不同铺设角度面板/泡沫夹芯复合材料准静态侵彻和低速冲击性质实验和数据研究
|
摘要
泡沫夹芯复合材料因轻质和高抗弯刚度已被广泛应用到高速车辆和飞机等领域,研究泡沫夹芯复合材料力学性质对进一步工程应用和设计有重要意义。本文研究目的是从实验测试和数值模拟两个途径揭示具有不同铺设角度碳纤维预浸料面板/泡沫夹芯复合材料在准静态侵彻和低速冲击下的能量吸收与损伤机理,用于夹芯复合材料抗冲击设计。
实验采用MTS材料测试系统和Dynatup9250HV落锤冲击试验系统分别测试夹芯复合材料的静态侵彻与低速冲击性能,研究不同铺层方式对夹芯复合材料性能的影响。结果表明,单轴向铺层[0°]8的泡沫夹芯复合材料在静态测试中具有最大载荷峰值,而在低速冲击测试中载荷峰值、冲击位移与能量吸收均最小,破坏面积、冲击深度及裂纹长度最大。在相同冲击能量条件下,[±45°]2s铺层方式比[0°]8,[0°,90°]2s,和[0°,+45°,90°,-45°]s铺层方式吸收更多的能量,并且冲击深度最浅,说明[±45°]2s铺层方式具有更好的动态机械性能。加载速度对夹芯结构复合材料影响很大,静态加载中泡沫夹芯复合材料表现为韧性,而动态中表现为脆性。
采用有限元方法计算夹芯复合材料在静态侵彻与低速冲击下的初始损伤、损伤扩展以及最终破坏情况。材料芯层定义为可压缩泡沫,碳纤维复合材料面板采用Hashin准则定义失效。模拟结果表明,不同能量冲击下的载荷-位移曲线、接触时间、载荷峰值、能量吸收以及破坏形态均与实验结果有较高的一致性。材料破坏形态包括芯层破坏、碳纤维复合材料面板破坏以及界面破坏。芯层破坏是典型的断裂与压碎,碳纤维复合材料面板破坏表现为基体开裂和分层,并在纤维断裂后产生显著压痕,界面间裂纹扩展方向是从拉伸侧向挤压侧扩展。模拟结果的损伤尺寸与形态相比实验更均匀。碳纤维复合材料面板铺层方式对夹芯复合材料的破坏形态有很大影响,选择不同铺层方式可以使泡沫夹层复合材料具有更优异的耐冲击性能。
本文针对不同铺设角度面板/泡沫夹芯复合材料在静态侵彻与低速冲击性能方面的研究结果,将可以应用于此类材料在T型梁、壳和平板等工程结构的防冲击设计。
Composite sandwiched structures have been widely used in the fields of aircrafts and high speed vehicles, etc. Investigations of the mechanical properties of sandwiched composite structures play a vital role in deciding their applicability in various engineering fields. After years of effort, along with several achievements, new difficulties have also been encountered with the emergence of many novel sandwich structures in the recent years. The quasi-static penetration behaviors and low-velocity impact responses of these structures have been investigated experimentally and numerically. The advances on the mechanical properties of foam sandwiched composites have been reviewed from several aspects, including the quasi-static, low-velocity impact, failure mode and the finite element model of composite sandwiched structures.
The objectives of this work are to experimentally and numerically investigate the impact damage and failure mode of foam sandwiched composite with different ply angle face sheets. In order to evaluate the internal and external damage resulting under quasi-static and low velocity impact, the sandwiched composite samples were tested using an instrumented MTS (Material Test System) machine, and on an instrumental Instron Dynatup9250HV-Drop Weight Impact Testing Machine. From FEM (finite element method) model, the impact damage mechanisms were revealed to show the damage initiation, progression, and the failure of the composite panel. The combination of different stacks sequences of carbon fiber prepreg and foam structures, the impact behaviors of such kind of materials are not well investigated. Finally, the experimental results have been compared with the numerical results at several impact energies in terms of contact load histories, peak load, and absorbed energy of sandwiched structures.
From the quasi-static penetration tests and low-velocity impact tests of foam sandwiched composite with different angles face sheets, the load-displacement curves were obtained to characterize the failure mechanisms of the face sheets and the core. Failure modes were studied by sectioning the samples at the impact location and observing under optical microscope. The results evaluated from static tests showed that the sandwiched composites with unidirectional face sheets have the highest peak load. On the contrary, the dynamic testing indicated that the foam sandwich with unidirectional face sheet have lowest peak load, lowest displacement at peak load and minimum energy absorption. It was also observed that largest damage size, highest penetration depth and shear cracking were experienced by unidirectional as compared to cross-ply, angle-ply, and quasi-isotropic face sheets. Mechanical behaviors of sandwiched structures were found to be strongly dependent on the loading rate. In the case of static loading, the structure had a ductile behavior. However, for impact loading, the sandwiched structure behaved in a brittle manner and failed catastrophically.
Finite element analyses were conducted for analyzing the static responses of foam sandwiched composite with different ply angle face sheets. The FE (finite element) software, ABAQUS was employed to simulate static behaviour of foam sandwiched composite. A crushable foam model was used in order to explore core behaviors, while the Hashin criteria predicted extent of the failure of the face sheets. The load-displacement curves illustrated a good agreement between the experimental and numerical results in terms of overall trend. The finite element calculations were also used to obtain the failure modes including core damage, face sheet damage, and face-core interface damage. It was observed that the damages at the core can be classified as either core cracking or core crushing. However, damages to the face sheet were through matrix cracking and delamination, followed by fiber breakage, which lead to significant indentation. The face-core interface was typically induced by the cracks being initiated from the tensile side and propagates to the compressive side.
Finally, the low-velocity impact properties and impact damage response of foam sandwiched composite with different ply angle face sheets were investigated numerically. The FE software, ABAQUS was also employed to simulate low-velocity impact properties of foam sandwiched composite. A crushable foam model was used in order to explore core behaviors, while the Hashin criteria gave an insight about the failure of the face sheets. The contact load histories, peak load, and energy absorption were obtained to compare the numerical and experimental results at several impact energy levels. The failure morphologies, damage size and damage shape were evaluated and compared with different types of sandwich structures. The comparisons illustrated a good agreement between the experimental and numerical results. From the investigation, it was found that the orientation angles and the stacking sequences of the face sheets will influence the impact behaviors, including the impact damage peak load and impact damage modes. From the appropriate combination of the different lamina sheets, the foam sandwiched laminated composites will have high impact damage tolerances and energy absorptions.
We hope the conclusion of this thesis could be extended the designing of foam sandwiched composite structures, such as T-beams, shell, and plates.
