School of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering

MM3315 Aerospace Materials Assignment

Sandwich Construction
Session: AY 12/13
Semester: 2
11-01-2013
Class: DARE/FT/3A/24

Members:
Seran Karikalan (leader)
Ong Jovi
Ng Aiting
Jonathan Joseph Wee
Sivaguru S/O Sivagnanam

1002764
1019247
1067138
1019052
1003260

I.

Declaration Page

Plagiarism Declaration:
We declare that this Aerospace Materials assignment submitted for assessment is our own
work and does not involve plagiarism. The sources had been cited and referenced in the
References Chapter.

2992

Page | 1

II.

Acknowledgements

The team would like to express their gratitude to the following individuals who helped up in
the success of our task.

Mr Bang Toong Kiang, BSc (Met/Mech)(Hons)(Manchester,UK), MSc ( AeroMaterials)

(Cranfield,UK)
For being the source of inspiration for this module and project, Mr Bang had allowed us to
understand the concepts that were vital to the completion of our project. We thank him for his
unending patience and guidance.

Mr Pang (TSO)
He had helped our team in providing access to the necessary laboratory tools and assistance
that were crucial to the project.

Page | 2

III.

Contribution of Each Members

Seran, being the team-leader, delegated the task among the group and supervised the members
on every segment of the project. Seran was involved in literature survey, research of the
theoretical fundamentals, experimental testing and the construction of the jig. Seran was also
involved in compiling the report to ensure consistency and fluency of the content.
Jovis contribution took place in planning and testing of the Experiment 1; after determining
the fiber-orientation through the microscope. Jovi had also helped with the Experiment 2,
construction of the SS (refer to Section V: Nomenclature), obtaining E and lastly the
portion of the report on the tensile strength for different fiber orientation.
Jonathans contribution began with the planning and brainstorming on the approach the task.
Jonathan also assisted in the cutting of the various dog-bone pieces to be used for the various
tests, as well as the assembly of the SS. He was also involved in the portion of report on glue
testing.
Aiting was responsible in cutting of the vanguard sheet for all 3 experiments, determining the
dimensions of the vanguard sheet used to construct the SS, and also in-charge of building the
SS. Aiting contributed in report on the assignment flow chart, Experiment 3, and references
part.
Sivas contribution includes the assistance in planning and painting of the jig. He also
provided assistance in the Experiment 1 and 2, as well as the assembly of the SS. Lastly his
part of the report was to prepare abstract and nomenclature.

Page | 3

IV.

Abstract

This report focusses and provides a detailed analysis of the findings on which fibreorientation (transverse/longitudinal/diagonal) has highest tensile properties, best glue to be
used for SS, designs selected to build the core to construct the SS, identify the best design of
the core in terms of bearing heaviest load with minimal deflection with comparison from
theoretical values. This report also focuses on the errors made by the team, the appropriate
corrective actions taken and future development/recommendation could be used for this
assignment.

Page | 4

Contents

I.

Declaration Page ................................................................................................................ 1

II.

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ 2

III.

Contribution of Each Members ....................................................................................... 3

IV.

Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 4

V.

Nomenclature ..................................................................................................................... 7

VI.

List of Equipment ............................................................................................................ 8

VII.

Assignment Flowchart..................................................................................................... 9

1.

Introduction: SS................................................................................................................ 10
1.1

2.

History ....................................................................................................................... 10

Literature Survey .............................................................................................................. 10

2.2 Types of SS .................................................................................................................... 11

3.

Experiment 1: Fibre-Orientation Testing ......................................................................... 12

3.1 Aim ................................................................................................................................. 12
3.2 Process ............................................................................................................................ 12

4.

Experiment 2: Choosing Glue .......................................................................................... 16

4.1 Adhesive Quality ............................................................................................................ 16
4.1.1 Procedure for testing of glue ................................................................................... 17
4.2 Cost of glue .................................................................................................................... 18
4.3 Ease of application ......................................................................................................... 19
4.4

Glue Selection............................................................................................................ 19
Page | 5

5.

Experiment 3: SS Construction and Deflection Testing .................................................. 20

5.1 Aim ................................................................................................................................. 20
5.2 Choosing Shapes for the Core ........................................................................................ 20
5.3 Processes ........................................................................................................................ 21
5.3.1 Construction of SS .................................................................................................. 21
5.3.2 Construction of testing apparatus-Jig ...................................................................... 24
5.4

Testing of the SS........................................................................................................ 25

5.5

Results and Analysis .................................................................................................. 26

6.

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 30

7.

