Experimental method for dynamic residual strength characterisation of aircraft sandwich structures

International Journal of Crashworthiness

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 64-81

  Bailey, N W ^a   Battley, M A ^a   Zhou, M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^b GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

aircraft; dynamic; honeycomb; sandwich

Indexed keywords

AERONAUTICAL STRUCTURES; AIRCRAFT INTERIORS; COMPOSITE SANDWICH STRUCTURE; COMPRESSION STRENGTH; DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT; DYNAMIC LOADINGS; EDGEWISE COMPRESSION; EXPERIMENTAL METHODS; FACE SHEETS; HONEYCOMB; HONEYCOMB CORE; INDENTATION DAMAGE; LOW LEVEL; NEW EXPERIMENTAL METHOD; RESIDUAL DYNAMICS; RESIDUAL STRENGTH; SANDWICH; SPLIT HOPKINSON PRESSURE BARS; STATIC COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH;

AIRCRAFT; COMPRESSION TESTING; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; DYNAMIC LOADS; DYNAMICS; GLASS FIBERS; HONEYCOMB STRUCTURES; PHENOLIC RESINS; PHENOLS;

SANDWICH STRUCTURES;

EID: 84872978936     PISSN: 13588265     EISSN: 17542111     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13588265.2012.745692     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. ASTM International, ASTM, Standard Test Method for Facing Properties of Sandwich Constructions by Long Beam Flexure, in D7249/D7249M-06, ASTM International,West Conshohocken, PA, 2006.
2. ASTM International, ASTM, Standard Test Method for Edgewise Compressive Strength of Sandwich Constructions, in C 364/C 364M-07, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007.
3. N. Bailey, M. Battley, and M. Zhou, Dynamic damage tolerance for aircraft sandwich structures: experiments and modeling, Proceedings of the 52nd Structures Conference of American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Denver, CO, 2011.
4. S. Barŕe, T. Chotard, and M.L. Benzeggagh, Comparative study of strain rate effects on mechanical properties of glass fibre-reinforced thermoset matrix composite, Composites A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 27 (1996), pp. 1169-1181. (Pubitemid 126350818)
5. I. Daniel, E. Gdoutos, and Y. Rajapakse, Major Accomplishments in Composite Materials and Sandwich Structures: An Anthology of ONR Sponsored Research, Springer, New York, 2009.
6. V. Evora, N. Jain, and Shukla, Static and dynamic fracture toughness and crack propagation in nanocomposites, Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Fracture, Turin, Italy, 2005.
7. FederalAviationAdministration, FAA, PART 25-Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes, Subpart C-Structure, Emergency Landing Conditions, in Federal Aviation Regulations, D.o.T., Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, 2012.
8. A. Gilat, R.K. Goldberg, and G.D. Roberts, Experimental study of strain-rate-dependent behavior of carbon/epoxy composite, Compos. Sci. Technol. 62 (2002), pp. 1469-1476.
9. P.R. Hampson and M. Moatamedi, A review of composite structures subjected to dynamic loading, Int. J. Crashworthiness 12 (2007), pp. 411-428. (Pubitemid 351461824)
10. J.J. Harrigan, S.R. Reid, and C. Peng, Inertia effects in impact energy absorbing materials and structures, Inter. J. Impact Eng. 22 (1999), pp. 955-979. (Pubitemid 30514404)
11. S. Heimbs, P. Middendrof, C. Hampf, F. Hahnel, and K. Wolf, Numerical simulation of aircraft interior components under crash loads, Int. J. Crashworthiness 13 (2008) pp. 511-521.
12. S. Heimbs, S. Schmeer, P. Middendrof, and M. Maier, Strain rate effects in phenolic composites and phenolicimpregnated honeycomb structures, Compos. Sci. Technol. 67 (2007), pp. 2827-2837. (Pubitemid 47289206)
13. Hexweb, Hexweb Honeycomb Sandwich Design Technology, Hexcel Composites, Cambridge, 2000.
14. N.J. Hoff and S.E. Mautner, The buckling of sandwich type panels, J. Aeronaut. Sci. 12 (1945, July), p. 285.
15. J. LeBlanc and A. Shukla, Dynamic response and damage evolution in composite materials subjected to underwater explosive loading: An experimental and computational study, Compos. Struct. 92 (2010), pp. 2421-2430.
16. R. Ley, W. Lin, and U. Mbanefo, Facesheet Wrinkling in Sandwich Structures, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, 1999.
17. U.S. Lindholm, Some experiments with the split Hopkinson Pressure Bar, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 12 (1964), p. 18.
18. H. Mahfuz, W.A. Mamun, A. Haque, S. Turner, H. Mohamed, and S. Jeelani, An innovative technique for measuring the high strain rate response of sandwich composites, Compos. Struct. 50 (2000), pp. 279-285.
19. S.W. Park,M. Zhou, and D.R. Veazie, Time-resolved impact response and damage of fiber-reinforced composite laminates, J. Compos. Mater. 34 (2000), pp. 879-904.
20. H. Sarin, M. Kokkolaras, G. Hulbert, P. Papalambros, S. Barbat, and R.J. Yang, Comparing time histories for validation of simulation models: error measures and metrics, J. Dyn. Syst., Meas. Control 132 (2010), pp. 061401-1-061401-10.
21. A. Shipsha and D. Zenkert, Compression-after-impact strength of sandwich panels with core crushing damage, Appl. Compos. Mater. 12 (2005), pp. 149-164. (Pubitemid 40626434)
22. R.L. Sierakowski and S.K. Chaturvedi, Dynamic Loading and Characterization of Fiber-Reinforced Composites, John Wiley, New York, 2007.
23. D.D. Symons, Characterisation of indentation damage in 0/90 lay-up T300/914 CFRP, Compos. Sci. Technol. 60 (2000), pp. 391-401. (Pubitemid 30553122)
24. J. Tomblin, T. Lacy, B. Smith, and A. Hooper, Review of Damage Tolerance for Composite Sandwich Airframe Structures, US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 1999.
25. T.K. Tsotsis and S.M. Lee, Characterization of localized failure modes in honeycomb sandwich panels using indentation, in Composite Materials: Testing and Design Vol. 12 (ASTM STP 1274), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1996, p. 26.
26. D. Zenkert, An Introduction to Sandwich Construction, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, 1995.
27. H. Zhao and G. Gary, Crushing behaviour of aluminium honeycombs under impact loading, Int. J. Impact Eng. 21 (1998), pp. 827-836. (Pubitemid 128401682)