实验采用MTS材料测试系统和Dynatup9250HV落锤冲击试验系统分别测试夹芯复合材料的静态侵彻与低速冲击性能,研究不同铺层方式对夹芯复合材料性能的影响。结果表明,单轴向铺层[0°]8的泡沫夹芯复合材料在静态测试中具有最大载荷峰值,而在低速冲击测试中载荷峰值、冲击位移与能量吸收均最小,破坏面积、冲击深度及裂纹长度最大。在相同冲击能量条件下,[±45°]2s铺层方式比[0°]8,[0°,90°]2s,和[0°,+45°,90°,-45°]s铺层方式吸收更多的能量,并且冲击深度最浅,说明[±45°]2s铺层方式具有更好的动态机械性能。加载速度对夹芯结构复合材料影响很大,静态加载中泡沫夹芯复合材料表现为韧性,而动态中表现为脆性。
采用有限元方法计算夹芯复合材料在静态侵彻与低速冲击下的初始损伤、损伤扩展以及最终破坏情况。材料芯层定义为可压缩泡沫,碳纤维复合材料面板采用Hashin准则定义失效。模拟结果表明,不同能量冲击下的载荷-位移曲线、接触时间、载荷峰值、能量吸收以及破坏形态均与实验结果有较高的一致性。材料破坏形态包括芯层破坏、碳纤维复合材料面板破坏以及界面破坏。芯层破坏是典型的断裂与压碎,碳纤维复合材料面板破坏表现为基体开裂和分层,并在纤维断裂后产生显著压痕,界面间裂纹扩展方向是从拉伸侧向挤压侧扩展。模拟结果的损伤尺寸与形态相比实验更均匀。碳纤维复合材料面板铺层方式对夹芯复合材料的破坏形态有很大影响,选择不同铺层方式可以使泡沫夹层复合材料具有更优异的耐冲击性能。
本文针对不同铺设角度面板/泡沫夹芯复合材料在静态侵彻与低速冲击性能方面的研究结果,将可以应用于此类材料在T型梁、壳和平板等工程结构的防冲击设计。
Composite sandwiched structures have been widely used in the fields of aircrafts and high speed vehicles, etc. Investigations of the mechanical properties of sandwiched composite structures play a vital role in deciding their applicability in various engineering fields. After years of effort, along with several achievements, new difficulties have also been encountered with the emergence of many novel sandwich structures in the recent years. The quasi-static penetration behaviors and low-velocity impact responses of these structures have been investigated experimentally and numerically. The advances on the mechanical properties of foam sandwiched composites have been reviewed from several aspects, including the quasi-static, low-velocity impact, failure mode and the finite element model of composite sandwiched structures.
The objectives of this work are to experimentally and numerically investigate the impact damage and failure mode of foam sandwiched composite with different ply angle face sheets. In order to evaluate the internal and external damage resulting under quasi-static and low velocity impact, the sandwiched composite samples were tested using an instrumented MTS (Material Test System) machine, and on an instrumental Instron Dynatup9250HV-Drop Weight Impact Testing Machine. From FEM (finite element method) model, the impact damage mechanisms were revealed to show the damage initiation, progression, and the failure of the composite panel. The combination of different stacks sequences of carbon fiber prepreg and foam structures, the impact behaviors of such kind of materials are not well investigated. Finally, the experimental results have been compared with the numerical results at several impact energies in terms of contact load histories, peak load, and absorbed energy of sandwiched structures.
From the quasi-static penetration tests and low-velocity impact tests of foam sandwiched composite with different angles face sheets, the load-displacement curves were obtained to characterize the failure mechanisms of the face sheets and the core. Failure modes were studied by sectioning the samples at the impact location and observing under optical microscope. The results evaluated from static tests showed that the sandwiched composites with unidirectional face sheets have the highest peak load. On the contrary, the dynamic testing indicated that the foam sandwich with unidirectional face sheet have lowest peak load, lowest displacement at peak load and minimum energy absorption. It was also observed that largest damage size, highest penetration depth and shear cracking were experienced by unidirectional as compared to cross-ply, angle-ply, and quasi-isotropic face sheets. Mechanical behaviors of sandwiched structures were found to be strongly dependent on the loading rate. In the case of static loading, the structure had a ductile behavior. However, for impact loading, the sandwiched structure behaved in a brittle manner and failed catastrophically.
Finite element analyses were conducted for analyzing the static responses of foam sandwiched composite with different ply angle face sheets. The FE (finite element) software, ABAQUS was employed to simulate static behaviour of foam sandwiched composite. A crushable foam model was used in order to explore core behaviors, while the Hashin criteria predicted extent of the failure of the face sheets. The load-displacement curves illustrated a good agreement between the experimental and numerical results in terms of overall trend. The finite element calculations were also used to obtain the failure modes including core damage, face sheet damage, and face-core interface damage. It was observed that the damages at the core can be classified as either core cracking or core crushing. However, damages to the face sheet were through matrix cracking and delamination, followed by fiber breakage, which lead to significant indentation. The face-core interface was typically induced by the cracks being initiated from the tensile side and propagates to the compressive side.
Finally, the low-velocity impact properties and impact damage response of foam sandwiched composite with different ply angle face sheets were investigated numerically. The FE software, ABAQUS was also employed to simulate low-velocity impact properties of foam sandwiched composite. A crushable foam model was used in order to explore core behaviors, while the Hashin criteria gave an insight about the failure of the face sheets. The contact load histories, peak load, and energy absorption were obtained to compare the numerical and experimental results at several impact energy levels. The failure morphologies, damage size and damage shape were evaluated and compared with different types of sandwich structures. The comparisons illustrated a good agreement between the experimental and numerical results. From the investigation, it was found that the orientation angles and the stacking sequences of the face sheets will influence the impact behaviors, including the impact damage peak load and impact damage modes. From the appropriate combination of the different lamina sheets, the foam sandwiched laminated composites will have high impact damage tolerances and energy absorptions.
We hope the conclusion of this thesis could be extended the designing of foam sandwiched composite structures, such as T-beams, shell, and plates.
引文
1. Long, AC. Composites forming technologies,2007. Textile Institute, p.1-19.
2. Vasiliev VV and Morozov EV. Advanced mechanics of composite materials second edition,2007. Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford.p.10-30.
3. Campbell FC. Structural composite materials 2010, ASM International, p.1-29.
4. Tuttle ME. Structural analysis of polymeric composite materials 2nd ed,2012. CRC Press.p 1-5.
5. Niu MCY. Composite airframe structures,1992. Hong Kong Conmilit Press Limited.p. 11-15.
6. Morgan P. Carbon fibers and their Composites,2005. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. p. 839-851.
7. Tong L.3D Fibre reinforced polymer composites,2002. Elsevier Science Ltd Kidlington, Oxford OX5 IGB, UK. p.1-5.
8. Proulx T. Experimental and applied mechanics volume 6:Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on experimental and applied mechanics.Experimental Mechanics,Inc Springer,2011. p.393-398.
9. Steeves CA, and Fleck NA. Material selection in sandwich beam construction. Scripta Materialia,2004.50 (10):1335-1339.
10. Daniel IM, and Abot JL. Fabrication, testing and analysis of composite sandwich beams. Composites Science and Technology,2000.60 (12-13):2455-2463.
11. Mai SP, Fleck NA, Lu TJ. Optimal design of box-section sandwich beams in three-point bending. International Journal of Solids and Structures,2007.44 (14-15):4742-4769.
12. Galletti GG, Vinquist C, Es-Said OS. Theoretical design and analysis of a honeycomb panel sandwich structure loaded in pure bending. Engineering Failure Analysis,2008.15 (5):555-562.
13. Torre L. and Kenny JM. Impact testing and simulation of composite sandwich structures for civil transportation. Composite Structures,2000.50(3):251-261.
14.罗靓,张佐光,李敏,沈真,杨胜春.复合材料层合板准静态压痕实验研究.复合材料学报,2007.24(3)：154-159
15.沈真,杨胜春,陈普会.复合材料抗冲击性能和结构压缩设计许用值.航空学报,2007.28(3)：561-566.
16.沈真,张子龙,王进,杨胜春,叶林.复合材料损伤阻抗和损伤容限的性能表征.复合材料学报.2004.21(5)：140-145.
17. Ashby LJ. Cellular solids:Structure and properties second edition,2001.Pergamon Press, Oxford.p 343-383.
18. Allen HG. Analysis and design of structural sandwich panels,1993. Pergamon Press, London.p.1-44.
19. Rajesh Mathivanan N. and Jerald J. Experimental investigation of low-velocity impact characteristics of woven glass fiber epoxy matrix composite laminates of EP3 grade. Materials & Design,2010.31 (9):4553-4560.
20. Mehmet A, Bulent CA, and KR. An experimental investigation of the impact response of composite laminates. Composite Structures,2009.87 (4):307-313.
21. Rajesh Mathivanan N, and Jerald J. Experimental investigation of woven e-glass epoxy composite laminates subjected to low-velocity impact at different energy levels. Journal of Minerals & Materials Characterization & Engineering,2010.9 (7):643-652.
22. Naveen V, Alagirusamy R, Deopura BL. Low velocity impact behaviour of textile reinforced composites. Indian Journal of Fibre & Textile Research,2008.33 (2):189-202.
23. Marguerre K. The optimum buckling load of a flexibly supported plate composed of two sheets joinedby a light weight filler, when under longitudinal compression. Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrist fur Literalurwissenschaft und Giests Geschiechte, D.V.L,1944. p.5.
24. Zenkert D. Introduction to sandwich construction 1995:Engineering Materials Advisory Services Ltd. p.277.
25. Thomsen OT, Bozhevolnaya E, Lyckegaard A. Sandwich structures 7.Advancing with sandwich structures and materials,2005. Aalborng University, Denmark, Springer.p 3-12.
26. Divecha AP, and Karmarkar SD. Silicon carbide reinforced aluminum-A Formable Composite, Journal of Materials,1981.33 (9):12-17.
27. Lee JY, Jung DW, Choi NS. Fatigue fracture behavior and statistical life evaluation of hybrid composite/metal beam-joints for a low-floor bus. Journal of Composite Materials, 2011.46(14):1755-1764.
28. Flores-Johnson EA. Quasi-static indentation and low velocity impact on polymeric foams and CFRP sandwich panels with polymeric foam cores. PhD thesis. School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, The University of Manchester: Manchester,2009.
29. Mohan KY, Tick-Hon Sridhar, Idapalapati Seow H. Effect of face sheet material on the indentation response of metallic foams. Journal of Materials Science,2007.42 (11): 3714-3723.
30. Rizov V, Shipsha A, Zenkert D. Indentation study of foam core sandwich composite panels. Composite Structures,2005.69 (1):95-102.
31. Zhou G. Damage Characteristics of Composite Honeycomb Sandwich Panels in Bending under Quasi-static Loading. Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials,2006.8(1): 55-90.
32. http://www.midas-ndt.co.uk/ttl.html
33. Flores-Johnson EA, and Li QM. Degradation of elastic modulus of progressively crushable foams in uniaxial compression. Journal of Cellular Plastics,2008.44 (5):415-434.
34. Flores-Johnson EA, and Li QM. Indentation into polymeric foams. International Journal of Solids and Structures,2010.47 (16):1987-1995.
35. Baral NC, Partridge DDR, Baley IK, Davies CP. Improved impact performance of marine sandwich panels using through-thickness reinforcement:Experimental results. Composites Part B Engineering,2010.41 (2):117-123.
36. Flores-Johnson EA, and Li QM. Experimental study of the indentation of sandwich panels with carbon fibre-reinforced polymer face sheets and polymeric foam core. Composites Part B Engineering,2011.42 (5):1212-1219.
37. Icardi U, and Ferrero L. Impact analysis of sandwich composites based on a refined plate element with strain energy updating. Composite Structures,2009.89 (1):35-51.
38. Lu GS, Hou J, Ruan W, Ong DLS. Dynamic indentation and penetration of aluminium foams. International Journal'of Mechanical Sciences,2008.50 (5):932-943.
39. Hou W, Huang XQ, Lu G, Zhang H. Failure modes of circular aluminium sandwich panels with foam core under quasi-static loading.6th Asia-Pacific Conference,2005: 275-282.
40. Ruan D, Lu G, Wong YC. Quasi-static indentation tests on aluminium foam sandwich panels. Composite Structures,2010.92 (9):2039-2046.
41. Sjoblom PO, Hartness JT, Cordell TM, On low-velocity impact testing of composite materials. Journal of Composite Materials,1988.22(1):30-52.
42. Shivakumar KN, Elber W, Illg W. Prediction of low-velocity impact damage in thin circular laminates. AIAA Journal,1985.23 (3):442-449.
43. Cantwell WJ, and Morton J. The impact resistance of composite materials:A review. Composites,1991.22 (5):347-362.
44. Abrate S. Impact of laminated composite materials:A Review. Applied Mechanical Review,1991.44 (4):155-190.
45. Liu D, and Malvern LE. Matrix cracking in impacted glass/epoxy plates. Journal of Composite Materials,1987.19 (3):594-609.
46. Gdoutos EE. Experimental analysis of nano and engineering materials and structure. Proceedings of the 13 international conference on experimental mechanics,2007. Alexandroupolis, Greece, Springer.p.19-20.
47. Santiuste C, Sanchez-Saez S, Barbero E. Application of the flexibility influence function method in the dynamic analysis of composite beams. International Journal of Solids Structure,2007.44 (15):4795-4809.
48. Kim CG, and Jun EJ. Impact resistance of composite laminated sandwich plates. Journal of Composite Materials,1992.26 (15):2247-2261.
49. Sun CT. Low velocity impact of composite sandwich panels. In:Proc 32th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conf.1991: 1123-1129.
51. Raju KSS, Tomblin JS, Liew KH, Guarddon JC. Impact damage resistance and tolerance of honeycomb core sandwich panels. Journal of Composite Materials,2008.42 (4):385-412.
51. Anderson T, and Madenci E. Experimental investigation of low-velocity impact characteristics of sandwich composites. Composite Structures,2000.50 (3):239-247.
