Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The vibration and damping performances of hybrid carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss sandwich
Available online 16 July 2013 panels with viscoelastic layers embedded in the face sheets were investigated in this paper. Hybrid car-
bon fiber composite pyramidal truss sandwich panels containing different thickness of viscoelastic layers
Keywords: were manufactured using a hot press molding method. Analytical models based on modal strain energy
Vibration damping approach were developed using ABAQUS software to estimate the damping property of the hybrid sand-
Composite wich structures. A set of modal tests were carried out to investigate the vibration and damping charac-
Sandwich panels
teristics of such hybrid sandwich panels with or without viscoelastic layers. The damping loss factors of
Pyramidal truss cores
Viscoelastic layer
composite slender beams with different fiber orientations were tested to determine the constitutive
damping properties of parent materials for such hybrid sandwich panels. The numerical simulation
results showed good agreement with the experimental tests. The damping loss factors of hybrid sand-
wich panels increased distinctly compared with previous sandwich panels due to the viscoelastic layer
embedded in the face sheets.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0263-8223/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.07.015
J. Yang et al. / Composite Structures 106 (2013) 570–580 571
established damping model of FRP composites by Adams et al. damping loss factors of the model was shown in Fig. 2. The total
named modal strain energy approach was adopted by following number of elements and the volume of each element are extracted
authors in order to develop the damping analysis of various com- firstly. Correspondingly, various stress and strain components of
posite structures [24–26]. Maheri et al. [27] also demonstrated that each element were exported to calculate and cumulate various
modal strain energy method was effective for analyzing the vibra- strain energy and dissipated energy components of the whole
tion damping of honeycomb structural panels with carbon fiber model. Finally the damping loss factors of parent material were
composite face sheets. In the following section, the modal strain used to obtain the damping loss factors of the model by the data
energy approach was applied in a finite element formulation to post-processing on the basis of modal strain energy approach.
solve for the damping properties of the hybrid carbon fiber com-
posite pyramidal truss sandwich panels contained viscoelastic 2.2. Analytical models for damping properties of parent material
layers.
The concept of this method is that the damping characteristics In order to predict the damping characteristics of the lattice
of a structure can be defined by the ratio of the energy dissipated sandwich structure, it was necessary to get the damping character-
to the energy stored during a stress cycle. For all-composite pyra- istics of its parent materials. Carbon fiber composite beams with
midal truss core sandwich panels, the damping characteristics are different fiber orientations were fabricated and the constitutive
obviously anisotropic which is different with isotropic materials. damping data can be obtained through the modal test combining
Hence, the total structural damping loss factor can be expressed as: numerical calculation based on modal strain energy approach.
Pn The structural damping loss factor of the slender composite
gij U kij
g ¼ Pk¼1
n k
ði; j ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð1Þ beam can be expressed as:
k¼1 U ij
Pn
where gij and U kij are the damping loss factors of composite parent
gij U kij
g ¼ Pk¼1
n k
ði; j ¼ 1; 2Þ ð4Þ
material and strain energy components of the element k relative k¼1 U ij
to the stress component rij. As shown in Fig. 1, number 1 is the fiber
According to relevance theory [29], the damping loss factor
direction, 2 is transverse to this direction and 3 is the through-
parameters g11 and g22 can be measured by subjecting a 0° and a
thickness direction. Their relationships can be written as the follow-
90° rectangular beam respectively to the flexural vibration reso-
ing equation:
Z nance through the modal tests. Then an arbitrary angle of the spec-
1 imen (for example, 45° specimen) can be applied to obtained
U kij ¼ rkij ekij dV k ð2Þ
2 parameter g12 by the modal test combing finite element analysis
using the solution procedure of the damping loss factors of the
Thus, the contributions of strain energy components corre-
model mentioned in Fig. 2. As the specimen was unidirectional
sponding to stress components can be expressed as:
carbon fiber composite which belongs to transversely isotropic
DU ij materials, then we have that, g22 = g33, g12 = g13, g23 has little effect
SEij ¼ ði; j ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð3Þ
DU total on the modal behavior of such hybrid sandwich panels [30], and
can be assumed as the same value as g12.
