Original Article

Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials

0(00) 1–30
Experimental ! The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
investigations on the sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1099636217701093

sandwich composite journals.sagepub.com/home/jsm

beams and panels with

elastomeric foam core
AR Nazari1, H Hosseini-Toudeshky2
and MZ Kabir1

Abstract
In this paper, the load-carrying capacity and failure mechanisms of sandwich beams and
panels with elastomeric foam core and composite laminate face sheets are investigated.
For this purpose, the flexural behavior of laminated composite beams and panels
(applied as face sheets) is firstly investigated under three-point bending and central
concentrated loads, respectively. Then, the same examination is conducted for the
sandwich beams and panels, in which the proposed elastomeric foam is utilized as
the core material. It is shown that the failure mechanisms which are associated to
the core in the sandwich structures with crushable foams are not considered in the
examined sandwich structures. The collapse of the sandwich specimens, examined here,
is observed due to the failure of the skins in some steps. By multi-step collapse of these
specimens via separately failure of the top and bottom skins, a considerable amount of
energy is absorbed between these steps. Due to non-brittle behavior of the core
material under loading, a large compression resistance is observed after failure of the
top skin which led to the recovery of the load-carrying capacity in the sandwich beams.
A similar behavior for the sandwich panels led to the increase of the ultimate strength
after appearance of the failure lines on the top skin. The general outcomes of this
investigation promise a good influence for the application of elastomeric foam as
core material for sandwich structures.

1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
2
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

Corresponding author:
H Hosseini-Toudeshky, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran,
Iran.
Email: Hosseini@aut.ac.ir
2 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 0(00)

Keywords
Sandwich beams, sandwich panels, elastomeric foam, failure mechanism, flexural
performance

Introduction
Sandwich structures, comprising stiff and strong skins and a low density core, are
utilized in vast fields of engineering especially where weight efficiency and cost-
effectiveness are concerned [1]. The load-carrying performance of these structures
depends mainly on the mechanical features of their constituents (core and skins)
such as energy absorption and failure mechanism. Based on the demands of
designer, various materials may be utilized as skins and core for the sandwich
structures. The skins may be made from various metals or composite materials
and the core may be foam, truss or honeycomb. Many researchers have already
investigated the load-carrying and failure behavior of sandwich structures with
various foam cores. The elastomeric foams are applied in wide variety of different
industrial and practical applications, for example where damping a force is
required to reduce the energy transmission between two components or where
relatively large deformations are allowed in a structure to reduce extra forces
and damages similar to what is usually implemented between the abutment and
main beams in the highway bridges. The elastomeric foams cause usually a multi-
step failure mechanism which is more preferred by engineers than a catastrophic
failure. Failure of a sandwich structure initiates when the ultimate strength in any
constituent (skins or core) is met for the first time. Although estimation of the load-
carrying response and potential failure modes of the sandwich structures based on
the analytical studies by the aid of classic or high-order formulation has a preced-
ing background in the literature [2–5] which is advanced in the recent years [6–10],
the most vital subject in these researches is verification of the analytical results with
the experiments since for example the influences of contact conditions or quality
of the relations between the sandwich constituents in the reality must be accurately
considered in the formulas to achieve reliable results. By experimental studies,
Steeves and Fleck [11,12] depicted an initial collapse modes map for the prediction
of the collapse mechanism in sandwich beams made from glass/epoxy face sheets
and PVC foam core with consideration of various dimensional ratios and mech-
anical properties for the skins and the core. Tagarielli et al. [13] depicted the failure
modes map for sandwich beams made of glass-fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP)
skins and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) foam core with simple and clamped boundary
conditions. Triantfillou and Gibson [14] depicted the failure modes map for sand-
wich beams comprising aluminum face sheets and PVC foam core. Mines and Alias
[15] investigated the collapse mechanism of sandwich beams by performing pro-
gressive failure analyses for the composite skins and checking the plasticity criteria
proposed by Gibson and Ashby [16] for the crushable foam core. Ivañez et al. [17]
Nazari et al. 3

simulated the dynamic flexural behavior of the sandwich beams with composite
face sheets and PVC foam core by 3D FE models. They found that after failure of
the upper composite skin, the load-carrying capacity of the sandwich beam
decreases suddenly to a negligible value. Rajaneesh et al. [18] depicted various
failure modes map for circular sandwich plates using analytical and FE models
to identify the locus of minimum weight design.
The polymeric foams generally are categorized into two groups as rigid (crush-
able) and elastomeric (recoverable) foams from the deformational point of view.
The rigid foams usually have relatively higher stiffness and crushable behavior in
the ultimate strength instead of recoverability which is expected for elastomeric
foams. In this study, an elastomeric foam was utilized as core of sandwich beams
and panels instead of conventional rigid foams. The crushable behavior of the rigid
foams such as polystyrene, PVC and polyurethane originates from brittleness of the
cell walls which is usually described based on the plasticity and failure theories [16].
But recoverability of the deformations seen in elastomeric foams such as ethylene-
vinyl acetate (EVA) and polypropylene foams is stemmed by rubberlike behavior
of the constituent cells. These differences between the elastomeric and the rigid
foams distinguish the behavior of the sandwich fabricated with two kinds of foam.
Regarding the relatively lower elastic modulus of the elastomeric foams, deflection
of the sandwich beams with elastomeric foam core is usually expected to be larger
than that of sandwich beams with rigid foam core. Based on the knowledge of the
authors, investigation of the load-carrying behavior of the sandwich structures with
elastomeric foam core has not been reported in the literature yet. This study inves-
tigates the enhancing influence of sandwiching for the composite laminates
(employed as skins) by an elastomeric foam core. For this purpose, at first the
load-carrying capacity of the composite beams and panels (applied as skins) with
various layups was examined under three-point bend (3PB) and central patch
loadings. Then the load–deflection results were measured for the sandwich struc-
tures under similar loading conditions. The results, presented here, show
promising influence for application of the elastomeric foams as core of sandwich
beams and panels in engineering structures.

Experiments
Two types of plain weave E-glass fibers were utilized for the production of the
composite laminates that one of them was a unidirectional (UD) fiber sheet (pres-
ence of weft fibers was only for the sake of keeping the wrap fibers bonded) with
density of 400 gr/m2 and the tensile strength of 600 MPa and the other type was a
woven fiber sheet with identical properties in two perpendicular directions. The
density of the second type fiber sheet was 250 gr/m2 and its tensile strength was
300 MPa. The utilized resin was vinylester with nominal tensile strength of 30 MPa.
This resin is recommended for the fabrication of the composite laminates when
high chemical/environmental resistance is needed. For the introduction of the
layup methods in this paper, the laminas made of the second type fibers sheet
4 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 0(00)

Table 1. Mechanical properties of the GFRP laminas examined in the experiments.

Property E1 (MPa) E2 (MPa) E3 (MPa) n12 n13 n23 G12 (MPa) G13 (MPa) G23 (MPa)

UD Lamina 12100 1420 1420 0.2 0.2 0.35 1070 770 770
W Lamina 7550 7550 1280 0.15 0.2 0.2 960 680 680

Table 2. Ultimate strains for GFRP laminas examined in this study (þ tension,
compression).

Ultimate strains "þ

1 "þ þ
2 ¼ "3 "
1 " 
2 ¼ "3 "12 ¼ "13 "23

UD Lamina 0.029 0.026 0.032 0.065 0.037 0.043

W Lamina 0.027 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.025 0.038

are abbreviated as ‘‘W’’. In some specimens, both types of the fibers were employed
for the fabrication of the laminates (hybrid laminates). The laminates were fabri-
cated by compression molding technique. The exterior side of the laminates was
coated by a blue-color coating gel with 0.1 mm thickness which is usually used to
protect laminates from weathering, moisture and chemical exposure. Of course the
influence of this gel on the mechanical properties of the material was negligible.
Eight layup methods were employed to produce the composite laminates as skins
for the sandwich beams. The test of each specimen was repeated three times to
assure the reliability of the results. The elastomeric foam which was used as the
core for the sandwich specimens was a blend of polyethylene and ethylene-vinyl
acetate (PE/EVA). The experiments were carried out at room temperature when
the densities associated to the composite laminates and the foam were 1800 kg/m3
and 224 kg/m3, respectively. Table 1 shows the mechanical properties of the GFRP
laminas determined by the standard characterization tests and Table 2 shows the
ultimate failure strains of the laminas.

Tensile and compressive tests of the foam

For mechanical characterization of the examined elastomeric foam, the tension and
the compression tests were conducted on the standard specimens according to
ASTM D395 [19] and ASTM D638 [20] standards, respectively, which are
mainly referred for describing the response of foams. The compression specimen
was a cylindrical disk, cut by laser in the vertical direction from a slab foam. The
diameter and height of the specimen according to recommendations of the stand-
ard were 13 mm and 6 mm, respectively (seen in Figure 1(a)). The loading machine
for uniaxial testing of the foam specimens was GALDABINI. The crosshead vel-
ocity for compression loading was 3 mm/min. According to the ASTM D395, the
Nazari et al. 5

Figure 1. Standard tests conducted for mechanical characterization of the elastomeric foam,
(a) compressive specimen and (b) tensile specimen.

compression set value, determined by this test, is expressed as a percentage of the

original thickness of the specimen as

C ¼ ½ðt0  ti Þ=t0   100 ð1Þ

where C is the compression set, t0 and ti are the original (before loading) and the
final (after loading) thicknesses of the specimen, respectively. The standard recom-
mends measurement of the compression set after 22 h and 70 h. Therefore, the
compression set value after 30 min, 22 h and 70 h was measured as C ¼ 30.8%,
C ¼ 8.3% and C ¼ 7.5%, respectively, however the compressive engineering
strain in the ultimate state of the load bearing time was 0.667. The results
showed that most of the thickness strain recovery occurred at the initial seconds
after release of the load. By considering the load-carrying performance of the foam
in various directions, it was observed that the mechanical properties of the exam-
ined elastomeric foam were isotropic.
For the tensile test, the dog-bone specimen was prepared according to the stand-
ard (see Figure 1(b)) under the displacement-controlled loading with the rate of
5 mm/min. The obtained engineering stress–strain responses under the axial loads
are depicted in Figure 2. After initial load carrying of the foam cells under com-
pression (after elastic behavior of the foam cells in jstrainj>0.01), the compressive
modulus of the foam decreases considerably which is stemmed by buckling of cells
6 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 0(00)

Figure 2. The obtained tensile and compressive stress–strain (engineering) curves for the
examined foam.

walls. By increasing of the load, the modulus of the foam increases which is con-
sidered due to contact of the cells walls with each other [16]. Under tensile load, the
progressive softening in the stress–strain curve of the foam originates from increas-
ing the size of defects in the material [21]. The results show that the mechanical
properties of the proposed elastomeric foam as core for the sandwich structures
qualify it to be a proper candidate as core for the sandwich structures.