52. Cantwell WJ, Kiratisaevee H, Hazizan MA. Impact loading of lightweight structures. International Journal of Impact Engineering,2008.35 (1):61-63.
53. Lendze T, Wojtyra R, Guillaumat L. Biateau C, Imielinska K. Low velocity impact damage in glass/polyester composite sandwich panels. Advances in Materials Science, 2006.6:26-34.
54. Hosur MV, Mohammed AA, Jeelani S. Processing of nanoclay filled sandwich composites and their response to impact loading. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites,2008.27 (8):797-818.
55. Schubel PM, Luo JJ, Daniel IM. Low velocity impact behavior of composite sandwich panels. Composites Part A, Applied Science and Manufacturing,2005.36 (10):1389-1396.
56. Schubel PM, Luo JJ, Daniel IM. Impact and post impact behavior of composite sandwich panels. Composites Part A, Applied Science and Manufacturing,2007.38 (3):1051-1057.
57. Xia F, and Wu X. Work on low-velocity impact properties of foam sandwich composites with various face sheets. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites,2010.29 (7): 1045-1054.
58. Xia F, and Wu X. Work on impact properties of foam sandwich composites with different structure. Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials,2010.12 (1):47-62.
59. Leijten JB, Bergsma HEN, Beukers OK. Experimental study of the low-velocity impact behaviour of primary sandwich structures in aircraft. Composites Part A Applied Science and Manufacturing,2009.40 (2):164-175.
60. Cuntze RG. Efficient 3D and 2D failure conditions for UD laminae and their application within the verification of the laminate design. Composites Science and Technology,2006. 66(7-8):1081-1096.
61. Voyiadjis GZ, and Thiagarajan G. A cyclic anisotropic-plasticity model for metal matrix composites. International Journal of Plasticity,1996.12 (1):69-91.
62. Hayman B, Berggreen C, Jenstrup C, Karlsen K. Advanced mechanical testing of sandwich structures,. In 8th International Conference on Sandwich Structures ICSS 8. Porto, Portugal,2008:417-427.
63. ISO 844:2007, Determination of Compression Properties.5th edn, International Organization for Standardization,2007.
64. Castro OS, Jose M Devezas, Tessaleno Silva, Arlindo Gil, Luis. Cork agglomerates as an ideal core material in lightweight structures. Materials & Design,2010.31 (1):425-432.
65. Caprino G, and Teti R. Impact and post-impact behavior of foam core sandwich structures. Composite Structures,1994.29 (1):47-55.
66. Wu CL, and Sun CT. Low velocity impact damage in composite sandwich beams. Composite Structures,1996.34 (1):21-27.
67. Akil Hazizan M, and Cantwell WJ. The low velocity impact response of foam-based sandwich structures. Composites Part B Engineering,2002.33 (3):193-204.
68. Andrey Shipsha SHDZ. Failure mechanisms and modelling of impact damage in sandwich beams-A 2D Approach:Part Ⅰ-Experimental investigation. Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials,2003.5 (1):7-31.
69. Lee LJ, Huang KY, Fann YJ. Dynamic responses of composite sandwich plate impacted by a rigid ball. Journal of Composite Materials,1993.27 (13):1238-1256.
70. Herup EJ, and Palazotto AN. Low-velocity impact damage initiation in graphite/epoxy/Nomex honeycomb-sandwich plates. Composites Science and Technology, 1998.57 (12):1581-1598.
71. Mines RAW, Worrall CM, Gibson A.G. The static and impact behaviour of polymer composite sandwich beams. Composites,1994.25 (2):95-110.
72. Ivanez I, Santiuste C, Sanchez-Saez S. FEM analysis of dynamic flexural behaviour of composite sandwich beams with foam core. Composite Structures,2010.92 (9):2285-2291.
73. Malekzadeh K, Khalili MR, and Mittal RK. Response of composite sandwich panels with transversely flexible core to low-velocity transverse impact:A new dynamic model. International Journal of Impact Engineering,2007.34 (3):522-543.
74. Tagarielli VL, Deshpande VS, Fleck NA. The dynamic response of composite sandwich beams to transverse impact. International Journal of Solids and Structures,2007.44 (7-8):2442-2457.
75. Palazotto AN, Herup EJ, Gummadi LNB. Finite element analysis of low-velocity impact on composite sandwich plates. Composite Structures,2000.49 (2):209-227.
76. Yang M, and Qiao P. Higher-order impact modeling of sandwich structures with flexible core. International Journal of Solids and Structures,2005.42 (20):5460-5490.
77. Aktay L, Johnson AF, Kroplin BH. Numerical modelling of honeycomb core crush behaviour. Engineering Fracture Mechanics,2008.75 (9):2616-2630.
78. Hoo Fatt MS, and Park KS. Dynamic models for low-velocity impact damage of composite sandwich panels-Part A:Deformation. Composite Structures,2001.52 (3-4): 335-351.
79. Akil Hazizan M, and Cantwell WJ. The low velocity impact response of foam-based sandwich structures. Composites Part B Engineering,2002.33 (3):193-204.
80. Zhou DW and Stronge WJ. Low velocity impact denting of HSSA lightweight sandwich panel. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences,2006.48 (10):1031-1045.
81. Mines RAW, and Alias A. Numerical simulation of the progressive collapse of polymer composite sandwich beams under static loading. Composites Part A Applied Science and Manufacturing,2002.33 (1):11-26.
82. Sadighi M. and Pouriayeval H. Quasi-static and low-velocity impact response of fully backed or simply supported sandwich beams. Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials,2008.10 (6):499-524.
83. Foo CC, Chai GB, Seah LK. A model to predict low-velocity impact response and damage in sandwich composites. Composites Science and Technology,2008.68 (6): 1348-1356.
84. Manalo ACA, Karunasena T,Islam WM. Flexural behaviour of structural fibre composite sandwich beams in flatwise and edgewise positions. Composite Structures,2010.92 (4): 984-995.
85. Wang BW, Lin-Zhi Ma, Feng Li, Ji-Cai. Low-velocity impact characteristics and residual tensile strength of carbon fiber composite lattice core sandwich structures. Composites Part B Engineering,2011.42 (4):891-897.
86. Garcfa-Castillo SKS, Lopez-Puente S, Barbero J, Navarro EC. Impact behaviour of preloaded glass/polyester woven plates. Composites Science and Technology,2009.69 (6):711-717.
87. Qiao P. Refined analysis of torsion and in-plane shear of honeycomb sandwich structures. Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials,2005.7 (4):289-305.
88. Altenbach HaOA. Cellular and porous materials in structures and processes 2010, Wien New York, Springer.p.67-71.
89. Compston P, Styles M, Kalyanasundaram S. Low energy impact damage modes in aluminum foam and polymer foam sandwich structures. Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials,2006.8 (5):365-379.
