Comparative analysis of aluminium core honeycomb with 3D woven Kevlar honeycomb composite

References

• Noor AK, Burton WS, Bert CW. Computational models for sandwich panels and shells. Appl Mech Rev. 1996;49:155–199.
   Google Scholar
• Abrate S. Impact engineering of composite structures. Carbondale USA: Springer science and business media; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Liu PF, Li XK, Li ZB. Finite element analysis of dynamic mechanical responses of aluminum honeycomb sandwich structures under low-velocity impact. J Fail Anal Prev. 2017;17:1202–1207.
   Google Scholar
• Tripathi L, Behera BK. Review: 3D woven honeycomb composites. J Mater Sci. 2021;56:15609–15652.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crupi V, Montanini R. Aluminium foam sandwiches collapse modes under static and dynamic three-point bending. Int J Impact Eng. 2007;34:509–521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tripathi L, Chowdhury S, Behera BK. Modelling and simulation of compression behaviour of 3D woven hollow composite structures using FEM analysis. Text Leather Rev. 2020;3:6–18.
   Google Scholar
• Jayan VR, Tripathi L, Behera PK, et al. Prediction of internal geometry and tensile behavior of 3D woven solid structures by mathematical coding. J Ind Text. 2021;51:7034S–7055S.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tripathi L, Chowdhury S, Behera B. Modeling and simulation of impact behavior of 3D woven solid structure for ballistic application. J Ind Text. 2022;51:6065S–6086S.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behera BK, Jain M, Tripathi L, et al. Low-velocity impact behaviour of textile-reinforced composite sandwich panels. sandw. compos. Boca Raton: CRC Press. 2021;1st Edition:213–260.
   Google Scholar
• Tripathi L, Neje G, Behera BK. Geometrical modeling of 3D woven honeycomb fabric for manufacturing of lightweight sandwich composite material. J Ind Text. 2022;51:4372S–4389S.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajaneesh A, Sridhar I, Rajendran S. Impact modeling of foam cored sandwich plates with ductile or brittle faceplates. Compos Struct. 2012;94:1745–1754.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Hou S, Fu K, et al. Low-velocity impact response of composite sandwich structures: modelling and experiment. Compos Struct. 2017;168:322–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kee Paik J, Thayamballi AK, Sung Kim G. The strength characteristics of aluminum honeycomb sandwich panels. Thin-Walled Struct. 1999;35:205–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazizan MA, Cantwell WJ. The low velocity impact response of an aluminium honeycomb sandwich structure. Compos Part B Eng. 2003;34:679–687.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foo CC, Seah LK, Chai GB. Low-velocity impact failure of aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels. Compos Struct. 2008;85:20–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mukai T, Kanahashi H, Miyoshi T, et al. Experimental study of energy absorption in a close-celled aluminum foam under dynamic loading. Scr Mater. 1999;40:921–927.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dannemann KA, Lankford J. High strain rate compression of closed-cell aluminum foams. Mater Sci Eng, A. 2000;293:157–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deshpande VS, Fleck NA. High strain rate compressive behaviour of aluminum alloy foams. Int J Impact Eng. 2000;24:277–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall IW, Guden M, Yu CJ. Crushing of aluminum closed cell foams: density and strain rate effects. Scr Mater. 2000;43:515–521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul A, Ramamurty U. Strain rate sensitivity of a closed-cell aluminum foam. Mater Sci Eng, A. 2000;281:1–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avalle M, Belingardi G, Montanini R. Characterization of polymeric structural foams under compressive impact loading by means of energy-absorption diagram. Int J Impact Eng. 2001;25:455–472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin KB, Lee JY, Cho SH. An experimental study of low-velocity impact responses of sandwich panels for Korean low floor bus. Compos Struct. 2008;84:228–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demirci MT. Investigation of low-velocity impact behavior of aluminum honeycomb composite sandwiches with GNPs doped BFR laminated face-sheets and interfacial adhesive for aircraft structures. Polym Compos. 2022;43:5675–5689.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bart-Smith H, Hutchinson JW, Evans AG. Measurement and analysis of the structural performance of cellular metal sandwich construction. Int J Mech Sci. 2001;43:1945–1963.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kesler O, Gibson LJ. Size effects in metallic foam core sandwich beams. Mater Sci Eng, A. 2002;326:228–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCormack TM, Miller R, Kesler O, et al. Failure of sandwich beams with metallic foam cores. Int J Solids Struct. 2001;38:4901–4920.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bart-Smith H, Hutchinson JW, Fleck NA, et al. Influence of imperfections on the performance of metal foam core sandwich panels. Int J Solids Struct. 2002;39:4999–5012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen C, Harte AM, Fleck NA. Plastic collapse of sandwich beams with a metallic foam core. Int J Mech Sci. 2001;43:1483–1506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tham CY, Tan VBC, Lee HP. Ballistic impact of a KEVLAR® helmet: experiment and simulations. Int J Impact Eng. 2008;35:304–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar A, Angra S, Chanda AK. Analysis of the effects of varying core thicknesses of Kevlar honeycomb sandwich structures under different regimes of testing. Mater Today Proc. 2020;21:1615–1623.
   Google Scholar
• Yeung KKH, Rao KP. Mechanical properties of Kevlar-49 fibre reinforced thermoplastic composites. Polym Polym Compos. 2012;20:411–424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwaber DM. Impact behavior of polymeric foams: a review. Polym-Plast Technol Eng. 1973;2:231–249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson LJ, Ashby MF. Cellular solids. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Wierzbicki T. Crushing analysis of metal honeycombs. Int J Impact Eng. 1983;1:157–174.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Ashby MF. The out-of-plane properties of honeycombs. Int J Mech Sci. 1992;34:475–489.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng J, Yao L, Lyu Z, et al. Mechanical properties and damage failure of 3D-printed continuous carbon fiber-reinforced composite honeycomb sandwich structures with fiber-interleaved core. Polym Compos. 2022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tripathi L, Behera SK, Behera BK. Numerical modeling of flatwise energy absorption behavior of 3D woven honeycomb composites with different cell structures. J Sandw Struct Mater. 2022;24:2047–2064.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tripathi L, Behera BK. Flatwise compression behavior of 3D woven honeycomb composites. J Ind Text. 2022;52:1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sezgin FE, Tanoğlu M, Eğilmez OÖ, et al. Mechanical behavior of polypropylene-based honeycomb-core composite sandwich structures. J Reinf Plast Compos. 2010;29:1569–1579.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mamalis AG, Manolakos DE, Ioannidis MB, et al. On the crushing response of composite sandwich panels subjected to edgewise compression: experimental. Compos Struct. 2005;71:246–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abbadi A, Koutsawa Y, Carmasol A, et al. Experimental and numerical characterization of honeycomb sandwich composite panels. Simul Model Pract Theory. 2009;17:1533–1547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan H, Zhang J, Sun H. The failure behavior of double-layer metal foam sandwich beams under three-point bending. Thin-Walled Struct. 2022;180:1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xia F, Durandet Y, Tan PJ, et al. Three-point bending performance of sandwich panels with various types of cores. Thin-Walled Struct. 2022;179:1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar