Comparison of aluminium sandwiches for lightweight ship structures: Honeycomb vs. foam

Abstract The use of lightweight aluminium sandwiches in the shipbuilding industry represents an attractive and interesting solution to the increasing environmental demands. The aim of this paper was the comparison of static and low-velocity impact response of two aluminium sandwich typologies: foam and honeycomb sandwiches. The parameters which influence the static and dynamic response of the investigated aluminium sandwiches and their capacity of energy absorption were analysed. Quasi – static indentation tests were carried out and the effect of indenter shape has been investigated. The indentation resistance depends on the nose geometry and is strongly influenced by the cell diameter and by the skin – core adhesion for the honeycomb and aluminium foam sandwich panels, respectively. The static bending tests, performed at different support span distances on sandwich panels with the same nominal size, produced various collapse modes and simplified theoretical models were applied to explain the observed collapse modes. The capacity of energy dissipation under bending loading is affected by the collapse mechanism and also by the face-core bonding and the cell size for foam and honeycomb panels, respectively. A series of low-velocity impact tests were, also, carried out and a different collapse mechanism was observed for the two typologies of aluminium sandwiches: the collapse of honeycomb sandwiches occurred for the buckling of the cells and is strongly influenced by the cell size, whereas the aluminium foam sandwiches collapsed for the foam crushing and their energy absorbing capacity depends by the foam quality. It is assumed that a metal foam has good quality if it has many cells of similar size without relevant defects. A clear influence of cell size distribution and morphological parameters on foam properties has not yet been established because it has not yet been possible to control these parameters in foam making. The impact response of the honeycomb and foam sandwiches was investigated using a theoretical approach, based on the energy balance model and the model parameters were obtained by the tomographic analyses of the impacted panels. The present study is a step towards the application of aluminium sandwich structures in the shipbuilding.

[1]  Lorna J. Gibson,et al.  Size effects in metallic foam core sandwich beams , 2002 .

[2]  A. Petras,et al.  Failure mode maps for honeycomb sandwich panels , 1999 .

[3]  Gin Boay Chai,et al.  Low-velocity impact failure of aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels , 2008 .

[4]  Alan Klanac,et al.  Qualitative design assessment of crashworthy structures , 2005 .

[5]  G. Epasto,et al.  Collapse modes in aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels under bending and impact loading , 2012 .

[6]  V. Rizov.  Local crushing of HCP100 structural foam due to low-velocity impact , 2008 .

[7]  U. Ramamurty,et al.  Mechanical property extraction through conical indentation of a closed-cell aluminum foam , 2004 .

[8]  M. Ashby,et al.  Indentation resistance of an aluminium foam , 2000 .

[9]  Vincenzo Crupi,et al.  Aluminium foam sandwiches collapse modes under static and dynamic three-point bending , 2007 .

[10]  Kwang Bok Shin,et al.  An experimental study of low-velocity impact responses of sandwich panels for Korean low floor bus , 2008 .

[11]  John Banhart,et al.  Aluminium foams for transport industry , 1997 .

[12]  M. Ashby,et al.  Metal Foams: A Design Guide , 2000 .

[13]  Paul Compston,et al.  Low Energy Impact Damage Modes in Aluminum Foam and Polymer Foam Sandwich Structures , 2006 .

[14]  L. M. Volpone,et al.  ALUMINIUM ALLOYS IN THIRD MILLENNIUM SHIPBUILDING: MATERIALS, TECHNOLOGIES, PERSPECTIVES. , 2005 .

[15]  Gin Boay Chai,et al.  A model to predict low-velocity impact response and damage in sandwich composites , 2008 .

[16]  Jakob Kuttenkeuler,et al.  On structural design of energy efficient small high-speed craft , 2011 .

[17]  Qingming Li,et al.  Indentation into Polymeric Foams , 2010 .

[18]  Serge Abrate,et al.  Impact on Composite Structures , 1998 .

[19]  Ronald E. Miller,et al.  Failure of sandwich beams with metallic foam cores , 2001 .

[20]  Vincenzo Crupi,et al.  Low-velocity impact strength of sandwich materials , 2011 .

[21]  Wesley J. Cantwell,et al.  The low velocity impact response of foam-based sandwich structures , 2002 .

[22]  H. Pond,et al.  THE MOMENT ACTING ON A RANKINE OVOID MOVING UNDER A FREE SURFACE , 1951 .

[23]  Kunigal N. Shivakumar,et al.  Prediction of Impact Force and Duration Due to Low-Velocity Impact on Circular Composite Laminates , 1985 .

[24]  Vincenzo Crupi,et al.  Computed Tomography analysis of damage in composites subjected to impact loading , 2011 .