Accepted Manuscript

Strength, Stiffness, and Panel Peeling Strength of Carbon Fiber-Reinforced

Composite Sandwich Structures with Aluminum Honeycomb Cores for vehicle
body

Jianfeng Wang, Chengyang Shi, Na Yang, Haonan Sun, Yiqun Liu, Baoyu Song

PII: S0263-8223(17)31626-4
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.10.038
Reference: COST 9013

To appear in: Composite Structures

Received Date: 23 May 2017

Revised Date: 27 August 2017
Accepted Date: 12 October 2017

Please cite this article as: Wang, J., Shi, C., Yang, N., Sun, H., Liu, Y., Song, B., Strength, Stiffness, and Panel
Peeling Strength of Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Composite Sandwich Structures with Aluminum Honeycomb Cores
for vehicle body, Composite Structures (2017), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.10.038

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Strength, Stiffness, and Panel Peeling Strength of Carbon

Fiber-Reinforced Composite Sandwich Structures with

Aluminum Honeycomb Cores for vehicle body

Jianfeng Wanga,b, Chengyang Shia, Na Yang a*, Haonan Sun b, Yiqun Liub*,

Baoyu Songa
a
School of Automotive Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Weihai, Shandong 264209, P.R.

China

b
State Key Laboratory of Robotics and System, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, P.R.

China

*
Corresponding authors: yangna@hitwh.edu.cn (Na Yang), lyq.new@163.com (Yiqun Liu)

Abstract

Due to its superior performance, composite sandwich structure materials are widely

used in the automobile industry, especially for vehicle body applications. Optimization

of the design of composite aluminum honeycomb sandwich structures is therefore of

great significance. In this study, carbon fiber-reinforced composite sandwich structures

cured at high temperatures with aluminum honeycomb structures as the core material

were investigated. Specifically, the effects of core thickness and density on the laminate

material properties were studied by three-point bending and panel peeling tests.

Keywords: Carbon fiber, Sandwich structure, Aluminum honeycomb, Stiffness

1. Introduction

Achieving lighter-weight automobiles is one of the most important methods of

sustainable development, which is of great significance for both energy-saving and

environmental care purposes. Nowadays, such lighter-weight automobiles are also

required due to harsher energy-saving and emission-reduction standards. One of the

most effective ways to achieve weight reduction is the use of alternative, lightweight

materials. Composite materials are ideal for this purpose due to their high specific

modulus and strength, as well as good chemical stability. Therefore, the application of

composite materials in the automobile industry has a long history, helping to produce

eco-friendly and energy-saving vehicles while simultaneously achieving weight loss.

The Lamborghini Murciélago, for example, has a carbon fiber monocoque vehicle body,

which is cured to function as one single component; this car type weighs only 145.5 kg

while still having great strength.

Composite sandwich structures generally consist of high-strength and high-stiffness

thin panels on the outside and a light, thick core material on the inside[1] ,as shown in

figure 1. Sandwich structures can endure similar heavy loads as solid structures, despite

being several times lighter. Imparted loads, such as from shearing forces, are

transferred between the panel plates and core material, which are usually bonded

together by a binder material. The core material has some influence on the bending

stiffness and torsional stiffness of the sandwich structure[2]. Many types of sandwich

structure core materials exist, including foam, honeycomb structures, and corrugated
plate.

adhesive material
composite panel

core material

Figure 1: Sandwich construction

Construction designs and damage failure mechanisms of composite sandwich

structures have been studied by many researchers. However, these studies are still at an

early stage because of the complexity of both construction and damage failure

mechanisms. Many models and methods have been presented, including theoretical

deductions, experimental measurements, and numerical simulations, but most of these

studies suffer from many limitations. Reddy et al. predicted failure of the first layer of

composite laminates that matched well with experimentally obtained values[3-4]. Lee

analyzed the failure mode by stress distribution via finite element modeling software,

as well as the resulting degeneration of the material properties[5-6]. Mouritz et al.

investigated composite laminates with fiber-reinforced plastic panels and a

polyvinylchloride foam core material, and discussed their material strength, stiffness,

and damage modes under different load conditions[7]. Dry et al. investigated polymer

matrix composites with the ability to self-repair internal cracks, and found that the

repair fiber cracking and the repair chemicals subsequent release can be received[8].

