7.

SANDWICH ELEMENTS

7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.1.1 DEFINITIONS
The simplest type of sandwich consists of two thin, stiff, strong sheets of
dense material separated by a thick layer of low density material which may be
less strong and stiff [7.1, 7.4], Figure 7.1a.
The basic principle is much the same as that of an I beam which is an
efficient structural shape because as much as possible of the material is placed in
flanges situated farthest from the neutral axis, Figure 7.2. Only enough material
is left in the connecting web to make the flanges act in concert and to resist
shear and buckling [7.2]. In a structural sandwich the facings take the place of
the flanges and the core takes the place of the web. The facings act together to
form an efficient internal stress couple or resisting moment which balances the
external imposed bending moment.
A complete definition is given in ASTM C-274 [7.3]:
A structural sandwich is a layer construction comprising a combination
of alternating dissimilar simple or composite materials assembled and
intimately fixed in relation to each other so as to use the properties of each to
attain structural advantages for the whole assembly.
Facing is the outermost layer of a sandwich construction, generally thin
and of high density, which resists most of the edge-wise loads and flat-wise
bending moments.
Core is a generally centrally located layer or a composite component of a
sandwich construction usually of low density, which separates and stabilizes the

facings and transmits shear between them and provides most of the shear
rigidity of the construction.
Adhesive is a substance capable of holding materials together by surface
attachment.
By proper choice of materials for facings and core, constructions with
high ratios of stiffness can be achieved.

Figure 7.1 Sandwich

constructions with:
(a)foamed (expanded)
plastic core;
(b), (c) corrugated core
(7.6);
(d) mixed core (7.7).

Figure 7.2 The analogy between I-beam and a sandwich element

7.1.2 The role of the sandwich components [7.7]
7.1.2.1 Facings functions
1. The primary structural role of the facings of a sandwich is to carry
direct and shear stresses that act parallel to the plane of the sandwich
construction.
2. The thin spaced facings provide nearly all the flexural rigidity to the
sandwich element.
3. Faces may also serve to distribute localized loads and reactions to the
softer and weaker core.
4. In addition to their role the faces may provide nonstructural attributes
such as:
- texture or colour;
- resistance to weather, erosion and abrasion;
- resistance to water and moisture, chemicals, radiation and
biological attack.
7.1.2.2 Core functions
1. The core separates the two facings and holds them in a stable position.
It transmits shear between the faces so that they are effective about a
common neutral axis.
2. The sandwich core must also be stiff enough to keep the faces nearly
flat; otherwise it is possible for a face to buckle locally (wrinkle) under
the influence of compressive stress in its own plane.
3. The core provides most of the shear rigidity of the sandwich
construction so that when the panel is bent the facings do not slide over
each other. If this last condition is not fulfilled the faces behave as two
independent beams or panels and the sandwich effect is lost.

4. If the core is stiff enough it may make a useful contribution to the

bending stiffness of the sandwich construction as a whole.
5. The sandwich core may also provide thermal or acoustical resistance
and occasionally fire resistance or visual effects.
7.1.2.3 Face/core interface
1. The primary structural role of the face/core interface in sandwich
construction is to transfer stresses between faces and core.
2. It stabilizes the faces against buckling away from the core.
3. the interface must also carry loads applied normal to the panel surface.
7.2 SANDWICH BEAMS
7.2.1 Application of ordinary beam theory [7.4]
The sandwich beam illustrated in Figure 7.3, consists of two thin skins or
forces, each of thickness t separated by a thick layer (core) of low density
material of thickness c. The width of the beam is b and the overall depth is h. It
is assumed that the core and face materials are both isotropic, and all three
layers are firmly bonded together and the face material is much stiffer than the
core material [Ef Ec].

Figure 7.3 Dimensions of sandwich beams

To a first approximation, the stresses and deflections in a sandwich beam
may be determined by use of the ordinary theory of bending. The theory is based
on the assumption that cross sections which are plane and perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the unloaded beam remain so when bending takes place.