90. Gupta N, Maharsia R, Dwayne Jerro H. Enhancement of energy absorption characteristics of hollow glass particle filled composites by rubber addition. Materials Science and Engineering:A,2005.395 (1-2):233-240.
91. Gupta N, Woldesenbet E, Mensah P. Compression properties of syntactic foams:effect of cenosphere radius ratio and specimen aspect ratio. Composites Part A Applied Science and Manufacturing,2004.35 (1):103-111.
92. d'Almeida JRM. An analysis of the effect of the diameters of glass microspheres on the mechanical behavior of glass-microsphere/epoxy-matrix composites. Composites Science and Technology,1999.59 (14):2087-2091.
93. Gupta N. Microballoon Wall Thickness Effects on Properties of Syntactic Foams. Journal of Cellular Plastics,2004.40 (6):461-480.
94. Woldesenbet E. Characterization of flexural properties of syntactic foam core sandwich composites and effect of density variation. Journal of Composite Materials,2005.39 (24): 2197-2212.
95. Woldesenbet E. Low velocity impact properties of nanoparticulate syntactic foams. Materials Science and Engineering:A,2008.496 (1-2):217-222.
96.Mae H. Omiya M, Kishimoto K. Effects of strain rate and density on tensile behavior of polypropylene syntactic foam with polymer microballoons. Materials Science and Engineering:A,2008.477 (1-2):168-178.
97. Petras A. Design of sandwich structures.phd thesis.Cambridge University Engineering Department,1998.
98. Flores-Johnson EA, and Li QM. Low velocity impact on polymeric foams. Journal of Cellular Plastics,2011.47 (1):45-63.
99. Rizov VI. Low velocity localized impact study of cellular foams. Materials & Design, 2007.28 (10):2632-2640.
100. D5308-92, ASTM. Semi-flexible cellular urethanes for automotive and similar energy absorption applications, annual book of astm standards. American Society for Testing and Materials 1992. p.1-12.
101. Gmb ER. Data CD "ROHACELL(?) the core for sandwich solutions.2008.
102. Li QM, Magkiriadis I, Harrigan JJ. Compressive strain at the onset of densification of cellular solids. Journal of Cellular Plastics,2006.42 (5):371-392.
103. Li QM, and Birch RS. The crush behavior of Rohacell-51WF structural foam. International Journal of Solids and Structures,2000 (37):6321-6341.
104. Will MA, Franz T, Nurick GN. The effect of laminate stacking sequence of CFRP filament wound tubes subjected to projectile impact. Composite Structures,2002.58 (2): 259-270.
105. Fuoss E, Straznicky PV, Poon C. Effects of stacking sequence on the impact resistance in composite laminates-Part 1:parametric study. Composite Structures,1998.41 (1):67-77.
106. Research AGFA, Paris D, Leomand GC. Failure modes of composite materials with organic matrices and their consequences on design,1975:North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development.p.3-127.
107. Zhou G, Green ER, Morrison C. In-plane and interlaminar shear properties of carbon/epoxy laminates. Composites Science and Technology,1995.55 (2):187-193.
108. Rugg K, Cox L, Ward BN, Sherrick GO. Damage mechanisms for angled through-thickness rod reinforcement in carbon-epoxy laminates. Composites Part A Applied Science and Manufacturing,1998.29(12):1603-1613.
109. Li S, Reid SR, Zou Z. Modelling damage of multiple delaminations and transverse matrix cracking in laminated composites due to low velocity lateral impact. Composites Science and Technology,2006.66 (6):827-836.
110. Lopresto V, Melito V, Leone C, Caprino G. Effect of stitches on the impact behaviour of graphite/epoxy composites. Composites Science and Technology,2006.66 (2):206-214.
111. Boresi A, Pas RJ, Sidebottom OM. Advanced mechanics of materials,2003. John Wiley and Sons, New York.p 1-11.
112. Aktas, M., Temperature effect on impact behavior of laminated composite plates. PhD thesis, Dokuz Eyliil University,2007.
113. Lee LJ, H KY, Fann YJ. Dynamic responses of composite sandwich plates impacted by a rigid ball. Journal of Composite Material,1993.27 (13):1238-1256.
114. Hks. ABAQUS Theory Manual. Version V6.10,2010.
115.庄茁,由小川,廖剑晖,等.基于ABAQUS的有限元分析和应用清华大学出版社北京.2008.p 352-356.
116. Arezoo S, Tagarielli VL, Petrinic N, Reed JM. The mechanical response of Rohacell foams at different length scales. Journal of Materials Science,2011.46(21):6863-6870.
117. Hooputra H, Gese H, Dell H, Werner H. A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions. International Journal of Crashworthiness,1991.9 (5):449-463.
118. Hashin Z, and Rotem. A fatigue failure criterion for fiber reinforced materials. Journal of Composite Material 1973.7:448-464.
119. Camanho PP, Davila CG. Mixed-mode decohesion finite elements for the simulation of delamination in composite materials. NASA/TM-2002-211737,2002. p.1-37.
120. Shahdin AM, Laurent Bouvet, Christophe Morlier, JosephGourinat Yves. Fabrication and mechanical testing of glass fiber entangled sandwich beams:A comparison with honeycomb and foam sandwich beams. Composite Structures,2009.90 (4):404-412.
121. Radford DD, Fleck NA, Deshpande VS. The response of clamped sandwich beams subjected to shock loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering,2006.32 (6): 968-987.
122. McShane GJR, Deshpande DD, Fleck VS. The response of clamped sandwich plates with lattice cores subjected to shock loading. European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids,2006. 25 (2):215-229.
123. Rubino V, Deshpande VS, Fleck NA. The dynamic response of end-clamped sandwich beams with a Y-frame or corrugated core. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2008.35 (8):829-844.
124. Rubino V, Deshpande VS, Fleck NA. The dynamic response of clamped rectangular Y-frame and corrugated core sandwich plates. European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids, 2009.28 (1):14-24.
125. Bing Wang LW, Li Ma, Qiang Wang, Shanyi Du. Fabrication and testing of carbon fiber reinforced truss core sandwich panels. Journal of Material Science and Technology, 2009.25 (4):547-550.
126. Santiuste C, Sanchez-Saez S, Barbero E. Dynamic analysis of bending-torsion coupled composite beams using the flexibility influence function method. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences,2008.50 (12):1611-1618.
127. Haszin Z. Failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composites. Journal of Applied Mechanics Transactions ASME,1980.47(2):329-334.
2. Vasiliev VV and Morozov EV. Advanced mechanics of composite materials second edition,2007. Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford.p.10-30.
3. Campbell FC. Structural composite materials 2010, ASM International, p.1-29.
4. Tuttle ME. Structural analysis of polymeric composite materials 2nd ed,2012. CRC Press.p 1-5.
5. Niu MCY. Composite airframe structures,1992. Hong Kong Conmilit Press Limited.p. 11-15.
6. Morgan P. Carbon fibers and their Composites,2005. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. p. 839-851.
7. Tong L.3D Fibre reinforced polymer composites,2002. Elsevier Science Ltd Kidlington, Oxford OX5 IGB, UK. p.1-5.
8. Proulx T. Experimental and applied mechanics volume 6:Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on experimental and applied mechanics.Experimental Mechanics,Inc Springer,2011. p.393-398.