where DUij is the total strain energy component corresponding to
the stress component rij, DUtotal is the total strain energy of the sys-
tem. SE11, SE22 and SE33 are the contributions of tension–compres- 2.3. Analytical models for damping properties of hybrid sandwich
sion deformation in the 1, 2 and 3 direction of the fiber- panels
reinforced structures, respectively. SE12, SE13 and SE23 are the con-
tributions of shearing deformation in the planes (1, 2), (1, 3) and The constitutive damping data of parent material have been
(2, 3), respectively. obtained in above section and it were applied to evaluate the
The procedure for evaluating damping of composite sandwich damping properties of sandwich panels with pyramidal truss cores
structures was performed using a commercial finite element and the hybrid sandwich panels embedded with different thick-
software ABAQUS 6.10. The natural frequencies, mode shapes ness of viscoelastic layers. The damping loss factor of such struc-
and the properties (such as stress, strain and volume) of each tures can be defined as:
element can be obtained by the Lanczos eigensolver [28]. For the Pn Pm
k
anisotropic property of the composite structure, it was necessary g
k¼1 ij U ij þ p¼1 gv U pv
g¼ Pn k Pm p
ði; j ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð5Þ
to further decompose the total strain energy into several different k¼1 U ij þ p¼1 U v
components associated with different stress components. Unfortu-
nately, only the total strain energy outputs were shown in the where gv and U pv are the damping loss factor for viscoelastic mate-
finite element analysis results. The solution procedure of the rial and strain energy of element p.
2 1
y x
θ
Carbon fiber/epoxy
Carbon fiber/epoxy truss
(a) facesheets b
Fixed area filled
with wood
h
f a
(b)
2l cos ω + 2 k
k
2l cos ω + 2k
l
l sin ω
ω
d
Fig. 3. (a) Schematic illustration of pyramidal truss core sandwich panel with a boundary condition of cantilever. (b) Unit cell of pyramidal truss core.
574 J. Yang et al. / Composite Structures 106 (2013) 570–580
Layer 1 (0o)
Layer 2 (90o)
Layer 3 (0o)
Layer 4 (90o)
tf tv Viscoelastic layer
Layer 5 (90o)
Layer 6 (0o)
Layer 7 (90o)
Layer 8 (0o)
Fig. 4. Sandwich panels embedded with viscoelastic layers by the hot press molding technique.
0.30 mm, 0.45 mm, 0.60 mm and 0.75 mm (Fig. 4), respectively.
80 60
Different impact points and measuring points were arranged to de-
Young's modulus tect all vibration modes of the structure shown in Fig. 8. The first
Damping loss factor six modes were considered in the modal experiments.
70 50
Damping loss factor η (%)
Young's modulus (Mpa)
4. Simulation
60 40
Impact hammer
Accelerometer
Clamping block
Specimen
Monitor
(a) 100 2
52.442Hz
80 1
60
0
Amplitude (dB)
Coherence
40
-1
20
-2
0
-20 -3
-40 -4
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 7. (a) Frequency response analysis, (b) modal circle fit and (c) FRF geometry.
Impact points
Fig. 8. Different impact points and measuring point arranged for the specimen.
5. Results and discussion tions were shown in Figs. 9 and 10. A good agreement was ob-
served between the results derived from the experimental and
5.1. Damping characterization of parent materials numerical results. It was reliable applying the experimental results
of damping loss factor parameters g11 and g22 to determine the
The first three natural frequencies and bending modal shapes of damping loss factor parameter g12 mentioned in Section 2.2.
the slender beams obtained by experiments and numerical calcula- Fig. 11 showed the experimental results obtained for damping in
576 J. Yang et al. / Composite Structures 106 (2013) 570–580
Table 2 3.0
The constitutive damping data of parent material for hybrid sandwich panels. o
θ=0
f (Hz) g11 (%) g22 = g33 (%) g12 = g13 (%) g23 (%) o
2.5 θ=45
1.5
1200
o
θ=0 1.0
o
1000 θ=45
o
θ=90 0.5
Natural frequency f (Hz)
Experiment results
800
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Frequency (Hz)
600
Fig. 11. The experimental results obtained for damping in the case of unidirectional
carbon fiber composite beams.
400
Experiment
Simulation
Fig. 10. The first three modal shapes of the specimens obtained by the experiments and numerical calculations.
