17

Prediction of Modal Damping of FRP-Honeycomb

Sandwich Panels with Arbitrary Geometries

Abstract A. Abbasloo a
In this work, the modal characteristics, including modal damping, M.R. Maheri b
of FRP composite skin, honeycomb core sandwich panels with
arbitrary geometries are computed using a mixed finite element- a
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
meshless method. By using the meshless node distribution scheme
Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman,
in conjunction with the lagrangian quadrilateral interpolating func-
Iran. Email:
tions, the continuity of inter-elemental displacements is assured.
aslan.abbasloo@sirjantech.ac.ir
Since the distribution of the elements is not limited to the geome- b
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
try of the problem, any arbitrary geometry can be readily analysed
Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman,
by using the same node and element distributions. Using the first
Iran. Email: mrmaheri@uk.ac.ir
order shear deformation plate theory, together with a structural
damping model, modal response results are produced for a number
of sandwich panel geometries, including triangular, trapezoidal, http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1679-78252537
circular as well as rectangular plates with different combinations of
free and clamped edges. Results are compared with those reported Received 19.05.2016
in the literature, showing the viability and the accuracy of the Accepted 30.10.2016
method. Available online 30.10.2016

Keywords
Sandwich panel, FRP composite, honeycomb, modal, structural
damping, meshless, finite element.

1 INTRODUCTION

Aerospace structures bearing lateral loads are normally made from a light, spacer core sandwiched
between two load-bearing skins. Increasingly, aerospace sandwich materials have fibre reinforced
polymer (FRP) composites as their skins, and often a honeycomb material made from resin-soaked
paper as their core. Compared to the traditional aluminium sandwich, not only do these materials
enjoy a greater stiffness to weight ratio, they are also far more damped.
Sandwich modal damping is a function of several factors, including the sandwich skin/core
damping and thickness ratio, its planar aspect ratio and its end conditions. With multilayer FRP
18 A. Abbasloo and M.R. Maheri / Prediction of Modal Damping of FRP-Honeycomb Sandwich Panels with Arbitrary Geometries

skins, the skin damping capacity will itself be a function of layer orientation and stacking sequence.
(Maheri et al., 2008; Maheri and Adams, 1994; Thamburaj and Sun, 2001).
Some work on sandwich damping (Soovere, 1984; Meunier and Shenoi, 2001) have used a rate-
dependent viscoelastic damping model while others (Maheri et al., 2008; Koo and Lee, 1995; Yim
and Gillespie, 2000) have opted for a simpler rate-independent structural damping model. Most
often, carbon and glass fibre FRP composites can be considered to be rigid enough to render the
viscoelastic effect negligible. A viscoelastic analysis, however, lends itself more to situations where
highly viscoelastic materials are purposely added to the structure as a constrained or free layer to
increase damping.
Sandwich modal properties has long attracted a considerable attention. Various theories have
been proposed regarding the mechanics of sandwich deformation and damping. Often, a simple, first
order shear deformation theory has been used (Maheri et al., 2008; Liu and Zhao, 2001; Zhao and
Stronge, 2006). To describe the sandwich shear deformation more accurately, higher order shear
deformation theories have been developed (Liu and Zhao, 2007; Elmalichand Rabinovitch, 2012;
Phan et al., 2013). Numerous factors influence sandwich damping, and these too have been the sub-
ject of some investigations (Maheri et al., 2008; Maheri and Adams, 1994; Thamburaj and Sun,
2001; Yaman and Onal, 2015).
The sandwich panels considered in the above studies have generally been of a rectangular shape.
The primary aim of the present work was to devise a method through which FRP-Honeycom sand-
wich panels with any arbitrary geometry and boundary conditions could be readily and conveniently
analysed for their modal characteristics, particularly structural damping. The first order shear de-
formation theory is used for sandwich deformation since any refinement in the damping results pro-
duced by a higher order theory is well within the expected tolerance of damping measurements. We
have used a combination of the meshless node distribution and the finite element (FE) techniques in
which, similar to the latter method, rectangular elements are arranged side by side so that they
cover the domain of the problem, while the meshless technique is used to ensure the inter-elemental
continuity of the displacement functions and their derivatives. The meshless node distribution whol-
ly covers the problem domain, and the boundary elements are of the same rectangular shape as the
elements that lie within the geometric domain. Since some boundary elements could extend beyond
the geometric bonds of the problem, the actual boundary is defined at the integration stage where
the energies are computed only within the problem domain. Because the geometric bounds of the
particular problem are independent of the node and element distributions, the same predefined nod-
al and elemental distributions may be used to analyse any arbitrary shape, thereby saving on com-
putational and human resources.
The proposed method in the present work has been compared with the Rayleigh-Ritz analysis of
(Maheri et al., 2008). It is noted that while any arbitrarily shaped plate can be solved using the
present method, the Rayleigh-Ritz analysis is limited to the solution of rectangular plates.
A number of panel geometries, including triangular, trapezoidal, circular as well as rectangular
shapes have been considered. Both clamped and free edges have been considered for the sandwich
boundary conditions. Where available, the results have been compared with those previously report-
ed in the literature.

Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 14 (2017) 17-35

 A. Abbasloo and M.R. Maheri / Prediction of Modal Damping of FRP-Honeycomb Sandwich Panels with Arbitrary Geometries 19

2 THEORY

The discretization scheme used in the present work is based on a combination of the finite element
and the meshless methods. Considering an element of a mid-plane symmetric sandwich plate with
FRP skins and a honeycomb core (Figure 1), the displacements within the element are functions of
the displacements in the sixteen surrounding nodes. As in the FE scheme, the sixteen-noded lagran-
gian quadrilateral is duly used for interpolation. These sixteen nodes constitute part of the meshless
support domain for the points inside the element.

Figure 1: Sandwich panel element in a meshless node distribution.

Shown in Figure 2 is a 3-D diagram of the sandwich plate and its assumed DOFs which include
the displacement w in the z-direction, and the two total rotations  x and  y about the y- and the
x-axes respectively. Each rotation comprises the rotation due to bending and the rotation due to
transverse shear.

Figure 2: 3-D vision of sandwich panel and its DOFs.

The plate’s displacement field according to the first order shear deformation theory is given as

Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 14 (2017) 17-35

20 A. Abbasloo and M.R. Maheri / Prediction of Modal Damping of FRP-Honeycomb Sandwich Panels with Arbitrary Geometries

u x   x z
u y   y z
w  w ( x, y )

Using the following usual convention in referring to the stress and strain components,

xx 1, yy  2,zz  3, xz  4, yz  5, xy  6

Then strain components   are found from Equations (1) as

  x 
  z 
x
 
  y 
 1    z   1 z 
   y  z 

 2   w   2 
    4    ( x  x )     4  (1)
     
 5  w   4
 6   (  y  )    6 z 
y
 
  x  y 
 (  )z
 y x 

Assuming that the strain energy of the sandwich element shown in Figure 1 is a piecewise func-
tion of the strain energies of the skins and the core, then it can be written as
h
1 L zk 1 2c
        hc (     Gc   dxdy )dz
T T
Ue  (  
Q (k )

  dxdy ) dz  (2)
2 k 1 zk 1 e 2  2 e

in which L is the total number of layers in both skins, zk and z( k 1) are the distances from the
sandwich mid-plane to the outer and the inner faces of the kth layer of the skins respectively, hc is
the core thickness, and

Q  T   Q T1  (3.1)

 
 0 0 0 0 0
 0 0 0 0 

Gc    Gxz 0 0 (3.2)
 
 Sym Gyz 0
 0 

Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 14 (2017) 17-35

 A. Abbasloo and M.R. Maheri / Prediction of Modal Damping of FRP-Honeycomb Sandwich Panels with Arbitrary Geometries 21

where  Q  is the off-axis, plane stress orthotropic stiffness matrix for each layer k of the FRP lam-

inate skins, and Gc  is the stiffness matrix of the core. The off-axis stiffness matrix Q  is given

in terms of the on-axis stiffness matrix, [Qi j ] , whose components are given in terms of the ortho-
tropic elastic property constants of the skins as

 E12 12 E1 E2 
 0 0 0 
 E1  12 E2 E1  12 2 E2
2

 E1E2 
 0 0 0 
E1  12 2 E2
[Qi j ]    (4)
 G12 0 0 
 
 Sym. E2
 0 
2(1  23 )
 G12 
 

The stress and strain transformation matrices in equation (1) are given as

 m2 n2 0 0 mn   m2 n2 2mn 
0 0
 2   2 
 n m2 0 0 mn   n m2 0 0 2mn 
T    0 0 m n 0  , T    0 0 m n 0 
    (5)
 0 0 n m 0   0 0 n m 0 
2mn 2mn 0 0 m 2  n 2  mn mn 0 0 m 2  n 2 
  
where m  cos( ) and n  sin( )