9. Steeves CA, and Fleck NA. Material selection in sandwich beam construction. Scripta Materialia,2004.50 (10):1335-1339.
10. Daniel IM, and Abot JL. Fabrication, testing and analysis of composite sandwich beams. Composites Science and Technology,2000.60 (12-13):2455-2463.
11. Mai SP, Fleck NA, Lu TJ. Optimal design of box-section sandwich beams in three-point bending. International Journal of Solids and Structures,2007.44 (14-15):4742-4769.
12. Galletti GG, Vinquist C, Es-Said OS. Theoretical design and analysis of a honeycomb panel sandwich structure loaded in pure bending. Engineering Failure Analysis,2008.15 (5):555-562.
13. Torre L. and Kenny JM. Impact testing and simulation of composite sandwich structures for civil transportation. Composite Structures,2000.50(3):251-261.
14.罗靓,张佐光,李敏,沈真,杨胜春.复合材料层合板准静态压痕实验研究.复合材料学报,2007.24(3)：154-159
15.沈真,杨胜春,陈普会.复合材料抗冲击性能和结构压缩设计许用值.航空学报,2007.28(3)：561-566.
16.沈真,张子龙,王进,杨胜春,叶林.复合材料损伤阻抗和损伤容限的性能表征.复合材料学报.2004.21(5)：140-145.
17. Ashby LJ. Cellular solids:Structure and properties second edition,2001.Pergamon Press, Oxford.p 343-383.
18. Allen HG. Analysis and design of structural sandwich panels,1993. Pergamon Press, London.p.1-44.
19. Rajesh Mathivanan N. and Jerald J. Experimental investigation of low-velocity impact characteristics of woven glass fiber epoxy matrix composite laminates of EP3 grade. Materials & Design,2010.31 (9):4553-4560.
20. Mehmet A, Bulent CA, and KR. An experimental investigation of the impact response of composite laminates. Composite Structures,2009.87 (4):307-313.
21. Rajesh Mathivanan N, and Jerald J. Experimental investigation of woven e-glass epoxy composite laminates subjected to low-velocity impact at different energy levels. Journal of Minerals & Materials Characterization & Engineering,2010.9 (7):643-652.
22. Naveen V, Alagirusamy R, Deopura BL. Low velocity impact behaviour of textile reinforced composites. Indian Journal of Fibre & Textile Research,2008.33 (2):189-202.
23. Marguerre K. The optimum buckling load of a flexibly supported plate composed of two sheets joinedby a light weight filler, when under longitudinal compression. Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrist fur Literalurwissenschaft und Giests Geschiechte, D.V.L,1944. p.5.
24. Zenkert D. Introduction to sandwich construction 1995:Engineering Materials Advisory Services Ltd. p.277.
25. Thomsen OT, Bozhevolnaya E, Lyckegaard A. Sandwich structures 7.Advancing with sandwich structures and materials,2005. Aalborng University, Denmark, Springer.p 3-12.
26. Divecha AP, and Karmarkar SD. Silicon carbide reinforced aluminum-A Formable Composite, Journal of Materials,1981.33 (9):12-17.
27. Lee JY, Jung DW, Choi NS. Fatigue fracture behavior and statistical life evaluation of hybrid composite/metal beam-joints for a low-floor bus. Journal of Composite Materials, 2011.46(14):1755-1764.
28. Flores-Johnson EA. Quasi-static indentation and low velocity impact on polymeric foams and CFRP sandwich panels with polymeric foam cores. PhD thesis. School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, The University of Manchester: Manchester,2009.
29. Mohan KY, Tick-Hon Sridhar, Idapalapati Seow H. Effect of face sheet material on the indentation response of metallic foams. Journal of Materials Science,2007.42 (11): 3714-3723.
30. Rizov V, Shipsha A, Zenkert D. Indentation study of foam core sandwich composite panels. Composite Structures,2005.69 (1):95-102.
31. Zhou G. Damage Characteristics of Composite Honeycomb Sandwich Panels in Bending under Quasi-static Loading. Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials,2006.8(1): 55-90.
32. http://www.midas-ndt.co.uk/ttl.html
33. Flores-Johnson EA, and Li QM. Degradation of elastic modulus of progressively crushable foams in uniaxial compression. Journal of Cellular Plastics,2008.44 (5):415-434.
34. Flores-Johnson EA, and Li QM. Indentation into polymeric foams. International Journal of Solids and Structures,2010.47 (16):1987-1995.
35. Baral NC, Partridge DDR, Baley IK, Davies CP. Improved impact performance of marine sandwich panels using through-thickness reinforcement:Experimental results. Composites Part B Engineering,2010.41 (2):117-123.
36. Flores-Johnson EA, and Li QM. Experimental study of the indentation of sandwich panels with carbon fibre-reinforced polymer face sheets and polymeric foam core. Composites Part B Engineering,2011.42 (5):1212-1219.
37. Icardi U, and Ferrero L. Impact analysis of sandwich composites based on a refined plate element with strain energy updating. Composite Structures,2009.89 (1):35-51.
38. Lu GS, Hou J, Ruan W, Ong DLS. Dynamic indentation and penetration of aluminium foams. International Journal'of Mechanical Sciences,2008.50 (5):932-943.
39. Hou W, Huang XQ, Lu G, Zhang H. Failure modes of circular aluminium sandwich panels with foam core under quasi-static loading.6th Asia-Pacific Conference,2005: 275-282.
40. Ruan D, Lu G, Wong YC. Quasi-static indentation tests on aluminium foam sandwich panels. Composite Structures,2010.92 (9):2039-2046.
41. Sjoblom PO, Hartness JT, Cordell TM, On low-velocity impact testing of composite materials. Journal of Composite Materials,1988.22(1):30-52.
42. Shivakumar KN, Elber W, Illg W. Prediction of low-velocity impact damage in thin circular laminates. AIAA Journal,1985.23 (3):442-449.
43. Cantwell WJ, and Morton J. The impact resistance of composite materials:A review. Composites,1991.22 (5):347-362.
44. Abrate S. Impact of laminated composite materials:A Review. Applied Mechanical Review,1991.44 (4):155-190.
45. Liu D, and Malvern LE. Matrix cracking in impacted glass/epoxy plates. Journal of Composite Materials,1987.19 (3):594-609.
46. Gdoutos EE. Experimental analysis of nano and engineering materials and structure. Proceedings of the 13 international conference on experimental mechanics,2007. Alexandroupolis, Greece, Springer.p.19-20.
47. Santiuste C, Sanchez-Saez S, Barbero E. Application of the flexibility influence function method in the dynamic analysis of composite beams. International Journal of Solids Structure,2007.44 (15):4795-4809.
