IMPACT DAMAGE ON LIGHTWEIGHT

SANDWICH PANELS

Daowu Zhou and W.J. Stronge

Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK

Abstract Collision experiments and finite element analysis were carried out to
investigate damage on sandwich panels struck by spherical missiles at small
velocities. Analytical models based on either quasi-static or dynamic
behaviour of structures were developed to calculate impact force during low
speed impact on circular sandwich panels. The results of the analytical and
numerical models and the experimental measurement were compared. The
dependence of damage on both structural parameters and impact variables was
investigated.

Keywords: impact damage, circular sandwich panels, quasi-static, modal superposition.

1. INTRODUCTION

Ultra-light sandwich panels are increasingly desirable and interesting for

vehicle construction because of their high bending stiffness and lightweight.
However, one drawback of sandwich panels is its susceptibility to localized
surface damage from low speed impact of small missiles; e.g. hailstones or
dropped tools.
In general, surface damage to lightweight sandwich panels involves two
type of deformation: (1) plastic local deformation in a local contact region
immediately adjacent to the impact site and (2) elastic deflection of the
surrounding panel. Localized indentation of sandwich panels has been
investigated extensively [1]. In addition to local indentation, there is global
elastic deformation of the surrounding plate. In the range of low speed
impact, the sandwich plate deflection can be approximated as a quasi-static
process which employs a lumped parameter force-deflection model [1].
However, the simplified analytical model is only applicable if the ratio of
colliding mass to plate is relatively large because a range of high modes and
615
O.T. Thomsen et al. (eds), Sandwich Structures 7: Advancing with Sandwich Structures and
Materials, 615–624.
© 2005 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.
616 D. Zhou and W.J. Stronge

frequencies of the plate are also excited if the mass ratio is small [2, 3]. In
this case, a modal superposition method which incorporates more modes of
plate vibration will be required to accurately model the impact force and
displacement.
This paper addressed the impact response and damage of thin,
lightweight circular sandwich panels with simply supported boundaries. A
localized indentation law was first presented and incorporated into an elastic
Reissner-Mindlin plate analysis that was based on the quasi-static behavior
of the panel (appropriate for a large mass ratio of colliding missiles to plate).
A modal superposition analysis was also carried out to analyse the dynamic
panel response when the mass ratio is small. Numerical simulation was
performed for comparison with the analytical models as well as calculating
the residual indentation. Experimental measurements were used to validate
the theoretical and numerical models.

2. ANALYTICAL MODELS

Figure 1. Spherical ball striking center of a circular, simply supported, sandwich panel.

Figure 1 shows a cross-section of the plate and colliding sphere. We

consider a rigid sphere with radius R1 and mass M 1 that is striking the
center of a circular sandwich panel at velocity V0 at normal obliquity. The
panel has radius R2 and is composed of two facesheets and a core with
thicknesses h f and hc , respectively. The transverse shear modulus of the
core is represented by Gc and Young’s modulus of the facesheet material is
E f . The central relative deflection (indentation) of the contact region at the
center of the upper facesheet is denoted by D 0 while the global transverse
Impact Damage on Lightweight Sandwich Panels 617

deflection at the center of the panel is represented by w0 measured at the

mid-surface.

2.1 Contact law for local indentation

This localized load-displacement relation of the sandwich panel under a

fully rigid support is investigated in Ref. [4], using the principle of minimum
potential energy to calculate the panel deformation. The load-indentation
relationship can be expressed as

16S D02
P D f qD 0 (1 0.488 ) (1)
3 hf 2

where P is the impact force, D f E f h f 3 /[12 (1 2

] is the bending
stiffness of the facesheet and q is the crushing strength of the core. The first
term on the right side of Equation (1) is related to bending of the facesheet
and the second term is due to local membrane stretching.

2.2 Quasi-static solution for global panel deflection

Figure 2. Spring-mass model for impact analysis.

The lumped parameter model of dynamic panel response is an

appropriate first approximation for the history of impact force and deflection
of the panel. As shown in Figure 2, the missile has mass M 1 and
displacement x1 . The sandwich panel has an effective mass M 2 , an effective
bending stiffness K b , an effective shear stiffness K s and an effective
membrane stretching stiffness K m . The effective mass of the panel M 2
will be obtained by equating the kinetic energy in the continuous plate to the
kinetic energy of the lumped mass. With the contact indentation law in
Equation (1) and the effective panel mass, the equations of motion of the two
degree of freedom vibration systems are given by
618 D. Zhou and W.J. Stronge

­ M 1 x1  P 0
®  3 (4)
¯ M 2 x2  K bs x2  K m x2  P 0

If the impact energy is large, the sandwich panel will have a large global
deflection and the local indentation x1  x 2 0 becomes negligible. The
model can be simplified as the single degree of freedom system,

( 1 2 ) 1  K bs x1  K m x13 0 (5)