Composite beam laminates under 3PB conditions

The composite beam specimens were cut from the same base laminates which the
skins of the sandwich specimens were also provided from them. The beams were
tested under 3PB conditions by ZWICK testing machine. The force, reported in the
load–deflection curves, was measured by the machine load cell, and the beam
deflection was equal to the crosshead displacement while its rate was 3 mm/min.
The dimensions of the composite beam specimens were according to the dimen-
sions utilized for the skins of the sandwich beams. Two span-to-depth ratios (L/D)
equal to 67 (large span) and 33 (small span) were selected for 3PB specimens. An
overhang length about 25 mm was considered for each side of the composite beams
to assure that the specimens were in permanent contact with the supports through
large deflections. Table 3 shows the dimensions and layups of the composite beam
specimens. Figure 4(a) shows CB-2 specimen when its deflection was 10 mm, and
Figure 4(b) shows failure of this beam due to rupture of the tensile fibers.
The obtained load–deflection curves for 3PB beams are shown in Figure 5 in
which P and
denote the applied load and mid-span deflection of the beams,
respectively. Experimental observations did not show any indication of main fail-
ure for CB-1 specimen during its load-carrying time; however, the load–deflection
Nazari et al. 7

Table 3. Dimensions (mm) and layups of composite beam specimens shown in Figure 3.

Specimen L w t Layup

CB-1 200 50.1 4  0.75 (0)4

CB-2 100 19.9 4  0.75 (0)4
CB-3 100 19.8 4  0.75 (90)4
CB-4 100 20.2 4  0.75 (03,90)
CB-5 100 20 4*0.75 (0,903)
CB-6 100 20.1 4  0.75 þ 0.6 (0,90,0,90,w)
CB-7 100 19.9 4  0.75 þ 0.6 (90,0,90,0,w)
CB-8 100 19.9 0.6 þ 0.8 þ 0.6 (w,0,w)
CB-9 100 19.8 0.6 þ 0.8 þ 0.6 (w,90,w)

Figure 3. Geometry and dimensions (in mm) of the composite beam specimens as shown in
Table 3.

curve shows a gradual reduction of the load-carrying capacity at the later part of
the curve. Accurate observations showed that excessive sliding of the beam on the
supports led to an increase of the span length, and the same subject was the cause
of reduction of load tolerability of CB-1 beam.
According to the inappropriate results obtained for CB-1 specimen with L/D
ratio of 67, for other layups of the laminate beams, the L/D ratio of 33 was
examined. Failure of CB-2 specimen was observed suddenly by rupture of the
tensile fibers (Figure 4(b)). The CB-3 specimen shows the flexural response of the
UD laminate in the transverse direction. Degradation of the material due to matrix
damage led to considerable nonlinearity of the load–deflection curve before final
failure as depicted in Figure 5. The behaviors of CB-4 and CB-5 specimens in
Figure 5 show that by varying of one layer orientation with respect to the fully
UD laminates, considerable reduction in the stiffness and load-carrying capacity is
resulted. The cross-plies were used in the CB-6 and CB-7 specimens. For CB-7
specimen, the 0 layers were closer to the tensile side of the beam, and therefore
higher flexural load-carrying capacity was observed with respect to CB-6 specimen.
When two or more types of fibres are used to reinforce a common matrix, the
laminate is called a hybrid laminate. Sometimes consideration of enhancing effects
for hybrid laminates such as higher flexural strength or higher flexural modulus
8 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 0(00)

Figure 4. 3PB test of CB-2 specimen; (a) at
¼ 10 mm and (b) after rupture of the tensile
fibers.

[22,23] which are attributed as positive hybrid effects may encourage designers to
use hybrid laminates. In this study, two various kinds of glass fibers, previously
introduced, were utilized to fabricate the hybrid laminates. The CB-6, CB-7, CB-8
and CB-9 specimens shown in Table 3 are hybrid composites. CB-8 and CB-9
specimens are composed of three layers which their top and bottom layers were
woven, ‘‘W’’. For CB-8 specimen, failure of the bottom layer was the cause of
collapse of the associated load–deflection curve. The mid-span crack in the bottom
layer of this specimen did not diffuse in the top layers. The load–deflection curves
in Figure 5 display a minor difference between the flexural modulus of CB-8 and
CB-9 specimens. Therefore, orientation of the fibers in the middle UD layer did not
have considerable influence on the flexural modulus of the beams. For CB-9 spe-
cimen in spite of what was observed for CB-8 specimen, the state of ultimate
strength was followed by a penetrated crack through the whole thickness in the
beam mid-span and simultaneously collapse of the load–deflection curve.