Gibson et al. looked at the elastic stiffness and internal damping of E-glass

fiber-reinforced epoxy beams under flexural vibration[9]. In addition to the above, the
dynamic response of composite sandwich structures subjected to impacts and

explosions is a key problem[10-14]. Yam et al.[15] investigated the dynamic response

of honeycomb sandwich structures, whereas Dear et al. studied the influence of impact

toughness and impactor geometries[16-17]. Romanoff et al. studied theories of

composite plates, approaches, and other aspects[18-20]. Lee et al. studied the influence

of the elastic modulus and other factors on the dynamic response of composites[21-25].

Finally, Lee et al. investigated package materials based on polymer matrices for

microelectronics and renewable raw materials[26-28].

Here, the strength, stiffness, and laminate panel peeling strength of sandwich

structures with carbon fiber-reinforced panels and an aluminum honeycomb core

material were studied. This sandwich structure is mainly used for racing body structure.

The effects of material density and thickness were analyzed by mechanical testing. By

analyzing the test results, the optimal combination of sandwich structure parameters to

reinforce the material could be obtained.

2. Material and Methods

2.1 Three-point bending

2.1.1 Experimental setup

The effects of the aluminum honeycomb core material thickness and density were

investigated using the experimental setup listed in table 1. The shape and size of each

experimental sample are shown in figure 2. The composite panels were made of 4
layers of M40 carbon fiber prepreg. The density of carbon fiber prepreg is 220g/m2 ,

and The epoxy resin content is 33%. Tensile strength of carbon fibers is 4400MPa, and

the elastic model is 360GPa. The thickness of carbon fiber prepreg is 0.12mm.Between

the carbon fiber and aluminum honeycomb with epoxy glue bonding, and layer

thickness is 0.2mm. The density of the epoxy resin is 170g/m2. The honeycomb is

hexagonal. Each side length is 1.83mm, and the thickness is 0.04mm.By analyzing the

experimental data of three-point bending tests, the material strength and stiffness were

examined.
Table 1: Experimental setup of three-point bending tests

Three-point Bending Test

Composite Core material Core material Sample numbers

sandwich thickness density (kg/m3)

laminate (mm)

specimens 20 85 1-1, 1-2, 1-3

with 20 101 2-1, 2-2, 2-3

aluminum 20 125 3-1, 3-2, 3-3

honeycomb 10 101 4-1, 4-2, 4-3

core 30 101 5-1, 5-2, 5-3

 200mm

30mm

200mm

20mm

200mm

10mm

Figure 2: Shape and size of experimental samples

2.1.2 Fabrication of experimental samples

The carbon fiber cloth, aluminum honeycomb core material, and adhesive material

were cut according to the sizes and types as specified in table 1. Raw materials are

shown in figure 3.

A B

Figure 3: Raw materials for experimental samples: (A) carbon fiber cloth, (B) adhesive
 material, (C) aluminum honeycomb core material

The aluminum honeycomb material and carbon fiber cloth were bonded together

with the adhesive material while carefully avoiding problems with bubble formation as

shown in figure 4. Samples were then sealed and exposed to vacuum, followed by

molding at high temperatures. The temperature curve during curing is shown in figure

5.

Figure 4: Laying raw materials in order

140 1.0
Temperature
o
120 Cure(125 C,150min)
0.8

100
Temperature ( oC)

Pressure(MPa)
Pressure (MPa)

0.6
80
o
Dwell(80 C)
60
0.4

40

0.2
20

0 0.0
0 60 120 180 240
Time (min)

Figure 5: Temperature curve during curing

2.1.3 Design of test fixture

For all three-point bending experiments, standard test fixtures of a universal testing
machine were used; the testing setup is shown in figure 6.

clip gauge

beam measured core

compression
camera

Figure 6: Three-point Bending Test

2.1.4 Test process

A hydraulic universal test machine was used for all three-point bending experiments.

