2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2006.06.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fatigue analysis of honeycomb-composite sandwich beams

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In sandwich type panels, face compression and core debonding are observed in case of both undamaged and initially weakened panels (wESCP) (Belingardi et al 2007). The fatigue strength is dependent of the kind and amount of adhesive applied but the thickness of face sheet is not influential (Jen et al 2009a,b).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In sandwich type panels, face compression and core debonding are observed in case of both undamaged and initially weakened panels (wESCP) (Belingardi et al 2007). The fatigue strength is dependent of the kind and amount of adhesive applied but the thickness of face sheet is not influential (Jen et al 2009a,b).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The results of these analytical and numerical approaches have been compared to experimental data. The fatigue strength of sandwich beams with aluminium honeycomb core and composite face sheets under four-point bending tests has been analysed by Belingardi et al [7]. While in the case of nomex honeycomb and composite sheets joined by fasteners a study under static and fatigue loading has been investigated by Demelio et al [8].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Bezazi et al [23] used an artificial neural network to predict the bending fatigue life of sandwich structures with cross-ply laminate skins and polymer foam cores. Belingardi et al [24] compared fatigue failure behaviors between undamaged and damaged honeycomb-composite sandwich beams in 2006. The failure mode for undamaged sandwich beams was collapse of the compressed face while that for the interfacial damaged specimens was collapse of the honeycomb cell walls near the debonded portion.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%