48. Kim CG, and Jun EJ. Impact resistance of composite laminated sandwich plates. Journal of Composite Materials,1992.26 (15):2247-2261.
49. Sun CT. Low velocity impact of composite sandwich panels. In:Proc 32th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conf.1991: 1123-1129.
51. Raju KSS, Tomblin JS, Liew KH, Guarddon JC. Impact damage resistance and tolerance of honeycomb core sandwich panels. Journal of Composite Materials,2008.42 (4):385-412.
51. Anderson T, and Madenci E. Experimental investigation of low-velocity impact characteristics of sandwich composites. Composite Structures,2000.50 (3):239-247.
52. Cantwell WJ, Kiratisaevee H, Hazizan MA. Impact loading of lightweight structures. International Journal of Impact Engineering,2008.35 (1):61-63.
53. Lendze T, Wojtyra R, Guillaumat L. Biateau C, Imielinska K. Low velocity impact damage in glass/polyester composite sandwich panels. Advances in Materials Science, 2006.6:26-34.
54. Hosur MV, Mohammed AA, Jeelani S. Processing of nanoclay filled sandwich composites and their response to impact loading. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites,2008.27 (8):797-818.
55. Schubel PM, Luo JJ, Daniel IM. Low velocity impact behavior of composite sandwich panels. Composites Part A, Applied Science and Manufacturing,2005.36 (10):1389-1396.
56. Schubel PM, Luo JJ, Daniel IM. Impact and post impact behavior of composite sandwich panels. Composites Part A, Applied Science and Manufacturing,2007.38 (3):1051-1057.
57. Xia F, and Wu X. Work on low-velocity impact properties of foam sandwich composites with various face sheets. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites,2010.29 (7): 1045-1054.
58. Xia F, and Wu X. Work on impact properties of foam sandwich composites with different structure. Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials,2010.12 (1):47-62.
59. Leijten JB, Bergsma HEN, Beukers OK. Experimental study of the low-velocity impact behaviour of primary sandwich structures in aircraft. Composites Part A Applied Science and Manufacturing,2009.40 (2):164-175.
60. Cuntze RG. Efficient 3D and 2D failure conditions for UD laminae and their application within the verification of the laminate design. Composites Science and Technology,2006. 66(7-8):1081-1096.
61. Voyiadjis GZ, and Thiagarajan G. A cyclic anisotropic-plasticity model for metal matrix composites. International Journal of Plasticity,1996.12 (1):69-91.
62. Hayman B, Berggreen C, Jenstrup C, Karlsen K. Advanced mechanical testing of sandwich structures,. In 8th International Conference on Sandwich Structures ICSS 8. Porto, Portugal,2008:417-427.
63. ISO 844:2007, Determination of Compression Properties.5th edn, International Organization for Standardization,2007.
64. Castro OS, Jose M Devezas, Tessaleno Silva, Arlindo Gil, Luis. Cork agglomerates as an ideal core material in lightweight structures. Materials & Design,2010.31 (1):425-432.
65. Caprino G, and Teti R. Impact and post-impact behavior of foam core sandwich structures. Composite Structures,1994.29 (1):47-55.
66. Wu CL, and Sun CT. Low velocity impact damage in composite sandwich beams. Composite Structures,1996.34 (1):21-27.
67. Akil Hazizan M, and Cantwell WJ. The low velocity impact response of foam-based sandwich structures. Composites Part B Engineering,2002.33 (3):193-204.
68. Andrey Shipsha SHDZ. Failure mechanisms and modelling of impact damage in sandwich beams-A 2D Approach:Part Ⅰ-Experimental investigation. Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials,2003.5 (1):7-31.
69. Lee LJ, Huang KY, Fann YJ. Dynamic responses of composite sandwich plate impacted by a rigid ball. Journal of Composite Materials,1993.27 (13):1238-1256.
70. Herup EJ, and Palazotto AN. Low-velocity impact damage initiation in graphite/epoxy/Nomex honeycomb-sandwich plates. Composites Science and Technology, 1998.57 (12):1581-1598.
71. Mines RAW, Worrall CM, Gibson A.G. The static and impact behaviour of polymer composite sandwich beams. Composites,1994.25 (2):95-110.
72. Ivanez I, Santiuste C, Sanchez-Saez S. FEM analysis of dynamic flexural behaviour of composite sandwich beams with foam core. Composite Structures,2010.92 (9):2285-2291.
73. Malekzadeh K, Khalili MR, and Mittal RK. Response of composite sandwich panels with transversely flexible core to low-velocity transverse impact:A new dynamic model. International Journal of Impact Engineering,2007.34 (3):522-543.
74. Tagarielli VL, Deshpande VS, Fleck NA. The dynamic response of composite sandwich beams to transverse impact. International Journal of Solids and Structures,2007.44 (7-8):2442-2457.
75. Palazotto AN, Herup EJ, Gummadi LNB. Finite element analysis of low-velocity impact on composite sandwich plates. Composite Structures,2000.49 (2):209-227.
76. Yang M, and Qiao P. Higher-order impact modeling of sandwich structures with flexible core. International Journal of Solids and Structures,2005.42 (20):5460-5490.
77. Aktay L, Johnson AF, Kroplin BH. Numerical modelling of honeycomb core crush behaviour. Engineering Fracture Mechanics,2008.75 (9):2616-2630.
78. Hoo Fatt MS, and Park KS. Dynamic models for low-velocity impact damage of composite sandwich panels-Part A:Deformation. Composite Structures,2001.52 (3-4): 335-351.
79. Akil Hazizan M, and Cantwell WJ. The low velocity impact response of foam-based sandwich structures. Composites Part B Engineering,2002.33 (3):193-204.
80. Zhou DW and Stronge WJ. Low velocity impact denting of HSSA lightweight sandwich panel. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences,2006.48 (10):1031-1045.
81. Mines RAW, and Alias A. Numerical simulation of the progressive collapse of polymer composite sandwich beams under static loading. Composites Part A Applied Science and Manufacturing,2002.33 (1):11-26.
82. Sadighi M. and Pouriayeval H. Quasi-static and low-velocity impact response of fully backed or simply supported sandwich beams. Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials,2008.10 (6):499-524.
83. Foo CC, Chai GB, Seah LK. A model to predict low-velocity impact response and damage in sandwich composites. Composites Science and Technology,2008.68 (6): 1348-1356.
84. Manalo ACA, Karunasena T,Islam WM. Flexural behaviour of structural fibre composite sandwich beams in flatwise and edgewise positions. Composite Structures,2010.92 (4): 984-995.
85. Wang BW, Lin-Zhi Ma, Feng Li, Ji-Cai. Low-velocity impact characteristics and residual tensile strength of carbon fiber composite lattice core sandwich structures. Composites Part B Engineering,2011.42 (4):891-897.
86. Garcfa-Castillo SKS, Lopez-Puente S, Barbero J, Navarro EC. Impact behaviour of preloaded glass/polyester woven plates. Composites Science and Technology,2009.69 (6):711-717.