The test fixture, with a stride width of 18 cm, was set up in the universal testing

machine and leveled before use. The diameter of the fulcrum is 25 mm, and the

diameter of the powerpoint is 50 mm. The three-point bending test module of

MAXTEST software was used after installing each specimen. The rate of displacement

used was 5 mm/min. The test process is shown as figure 7.

Figure 7: Three-point Bending Test

2.2 Panel board peeling

2.2.1 Experiment setup

The experimental setup for the peeling tests is described in table 2, and the size

parameters of the experimental specimens are shown in figure 8. Each composite

sandwich structure sample was made of 4 layers of M40 carbon fiber prepreg and an

aluminum honeycomb core material.

By analyzing the experimental data of the peeling tests, the panel board peeling

failure mechanism was determined. Shape and Size of Experimental Samples is shown

in figure 8.

Table 2: Experimental Setups of Panel Board Peeling Test

Panel Board Peeling Test

Composite Size of Density of Core Experimental Number
Sandwich Laminate Specimen Material
Specimen with 6-1
Aluminum 3
80mm*200mm* 101kg/m 6-2
Honeycomb 20mm 6-3

200mm

20mm

Figure 8: Shape and Size of Experimental Samples

2.2.2 Fabrication of experimental samples

The fabrication of the experimental samples was the same as described in section

2.1.2.

2.2.3 Design of test fixture

 The test fixture for peeling tests is shown in figure 9; each laminate sample was fixed

in position between clamping blocks, while a fixing block was clamped between the

lower clamping block and the middle clamping block that held the laminate sample. By

moving the lower clamping block downward, the lower panel board that was connected

to the fixing block was pulled off of the aluminum honeycomb.

Upper Clamping Block

Sample

Clamping Block

Lower Clamping Block Fixing Block

Figure 9: Test Fixture of Panel Board Peeling Test

2.2.4 Test process

A hydraulic universal test machine was used in the test, with the test fixture as shown

in figure 9 set up and leveled. The Test process is shown as figure 10 and the panel

board peeling test module of MAXTEST software was used after installing each

specimen. The test rate of displacement was 5 mm/min.

 (A) Initial State （B）Testing Process
Figure 10: Panel Board Stripping Test

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Three-point bending test

The samples after three-point bending test are shown as figure 11 and the results of

the three-point bending tests are shown in table 3.

Figure 11: Samples after Three-point Bending Test

For composite sandwich structures, the bending strength and stiffness can be calculated

as follows:

R = ( 3 F ⋅ L ) /( 2 b ⋅ h ⋅ h ) (1)

D = ( PL3 ) / (48b ⋅ w) (2)

with R the bending strength, F the failure load (kN), PL the stride width (mm), D the

bending stiffness, b the width (m), h the thickness (m), and w the deflection (m). The

results for bending strength and stiffness are shown in table 4.

Table 3: Experimental Result of Three-point Bending Test

Experimental Ultimate Ultimate Average

Composite Number Load (kN) Displacement Ultimate Load

Sandwich (mm) (kN)

Laminate 1-1 3.6 1.25
1-2 2.35 0.85 3.3
 1-3 3.0 1.20
Specimen
2-1 3.35 0.722
with
2-2 3.7 0.77 3.82
Aluminum
2-3 4.4 1.143
Honeycomb 3-1 4.4 1.348
3-2 4.0 1.32 4.23
3-3 4.3 1.131
4-1 3.8 1.637
4-2 3.6 1.829 3.47
4-3 3.0 1.738
5-1 3.1 1.901
5-2 3.95 2.912 3.40
5-3 3.15 0.529

Table 4: Calculation Results

2
Number Ultimate load (kN） Strength (kN/mm ) Stiffness (GPa· mm3)
1-1 3.6 0.0243 350
1-2 2.35 0.0158 336
1-3 3 0.0202 304
2-1 3.35 0.0226 564
2-2 3.7 0.0250 584
2-3 4.4 0.0297 468
3-1 4.4 0.0297 397
3-2 4 0.027 368
3-3 4.3 0.0290 462
4-1 3.8 0.1026 282
4-2 3.6 0.0972 239
4-3 3 0.081 210
5-1 3.1 0.0093 198
5-2 3.95 0.0119 165
5-3 3.15 0.0095 723