Composite panels under central concentrated loading

The employed support for testing of the panels was a rectangular frame with
adjustable span length comprising four steel tubes in its four sides which were
Nazari et al. 9

Figure 5. Load-deflection curves obtained for the composite beam specimens, (a) CB-1, (b)
CB-2, CB-4, CB-6 and CB-7, (c) CB-3, CB-5, CB-8 and CB-9.
10 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 0(00)

Figure 6. Test setup and supports: (a) geometries and dimensions (in mm) of the panels sup-
ports and (b) test setup.

supported by steel columns. The sketch of the support and the test setup is shown
in Figure 6(a) and (b), respectively. This support allowed for sliding and rotating
the panel edges and large deformations prior to observation of final collapse. The
testing machine was ZWICK and the velocity of the displacement-controlled load
was 5 mm/min. The measured outputs from experiments were load–deflection
results. Two aspect ratios were considered for the panel specimens. Table 4
shows the dimensions and layups of the specimens. Regarding the orthotropic
mechanical properties of the panels, the stiffer direction of the panels was
placed on the longer span of the support. In the images, taken from the experi-
ments, the layup of the laminate specimens is displayed. It must be noted that the
nomination of the layup, assigned for the laminates, is based on the order of the
layers from the exterior side. The load–deflection curves of the composite panels
are shown in Figure 7. The falling point of the load–deflection curves was corres-
ponded to the time when some failure lines appeared on the panels. Of course the
Nazari et al. 11

Table 4. Dimensions (mm) and layups of the composite panel specimens.

Specimen L1 L2 t Layup

CP-1 200 200 4  0.75 (0,903)

CP-2 200 300 4  0.75 (0,903)
CP-3 200 200 4  0.75 þ 0.6 (0,90,0,90,w)
CP-4 200 300 4  0.75 þ 0.6 (0,90,0,90,w)
CP-5 200 200 0.6 þ 0.8 þ 0.6 (w,0,w)
CP-6 200 300 0.6 þ 0.8 þ 0.6 (w,0,w)

matrix cracking in the laminates was the first cause of softening, seen in the load–
deflection curve. However, the catastrophic failure of the panels occurred when
some visible failure lines appeared on the panels due to rupture of the fibers in these
lines.
Figure 8 shows the deformation pattern of CP-1 panel at three different stages of
loading. Figure 8(a) shows the buckling of the panel edges due to confinement of
the panel edges by support and development of compressive stresses at the edges
prior to observation of the failure lines. The preceded failure lines appeared around
the buckled region in one side of the specimen, as seen in Figure 8(b). These failure
lines caused softening in the load–deflection behavior. The main reduction of the
load–deflection curve was seen simultaneously with appearance of the third failure
line on the center of the buckled region (as seen in Figure 8(c)). In spite of gradual
progress of the first two failure lines, the third failure line suddenly appeared.
The layups of CP-2 and CP-1 specimens were identical. For CP-2 specimen, just
the larger sides buckled, while the smaller sides remained in contact with the sup-
port. For this specimen again, the preceded failure lines appeared around the
buckled region; however, the final failure lines were considered below the concen-
trated load and parallel to the larger side of the panel, as seen in Figure 9. By
gradual progress of the final failure line, a romantic decrease was found in the
load–deflection curve. The load–deflection curves, obtained for CP-1 and CP-2
specimens, show that CP-2 specimen records a maximum load-carrying capacity
30% lower than that of CP-1 specimen.
The layups of CP-3 and CP-4 specimens were (0,90,0,90,W). The shape of the
failure lines, depicted for CP-3 specimen (shown in Figure 10), was similar to what
was observed for CP-1 specimen. Figure 10(a) and (b) show the failure lines on the
top and bottom surfaces of this specimen. The maximum load-carrying capacity
and the flexural stiffness of CP-3 specimen were 101% and 127% larger than these
parameters, measured for CP-1 specimen, respectively. In spite of the difference,
considered between the failure lines of CP-1 and CP-2 specimens, the shape of the
failure lines seen for CP-3 and CP-4 specimens was similar. Figure 11 shows three
failure lines on a larger side of CP-4 specimen which led to instability of the panel.
Due to similarity of the failure lines, seen for CP-3 and CP-4 specimens, a smaller
12 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 0(00)

Figure 7. Load–deflection curves obtained for composite panel specimens: (a) CP-1 and
CP-2, (b) CP-3 and CP-4, (c) CP-5 and CP-6.
Nazari et al. 13

Figure 8. Images taken form deformation shapes of CP-1 specimen to show: (a) buckling of
the edges at
¼ 20 mm, (b) preceded failure lines around the buckled area at
¼ 30 mm and
(c) final shape of the failure lines at
¼ 45 mm.

reduction was observed for the load-carrying capacity of CP-4 specimen, compared
to which was observed about CP-3 specimen (about 15% reduction). In following
of the appearance of first failure lines around the buckled region of CP-4 specimen,
the softening of the load–deflection curve was considered and finally in the ultimate
state due to observation of the final failure line, the collapse of the component was
observed.
14 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 0(00)

Figure 9. Deformed shape of CP-2 specimen at
¼ 60 mm.

The load-carrying performances of CP-5 and CP-6 specimens were affected by

progressive failure of the woven layers (W). The observed failure lines on the
backside of these specimens are shown in Figure 12. The value of the maximum
load-carrying capacity, measured for these specimens, was almost identical.
Because of smaller thickness and lower strength of the ‘‘W’’ laminas and also
less number of layers in the laminates, the maximum load-carrying capacity, mea-
sured for CP-5 and CP-6 specimens, was lower than which was measured about
CP-3 and CP-4 specimens.