87. Qiao P. Refined analysis of torsion and in-plane shear of honeycomb sandwich structures. Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials,2005.7 (4):289-305.
88. Altenbach HaOA. Cellular and porous materials in structures and processes 2010, Wien New York, Springer.p.67-71.
89. Compston P, Styles M, Kalyanasundaram S. Low energy impact damage modes in aluminum foam and polymer foam sandwich structures. Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials,2006.8 (5):365-379.
90. Gupta N, Maharsia R, Dwayne Jerro H. Enhancement of energy absorption characteristics of hollow glass particle filled composites by rubber addition. Materials Science and Engineering:A,2005.395 (1-2):233-240.
91. Gupta N, Woldesenbet E, Mensah P. Compression properties of syntactic foams:effect of cenosphere radius ratio and specimen aspect ratio. Composites Part A Applied Science and Manufacturing,2004.35 (1):103-111.
92. d'Almeida JRM. An analysis of the effect of the diameters of glass microspheres on the mechanical behavior of glass-microsphere/epoxy-matrix composites. Composites Science and Technology,1999.59 (14):2087-2091.
93. Gupta N. Microballoon Wall Thickness Effects on Properties of Syntactic Foams. Journal of Cellular Plastics,2004.40 (6):461-480.
94. Woldesenbet E. Characterization of flexural properties of syntactic foam core sandwich composites and effect of density variation. Journal of Composite Materials,2005.39 (24): 2197-2212.
95. Woldesenbet E. Low velocity impact properties of nanoparticulate syntactic foams. Materials Science and Engineering:A,2008.496 (1-2):217-222.
96.Mae H. Omiya M, Kishimoto K. Effects of strain rate and density on tensile behavior of polypropylene syntactic foam with polymer microballoons. Materials Science and Engineering:A,2008.477 (1-2):168-178.
97. Petras A. Design of sandwich structures.phd thesis.Cambridge University Engineering Department,1998.
98. Flores-Johnson EA, and Li QM. Low velocity impact on polymeric foams. Journal of Cellular Plastics,2011.47 (1):45-63.
99. Rizov VI. Low velocity localized impact study of cellular foams. Materials & Design, 2007.28 (10):2632-2640.
100. D5308-92, ASTM. Semi-flexible cellular urethanes for automotive and similar energy absorption applications, annual book of astm standards. American Society for Testing and Materials 1992. p.1-12.
101. Gmb ER. Data CD "ROHACELL(?) the core for sandwich solutions.2008.
102. Li QM, Magkiriadis I, Harrigan JJ. Compressive strain at the onset of densification of cellular solids. Journal of Cellular Plastics,2006.42 (5):371-392.
103. Li QM, and Birch RS. The crush behavior of Rohacell-51WF structural foam. International Journal of Solids and Structures,2000 (37):6321-6341.
104. Will MA, Franz T, Nurick GN. The effect of laminate stacking sequence of CFRP filament wound tubes subjected to projectile impact. Composite Structures,2002.58 (2): 259-270.
105. Fuoss E, Straznicky PV, Poon C. Effects of stacking sequence on the impact resistance in composite laminates-Part 1:parametric study. Composite Structures,1998.41 (1):67-77.
106. Research AGFA, Paris D, Leomand GC. Failure modes of composite materials with organic matrices and their consequences on design,1975:North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development.p.3-127.
107. Zhou G, Green ER, Morrison C. In-plane and interlaminar shear properties of carbon/epoxy laminates. Composites Science and Technology,1995.55 (2):187-193.
108. Rugg K, Cox L, Ward BN, Sherrick GO. Damage mechanisms for angled through-thickness rod reinforcement in carbon-epoxy laminates. Composites Part A Applied Science and Manufacturing,1998.29(12):1603-1613.
109. Li S, Reid SR, Zou Z. Modelling damage of multiple delaminations and transverse matrix cracking in laminated composites due to low velocity lateral impact. Composites Science and Technology,2006.66 (6):827-836.
110. Lopresto V, Melito V, Leone C, Caprino G. Effect of stitches on the impact behaviour of graphite/epoxy composites. Composites Science and Technology,2006.66 (2):206-214.
111. Boresi A, Pas RJ, Sidebottom OM. Advanced mechanics of materials,2003. John Wiley and Sons, New York.p 1-11.
112. Aktas, M., Temperature effect on impact behavior of laminated composite plates. PhD thesis, Dokuz Eyliil University,2007.
113. Lee LJ, H KY, Fann YJ. Dynamic responses of composite sandwich plates impacted by a rigid ball. Journal of Composite Material,1993.27 (13):1238-1256.
114. Hks. ABAQUS Theory Manual. Version V6.10,2010.
115.庄茁,由小川,廖剑晖,等.基于ABAQUS的有限元分析和应用清华大学出版社北京.2008.p 352-356.
116. Arezoo S, Tagarielli VL, Petrinic N, Reed JM. The mechanical response of Rohacell foams at different length scales. Journal of Materials Science,2011.46(21):6863-6870.
117. Hooputra H, Gese H, Dell H, Werner H. A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions. International Journal of Crashworthiness,1991.9 (5):449-463.
118. Hashin Z, and Rotem. A fatigue failure criterion for fiber reinforced materials. Journal of Composite Material 1973.7:448-464.
119. Camanho PP, Davila CG. Mixed-mode decohesion finite elements for the simulation of delamination in composite materials. NASA/TM-2002-211737,2002. p.1-37.
120. Shahdin AM, Laurent Bouvet, Christophe Morlier, JosephGourinat Yves. Fabrication and mechanical testing of glass fiber entangled sandwich beams:A comparison with honeycomb and foam sandwich beams. Composite Structures,2009.90 (4):404-412.
121. Radford DD, Fleck NA, Deshpande VS. The response of clamped sandwich beams subjected to shock loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering,2006.32 (6): 968-987.
122. McShane GJR, Deshpande DD, Fleck VS. The response of clamped sandwich plates with lattice cores subjected to shock loading. European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids,2006. 25 (2):215-229.
123. Rubino V, Deshpande VS, Fleck NA. The dynamic response of end-clamped sandwich beams with a Y-frame or corrugated core. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2008.35 (8):829-844.
124. Rubino V, Deshpande VS, Fleck NA. The dynamic response of clamped rectangular Y-frame and corrugated core sandwich plates. European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids, 2009.28 (1):14-24.
125. Bing Wang LW, Li Ma, Qiang Wang, Shanyi Du. Fabrication and testing of carbon fiber reinforced truss core sandwich panels. Journal of Material Science and Technology, 2009.25 (4):547-550.
126. Santiuste C, Sanchez-Saez S, Barbero E. Dynamic analysis of bending-torsion coupled composite beams using the flexibility influence function method. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences,2008.50 (12):1611-1618.
127. Haszin Z. Failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composites. Journal of Applied Mechanics Transactions ASME,1980.47(2):329-334.