Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 555562 www.elsevier.

com/locate/engfailanal

Theoretical design and analysis of a honeycomb panel sandwich structure loaded in pure bending
Gaetano G. Galletti, Christine Vinquist, Omar S. Es-Said
Received 7 March 2007; accepted 24 April 2007 Available online 10 May 2007

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Loyola Marymount University, 7900 Loyola Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90045-8145, USA

Abstract This paper discusses the theoretical and quantitative design and analysis of a honeycomb panel sandwich structure. The initial design is based on specic requirements that the panel must achieve prior to failure under load. Materials to be used for the facing and core are selected based on the given requirements. With the materials chosen, the facing sheets and core are analyzed for failure. Failure occurs when the stresses in the panel exceed the properties of the materials by any mode. 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Honeycomb panel sandwich structure; Design and analysis

1. Introduction Bonded honeycomb panel construction has been a basic concept in the aerospace industry for over 40 years. Most aircraft ying today depend on the integrity and reliability oered by this structural approach [1]. The widespread acceptance is primarily due to the continuous development of (1) the sandwich components; (2) sandwich design and fabrication; and (3) the condence gained through the years of success of the sandwich concept. As a result of the history of its success, interest is growing in the use of honeycomb construction for a broad range of commercial applications. Honeycomb structures consist of three components: the facing sheets, the core, and the core-to-facing bonding adhesives. By bonding two thin facing sheets to a thicker core material, a layered structural sandwich construction is formed [2]. In the sandwich construction the facing sheets are spaced to provide most of the bending rigidity. They also resist all or nearly all the applied edgewise loads and atwise bending moments. The core material spaces the facing sheets and transmits shear between them so that they are eective about a common neutral axis. The core also provides most of the shear rigidity of the construction. The core-to-facing bonding adhesive must be adequate to transfer the stresses from the facing sheets to the core materials so that the full properties of the two are utilized.
*

Corresponding author. E-mail address: oessaid@lmu.edu (O.S. Es-Said).

1350-6307/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2007.04.004

556

G.G. Galletti et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 555562

A honeycomb panel can be analyzed in the same manner as an I-beam, with the facing sheets and core materials corresponding to the anges and web, respectively [2]. The facing sheets carry axial tensile and compressive stresses and the core material sustains shear and compressive stresses normal to the panel. The coreto-facing bonding adhesive rigidly joins the facing sheets and core materials and allows them to act as a single entity with a high torsional and bending rigidity [3]. 2. Design problem The design of a miniature test specimen representative of a larger structure designed and manufactured for the interior of the Embraer-145 aircraft is required. The larger structure is a forward baggage bulkhead. Under dierent simulated emergency ight conditions, the bulkhead wall experiences intense loading. In order to ensure structural rigidity and safety of the bulkhead wall, the design needs to meet specic strength and weight requirements. The panel is a long beam exure test specimen to be modeled as a simply supported beam loaded in pure bending. The loads are applied until the panel fails by any mode. The following four requirements must be met for a successful honeycomb panel sandwich structure design. 1. The dimensions of the panel test specimen shall not exceed 18 in. in length, 3 in. in width, and 0.75 in. in thickness, 2. The panel shall be loaded as shown in Fig. 1, 3. The panel shall withstand a minimum bending stress of 30 ksi in the facing sheets prior to failure by any mode, and 4. The total weight of the panel shall not exceed 0.92 lbs/ft2.

Fig. 1. Three dimensional schematic of the loading condition.

G.G. Galletti et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 555562

557

3. Material selection When designing a honeycomb panel sandwich structure the design load is typically given. From this the induced bending stress in the face sheet can be determined. In this design however it is the minimum bending stress that is known, not the load. Knowing that the minimum required bending stress is 30 ksi, a facing sheet material with a yield strength of at least 30 ksi needs to be selected. 3.1. Face sheet material The material selected for the facing was 0 Tape Graphite/Epoxy TXX-145-F155 [1]. The yield strength for this material is 187 ksi along the length of the bers with a modulus of 18.3 103 ksi. This leads to the drawback of having an orthotropic material. To resolve this, a 4 layer lay-up of the facing is created in a 0/90/+45/ 45 pattern starting with the 0 layer along the length of the beam. This layered arrangement allows the selected facing to be approximated as quasi-isotropic. 3.2. Core material The material selected for the core was HRH-101/86.0 Aramid Fiber Reinforced Honeycomb [1]. The material consists of DuPonts Nomex aramid-ber paper treated with a heat resistant Phenolic resin. The core features high strength and toughness with small cell sizes in a low-density non-metallic core. The cell size of the core material is 0.125 in. with a density of 6.0 lbs/ft3. Under compressive loads the core has a minimum bare strength of 850 psi and a minimum stabilized strength of 925 psi with a modulus of 60 ksi. Under shear loads the core has a minimum strength of 330 psi in the L direction with a modulus of 13.0 ksi and strength of 170 psi with a modulus of 6.5 ksi in the W direction. The L and W directions are dened as shown in Fig. 2 [1]. 4. Design verication With the facing and core materials selected, the design requirements can be veried. Verication is done by analyzing the various modes of failure that are possible by both the facing sheets and the core materials. Also, the weight and maximum deection of the designed panel are analyzed.