Sandwich beams under 3PB conditions

Since considerable deflection was expected for the sandwich beams with elastomeric
foam core, small L/D ratios for these specimens were selected. The laminate beams
which were examined under 3PB condition were used as skins for the sandwich
beams and the elastomeric foam with thickness of 10 mm was used as core. For
the fabrication of the sandwich beams, the skins were bonded to the core using an
adhesive film of epoxy and then were pressed to remove air from the interface. The
whole component was cured at 60 C for 48 h. The mechanical properties of
the adhesive, used for bonding of the skins to foam core, are listed in Table 5. The
dimensions of the sandwich beam specimens and the support, employed for 3PB tests
according to Figure 13, are shown in Table 6. Figure 14 shows the images, taken
from SB-1 and SB-2 specimens, in three states according to three various deflections.
The first three sandwich beam specimens, SB-1, SB-2 and SB-3 as listed in
Table 6 contain of UD laminates as skins. The load–deflection curve of SB-1 spe-
cimen with CB-1 skins in Figure 15(a) shows a two-phase collapse. Experimental
observations also indicated that the first falling point of the P–
curve occurred
due to compressive failure of the top skin under the concentrated load; however,
the sandwich beam could restore its load-carrying capacity after this stage. At the
second falling point, the tensile rupture of the bottom skin led to major reduction
of the load-carrying capacity. Although for CB-1 specimen the failure load was not
considered at all, due to increase of the stiffness of SB-1 specimen through
Nazari et al. 15

Figure 10. (a) Deformed shape of CP-3 specimen at
¼ 30 mm and (b) failure lines
appeared on the top surface of the specimen and (c) failure lines appeared on the bottom
surface of the specimen.
16 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 0(00)

Figure 11. Failure lines of CP-4 specimen at
¼ 40 mm.

Figure 12. Failure lines appeared on the backside of (a) CP-5 specimen and (b) CP-6
specimen.
Nazari et al. 17

Table 5. Mechanical properties of epoxy adhesive used for bonding of

skins to the core.

Material Elastic modulus Tensile strength 

Epoxy 1100 MPa 35 MPa 0.2

Figure 13. Geometry and dimensions (in mm) of sandwich beam specimens shown in
Table 6.

Table 6. Dimensions (mm) and layups of skins for sandwich beam specimens shown in
Figure 13.

Specimen L w t1 t2 Layup of skins

SB-1 200 50 4  0.75 10 (0)4

SB-2 100 20.1 4  0.75 10 (0)4
SB-3 100 20 4  0.75 10 (90)4
SB-4 100 20.1 4  0.75 10 (90,03)
SB-5 100 20.2 4*0.75 10 (0,903)
SB-6 100 19.8 4  0.75 þ 0.6 10 (0,90,0,90,w)
SB-7 100 19.8 4  0.75 þ 0.6 10 (90,0,90,0,w)
SB-8 100 20 0.6 þ 0.8 þ 0.6 10 (w,0,w)
SB-9 100 19.9 0.6 þ 0.8 þ 0.6 10 (w,90,w)

sandwiching, failure of the beam was observed in two steps, referred to separately
failure of the top and bottom skins. It is worthy to note that the failure modes
associated with crushable foam cores in the sandwich beams here were not
observed for the proposed elastomeric foam core.
The load-carrying performance and the failure mechanism of SB-2 specimen
were almost similar to which was explained for SB-1 specimen. The only difference
was incomplete recovery of the load-carrying capacity for SB-2 specimen relative to
which was observed for SB-1 specimen. Figure 14 shows the SB-2 specimen in three
18 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 0(00)

Figure 14. Sandwich beam specimens under 3PB condition: (a) SB-2 specimen at
¼ 10 mm,
(b) SB-2 specimen at
¼ 25 mm, (c) SB-2 specimen at
¼ 35 mm, (d) SB-3 specimen at

¼ 10 mm, (e) SB-3 specimen at
¼ 25 mm and (f) SB-3 specimen at
¼ 35 mm.

states: failure of the top skin in Figure 14(b) in comparison to the intact state of the
skins in Figure 14(a) and finally failure of the bottom skin in Figure 14(c). The only
factor for recovery of the load-carrying capacity in the sandwich beams with elasto-
meric foam core after failure of the top composite skin was the residual strength of
the top skin; however, in the sandwich beams with crushable foam core after failure
of the core, such recovery of the load-carrying capacity is not reported [17,18].
The failure mechanism of SB-3 specimen is shown in Figure 14(d) to (f). After
the initial load carrying of SB-3 specimen, a major softening was depicted in the
load–deflection curve (Figure 15(c)) which was followed by tensile failure of the
bottom skin and then descending of the load–deflection curve. Figure 15 also shows
the load–deflection curves obtained for SB-4 and SB-5 specimens. In the case of
SB-4 specimen, the first falling point of the load–deflection curve occurred when
the three 0 layers of the top skin failed suddenly; however, failure of the bottom
skin occurred in two steps. For the case of SB-5 specimen, the plateau region of the
load–deflection curve occurred due to progressive failure of the three 90 layers of
the top skin. The next falling point of the load–deflection curve was observed due
to failure of the bottom skin. The amount of absorbed energy by this specimen was
considerable. SB-6 and SB-7 specimens showed the obtained results for the appli-
cation of the crossply laminates as skins in the sandwich beams. Figure 15(b) shows
Nazari et al. 19