J. Yang et al. / Composite Structures 106 (2013) 570–580 577
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 4
Mode 5
Mode 6
(a) Experiment results (b) Modelling results
Fig. 12. The first six modal shapes deduced from experiment and finite element analysis.
laminated plates could reduce the load-bearing capacity and natu- The variations of the damping loss factors and natural frequencies
ral frequency of structures, a symmetric angle-ply laminated plate as function of orientation were given in Figs. 16 and 17. Mode 1
consisted of four ±h ply pairs through the thickness were consid- was a transverse bending mode as mentioned above. In the case
ered in order to eliminate these effects for the damping properties of low-angle panels (0–30°), the longitudinal tension–compression
of hybrid sandwich structures. The increments of 15° of the fiber deformation SE11 that caused less energy loss was the sole contrib-
orientation covering the 0–90° were implemented to study the utor in such structure (Fig. 18) and the lower damping could also
vibration and damping performances of such sandwich panels. be observed. On the contrary, the transverse tension–compression
578 J. Yang et al. / Composite Structures 106 (2013) 570–580
1200 4
Mode 1 (tν = 0 mm)
Mode 1 (tν = 0.15 mm)
1000 Mode 2 (tν = 0.15 mm)
Natural frequency f (Hz)
600 t ν = 0 mm 2
t ν = 0.15 mm
t ν = 0.3 mm
400 t ν = 0.45 mm
t ν = 0.6 mm 1
t ν = 0.75 mm
200 Experiment results
1 2 3 4 5 6
0
Mode 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Fiber orientation θ (ο)
Fig. 13. Comparison of the natural frequencies obtained from modeling and
experimental investigation in the case of the structure with different thickness of
Fig. 16. Damping loss factors as function of the fiber orientation of structure with
viscoelastic layer.
viscoelastic layer of thickness 0.15 mm.
8
t ν = 0 mm 550
7 t ν = 0.15 mm Mode 1 (t ν = 0 mm)
500 Mode 1 (t ν = 0.15 mm)
t ν = 0.3 mm
6 t ν = 0.45 mm Mode 2 (t ν = 0.15 mm)
Damping loss factor η (%)
450
Natural frequency f (Hz)
t ν = 0.6 mm
5 t ν = 0.75 mm 400
Experiment results
4 350
300
3
250
2
200
1
150
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 100
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Mode
Fiber orientation θ (o)
Fig. 14. Comparison of the modal damping loss factors obtained from modeling and
experimental investigation in the case of the structure with different thickness of Fig. 17. Natural frequencies as function of the fiber orientation of structure with
viscoelastic layer. viscoelastic layer of thickness 0.15 mm.
Contributions of strain energy components SE ij (%)
100
Facesheets SE 11
Truss cores SE 22
The contribution of the damping charateristics (%)
100 80 SE 33
SE 12
SE 13
60
80 SE 23
40
60
20
40
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
20
Fibre orientation θ (o)
Fig. 15. The contribution of facesheets and pyramidal truss cores on the damping deformation SE22 and in-plane shearing deformation SE12 that
characteristics of the composite sandwich panel without viscoelastic layer. caused more energy loss played a major role in high-angle panels
Contributions of strain energy components SE ij (%) J. Yang et al. / Composite Structures 106 (2013) 570–580 579
tν = 0 mm
100 60
tν = 0.15 mm
SE11 tν = 0.3 mm
SE22 50 tν = 0.45 mm
80 SE33 tν = 0.6 mm
tν = 075 mm
40
Amplitude (dB)
SE12
SE13
60
30
SE23
40 20
10
20
0
100
SE11
significantly after interleaving a viscoelastic layer because of the
SE22 high damping property of the viscoelastic layer and the tension–
80 SE33 compression deformation in the thickness direction SE33 raised
SE12 apparently (Fig. 19). The values of damping for the mode 2 were
60
SE13 higher than the mode 1 because greater shearing deformation
SE23 was induced by twist mode to dissipate more energy.
10 6. Conclusion
different fiber orientations on the damping and dynamic responses [10] Wang B, Wu LZ, Ma L, Sun YG, Du SY. Mechanical behavior of the sandwich
structures with carbon fiber-reinforced pyramidal lattice truss core. Mater Des
of the structures have been also summarized. It was shown that
2010;31:2659–63.
the modeling based on modal strain energy approach provided a [11] Li M, Wu LZ, Ma L. Structural response of all-composite pyramidal truss core
good way to estimation the damping characteristics of such hybrid sandwich columns in end compression. Compos Struct 2011;93:1964–72.
sandwich panels. The contribution of facesheets played a major [12] Xiong J, Ma L, Pan SD, Wu LZ. Shear and bending performance of carbon fiber
composite sandwich panels with pyramidal truss cores. Acta Mater
role on the damping of such structures compared with pyramidal 2012;60:1455–66.
truss cores and it was a good way to embed the viscoelastic layers [13] Xiong J, Ma L, Wu LZ, Wang B. Fabrication and crushing behavior of low
into face sheets to control the vibration amplitude. The damping density carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss structures. Compos Struct
2010;92:2695–702.
loss factor of twist mode was always higher than the transverse [14] Heimbs S, Cichosz J, Klaus M, Kilchert S, Johnson AF. Sandwich structures with
bending mode because of greater shearing deformation was in- textile-reinforced composite foldcores under impact loads. Compos Struct
duced. Our results showed that insertion of viscoelastic layer in 2010;92:1485–97.