7.2.2 Flexural rigidity

In an ordinary beam the flexural rigidity is the product of the modulus of
elasticity and the second moment of area, I. The flexural rigidity of a sandwich
beam, denoted D, is the sum of the flexural rigidities of the two separate parts,
core and facings about the centroidal axis of entire cross section:

bt 3
d
D 2E f
2 E f bt
12
2

Ec

bc 3
12

(7.1)

Where: - Ef and Ec are the moduli of elasticity of the faces and core respectively;
- d is the distance between the centre lines of the upper and lower
facings:
d

h c
2

(7.2)

- t, c, h and b dimensions according to figure 7.3.

Assuming that the beam is narrow [b<h], the stresses in the y direction
can be taken as zero.
The first two terms in the right-hand side of equation (7.1) represent the
stiffness of the faces associated with bending about neutral axis [NA] of the
entire sandwich; of these, the first represents the local stiffness of the faces,
bending separately about their own centroidal axis (y-y). The third term
represents the bending stiffness of the core.
In practical sandwich beams the second term is dominant.

D Ef

bt 3
d2
bc 3
E f bt
Ec
6
2
12

(7.3)

The first term amounts to less than 1% of the second when:

E f btd 2
2
100
E f bt 3
6

Which leads to:

(7.4)

 d

t

100
3

=>

d/t > 5.77

(7.5)

The error term amount by neglecting the first term is therefore negligible
id d/t > 5.77.
The third term amounts to less than 1% of the second when:
E f btd 2
2
100
Ec bc 3
12

(7.6)

or :
Ef t d

Ec c c

50
3

(7.7)

In many practical sandwiches d c and t/c lies in the range 0.02.0.1;

if condition (7.7) is satisfied in these cases, the limiting values of Ef /Ec is
between 835.167 [7.7].
Therefore, the bending of the stiffness of the sandwich beam is:
D bt

d2
Ef
2

(7.8)

7.2.3 Stress distribution

The stresses in the faces and core may be determined by use of ordinary
bending theory, adapted to the composite nature of the cross-section.
Assuming that sections remain plane and perpendicular to the longitudinal
axis, the strain at a point distant z below the centroidal axis, Figure 7.4 is:

(z)

M
z
D

(7.9)

The bending stress at the level z may be determined by multiplying this

strain by the appropriate modulus of elasticity. In facings:

Mz
Ef
D

h
c
z
2
2

when

(7.10)
c
h
z
2
2

and the stresses in the core are:

Mz
Ec
D

when

c
c
z
2
2

(7.11)

(z)

Figure 7.4 Strain and stress distribution in sandwich beam

The maximum face stresses are obtained with z = h/2:
( f )max =

ME f h
D 2

(7.12)

and the maximum core stresses are obtained with z = c/2:

( c )max =

ME c c
D 2

(7.13)
The ratio of the maximum face stress to the maximum core stress is:
( f ) max
( c ) max

Ef h
Ec c

(7.14)

and the ratio of the stress to the core stress at the interface is:
( f ) c / 2
( c ) max

Ef
Ec

(7.15)

If the ultimate strength of the face and core materials are exactly in
proportion to their moduli the faces will fail marginally before the core does so,
since h/c is slightly greater than unity. For design purposes a conventional face
stress can be determined as:
conv

M
dbt

(7.16)

7.2.4 Shear stress distribution

The common expression for the shear stress, , in a homogeneous
beam, Figure 7.5, at a depth z1, below the centroid of the cross section is:
( z1 )

TS ( z1 )
Ib( z1 )

(7.17)

where:- T is the shear force at the section under consideration;

- I is the second moment area of the entire section about the centroid;
- b(z1) is the width at the level z1;
- S(z1) is the first moment area of that part of the section for which z z1.
The familiar distribution of such a shear in a rectangular beam and in an Ibeam is illustrated in Figure 7.5:

Figure 7.5 Shear stress distributions in homogeneous beams

For a compound beam such as the sandwich in Figure 7.6, equation (7.17)
must be modified to take account of the moduli of elasticity of the different
layers of the cross-section:

T
(SE )
Db

in which D is the flexural rigidity of the entire section and (SE) is the sum of
the products of S and E of all parts of the section for which z z1.