It is noted that Equations (3) and (4) reflect the assumption that while the in-plane damping of
the honeycomb material can always be neglected with little loss of accuracy, the shear damping of
the skins can be significant depending on the skin/core relative thickness.
Equation (1) in equation (2) will give

L
1 1 (k ) 2
U e   ( (k s (Q (45k ) 4 5  Q (44k ) 42  Q 55 5 )(z k  z k 1 )
k 1
e 2 2
1 (k ) 2
 (Q 11 1 Q 22 2 Q 66
(k ) 2
6  2Q 12(k )12  2Q 16( k )16  2Q (26k ) 2 6 )
(k ) 2
(6)
6
1
(z k3  z k3 1 ))dxdy )  k s hc  (Gxz 42 G yz 52 )dxdy
2 e

Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 14 (2017) 17-35

22 A. Abbasloo and M.R. Maheri / Prediction of Modal Damping of FRP-Honeycomb Sandwich Panels with Arbitrary Geometries

in which ks is a shear correction factor, normally assumed to be about 5/6. For each node p, the
displacements can be written in terms of the 16-noded lagrangian interpolating functions ( i ) as

w( x, y)  i wi
 x ( x, y)  
i xi , i  1, 2,316 (7)
 y ( x, y)  
i yi

Therefore, the curvatures {} in equation (1) can be written as

i
1    xi
x

2   i  yi
y
i
 4  
i xi  wi , i  1, 2, 316 (8)
x
i
 5  
i yi  wi
y
 
 6  ( i  x i  i  y i )
y x

Substituting equation (8) in equation (6) will give the element’s strain energy as

Ue  Aij wi wj  Bij wi x j  Cij wi y j  Dij xi x j  Fij yi y j  Hij xi y j (9)

in which

1   j   j 1 L
A ij  k s hc  (G xz i  G yz i )dx dy  k s  (z k  z k 1 )
2 Ωe
x x y y 2 k 1
(10.1)
  j   j   j i  j
( (Q (4k4 ) i  Q 5(k5 ) i  Q (45k )( i  ))dx dy )
e x x y y x y y x

i
B ij  k s hc  G xz  j dx dy
Ωe
x
(10.2)
L
 
k s  (z k  z k 1 )(  (Q (44k ) i  Q (45k ) i ) j dx dy
k 1
e x y

Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 14 (2017) 17-35

 A. Abbasloo and M.R. Maheri / Prediction of Modal Damping of FRP-Honeycomb Sandwich Panels with Arbitrary Geometries 23

i
C ij   k s hc  G yz  j dx d y
Ωe
y
(10.3)
L
i ( k ) i
 k s  (z k  z k 1 )(  (Q (k )
45  Q 55 ) j dx dy
k 1
e x y

1 L ( k )i
 j ( k ) i
 j
D ij  
6 k 1
(z k3  z k3 1 )(  (Q 11
 e x x
 Q 66
y y
(10.4)
( k ) i
 j i  j 1 L
Q 16 (  ))dx dy )  k s ( Q (44k )(z k  z k 1 )  hcG xz )  i  j dx dy
x y y x 2 k 1
e

1 L   j ( k ) i
 j
Fij  
6 k 1
(z k3  z k3 1 )(  (Q (22k ) i
e y y
 Q 66
x x
(10.5)
  j i  j 1 L
Q (26k ) ( i  ))dx dy )  k s ( Q 55 (k )
(z k  z k 1 )  hcG yz )  i  j dx dy
y x x y 2 k 1
e

1 L ( k ) i
 j ( k ) i
 j   j
H ij  
6 k 1
(z k3  z k3 1 )(  (Q 12
e x y
 Q 16
x x
 Q (26k ) i
y y
( k ) i
 j 1 L
(10.6)
Q 66 )dx dy )  k s ( Q 45 (k )
(z k  z k 1 ))  i  j dx dy
y x 2 k 1
e

i, j  1,2,316

A convenient measure of structural damping is the specific damping capacity, SDC, usually
shown by the symbol  (not to be confused with the plate rotations shown in Fig. 2), which is
defined as the ratio of the damping energy to the maximum strain energy, thus