Fig. 2. Dierence between L and W directions in hexagonal core cell patterns.

558

G.G. Galletti et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 555562

4.1. Analysis of facing sheets Analysis of the facing sheets is done by looking at the following: bending stress, intracell buckling, and facing wrinkling. Fig. 3 [1] shows the various types of facing sheet failures. To calculate the bending stress of a constructed honeycomb panel it is rst assumed that the facing sheets are isotropic or quasi-isotropic. It is also assumed that the facing sheets are of equal thickness. The equation for calculating the bending stress [1] is rf M max tf hb 1

where rf is the bending stress in the facing sheets, Mmax is the maximum moment, tf is the facing sheet thickness, h is the distance between centroids of the facing sheets, and b is the beam width. Unlike other design problems where the applied load is known and the stress is calculated, this is the reverse situation in which the minimum stress is known and the minimum load that will create this stress needs to be determined. Using Fig. 4 the maximum moment is three times the minimum load. Intracell buckling is a failure that occurs with very thin facings and large core cells. The failure is caused by face dimpling continuously propagating across adjacent cells. To determine whether or not the panel will fail by intracell buckling, a critical stress is calculated. The equation for the critical stress [1] is 2E f  t f  2 rcr;ib 2 k S

Fig. 3. Various types of facing sheet failures.

G.G. Galletti et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 555562

559

Fig. 4. Two dimensional schematic of the loading conditions, shear and moment diagrams.

where rcr,ib is the critical stress for intracell buckling, Ef is the modulus of elasticity of facing sheet, k is 1 l2, l is the Poissons ratio of facing sheets, tf is the facing sheet thickness, and S is the cell size. Facing wrinkling is a failure caused by the sudden local buckling of the facing sheets. This can take the form of buckling into the core, known as core crushing, or buckling outward, known as adhesive bond or core tensile failure. The direction of the buckling depends on the relative strengths of the core in compression and the adhesive in atwise tension. To determine whether or not the panel will fail by facing wrinkling, a critical stress is calculated. The equation for the critical stress [1] is  1=2 Ec tf rcr;fw 0:82Ef 3 Ef tc where rcr,fw is the critical stress for facing wrinkling, Ec is the modulus of elasticity of core material, tf is the facing sheet thickness, Ef is the modulus of elasticity of facing sheet, and tc is the thickness of core material. 4.2. Analysis of the core Analysis of the core is done by looking at the following: shear stress, exure induced compressive stress, and local crushing. Fig. 5 shows the various types of core failures. The shear stress in the honeycomb panel is carried in the core. The equation for shear stress in the core [1] is s V max hb 4

where s is the shear stress in the core, Vmax is the maximum shear, h is the distance between centroids of the facing sheets, and b is the beam width. Using Fig. 4 the maximum shear load is one-half the minimum load. During testing the honeycomb panel undergoes increasing exure in bending as the twin loads are applied. This exure induces a compressive stress upon the core. If the magnitude of the compressive stress is greater than the compressive strength of the core, then the panel fails. This mode of failure is called exural crushing. The equation for exure induced compressive stress in the core [3] is

560

G.G. Galletti et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 555562

Fig. 5. Various types of core failures.

rc

2r 2  f  Ef tdf 1

where rc is the exure induced compressive stress, rf is the bending stress in the facing sheets, Ef is the modulus of elasticity of facing sheet, d is the total panel thickness, and tf is the facing sheet thickness. Using this equation two stresses are calculated, one for the minimum bending stress and one for the theoretical failure of the panel at the shear strength of the core in the L direction. Local crushing of honeycomb cores often results from low core compression strengths. This is most likely to occur where the loads are applied on the panel. To derive the stress applied to the facing of the panel the general stress equation is used [4] P 6 A where rlc is the stress due to local crushing, P is the applied load, and A is the area. The area used is calculated from the mechanical part that applies the load to the panel. This part is the width of the beam, 3 in., and 1 in. in diameter. Since it is the failure of the core in shear that causes local crushing by a point load, this value needs to be calculated. Once calculated the stress caused by this load can be determined. rlc 4.3. Maximum deection of the honeycomb panel Although deection considerations are not part of the design criteria, they are still calculated to ensure the structural rigidity and safety of the design. The designed beam is simply supported with twin loads and therefore the maximum deection will occur at the mid-span of the beam. The maximum deection [4] is determined by the following equation: y max a 4a2 32 24Ef I
P 2

where ymax is the maximum deection, P is the applied load, a is the distance between support and point of loading, is the span length, Ef is the modulus of elasticity of facing sheet, and I is the second moment of area. The calculation of the maximum deection using this equation neglects to include shear deformation of the core. This however is considered negligible because it contributes at most 1% of the total deection. 4.4. Weight Based on the selection of the face and core materials, the weight of the panel can be determined. The 0 Tape Graphite/Epoxy TXX-145-F155 facing sheet that was selected weighs 0.0088 lbs/ft2/mil and each layer