Errors and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 31

8.

References ........................................................................................................................ 33

9.

Appendix .......................................................................................................................... 34

Page | 6

V.

Nomenclature

SS=Sandwich Structure
E=Youngs Modulus of Elasticity
=Direct Stress
=Direct Strain
A=Cross-Sectional Area
L =Gauge Length
x=Elongation
g=Acceleration due to Gravity = 9.81m/s2
P=Applied Force
D=Bending Stiffness
=Deflection
Kb=Bending Deflection Coefficient
I=Second Moment of Inertia
tf=Thickness of faces
tc=Thickness of core
b=Breadth of SS
l=Length of SS
Page | 7

VI.

List of Equipment

1. Hounsfield H5K-W Machine

2. Microscope
3. Ruler
4. Vernier-Caliper
5. Digital Weighing Scale
6. Pair of Shear/Scissors

Page | 8

VII.

Assignment Flowchart

Page | 9

1. Introduction: SS

According to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the definition of a SS
is: a special form of a laminated composite comprising of a combination of dissimilar
materials that are bonded together to each other so as to make use of the properties of each
distinct component to the structural improvement of the whole assembly

1.1 History

The first use of SS on man-made structure traces all the way back to 1652; where an engineer
named, Wendelin Schildknecht built a bridge using sandwiched beam. However it was only
after the World War II where the SS became popular.

2. Literature Survey

SS are made up of lightweight thick core situated between thin stiff skins. Suitable strong
adhesives are used ensure sufficient bonding, thus uninterrupted transfer of forces from the
core to the skin and from core to core. By separating the skins this way, majority of the
material; thus mass of the structure are placed further away from the neutral axis (the
imaginary line of a structure that does not have any bending moments). This improves the
second moment of inertia of the structure which in turn increases the E of the material. Result
structure being much stiffer and the ability to carry more loads without failure. Due to their
Page | 10

high strength-to-weight ratio and high stiffness, SS are used in high performance applications
that demand high strength-to-weight ratio such as aeronautical structures and high speed
automotive and marine structures.

2.2 Types of SS

The 3 basic types of SS are corrugated, foam and honeycomb core.

Figure 2.1: Corrugated core

Figure 2.2: Foam core

Figure 2.3: Honeycomb core

Page | 11

3. Experiment 1: Fibre-Orientation Testing

Vanguard sheet is an anisotropic material; therefore, the testing of tensile property of the
vanguard sheet in different fibre-orientation was conducted (refer to Figure 3.2). It was
believed that to have a best high strength SS, vanguard sheet best orientation was taken in
consideration.

3.1 Aim

- Test for the tensile property of the vanguard sheet in different fibre-orientations
- Determine the strongest fibre-orientation
- Calculate E of the vanguard sheet

3.2 Process

The fibre-orientation of the vanguard sheet was determined by placing the sheet under the
microscope. The camera and software allowed the fibre-orientation of the vanguard sheet to
be captured on the computer.

Page | 12

Figure 3.1: Vanguard sheet fibre-orientation captured by microscope

With the fibre-orientation of the vanguard sheet determined, 2 test pieces in dog-bone shape
was prepared for the three different orientations each.

Figure 3.2: Fibre-orientation for dog-bone shape test pieces

Page | 13

Figure 3.3: Dog-bone shape plate with measurements (mm)

With the dog-bone pieces, tensile testing using Hounsfield H5K-W machine was conducted,
measuring tensile strength it (paper) could withstand before it fracture. In order for the
testing to be conducted properly, clamping of the vanguard bone was to be tightly in place.
Folds or tear forms weak point or area of stress concentration, would affect the test result.
With the fracture test-pieces and the printed report, observation, analysis and discussion on
the experiment with regards to the fibre-orientation was conducted. Factors included during
discussion were the fracture characteristics, the direction of fracture and the report which
contains load-elongation graph of the testing.
For full set of data on the testing, refer to appendix section.
With the values obtained from the test report, calculation of E of the vanguard sheet was done
according to ISO 527 Plastics Determination of Tensile Properties, Part 1 and Part 3. This
specifies to take strain at 25% and 5% of the total elongation and the corresponding stress
(from stress strain graph).
Load elongation graph was converted into stress strain graph.

Page | 14

Table 3.1: Values of calculated stress, strain and E for different fibre-orientation
Based on the result, the fibre-orientation that gave the best E is the longitudinal fibre
direction.
Page | 15

4. Experiment 2: Choosing Glue

The type of glue to be used would affect the properties of the SS that was to be constructed.
The criteria used for glue selection as follows:
1. Adhesive Quality of glue using
2. Cost of glue
3. Ease of application of glue
The best glue would be then chosen based on the glues ranking shown in Table 4.2.
Three types of glue were chosen to represent the various types of glue available.
1. Water-Based Glue (WBG)
2. Epoxy 2-Part Resin
3. UHU Glue

4.1 Adhesive Quality

This was conducted as the procedures stated below and the best glue for this criterion was
chosen by observing the mode of failure.
Refer to appendix section for the complete results analysis of this portion.

Page | 16

4.1.1 Procedure for testing of glue

1: The dog-bone was first cut into two pieces.

2: The two halves were joined back by gluing the overlapping area of 1 cm2 (refer to Figure
4.1).

Figure 4.1: Specimens used for glue testing

It was found that UHU glue was stronger than the paper (Figure 4.2). Main objective of this
test was to determine which glue was stronger than the paper, which was an important factor
in eliminating failure of glue shearing in the SS. Choosing the glue stronger than the paper
would simulate a situation where the face and core of the SS as a single part.

Page | 17

Figure 4.2: Modes of failure (from left: Epoxy, WBG and UHU glue)

4.2 Cost of glue

Table 4.1: Comparing the cost of individual glue

Page | 18

4.3 Ease of application

Both the WBG and UHU glue was convenient as they could be directly applied to surface.
For the epoxy, both parts had to be mixed prior to application which made it difficult. Curing
time was another factor. The WBG took a slightly longer time to cure than UHU glue. The
epoxy took relatively longer curing time. The longer waiting time made it difficult to align the
test-piece correctly as the glue cures.

4.4 Glue Selection

Table 4.2: Showing the individual glues ranking

Since UHU glue ranked number 1, it was the chosen glue for the use with construction of the
SS.

Page | 19

5. Experiment 3: SS Construction and Deflection Testing

5.1 Aim

1) Test the strength of different shape of the core of SS.

2) Determine the strongest core of SS.
3) Compare the strength of SS with equivalent mass of piles of plain vanguard sheets
pasted together.
Since vanguard sheets were dealt with for this assignment, honeycomb core SS (refer to
section 2.2) was concentrated.

5.2 Choosing Shapes for the Core

Honeycomb SS come in many different kinds of core design. Since human hands were to be
used to construct the structure, the shapes of the core were chosen that was easier to fold and
with higher tessellating characteristics. The 4 chosen shapes were:
1. Hexagon
2. Elongated hexagon
3. Equilateral triangle
4. Square

Page | 20

The possible failure modes that the face of SS might have to withstand are the face yield,
dimpling and wrinkling and shearing between the cores. This was why the choice of adhesive
was important so as to hold the cores in place when applying the loads. The orientation of the
vanguard sheet used as the face of the structure also affects the strength of the overall
structure.

5.3 Processes

Results and conclusions from previous experiments are used in this experiment to build the
SS.

5.3.1 Construction of SS

As one of the ultimate aims was to determine which shape (of core) that has the best
contribution to overall strength of the SS, the area enclosed by each core to be constant. That
will allow the experiment to have only one variable and thus more accurate conclusion to be
made at the end of this assignment. The vanguard sheet strip was folded according to the
measurement shown in Figure 5.1 and the ends were glued together.

Page | 21

Figure 5.1: Showing dimensions of different cores

Then the sides of individual core were glued together and dried.
Made sure there are no gaps in between the cores.

Figure 5.2: Elongated hexagonal (top) and hexagonal cores (bottom)

Page | 22

Figure 5.3: Equilateral triangle cores

Figure 5.4: Completed SS with square cores

After the cores were ready, the vanguard sheets in longitudinal fiber-orientation
(perpendicular to applied load) were used as the faces. The completed SS is weighted and
average weight is calculated. Plain vanguard sheet were cut in 40mm x 165mm and the
sheets were glued in plies until the average weight was reached.

Page | 23

5.3.2 Construction of testing apparatus-Jig

The jig was used to measure the deflection of the SS when loads are applied to the structure.
To make sure the results were accurate, a level and solid jig was built. Firstly, basswood was
cut according to the dimension shown in Figure 5.5.

Figure 5.5: Dimensions of basswood for jig

Then pieces of basswood were assembled as in Figure 5.6 with L-brackets. Loading was
achieved as shown in Figure5.7.