Figure 7.6 Shear stress distributions in a sandwich beam

For example, if equation (7.18) is used to determine the shear stress at the
level z1 in the core of the sandwich in Figure 7.6a:
(SE) =

Ef

z'

btd
c

E c b z1 z '
2
2

(7.19)

1 c

z1 z1
2 2

The shear stress in the core is therefore:

c2

T
z12
E f td E c
2D
4

(7.20)

An analogous expression may be obtained for the complete shear stress

distribution across the depth of the sandwich as illustrated in Figure 7.6b.

The minimum core shear stress, at the interface (z = c/2) is:

min c / 2

T
E f td
2D

and the maximum core shear stress (at z=0) is:

(7.21)

 min 0c / 2

T
c2
E
td

E
c
f

2D
4

(7.22)

The ratio of the maximum core shear stress, 0, to the minimum core shear
stress c/2 is:
0
E c2 1
1 c
c/2
E f td 4

(7.23)

This expression is within 1% of unity provided:

4

Ef t d
100
Ec c c

(7.24)

Consequently, if condition (7.24) is satisfied, the shear stress may be

assumed constant over the thickness of the core; because d/c is usually near to
unity, conditions (7.24) and (7.7) are roughly similar in effect.
It may therefore be concluded that where a core is too weak to provide a
significant contribution to the flexural rigidity of the sandwich, the shear stress
may be assumed constant over the depth of the core.
Therefore foe a weak core it is permissible to write Ec=0 in equation
(7.20); the constant shear stress in the core is the given by:

T E f td
D 2

(7.25)

The way in which the shear stress is distributed across the section in this
case is illustrated in Figure 7.6c.
If, in addition, the flexural rigidity of the faces about their own separate
axes is small, namely if the condition (7.5) is fulfilled, the flexural rigidity of the
sandwich is:
D

btd 2
Ef
2

(7.26)

and equation (7.25) for the shear stress in the core reduces to the simplest
possible form:

T
bd

(7.27)

The corresponding shear stress distribution is shown in Figure 7.6d. The

difference between Figures 7.6c and 7.6d is that in the later the direct stress in
each face is assumed to be uniform (because the local bending stress is

neglected); it follows from this that the shear stress in the faces varies with depth
in a linear fashion, not in a parabolic one.

7.2.5 Deflection of sandwich beams

The total deflection w of the sandwich beam is the sum of the primary
deflection due to bending, w1, and the secondary deflection due to shear, w2 ,
Figure 7.7

Figure 7.7 Deflection of a

sandwich beam under a
concentrated load at midspan

The
primary
deflection
may
be
calculated by the ordinary theory of the bending. The secondary deflection is
based on the same theory but it also considers the local bending of the facings as
they bend locally about their own separate centroidal axis.
The central deflection of a sandwich beam under a central point load is
depicted in Fig. 7.7. The primary displacement occurs when plane cross-section
remain plane and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the beam, Figure 7.8.

As shown in Figure 7.8, the line 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 which was straight in the
undeformed sandwich remains straight and perpendicular to the axis of the beam
after bending. The rotation of this line dw1/dx gives the slope of the beam and
the stresses are related to the displacement by simple theory of bending.

Figure 7.8 Primary deflection of a short length of beam

Similarly, Figure 7.9 illustrates a short beam which has undergone a

secondary displacement which occurred when the faces bent about their own
individual centroidal axes but underwent no axial extension or contraction.

Figure 7.9 Secondary deflection of a short length of beam

The lines 1-2-3 and 5-6-7 are perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the
beam. The rotation of these lines is equal to the slope of the beam dw2/dx.
Therefore:
dw2
c
c T 1 c

dx
d Gc d bd Gc d

(7.28)

Defining A=bd2/c
The slope of the beam can be written:
dw2
T

dx
AGc

where Gc is the core shear modulus.