G.G. Galletti et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 555562

561

is 8 mils thick. The lay-up of the facing sheet requires a total of four layers. Knowing this the total weight per facing sheet for the panel was calculated as 0.2816 lbs/ft2. The HRH-101/86.0 core weighs 6.0 lbs/ft3. The thickness of the core is determined by subtracting the thickness of the facing material from the total allowed thickness of the panel. This yields a core thickness of 0.686 in.. Knowing this the total weight of the core is 0.343 lbs/ft2. 5. Results and discussion The minimum load required to induce a bending stress of 30 ksi in the facing sheets was calculated as 689.3 lbs. Since the yield strength for the material is 187 ksi, the factor of safety against yielding of the face sheets was 6.23. Due to the large factor of safety it is not likely that the panel will fail due to yielding of the face sheets. If this mode of failure does occur, the minimum load required would be 4296.5 lbs. A load of this magnitude would cause shear failure of the core before yielding of the facings occurs. For intracell buckling the calculated critical stress was 2422.8 ksi. Comparing this to the yield strength of 187 ksi for the facing sheet, the panel would fail due to yielding long before intracell buckling was to occur. For facing wrinkling the calculated critical stress was 185.6 ksi. This value is less than the yield strength of 187 ksi for the facing. Since facing wrinkling typically occurs when the load is applied at the ends of the panel and not the face of it as in the design, the probability of failure due to facing wrinkling is not likely. Using the minimum load calculated to induce the required bending stress, the resulting shear stress in the core was determined to be 160 psi. Since the yield strength for the core is 330 psi in the L direction, the factor of safety against yielding of the core was 2.06. This factor of safety is sucient enough to conclude that the core will not fail in shear. However, if this mode of failure were to occur, the minimum load required would be 1421.6 lbs and would induce a bending stress of 61,875 psi. At this bending stress the factor of safety against yielding of the face sheet is 3.02 which is still suciently high to ensure that the facings will not fail due to yielding, even at twice the minimum bending stress. For the exure induced compressive stress of the core two stresses are calculated. For the minimum bending stress there is a critical stress of 4.38 psi and for the theoretical failure of the panel at the shear strength of the core in the L direction there is a critical stress of 18.65 psi. Comparing both of these stresses to the minimum stabilized core compressive strength of 925 psi and the minimum bare core compressive strength of 850 psi, the panel does not fail by exure induced compressive stresses. For local crushing of the core, the point load to cause this was determined to be 710.8 lbs. This leads to a stress of 236.9 psi. Again, the calculated stress for local crushing does not exceed the minimum stabilized core compressive strength (925 psi) or the minimum bare core compressive strength (850 psi). Although not a part of the design requirements, the maximum deection of the honeycomb panel is determined. The maximum deection was calculated as 0.2447 in. in the downward direction and occurring at the mid-span of the beam. This yields a length over span ratio for the panel of 1/65 which can be considered high since the typical ratio for beams is 1/360. But again, there are no deection criteria so this can be considered acceptable. From the design specications the maximum weight of the panel cannot exceed 0.92 lbs/ft2. Knowing that the weight of the core is 0.343 lbs/ft2 and the weight of one facing sheet is 0.2816 lbs/ft2, the total weight of the panel is 0.9062 lbs/ft2. Therefore the weight requirement for the panel was met. 6. Conclusion The selection of the 0 Tape Graphite/Epoxy TXX-145-F155 for the facing sheets and the HRH-101/86.0 Aramid Fiber Reinforced Honeycomb for the core proved sucient for the design of the panel. All of the requirements for the panel were met. Both the facings and core were sucient to withstand a bending stress of 30 ksi under the given loading conditions and the weight requirement was also met. References
[1] Hexcel Corporation. Bonded honeycomb sandwich construction a description of the basic design and capabilities of bonded honeycomb sandwich construction. Technical Service Bulletin #124. Huntington Beach, CA: Hexcel Corporation; 1993.

562

G.G. Galletti et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 555562

[2] Bruhn EF. Analysis and design of ight vehicle structures. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN: S.R. Jacobs and Associates, Inc.; 1973. p. C12.1C12.52. [3] Hexcel Corporation. Design Handbook for Honeycomb Sandwich Structures. Technical Service Bulletin #123. Huntington Beach, CA: Hexcel Corporation; 1970. [4] Shigley JE, Mischke CR. Mechanical engineering design. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, Inc.; 1989. p. 72767 [chapter Xx].