2.3 Modal superposition analysis

When the mass ratio between the colliding missile and the plate is
small, the sandwich panel can be treated as a continuum with infinite degrees
of freedom rather than a discrete approximation in order to obtain impact
force and deflection. In this case, the modal analysis needs to be carried out
because high vibration modes of the panel may be superimposed on the
fundamental vibration of the impactor-panel system. The present analysis
employed first order shear theory (Mindlin plate approximation) to
approximate the governing equation of a sandwich panel [5]. The effects of
the inertia and the membrane stretching in facesheets are ignored. By
employing the Green function to solve the governing equation of the
sandwich plate, the central deflection of the plate is given by

1 f
> @2 t
w0 ( )
Us
¦ R2 ³0 sin> @P( ) dW (6)
k 1 Zk 2 r) k ( r )) k ( r )dr
³0

where U s is the mass of the sandwich panel per unit area and Zk and ) k
are respectively the natural frequencies and axisymmetric mode shapes of
the plate [6]. The local indentation D ( ) 1 ( ) 0 ( ) can be written as

1 t
D 0 ( ) V0 t  (7)
M 1 ³0
( ) ( ) 0( )

For a first order approximation, however, the nonlinear force-indentation

relation can be further approximated by a linear relation. The impact force
and central deflection of the plate can then be numerically determined.
Impact Damage on Lightweight Sandwich Panels 619

3. VALIDATION OF ANALYTICAL MODELS

3.1 Material and impact experiment

An example of thin and lightweight sandwich panels can be seen in

Figure 3. This sandwich structure, called HSSA (Hybrid Stainless Steel
Assembly), consists of stainless steel sheets (316L) that sandwich a core
composed of stainless fibres aligned roughly normal to the faceplates. The
total thickness of this panel is only 1.2 mm. Basic mechanical properties of
the constituents of this material are given in Table 1 [7]. A static through-
thickness compression test of the core [8] is also shown in Figure 3.

Table 1. Mechanical properties of sandwich panel.

Facesheet Fibrous Core* Single Fibre
Thickness (mm) 0.2 0.8 0.025 (Diameter)
Density (Kg /m3) 7800 624 7800
Poisson Ratio 0.3 0 0.3
Young’s modulus (MPa) 210E3 100 210E3
Yield Stress (MPa) 306 1.9 – 2.3 1,100
*Through – thickness direction

Figure 3. SEM and experimental through-thickness compression of lightweight sandwich

panel with HSSA fibrous core.

3.2 Experiment

A drop test was carried out to determine the surface damage to an HSSA
panel resulting from normal impact of a steel sphere. The experiment
consisted of a sphere striking the center of a simply supported, circular,
HSSA sandwich panel at speed in the range from 1 m/s to 5 m/s. Details of
the sphere and panel sizes are shown in Table 2. The profile of the residual
620 D. Zhou and W.J. Stronge

indentation was measured by a profile meter, which obtains the residual

indentation depth to an accuracy of 1 mm.
Dynamics of panel response to impact were measured by strain gauges
on a sandwich panel with a radius of 115 mm. Six strain gauges in three
pairs (proximal and distal surfaces), were placed at different locations on the
facesheets as shown in Figure 4. Signals from strain gauges were amplified
by six signal conditioning amplifiers and stored in a data logger.

Table 2. Parameters in the impact experiment.

Impactor (Steel Ball) Panel (HSSA)
Mass (g) Radius (mm) Mass (g) Effective Mass M2 (g) Radius (mm)
11.9 7.14 14.7 0.72 36.0
24.1 1.34 46.0
35.8 11.90 69.2 5.98 78.0

Figure 4. Locations of strain gauges on sandwich panel (S1, S3 and S5 are on top facesheet).

3.3 Finite element modelling

The present simulation, using ABAQUS 6.3, focuses on simply

supported circular sandwich panels, corresponding to the sizes tested in the
experiment. The colliding body was assumed to be rigid with the same mass
and surface curvature as specified in the experimental study. The element
mesh of the FEM model is shown in Figure 5. All parts of the sandwich
panel were meshed with 4-node axisymmetric CAX4R elements. There were
roughly 20 contact elements on the impact surface. Convergence studies
indicated that this mesh was fine enough to accurately simulate the core. The
facesheet was assumed to behave as an elastic-plastic material with strain
hardening behaviour and the core was simulated by a crushable foam
Impact Damage on Lightweight Sandwich Panels 621

material model. Isotropic hardening of the core was considered by using the
uniaxial compression test. The associated flow law was used for simplicity.

Figure 5. Deformed mesh of HSSA sandwich panel for impact analysis.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Comparison of FEM model and experiment

Figure 6 illustrates the dynamic strain response histories at specific gauge

locations (S1, S2 and S3 as shown in Figure 4). Comparisons between the
finite element solutions and experimental results are given. It is noted that
the radial strains at S1 and S2 have approximately the same magnitude but
opposite sign. These two points are far from the impacted point and hence
the dynamic response is mostly a result of bending. The compressive
circumferential strain in Figure 6(c) is a consequence of radial stretching of
the panel. Effects of wave propagation are not obvious.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 6. Dynamic radial strain history at point S1, S2, S3 on HSSA sandwich panel.
622 D. Zhou and W.J. Stronge