(7.29)

The deflection w2 due to shear at the center of the beam carrying a simple
point load at this position is obtained by integrating equation (7.29) and is given
as:
w2

PL
4 AGc

(7.30)

so the total deflection due to bending and shear for this beam is :
w w1 w2

PL3
PL

48 D 4 AGc

(7.31)

Generally, for a thin face beam under a statically determined and

symmetrically loaded condition, the total deflection may be determined by the
addition of the primary and secondary deflections calculated separately, utilizing
in each case the total load on the beam.

For other loading conditions on simply supported thin face sandwich

beams, the total deflection can be written as:
K 1 PL3 K 2 PL
w w1 w2

D
AGc

(7.32)

where:
P = total load on beam;
K1 = deflection coefficient for moment, Table 7.1
K2 = deflection coefficient for shear, Table 7.1

Table 7.1 Coefficients for bending and shear deflection of sandwich beams

Beam type

Simply supported

Cantilever

Loading conditions

Location of
deflection

Coefficients
Bending
K1

Shear
K2

* Uniformly distributed

- midspan -

5/384

1/8

* Concentrated at mid span

- midspan -

1/48

1/4

* Concentrated at both
quarter points

- midspan -

11/768

1/8

- quarter points -

1/96

1/8

* Uniformly distributed

- free end

1/8

1/2

* Concentrated at free end

- free end -

1/3

For thick face sandwich beams, the first term on the right-hand side of
equation (7.1) cannot be neglected and the bending stiffness of the beam is then:
D

bt 3
btd 2
Ef
6
2

(7.33)

In the analysis of sandwich beams we can define two types of sandwich

elements:
1- Narrow beams, in which the beam width b is less than the core depth c;
the stress condition is therefore in a state of unidirectional stress and the ratio of
stress to strain is equal to E
2- Wide beams in which b is much greater than c; when local bending
stresses are set up in the faces of the sandwich, they act as thin plates in
cylindrical bending and the ratio of stress to strain is equal to E/(1- 2 ).
However, as these strains are usually of secondary importance, the ratio
may be taken as E without much inaccuracy. For wide beams, the strains in the
lateral directions are restrained by the core and therefore are assumed to be zero.
In this case, the ratio of the longitudinal stress to strain is E`=E/(1- 2 ).
7.3 DESIGN EXAMPLE FOR A WIDE SANDWICH BEAM MADE OF
POLYMERIC COMPOSITE MATERIALS

7.3.1 Flexural rigidity of a wide sandwich beam

The flexural rigidity of a sandwich beam is the sum of flexural rigidities
of the two separate parts, core and facings about centroidal axis of the entire
cross section.
If the beam is wide (bh) the lateral expansions and contractions of the
sandwich facings are restricted by the incapacity of the core to undergo large
shear deformation in the yz plane (7.1). In this case it is acceptable to assume
that the strains in the y- direction vanish and the ratio of direct stress to strain in
the x- direction, Figure (7.10) is E/(1- 2 ).
Consider Ef and Ec the moduli of elasticity of the faces and core
respectively and t, c, b, h, d dimensions according to Figure 7.10
If:
d
5.77
t

(7.34)

and
Ef t d

Ec c c

50
3

(7.35)

the bending stiffness of the wide sandwich beam can be determined with:

Ef
1 2f

btd 2
2

(7.36)

where f is the Poissons ratio of the facings materials.

Figure 7.10 Wide sandwich beams

The flexural rigidity D is determined based on the following assumptions:
the facings are very thin and their local stiffness bending separately about their
own centroidal axes are neglected; the core is too weak to provide a significant

contribution to the flexural rigidity of the sandwich; consider that the sandwich
panel consists of two identical facings, made of isotropic materials such as
planar randomly glass mat reinforced polyesters, each of thickness t.