[15] Chandra R, Singh SP, Gupta K. Damping studies in fiber-reinforced composites
the face sheets could distinctly increase its damping loss factor – a review. Compos Struct 1999;46:41–51.
without significantly changing its natural frequencies. This work [16] Wang B, Yang M. Damping of honeycomb sandwich beams. Mater Process
provided a way to study the damping characteristics of hybrid Technol 2000;105:67–72.
[17] Maheri MR, Adams RD, Hugon J. Vibration damping in sandwich panels. J
composite sandwich panels with truss cores during multifunc- Mater Sci 2008;43:6604–18.
tional applications. [18] Fotsing ER, Sola M, Ross A, Ruiz E. Lightweight damping of composite
sandwich beams: experimental analysis. J Compos Mater 2012:1–11.
[19] Sarlin E, Liu Y. Vibration damping properties of steel/rubber/composite hybrid
Acknowledgment
structures. Compos Struct 2012;94:3327–35.
[20] Hajela P, Lin CY. Optimal design for viscoelastically damped beam structures.
This present work was supported by National Science Founda- Appl Mech Rev 1991;44:96–106.
tion of China under Grant Nos. 11172080 and 11222216 and the [21] Bhimaraddi A. Sandwich beams theory and the analysis of constrained layer
damping. J Sound Vib 1995;179:591–602.
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under [22] Berthelot JM, Sefrani Y. Damping analysis of orthotropic composites with
Grant No. HIT.BRETIV.201301. interleaved viscoelastic layers: experimental investigation and discussion. J
Compos Mater 2006;40:1911–32.
[23] Ni RG, Adams RD. The damping and dynamic moduli of symmetric laminated
References composite beams. Theoretical and experimental results. Compos Sci Technol
1984;18:104–21.
[1] Evans AG, Hutchinson JW, Fleck NA, Ashby MF, Wadley HNG. The topological [24] Yim JH, Gillespie Jr JW. Damping characteristics of 0° and 90° AS4/3501-6
design of multifunctional cellular metals. Prog Mater Sci 2001;46:309–27. unidirectional laminates including the transverse shear effect. Compos Struct
[2] Wallach JC, Gibson LJ. Mechanical behavior of a three-dimensional truss 2000;50:217–25.
material. Int J Solids Struct 2001;38:7181–96. [25] Berthelot JM, Sefrani Y. Damping analysis of unidirectional glass and Kevlar
[3] Vaziri A, Hutchinson JW. Metal sandwich plates subject to intense air shocks. fibre composites. Compos Sci Technol 2004;64:1261–78.
Int J Solids Struct 2007;44:2021–35. [26] Berthelot JM, Assarar M, Sefrani Y. Damping analysis of composite materials
[4] Ebrahimi H, Vaziri A. Metallic sandwich panels subjected to multiple intense and structures. Compos Struct 2008;85:189–204.
shocks. Int J Solids Struct 2013;50:1164–76. [27] Maheri MR, Adams RD, Hugon J. Vibration damping in sandwich panels. J
[5] Wadley HNG. Multifunctional periodic cellular metals. Philos Trans R Soc A Mater Sci 2008;43:6604–18.
2006;364:31–68. [28] ABAQUS. Standard user’s manual, Version 6.8. USA: Hibbitt, Karlsson and
[6] Deshpande VS, Ashby MF, Fleck NA. Foam topology bending versus stretching Sorensen, Inc.; 2008.
dominated architectures. Acta Mater 2001;49(6):1035–40. [29] Lin DX, Ni R, Adams RD. Prediction and measurement of the vibrational
[7] Chiras S, Mumm DR, Evans AG. The structural performance of optimized truss parameters of carbon and glass–fibre reinforced plastic plates. J Compos Mater
core panels. Int J Solids Struct 2002;39:4093–115. 1984;18:132–52.
[8] Cote F, Biagi R, Bart-Smith H, Deshpande VS. Structural response of pyramidal [30] Maheri MR, Adams RD. Finite-element prediction of modal response of
core sandwich columns. Int J Solids Struct 2007;44:3533–56. damped layered composite panels. Compos Sci Technol 1995;55:13–23.
[9] Fan HL, Meng FH, Yang W. Sandwich panels with Kagome lattice cores
reinforced by carbon fibers. Compos Struct 2007;81:533–9.