Page | 24

Figure 5.6: Jig making in process

Figure 5.7: Completed jig

5.4 Testing of the SS

A dial gauge was used to measure deflection. Approach loading was used to do the testing of
the SS; starting with 0.5kg to 2.5kg with increments of 0.5kg. (Refer to the Figure 5.8 for the
test set-up). All the readings for all 4 structures were recorded in the Table 5.4.

Page | 25

Figure 5.8: Initial test set-up procedure

Figure 5.9: Face wrinkle failure after testing

5.5 Results and Analysis

Table 5.1: Average weight of SS

Page | 26

The theoretical values of the deflection were determined to see how accurate the test was
done. Since the jig was designed to have a central loading with both ends fixed, the kb was

The formula used for this part of the section:

Assumption: Glue being stronger than the vanguard sheet, the whole structure was considered
as a single structure. There would not be any glue shearing taking place within cores or at
face-core bonding. This ensured the validity of the altered deflection formula.

Figure 5.10: Cross-sectional view of all four SS (used to calculate I)

The second moment of inertia, I of the structures was calculated by:

Refer to appendix section for full calculations

Page | 27

Table 5.2: Various measurements of SS

Showing calculation for Hexagonal core SS using 4.9N load:

This calculation was repeated for other structures. All the calculation was recorded in the
table below.

Page | 28

Table 5.3: Theoretical deflection of the structure

Table 5.4: Actual deflection of the structure

Page | 29

Table 5.5: Percentage of error between actual and theoretical deflection

6. Conclusion

The interest of having theoretical and actual values was to do a relative comparison. The
percentage error was not the upmost concern.
Based on the physical testing, elongated hexagonal core was the strongest. This had been
proved by the theoretical data, followed by triangle and square which had about the same
strength. Again, this had been agreed by the theoretical data. The weakest SS from the
physical testing would be the hexagonal core. This was contradicting with the theoretical
calculations. The possible reason would be discussed in the next section.
Apart from that, the only mode of failure witnessed was face wrinkling. The other SS were
too rigid and failure was not observed. The non-SS was a lot weaker than the SS. The core in
the SS helped to minimize the materials used and provide many I-beam structures within the
Page | 30

whole SS. Lowering the weight and producing a high strength to weight ratio was why SS
were a lot stronger than plain vanguard sheet glued together in plies.

7. Errors and Recommendations

The team possessed very minimal knowledge on sandwich theory and its construction.
Starting with the grain orientation testing, the amount of fibre in a direction parallel to the
load varied in the initial testing itself. This could be clearly seen by the variations in E value
for longitudinal specimen 1 and 2. Thus when making the cores, it was highly possible for
variations in fibre-orientation, causing error in the 1st assumption of declaring a fixed value
for E.
Since the core was relatively thick, it had high D which prevented it from failing even at
highest applied load. Hence failure modes were not clearly observed. While theoretical
calculations show that hexagonal core supposed to be the second strongest structure, physical
testing showed it was the least strong with an error over 700%. Reason could be since it was
the first structure to be made, there involved high chances of imperfections in the construction
and unintentional mishandling.
Finding the theoretical deflection was the biggest challenge for the group. Of all sources, most
were considered too high-level for the group. The basic formula, which was understandable
by the team, had too much assumption, adding to the total error. With unconditional guidance
from Mr Bang, second moment of inertia was calculated individually by measuring the crosssectional webs and flanges dimensions for each structure instead of assuming, reducing

Page | 31

percentage error. Given more time, the team could refine the formula for the SS and also use
explore into FEM analysis to simulate the deflections and reduce the error.
Through this assignment, the team had ventured into a completely new field of engineering
and research. The team would like to bring this assignment beyond its scope by analysing
more into the research and development of SS in future.

Page | 32

8. References

REFERENCE FROM WEBSITE

Test conditions for films and sheets, Plastics-Determination of tensile properties,

(1995) <http://manganow.org/iso/1681-iso-527-3-1995.html>, accessed 27 December
2012.

Dr Uday K. Vaidya, Sandwich Composites, The Future is Advanced Plastics and

Composites, <http://www.angelfire.com/ma/ameyavaidya/F_sandwch3.htm>,
accessed 29 December 2012.

Basic Design Principles, about.com Compasites/Plastics, (1968)

<http://composite.about.com/library/docs/mil-hdbk-23/bl1-2.htm>, accessed 29
December 2012.

REFERENCE FROM SP LIBRARY

Archilles Petras, Design of SS, PhD Thesis (Cambridge University, 1998)

Dan Zenkert, An introduction to SS, A. Olsson and R. Reichard (eds), The

Chameleon Press LTD., London, 1995.

Page | 33

9. Appendix

Page | 34