7.3.2 Design criteria

The design criteria of a sandwich panel lie in the sandwich theory; the
main difference in the design procedures for sandwich structural panels
compared to design of structural elements made of homogeneous material is the
inclusion of the effects of core shear properties on deflection.
Many times most effective method of designing sandwich panels is the
process of trial and error. The choice of GRP faces and polyurethanic foam core
is limited because the face may be available in only few standard thicknesses
while core materials may be limited in the choice of density.
Sometimes it is recommended to ignore the effects due to the thickness of
the facings. A design approach is based on known properties of the core and the
face materials. The thickness of the faces is also known and the problem is to
determine the necessary core thickness.
Consider a simply supported wide sandwich beam loaded with a
uniformly distributed factored load q.
q nq n

where n is the load factor and qn is the nominal value of the uniformly
distributed load. Knowing the face thickness t and the face and core materials
and their properties, it is required to find the core thickness. The conventional
stress distributions are shown in Figure 7.11.

Figure 7.11 Conventional stress distributions on a cross-section of a wide

sandwich beam
The following formulas have been used to determine the direct and the
shear stresses (7.9):

 conv

M max
qL2

dbt
8dbt

(7.38)

conv

Tmax
qL

db
2bd

(7.39)

The direct stresses (tensile and compressive) should not exceed the
corresponding design strengths:
qL2
R cf
8dbt

(7.40)

qL2
R tf
8dbt

where Rfc and Rft are the compressive design strength and the tensile design
strength respectively. The compressive direct stress must not exceed the
wrinkling stress Rfw (7.1):
qL2
R wf
8dbt

(7.41)

R wf B1 E 1f / 3 E c2 / 3

(7.42)

where:

B1 3 12 3 c 1 c
2

2 1 / 3

(7.43)

Ef is the modulus of elasticity for the compressed facings;

Ec is the modulus of elasticity for the core;
c

is the Poissons ratio for the core.

The maximum shear stress in the core must not exceed the design shear
strength for the core material.
qL
Rcs
2bd

(7.44)

where Rcs is the design shear strength for the polyurethanic foam core.
The maximum deflection w occurs at midspan and is the sum of central
bending deflection w1 and the central shear deflection w2:

n 4
2
5q n L4 10q L 1 f
w1

384 D
384 E f bd 2 t

(7.45)

q n L2
8bdGc

(7.46)

w w1 w2

(7.47)

w2

The usual way of restricting deflection consists in imposing a limiting

ratio w/L. Then we can write:

10q n L3 1 2f
384 E f bd 2 t

qnL
w

8bdGc
L

(7.48)
The required core thickness d is the smallest of the values which satisfy
the following equations simultaneously:

qL2
8btR cf

(7.49a)

qL2
8btR tf

(7.49b)

qL2
8btR sf

(7.50)

qL2

24bt 12 3 c 1 c
2

2 1 / 3

(7.51)

E 1f / 3 Ec2 / 3

qL2
20 b Gc w1 f
d

1 1
24bGc w
3 t
E f q n

(7.52)

In (7.9) it is stated that the decisive design criterion of this type of

sandwich element is that concerning the acceptable deflection of the sandwich
beam and this has been illustrated by numerous practical applications.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
7.1 Allen H.G. - Analysis and design of structural sandwich panels. Pergamon Press 1969.
7.2 Rosato D.V - Honeycomb and sandwich construction. Chapter 20 from Handbook of
fiberglass and advanced composites. Ed. G. Lubin, Van Nostrand, 1982.

7.3 ASTM C 274 Terminology relating to structural sandwich. Annual Book of Standards
1995.
7.4 Allen H.G Theory of sandwich beams and plates. Cambridge University Press, 1993.
7.5 ASCE
Structural plastics design manual. Vol. 2, New york, 1982.
7.6 Hussein R.M. Composite panles/plates. Analysis and design. Technomic, 1986.
7.7 Taranu N., Secu Al., Ispoescu D. Instructiuni tehnice pentru proiectarea elementelor
sandvis din materiale compozite si associate. Contract UTIasi/KLPAT, nr
2213/1995
7.8 Kuenzi E. W. Structural sandwich design criteria. Forest Products Laboratory Report,
1959.
7.9 Isopescu D., Taranu N. Design criteria for wide sandwhich beams made of polymeric
composite materials. In Bul. I.P.Iasi, sectia VI, fasc. 3-4, 1996.