4.2 Effect of mass ratio on validity of analytical models

Figure 7 shows a comparison of different calculations, 2 DOF spring-

mass model, 1 DOF, modal superposition and FEM, in predicting the history
of the impact force. The mass ratios between the colliding missile and the
effect mass of the panel are m=25.7, 15.9 and 1.92, respectively. Detailed
specifications of the sandwich panels are (a) panel radius 46 mm, sphere
35.8 g, striking velocity 2.43 m/s (b) panel radius 36 mm, sphere 11.9 g,
striking velocity 1.98 m/s (c) panel radius 78 mm, sphere 11.9 g, striking
velocity 2.43 m/s. It is seen that both spring-mass models give similar
prediction of the maximum forces in Figure 7(a). This similarity indicates
that the local deformation (indentation) is negligible in comparison with the
overall deflection in the case of a large mass ratio impact phenomenon. The
result from modal superposition solution is less than the other predictions;
this is due to neglect of membrane stretching in facesheets.

(a)

(b) (c)

Figure 7. Calculated time-history of impact force for a sandwich panel struck by a sphere for
mass ratios (a) m=25.7, (b) m=15.9, (c) m=1.92.
Impact Damage on Lightweight Sandwich Panels 623

In the case of an intermediate range of mass ratio in Figure 7(b), both

spring-mass models and modal solution are appropriate in analysing the
dynamic response of sandwich panels. Different from only one main pulse
shape in Figure 7(a), there are two main peaks in the FEM simulation for this
mass ratio. In the modal superposition calculation, 40 modes were included
and the time step chosen was 5 Ps , giving approximated 300 steps for the
entire pulse. It can be seen that the difference of maximum impact forces
between spring-mass models and finite element solution is less than 7%.
However, either the 1 DOF or 2 DOF model cannot capture the pulse shape
of the impact force. In contrast, modal superposition method shows a better
agreement with the FEM result except for the discrepancy between the two
peak forces; this difference is again partly due to neglect of membrane
stretching of the facesheets.
If the mass ratio is small, only the modal superposition approach will
provide an accurate estimate of the dynamic response of the sandwich panel.
As shown in Figure 7(c), the spring-mass model completely fails in
predicting the pulse shape of the impact force and the maximum impact
force. However, the modal superposition analysis that considers 40 modes
generates a good agreement with the FEM simulation.

Figure 8. Measured and calculated residual indentation depth of sandwich panel HSSA
centrally impacted by a ball of mass 11.9 g.

4.3 Residual indentation

Figure 8 gives the average experimental residual indentations of

sandwich panels as a function of the impact energy. It can be seen that the
residual indentation decreases with increasing panel size under the same
624 D. Zhou and W.J. Stronge

impact energy. A comparison of measured localized indentation depth with

the simulated results for a sandwich panel with a radius of 46 mm hit by a
steel ball of mass 11.9 g is also given.

5. CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the contact relation, analytical models based on quasi-

static and dynamic behaviours of the sandwich panel were developed in
order to calculate impact force under low velocity impact on circular
sandwich panels. Validity of these models strongly depends on mass ratio
between the mass of the colliding missile and the effective mass of the
sandwich plate. When the mass ratio is large (e.g. m ! 16 ), the local
indentation stiffness can be ignored and spring-mass model (either 1 DOF or
2 DOF) can be used to estimate the impact response of the panel. When the
mass ratio is in the intermediate range ( 8 16 ), either the spring-mass
model or modal superposition may be used to estimate the dynamic response
of the panel. If the mass ratio is small ( 0 8 ), only modal
superposition can accurately predict the dynamic response of the sandwich
panel.
Impact damage of sandwich panels can be numerically simulated based
on a suitable choice of material model for the sandwich core. Residual
indentation of the sandwich panel depends on the impact force, which is
determined by the size of the panel, projectile mass and striking energy.

REFERENCES
1. Abrate, S., Localized impact on sandwich structures with laminated facings. Applied
Mechanics Review, 50(2), 69-82, 1997.
2. Swanson, S.R., Limits of quasi-static solutions in impact of composite structures.
Composites Engineering, 2(4), 261-267, 1992.
3. Olsson, R., Mass criterion for wave controlled impact response of composite plates.
Composite Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 31(8), 879-887, 2000.
4. Zhou, D., and Stronge, W.J., Dynamic indentation of lightweight sandwich panels. 11th
European Conference on Composite Materials (ECCM-11), Rhodes, Greece, 2004.
5. Zenkert, D., An introduction to sandwich construction, Chameleon Press, London, 1995.
6. Zhou, D. and Stronge, W.J., Modal frequencies of circular sandwich panels. Journal of
Sound and Vibration, submitted for publication, 2005.
7. Zhou, D. and Stronge, W.J., Mechanical properties of fibrous core sandwich panels.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 2005, to appear.
8. Markaki, A.E. and Clyne, T.W., Mechanical and electrical properties of stainless steel
sandwich sheet with fibrous metal cores, designed for automotive applications. Metal and
Ceramic Composites: Automotive Applications, B. Cantor, ed., Oxford-Kobe Materials
Seminar, 2004.