal
  3. Influence of hydrothermal aging on the mechanical performance of foam core sandwich panels subjected to low-velocity impact
  4. Experimental study on surface wrapping strengthening of EPS particles and its concrete performance
  5. Modification of mechanical properties of Shanghai clayey soil with expanded polystyrene
  6. A new EPS beads strengthening technology and its influences on axial compressive properties of concrete
  7. A novel superabsorbent material based on soybean straw: Synthesis and characterization
  8. Use of line laser scanning thermography for the defect detection and evaluation of composite material
  9. Research on back analysis of meso-parameters of hydraulic cemented sand and gravel based on Box-Behnken design response surface
  10. Hot deformation behavior and microstructure of a 0.5 wt% graphene nanoplatelet reinforced aluminum composite
  11. Analysis of electromagnetic characteristics of the proposed composite four-rail electromagnetic launcher
  12. Preparation and characterization of a graphene hybridizing polyurethane damping composite
  13. Effects of layup parameters and interference value on the performance of CFRP–metal interference fit joints
  14. Vibration and noise reduction of pipelines using shape memory alloy
  15. Finite element analysis of behavior and ultimate strength of composite column
  16. Dynamic response of functionally graded plate under harmonic load with variable gradient parameters
  17. Deformation behavior of rubber composite based on FEA and experimental verification
  18. Effects of Z-pin on moisture absorption property and damage mode under flexural load for carbon fiber composite
  19. Design and testing of a smart rubber stave for marine water-lubricated bearings
  20. Study of carbon nano-modifier of fly ash in cement concrete mixtures of civil engineering
  21. Analysis of multiple impact tests’ damage to three-dimensional four-directional braided composites
  22. Theoretical analysis of aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel supported by reinforced concrete wall under low-speed impact load
  23. Effects of local fiber discontinuity on the fatigue strength parameter at the fiber inclusion corner in fiber-reinforced composites
  24. Experimental investigation on compressive properties of three-dimensional five-directional braided composites in hygrothermal environment
  25. Failure process of steel–polypropylene hybrid fiber-reinforced concrete based on numerical simulations
  26. A simple method for measuring the monofilament diameter of continuous filament yarn with high bending stiffness via synthetic laser imaging
  27. Span length effect on flexural properties of composite laminate reinforced with a plain weave carbon fiber fabric in a polymer matrix
  28. Mechanical properties improving and microstructure characterization of inorganic artificial stone binder
  29. Effect of thermal treatment process on the structure of C/SiO2 composite aerogels
  30. Mechanical and corrosion resistance analysis of laser cladding layer
  31. Wear and corrosion mechanisms of Ni–WC coatings modified with different Y2O3 by laser cladding on AISI 4145H steel
  32. Damage and failure analysis of composite stiffened panels under low-velocity impact and compression after impact with damp-heat aging
  33. In-situ CT characterization of 2D woven SiCf/SiC composite loading under compression
  34. Effect of the manufacturing process on the equivalency qualification of glass fiber reinforced polymer
  35. Study of concrete properties based on crushed stone sand mixture and fiber of fly ash of thermal power plants
  36. Establishment of wear mechanism distribution diagram of ZTAp-reinforced iron matrix composites
  37. Calculation method of elastic modulus for carbon fiber-reinforced plastics considering inhomogeneous interphase
  38. An experimental study on the failure and enhancement mechanism of bolt-strengthening GFRP T-joint subjected to tensile loading
  39. The viability of cell that encapsulated in calcium alginate hydrogel beads
  40. Discussion of ceramic bar reinforced TWIP steel composite structure
  41. A theoretical framework underlying an accelerated testing method and its application to composites under constant strain rates and fatigue loading
  42. Theoretical analysis of interfacial design and thermal conductivity in graphite flakes/Al composites with various interfacial coatings
  43. Multiscale heat conduction and fractal oxidation behaviors of needle-punched carbon/carbon composites
  44. Numerical simulation of composite grid sandwich structure under low-velocity impact
  45. Wear properties of Al/TiO2 composites fabricated via combined compo-casting and APB process
  46. Review Articles
  47. Application of melanin as biological functional material in composite film field
  48. Review on research progress of cemented sand and gravel dam
  49. Communication
  50. Fabrications and microstructure analysis of cobalt-based coatings by an easy-coating and sintering process
  51. Letter to the Editor
  52. Investigation on mechanical and conductive behaviors of nano-graphite-based concrete
https://doi.org/10.1515/secm-2022-0176
Keywords for this article
carbon fiber-reinforced composite; grid; sandwich structure; impact; numerical simulation
Creative Commons
BY 4.0

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Regular Articles
