Abstract
The debonding toughness between unidirectional glass fiber reinforced polymer face sheets and cellularic cores of sandwich structures is experimentally measured under static and fatigue loading conditions. The effect of various core geometries, such as regular honeycomb and closed-cell foams of two relative densities on the adhesive interfacial toughness is explored using the single cantilever beam (SCB) testing method. The steady-state crack growth measurements are used to plot the Paris curves. The uniformity of adhesive filleting and the crack path was found to affect the interfacial toughness. The static Mode-1 interfacial toughness of high-density foam cores was witnessed to be maximal, followed by low-density honeycomb, high-density honeycomb, and low-density foam core. Similarly, the fatigue behavior of the low-density honeycomb core has the lowest crack growth rates compared to the other samples, primarily due to uniform adhesive filleting.
Highlights
Sandwich structures are subjected to many complicated failure mechanisms based on their geometry, material properties, and loading condition
The support fixture was designed in such a way that the adjustable top clamps secure the specimen to the fixed rigid base, which is fastened to the Universal Testing Machine pedestal (UTM)
The main dimensions that influence the single cantilever beam (SCB) test, like the minimum face sheet thickness of the debonded face, tf,min, the minimum specimen length, Lmin, and the final debond length, amax, are obtained from the analysis proposed by Ratcliffe et al [22] and as described below for completeness
Summary
Honeycomb sandwich structures reinforced with thin or thick face sheets have been found attractive for utilization in aero engine applications ranging from simple acoustic panels to impact liners to contain impacts during service by foreign object impact damage (FOD) [3,4]. Their application has shown good in-service reliability and maintenance in terms of localized repairs [5]. Sandwich structures are subjected to many complicated failure mechanisms (e.g., core compression, shear crimping, face sheet buckling, and face/core disbonding) based on their geometry, material properties, and loading condition
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