From figures 12 to 14, we can see that the density of the aluminum honeycomb core

had a significant effect on the strength and stiffness of the sandwich structures. In

figure 12, the strength of the material increase from 85-2 to 125-1. But the strength of
85-1 is higher than 85-2, and it may be caused by some experimental errors. The

strength of the material is not entirely increased with an increase in density of the core

material, while the average ultimate load also increased. The peak value for the bending

stiffness was measured for the panels with a core density of 101 kg/m3.It is because the

binding properties of the core material with the carbon fiber skin are better at the

density. The similarity between the force-displacement curves proves that the

deformation mode was basically the same, independent of the core density.
2
strength(kN/mm )
stiffness(Gpa穖m3)
0. 032
600
0. 030
0. 028 550
3)
2 ) 0. 026 500 m
m ·am
m
/ 0. 024 p
N 450 (G
k
(h 0. 022 ss
t e
g
n 400 fn
er 0. 020 fi
t
t S
S 0. 018 350
0. 016
300
0. 014
85-1 85-2 85-3 101-1 101-2 101-3 125-1 125-2 125-3
3
density(kg/ mm )

Figure 12: Strength and stiffness on different core density

Figure 13: Average ultimate loads for panels with a panel thickness of 20 mm
 5
3
85kg/mm
4 101kg/mm3
3
125kg/mm
)
N3

force(kN)
k
(e
r
u
ss 2
er
p
1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
displacement(mm)

Figure 14: Representative force-displacement curves for samples with different core

From the above results, we can conclude that the strength and ultimate load were

improved by increasing the core density, while the bending stiffness varied

considerably and peaked for the 101 kg/m3 density material. Since the experimental

samples with a 101 kg/m3 density aluminum honeycomb core exhibited the highest

stiffness while still having a relatively high strength, potentially both high strength and

stiffness combined with a light weight could be achieved.

From figures 15 to 17, we can see that the thickness of the aluminum honeycomb

core also had a considerable impact on the strength and stiffness of the panels. The

strength of the material decreased with an increase in the core thickness. The high

strength of the 10 mm thick samples, which changed greatly upon increasing the

thickness, may have been due to external disturbances during the measurements. The

peak stiffness values were measured for the 20 mm thick samples, and the average

stiffness of the 30 mm thick samples was much higher than the 10 mm thick samples.
The peak value for the average ultimate load was measured for the 20 mm thick

samples (see figure 16), while the average ultimate load of the 10 mm thick samples

was higher than that of the 30 mm thick samples. In addition, the 10 mm thick samples

collapsed at the beginning of the test, even though the deformation mode was basically

identical for all plate types, independent of the core thicknesses, as proven by the

force-displacement curves in figure 17.

Figure 15: Strength and stiffness depending on different core thickness

ultimate load(kN)

3.8
ultimate load(kN)

3.6

3.4

10 20 30
thickness(mm)

Figure 16: Average ultimate loads for panels with a core density of 101 kg/m3
 5 10mm
20mm
30mm
4
)
N
k( 3
er
us
se 2
rp

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
displacement(mm)

Figure 17: Representative force-displacement curves for samples with different core

material thicknesses

From the above results, We can conclude that samples with different thicknesses

exhibit large differences in strength. Appropriate reductions in thickness may be

beneficial for the strength of the sandwich material, while a high stiffness could be

achieved by increasing the core material’s thickness up to 20 mm.

3.2 Panel board peeling test

The panel board peeling test results are shown in table 5. Representative

force-displacement curves are shown in figure 18, measured panel board peeling forces

and ultimate loads for the three samples in figure 19, and images of panel boards after

the peeling tests in figure 20. From these results we can see that the composite

sandwich samples were intact before the tension reached approximately 1.02 kN. Upon

exceeding that tension value, the panel board would be stripped away; nonetheless, the
laminate could still withstand increased loading until a maximum tension was reached

of about 2.21 kN.