Figure 15. Load–deflection curves obtained for: (a) SB-1 specimen, (b) SB-2, SB-4, SB-6 and
SB-7 specimens, (c) SB-3, SB-5, SB-8 and SB-9 specimens.
20 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 0(00)

a two-step collapse for the load–deflection curve of these specimens. Recovery of

the load-carrying capacity after the first falling point was experienced for these
specimens too.
Although the obtained load–deflection curves for CB-8 and CB-9 specimens
have similar trends, the associated sandwich specimens (SB-8 and SB-9) showed
relatively different results. SB-8 specimen had larger load-carrying capacity. A
considerable softening region is considered in the load–deflection curve of both
specimens due to progressive failure of ‘‘W’’ layers in the top composite skin and
the collapse of load–deflection curve occurred when the bottom skin failed which
led to decrease of the load-carrying capacity about 33% and 34% for SB-8 and
SB-9 specimens, respectively. The load carrying of the sandwich beams with hybrid
composite skins was satisfying since a considerable residual strength was con-
sidered for these laminas. For each specimen, the amount of absorbed energy
was measured based on the integral of recorded load–deflection curve. Figure 16
shows a comparison of the absorbed energy and the maximum load-carrying cap-
acity measured between the sandwich beam specimens (SB) and their associated
composite beam specimens (CB). This figure indicates a larger enhancing influence
for SB-8 and SB-9 specimens due to sandwiching effect. Since these specimens have
less number of layers, compared to the other specimens, it is concluded that by
increasing the thickness of the foam core in the other sandwich beam specimens,
more enhancement of the load-carrying performance may be achieved.
The results of the examined experiments showed that use of elastomeric foam
core for the sandwich beams makes a great residual strength in these components
after failure of the top skin. The residual strength of the sandwich structures with
crushable foam cores after failure is not usually considerable [24,25]. Another
advantage of the elastomeric foam cores is recoverability of the deformations,

Figure 16. The ratio of energy absorption and maximum load-carrying capacity measured for
the sandwich beams and their associated composite beams.
Nazari et al. 21

seen in the core instead of permanent deformations which take place in the
crushable foams. The examined sandwich beams showed considerable amount of
energy absorption due to non-crushable high deformability of the core material,
and hence they did not lose their complete load-carrying capacity after failure of
the composite skins. Figure 16 shows a good influence for sandwiching the com-
posite laminates by an elastomeric foam core; however, the amount of enhance-
ment, seen in the behavior of the sandwich specimens, looks very different for
various specimens.

Sandwich panels under central concentrated loading

The skins of the sandwich panel specimens were the same composite panel speci-
mens which were examined in the prior section. The geometrical dimensions of the
sandwich panels are shown in Figure 17 (see also Table 7). The same support,
described in Figure 6, was utilized for the testing of the sandwich panels.

Figure 17. Geometry and dimensions (in mm) of the sandwich panel specimens shown in
Table 7.

Table 7. Dimensions (mm) and layups of skins for sandwich panel specimens.

Specimen L1 L2 t1 t2 Layup of skins

SP-1 200 200 4  0.75 10 (0,903)

SP-2 200 300 4  0.75 10 (0,903)
SP-3 200 200 4  0.75 þ 0.6 10 (0,90,0,90,w)
SP-4 200 300 4  0.75 þ 0.6 10 (0,90,0,90,w)
SP-5 200 200 0.6 þ 0.8 þ 0.6 10 (w,0,w)
SP-6 200 300 0.6 þ 0.8 þ 0.6 10 (w,0,w)
22 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 0(00)

Adhesion of the skins to the core was performed similar to the procedure explained
about the sandwich beams. Two aspect ratios were selected for the sandwich panels
with identical layup method of skin. The obtained load–deflection curves for SP-1
and SP-2 specimens are seen in Figure 18(a). The deformed SP-1 specimen under
various loading stages is shown in Figure 19. Figure 19(a) shows that when the
loading displacement of
¼ 25 mm is experienced, buckling is seen in one side of
the top composite skin which leads to debonding of the top skin from the core. In
the same figure, delamination of the top layer of the top skin which its orientation
is different from that of the down layers is obvious around the loading nose.
In Figure 19(b), three failure lines are observed on the top composite skin at

¼ 35 mm. In the following, the bottom composite skin lost its load-carrying
capacity when an overall failure lines appeared on the center of the laminate
as shown in Figure 19(c). Distribution of the concentrated load by the elastomeric
foam core was the cause of appearing such failure line on the bottom skin.
It must be noted that buckling of the top skin was accompanied with debonding
of the top skin from the foam core and hence the buckling was not observed on the
bottom skin.
The shape of the failure lines that appeared on the top skin of SP-2 specimen
(shown in Figure 20) was similar to those, observed for SP-1 specimen. The load–
deflection curves of SP-1 and SP-2 specimens show almost similar load-carrying
capacities for these specimens. It is recalled that the load-carrying capacity of CP-2
specimen was considerably less than this parameter, measured for CP-1 specimen,
because of difference of the failure mechanisms and failure lines, observed for two
specimens. However, the shape of the failure lines, observed for SP-1 and SP-2
specimens, was almost similar and their associated load–deflection curves have a
similar trend too.
The load–deflection curves of SP-3 and SP-4 specimens are shown in
Figure 18(b). The failure shape of these specimens in Figure 21(a) and (b) indicates
indentation mode of failure. It must be noted that indentation failure was only
considered on the top composite skin and failure of the bottom skin was observed
when an overall rupture line appeared at the center of the bottom skin. This failure
indicated that for this specimen again the elastomeric core led to distribution of the
load on the bottom composite skin (shown in Figure 21(c)). Buckling of the edges,
seen in the prior specimens, was not observed for SP-3 and SP-4 specimens. The
load–deflection curves, associated to these specimens, show almost similar max-
imum load-carrying capacities for them. The first falling point of the load–deflec-
tion curves, obtained for these specimens, is related to the load in which the
punched area appeared at the top skin. After this point, raise of the load–deflection
curve is provided by establishing the residual strength in the top composite skin.
The second falling point is related to the overall rupture of bottom skin which led
to steep decrease of the load–deflection curve.
The load–deflection curves, obtained for SP-5 and SP-6 specimens, are also
shown in Figure 18(c). Enhancement of the load-carrying capacity and the
energy absorption is more considerable for these specimens due to the sandwiching
Nazari et al. 23