  2. Experimental investigations of a novel pressure microfoam preparation device for dust removal
  3. Influence of hydrothermal aging on the mechanical performance of foam core sandwich panels subjected to low-velocity impact
  4. Experimental study on surface wrapping strengthening of EPS particles and its concrete performance
  5. Modification of mechanical properties of Shanghai clayey soil with expanded polystyrene
  6. A new EPS beads strengthening technology and its influences on axial compressive properties of concrete
  7. A novel superabsorbent material based on soybean straw: Synthesis and characterization
  8. Use of line laser scanning thermography for the defect detection and evaluation of composite material
  9. Research on back analysis of meso-parameters of hydraulic cemented sand and gravel based on Box-Behnken design response surface
  10. Hot deformation behavior and microstructure of a 0.5 wt% graphene nanoplatelet reinforced aluminum composite
  11. Analysis of electromagnetic characteristics of the proposed composite four-rail electromagnetic launcher
  12. Preparation and characterization of a graphene hybridizing polyurethane damping composite
  13. Effects of layup parameters and interference value on the performance of CFRP–metal interference fit joints
  14. Vibration and noise reduction of pipelines using shape memory alloy
  15. Finite element analysis of behavior and ultimate strength of composite column
  16. Dynamic response of functionally graded plate under harmonic load with variable gradient parameters
  17. Deformation behavior of rubber composite based on FEA and experimental verification
  18. Effects of Z-pin on moisture absorption property and damage mode under flexural load for carbon fiber composite
  19. Design and testing of a smart rubber stave for marine water-lubricated bearings
  20. Study of carbon nano-modifier of fly ash in cement concrete mixtures of civil engineering
  21. Analysis of multiple impact tests’ damage to three-dimensional four-directional braided composites
  22. Theoretical analysis of aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel supported by reinforced concrete wall under low-speed impact load
  23. Effects of local fiber discontinuity on the fatigue strength parameter at the fiber inclusion corner in fiber-reinforced composites
  24. Experimental investigation on compressive properties of three-dimensional five-directional braided composites in hygrothermal environment
  25. Failure process of steel–polypropylene hybrid fiber-reinforced concrete based on numerical simulations
  26. A simple method for measuring the monofilament diameter of continuous filament yarn with high bending stiffness via synthetic laser imaging
  27. Span length effect on flexural properties of composite laminate reinforced with a plain weave carbon fiber fabric in a polymer matrix
  28. Mechanical properties improving and microstructure characterization of inorganic artificial stone binder
  29. Effect of thermal treatment process on the structure of C/SiO2 composite aerogels
  30. Mechanical and corrosion resistance analysis of laser cladding layer
  31. Wear and corrosion mechanisms of Ni–WC coatings modified with different Y2O3 by laser cladding on AISI 4145H steel
  32. Damage and failure analysis of composite stiffened panels under low-velocity impact and compression after impact with damp-heat aging
  33. In-situ CT characterization of 2D woven SiCf/SiC composite loading under compression
  34. Effect of the manufacturing process on the equivalency qualification of glass fiber reinforced polymer
  35. Study of concrete properties based on crushed stone sand mixture and fiber of fly ash of thermal power plants
  36. Establishment of wear mechanism distribution diagram of ZTAp-reinforced iron matrix composites
  37. Calculation method of elastic modulus for carbon fiber-reinforced plastics considering inhomogeneous interphase
  38. An experimental study on the failure and enhancement mechanism of bolt-strengthening GFRP T-joint subjected to tensile loading
  39. The viability of cell that encapsulated in calcium alginate hydrogel beads
  40. Discussion of ceramic bar reinforced TWIP steel composite structure
  41. A theoretical framework underlying an accelerated testing method and its application to composites under constant strain rates and fatigue loading
  42. Theoretical analysis of interfacial design and thermal conductivity in graphite flakes/Al composites with various interfacial coatings
  43. Multiscale heat conduction and fractal oxidation behaviors of needle-punched carbon/carbon composites
  44. Numerical simulation of composite grid sandwich structure under low-velocity impact
  45. Wear properties of Al/TiO2 composites fabricated via combined compo-casting and APB process
  46. Review Articles
  47. Application of melanin as biological functional material in composite film field
  48. Review on research progress of cemented sand and gravel dam
  49. Communication
  50. Fabrications and microstructure analysis of cobalt-based coatings by an easy-coating and sintering process
  51. Letter to the Editor
  52. Investigation on mechanical and conductive behaviors of nano-graphite-based concrete
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 28.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/secm-2022-0176/html
Scroll to top button