It is shown from Figure 18 that the panel peel force curve and the ultimate tensile

curve are still a slight increase after the carbon fiber panel began to be separated from

the aluminum honeycomb. when the protruding end of the panel is broken, the ultimate

tension is down. By analyzing the post-fracture sample material, the disengaged

aluminum honeycomb and blue film were found. Since the contact area between the

blue film and the aluminum honeycomb is too small, the adhesion between the carbon

fiber panel and the aluminum honeycomb is insufficient, resulting in the disengagement

of the carbon fiber panel.

Table 5: Experimental Results of Panel Board Peeling Test

Panel Board Average Panel

Ultimate Ultimate load
Number Peeling Force Board Peeling
load（kN） （kN）
（kN） Force（kN）
6-1 2.15 1.1
Panel Board
6-2 2.15 0.85 2.21 1.02
Peeling Test
6-3 2.35 1.1

2.5 9-1
9-2
2.0 9-3

)
N
k( 1.5
n
oi
s 1.0
ne
t
0.5

0.0

0 5 10 15 20 25
displacement(mm)

Figure 18: Force-displacement curves during peeling tests

 ultimate tension
panel peeling strength
2.4

2.2

2.0

) 1.8
N
k(
se 1.6
cr
of 1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8
9-1
6-1 9-2
6-2 9-3
6-3
number

Figure 19: Panel board peeling force and ultimate load for each peeling test sample

Figure 20: Panel boards after destruction by peeling test

5. Conclusion

The effects of the core material thickness and density on the material properties of

composite sandwich honeycomb structures were studied. Both the material bending

strength and stiffness were analyzed by three-point bending tests, whereas the panel

peeling strength was analyzed by panel board peeling tests. The conclusions are as

follows:

(1) The material strength could be improved by increasing the density or thickness,

while optimum middle density or thickness values maximized the bending stiffness. In
addition, the stiffness changed to a higher degree with a change in density or thickness

than the strength. Experimental samples with a density of 101 kg/m3 and a thickness of

20 mm for the aluminum honeycomb core exhibited good properties, and could

therefore potentially provide high strength and stiffness while reducing weight when

widely applied.

(2) Improvements in the interfacial properties between the panel board and core

material may increase the panel peeling force; this could be an increase in the

connection area or cohesive material quality, or addition of another fiber. The ultimate

tension depended on the sandwich structure strength after stripping of the panel board.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this

paper.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China

(Grant No. 61370033), National Basic Research Program of China (Grant No.

2013CB035502), Harbin Talent Program for Distinguished Young Scholars (No.

2014RFYXJ001), Foundation of Chinese State Key Laboratory of Robotics and

Systems (Grant No. SKLRS201602B), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central

Universities (Grant No. HIT.BRETIII.201411), and the “111 Project” (Grant No.
B07018).

References

[1] Meier U. Carbon fiber-reinforced polymers: modern materials in bridge engineering.

Structural Engineering International. 1992;2(1):7-12.

[2] Mallick PK. Fiber-reinforced composites: materials, manufacturing, and design.

CRC press, 2007.

[3] Reddy YSN, Reddy JN. Linear and non-linear failure analysis of composite

laminates with transverse shear. Composites Science & Technology

1992;44(3):227-255.

[4] Reddy JN, Pandey AK. A first-ply failure analysis of composite laminates.

Computers & Structures. 1987;25(3):371-393.

[5] Lee JD. Three dimensional finite element analysis of damage accumulation in

composite laminate. Computers & Structures. 1982;15(3):335-350.

[6] Hwang WC, Sun CT. Failure analysis of laminated composites by using iterative

three-dimensional finite element method. Computers & Structures. 1989;33(1):41-47.

[7] Mouritz AP, Thomson RS. Compression, flexure and shear properties of a sandwich

composite containing defects. Composite Structures. 1999;44(4):263-278.