Figure 18. Load–deflection curves obtained for sandwich panel specimens: (a) SP-1 and SP-2,
(b) SP-3 and SP-4, (c) SP-5 and SP-6.
24 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 0(00)

Figure 19. Deformation shapes of SP-1 specimens at: (a)
¼ 25 mm, observation of debond-
ing between the top skin and core at the buckled area, (b)
¼ 35 mm, observation of failure
lines on the top skin and (c)
¼ 35 mm, observation of failure line on the bottom skin.

process. The shapes of the failure lines observed for these specimens are similar to
those observed for SP-1 specimen; however, the first failure lines in two sides of the
buckled region in these specimens are less obvious due to gradual failure of the
woven layers in these laminates. Figure 22 shows the final deformation shape of
this specimen. Figure 22(b) and (c) shows the failure lines, appeared on the top and
Nazari et al. 25

Figure 20. Failure lines of SP-2 specimen observed on the top skin at
¼ 35 mm.

bottom skins. Physical observation of this specimen showed that by increasing the
loading displacement, the carried load increased until the appearance of the first
failure lines around the buckled area of the top skin. In the following, the load
remained constant and a considerable amount of energy was absorbed by the
panel. The collapse of the load–deflection curve is related to appearance of the
middle failure line on the center of the buckled area of the top skin and an overall
failure line on the center of the bottom skin. The failure line of the bottom skin is
shown in Figure 22(c). The shape of the failure lines observed for SP-6 specimen
was similar to that, observed for SP-5 specimen. It is worth noting that although
the load-carrying capacity of CP-6 specimen is less than that of CP-5 specimen,
similar maximum load-carrying capacities were experienced by SP-5 and SP-6 spe-
cimens. Figure 23 shows the ratios of the maximum load-carrying capacity and the
energy absorption, measured for the sandwich and the composite panel specimens.
This figure indicates that the enhancing influence of sandwiching process for the
composite panels, which have less stiffness (CP-5 and CP-6 specimens), is more
considerable.
The most important advantage for usage of elastomeric foam instead of crush-
able foams as core of sandwich structures is associated to considerable increase of
the absorbed energy by specimen (through large deflections) prior to experience of
the maximum load. However, if instead of two composite skins in a sandwich
member, a composite member with double thickness is utilized, failure of the
first damaged plies will diffuse progressively to the other plies of the laminate so
that the aimed energy absorption will not be accomplished. The elastomeric foam
in the sandwich specimens lead in distribution of the concentrated load from the
top skin to the bottom skin so that the shape of failure line on the bottom skin is
satisfying (overall middle failure line on the bottom skin of the sandwich panel
specimens); however, in a thicker composite member, such a distribution of load is
not anticipated. With consideration of two composite skins for each sandwich
specimen, the minimum ratio of the measured parameters (maximum load and
energy absorption) between the sandwich and composite specimens must be greater
26 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 0(00)

Figure 21. (a) Indentation of top skin observed for SP-3 specimen at
¼ 25 mm, (b) inden-
tation of top skin observed for SP-4 specimen at
¼ 25 mm, (c) failure line of the bottom
skin observed for SP-3 specimen, (d) failure of the bottom skin observed for SP-4 specimen.
Nazari et al. 27

Figure 22. Images taken from SP-5 specimen, (a) at
¼ 35 mm, (b) failure lines observed on
the top skin, (c) failure lines observed on the bottom skin.
28 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 0(00)

Figure 23. The ratio of energy absorption and maximum load-carrying capacity measured for
the sandwich panels and their associated composite panels.

than two. Comparison of these ratios for sandwich specimens with various layups
of the composite skins indicates most efficient performance of the sandwich speci-
mens in presence of some composite skins.

Conclusion
Application of various materials as skins and core for production of sandwich
structures provides a wide range of properties which may be interested by design
engineers. The foam core sandwich panels are of the most applicable structures in
various fields of engineering. In this paper, an elastomeric foam (PE-EVA) was
used as core for sandwich beams and panels, while the skins were GFRP composite
laminates. In order to investigate the influence of sandwiching process on the load-
carrying capacity of composite laminates, the flexural response of the composite
beams and panels was examined under 3PB and central concentrated loads,
respectively. The main outputs of the experiments were load–deflection curves
that showed considerable enhancement of the load-carrying capacity and the
energy absorption through sandwiching process. The enhancing effect was different
for various layups of the laminates, applied as skins. There were some advantages
in the use of the elastomeric foam as core for the sandwich specimens. For example,
the failure mechanisms, associated to the crushable cores, were not observed in the
specimens, fabricated by proposed foam. The collapse of the examined sandwich
specimens occurred due to failure of the skins. The collapse in most of the speci-
mens was observed in some steps, corresponding to separately failure of the top
and bottom skins, which led to absorption of the considerable amount of energy
Nazari et al. 29

between these steps. Due to non-brittle behavior of the core material under load-
ing, a large residual strength was observed after failure of the top skin which led to
recovery of the load-carrying capacity in the sandwich beams. Similar behavior for
the sandwich panels led to increase of the ultimate strength after appearance of the
failure lines on the top skin. The outcomes of this paper show promising influences
for the application of the elastomeric foam as a core material for the sandwich
structures.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: This work was funded by the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering at Amirkabir University of Technology, as part of a PhD
research project.

References
1. Allen HG. Analysis and design of structural sandwich panels. London, UK: Pergamon
Press, 1969.
2. Plantema FJ. Sandwich construction: the bending and buckling of sandwich beams, plates
and shell. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966.
3. Vinson JR. The behavior of sandwich structures of isotropic and composite materials.
Pennsylvania: Technomic Publishing Inc., 1999.
4. Frostig Y, Baruch M, Vilnay O, et al. High-order theory for sandwich-beam behavior
with transversely flexible core. J Eng Mech 1992; 118: 1026–1043.
5. Frostig Y. Classical and high-order computational models in the analysis of modern
sandwich panels. Compos Part B 2003; 34: 83–100.
6. Francesco T, Fantuzzi N and Bacciocchi M. Higher-order structural theories for the
static analysis of doubly-curved laminated composite panels reinforced by curvilinear
fibers. Thin Wall Struct 2016; 102: 222–245.
7. Dozio L. Natural frequencies of sandwich plates with FGM core via variable-kinematic
2-D Ritz models. Compos Struct 2013; 96: 561–568.
8. Tornabene F, Fantuzzi N, Viola E, et al. Stress and strain recovery for functionally
graded free-form and doubly-curved sandwich shells using higher-order equivalent
single layer theory. Compos Struct 2015; 119: 67–89.
9. Mostafa A, Shankar K and Morozov EV. Experimental, theoretical and numerical
investigation of the flexural behaviour of the composite sandwich panels with PVC
foam core. Appl Compos Mater 2014; 21: 661–675.
10. Brischetto S. An exact 3D solution for free vibrations of multilayered cross-ply com-
posite and sandwich plates and shells. Int J Appl Mech 2014; 6: 1450076.
11. Steeves CA and Fleck NA. Collapse mechanisms of sandwich beams with composite
faces and a foam core, loaded in three-point bending. Part I: analytical models and
minimum weight design. Int J Mech Sci 2004; 46: 561–583.
30 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 0(00)

12. Steeves CA and Fleck NA. Collapse mechanisms of sandwich beams with composite
faces and a foam core, loaded in three-point bending. Part II: experimental investigation
and numerical modelling. Int J Mech Sci 2004; 46: 585–608.
13. Tagarielli VL, Fleck NA and Deshpande VS. Collapse of clamped and simply supported
composite sandwich beams in three-point bending. Compos B – Eng 2004; 35: 523–534.
14. Triantfillou TC and Gibson LJ. Failure mode maps for foam core sandwich beams.
Mater Sci Eng 1987; 95: 37–53.
15. Mines RAW and Alias A. Numerical simulation of the progressive collapse of polymer
composite sandwich beams under static loading. Compos Part A-Appl 2002; 33: 11–26.
16. Gibson LJ and Ashby MF. Cellular solids: structure and properties, 2nd ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
17. Ivañez I, Santiuste C and Sanchez-Saez S. FEM analysis of dynamic flexural behavior of
composite sandwich beams with foam core. Compos Struct 2010; 92: 2285–2291.
18. Rajaneesh A, Sridhar I and Rajendran S. Failure mode maps for circular composites
sandwich plates under bending. Int J Mech Sci 2014; 83: 184–195.
19. ASTM. Standard test methods for rubber property-compression set, ASTM: D395–03.
PA: ASTM, 2003.
20. ASTM. Standard test method for tensile properties of plastics, ASTM: D638–03. PA:
ASTM, 2003.
21. Pamies OL, Idiart MI and Nakamura T. Cavitation in elastomeric solids: I – a defect-
growth theory. J Mech Phys Solids 2011; 59: 1464–1487.
22. Dong C and Davies IJ. Optimal design for the flexural behavior of glass and carbon
fibre reinforced polymer hybrid composites. Mater Des 2012; 37: 450–457.
23. Dong C, Jayawardena HAR and Davies IJ. Flexural properties of hybrid composites
reinforced by S-2 glass and T700S carbon fibers. Compos B Eng 2012; 43: 573–581.
24. James CT, Cunningham PR and Watson A. Experimental and numerical investigation
of the effect of asymmetry on the residual strength of a composite sandwich panel.
J Sandw Struct Mater 2015; 17: 417–445.
25. Gordon S, Boukhili R and Merah N. Impact behavior and finite element prediction of
the compression after impact strength of foam/vinylester-glass composite sandwiches.
J Sandw Struct Mater 2014; 16: 551–574.