[8] Dry C. Procedures developed for self-repair of polymer matrix composite materials.

Composite Structures. 1996;35(3):263-269.

[9] Gibson RF, Plunkett R. Dynamic mechanical behavior of fiber-reinforced

composites: measurement and analysis. Journal of Composite Materials.

1976;10(4):325-341.

[10] Abrate S, Castanié B, Rajapakse YDS. Dynamic failure of composite and

sandwich structures. Springer Netherlands, 2013.

[11]. Bi X, Li Z, Geubelle PH, et al. Dynamic fiber debonding and frictional push-out

in model composite systems: numerical simulations. Mechanics of Materials.

2002;34(7):433-446.

[12] Lee JH, Kim JH, Choi CW, et al. Simple approach to estimate residual flexural

strength distribution of composite sandwich structure with impact-induced damage.

Journal of Renewable & Sustainable Energy. 2013;5(5):052010-1~9.

[13] Kabir MM, Wang H, Lau KT, et al. Mechanical properties of chemically-treated

hemp fibre reinforced sandwich composites. Composites Part B Engineering.

2012;43(2):159-169.

[14] Wu CL, Sun CT. Low velocity impact damage in composite sandwich beams.

Composite Structures. 1996;34(1):21–27.

[15] Yam LH, Yan YJ, Cheng L, et al. Identification of complex crack damage for

honeycomb sandwich plate using wavelet analysis and neural networks. Smart

Materials & Structures. 2003;12(5):661.

[16] Dear JP, Lee H, Brown SA. Impact damage processes in composite sheet and

sandwich honeycomb materials. International Journal of Impact Engineering.

2005;32(1–4):130-154.
[17] Dhakal HN, Zhang ZY, Bennett N, et al. Low-velocity impact response of

non-woven hemp fibre reinforced unsaturated polyester composites: Influence of

impactor geometry and impact velocity. Composite Structures. 2012;94(9):2756–2763.

[18] Romanoff J, Reddy JN. Experimental validation of the modified couple stress

Timoshenko beam theory for web-core sandwich panels. Composite Structures.

2014;111(1):130–137.

[19] Ferreira AJM, Roque CMC, Jorge RMN, et al. Static deformations and vibration

analysis of composite and sandwich plates using a layerwise theory and multiquadrics

discretizations. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 2005;29(12):1104-1114.

[20] Kessler MR. Characterization and performance of a self-healing composite

material. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global 2002.

[21] Lee SH, Wang S, Pharr GM, et al. Evaluation of interphase properties in a

cellulose fiber-reinforced polypropylene composite by nanoindentation and finite

element analysis. Composites Part A Applied Science & Manufacturing.

2007;38(6):1517-1524.

[22] Thostenson ET, Chou TW. Processing-structure-multi-functional property

relationship in carbon nanotube/epoxy composites. Carbon. 2006;44(14):3022-3029.

[23] Herrera-Franco PJ, Valadez-González A. A study of the mechanical properties of

short natural-fiber reinforced composites. Composites Part B Engineering.

2005;36(8):597-608.

[24] Thomason JL. Investigation of composite interphase using dynamic mechanical

analysis: Artifacts and reality. Polymer Composites. 1990;11(2):105-113.

[25] Fujihara K, Huang ZM, Ramakrishna S, et al. Performance study of braided

carbon/PEEK composite compression bone plates. Biomaterials.

2003;24(15):2661-2667.

[26] Gojny FH, Schulte K. Functionalisation effect on the thermo-mechanical

behaviour of multi-wall carbon nanotube/epoxy-composites. Composites Science &

Technology. 2004;64(15):2303-2308.

[27] Lee GW, Min P, Kim J, et al. Enhanced thermal conductivity of polymer

composites filled with hybrid filler. Composites Part A Applied Science &

Manufacturing. 2006;37(5):727-734.

[28] Oksman K, Skrifvars M, Selin JF. Natural fibres as reinforcement in polylactic

acid (PLA) composites. Composites Science & Technology. 2003;63(9):1317-1324.