U
 (11)
U

Similar to the strain energy, we assume that the damping energy of the sandwich element is al-
so a piecewise function of the damping energies of the skins and the core, thus

h
1 L zk 1 2c
        hc (     Rc   dx dy )dz
T T
U e  (  
 R (k )
s

  dx dy )dz  (12)
2 k 1 z k 1 e 2  2 e

in which the skin damped stiffness matrix [RS(k ) ] and core damped stiffness matrix [ Rc ] are given in
terms of the damping matrixes [s] and [ c ] as

Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 14 (2017) 17-35

24 A. Abbasloo and M.R. Maheri / Prediction of Modal Damping of FRP-Honeycomb Sandwich Panels with Arbitrary Geometries

 Rs   T 1   s  Q T  (13.1)

(13.2)
 Rc     c Gc 

where the damping matrixes  s   and [c ] are the diagonal matrixes

11 0 0 0 0 
 0  22 0 0 0 
 
 s    0 0 13 0 0  (14.1)
 
 0 0 0  23 0 
 0 0 0 0 12 

0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
 
  c   0 0  xz 0 0 (14.2)
 
0 0 0  yz 0
0 0 0 0 0

in which the factors [i j ] quantify the proportion of the energy loss in each cycle of vibration due
to the relevant stress components.
It is noted that the skin and core stiffness Equations (3) and the analogous damping equations
(14) reflect the assumption that while the in-plane damping of the honeycomb material can be ne-
glected with little loss of accuracy, the shear damping of the skins can be significant depending on
the skin/core relative thickness.
From equation (9), the element damping energy is accordingly given as

Ue  Aij wi wj  Bij wi x j  C ij wi y j  Dij xi x j  F ij yi y j  H ij xi y j (15)

in which

1   j   j 1 L
A ij  k s hc  ( xz G xz i   yz G yz i )dx dy  k s  (z k  z k 1 )
2 Ωe
x x y y 2 k 1
(16.1)
  j   j   j i  j
( (R 44( k ) i  R 55( k ) i  R 45( k ) ( i  ))dx dy )
e x x y y x y y x

Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 14 (2017) 17-35

 A. Abbasloo and M.R. Maheri / Prediction of Modal Damping of FRP-Honeycomb Sandwich Panels with Arbitrary Geometries 25

i
B ij  k s hc   xz G xz  j dx dy
Ωe
x
(16.2)
L
 
k s  (z k  z k 1 )(  (R 4(4k ) i  R 4(5k ) i ) j dx dy
k 1
e x y

i
C ij   k s hc   yz G yz  j d x dy
Ωe
y
(16.3)
L
i 
 k s  ( z k  z k 1 )(  ( R 45( k )  R 55( k ) i ) j dx dy
k 1
e x y

1 L   j   j
D ij  
6 k 1
(z k3  z k3 1 )(  (R11( k ) i
e x x
 R 66( k ) i
y y
(16.4)
( k ) i
 j i  j 1 L
 R16 (  ))dx dy )  k s ( R 44 (z k  z k 1 )  hc  xz G xz )  i  j dx dy
(k )

x y y x 2 k 1
e

1 L   j   j
F ij  
6 k 1
(z k3  z k3 1 )(  (R 22( k ) i
e y y
 R 66( k ) i
x x
(16.5)
( k ) i
 j i  j 1 L
 R 26 (  ))dx dy )  k s ( R 55 (z k  z k 1 )  hc  yz G yz )  i  j dx dy
(k )

y x x y 2 k 1
e

1 L   j   j   j
H ij  
6 k 1
(z k3  z k3 1 )(  (R12( k ) i
e x y
 R16( k ) i
x x
 R 26( k ) i
y y
i  j 1 L
(16.6)
 R 66( k ) )dx dy )  k s ( R 45( k ) (z k  z k 1 ))  i  j dx dy
y x 2 k 1
e

i, j  1, 2,316

The element’s kinetic energy is given as

1 1
T e   2  (2 s (h  hc )w 2  ( s ( h 3  hc3 )  c hc3 )( x 2   y 2 ))dx dy (17)
2 Ωe
12

in which  is the natural frequency, h is the total panel thickness, and  s and c are skin and
core mass densities respectively. Substituting for w,  x and  y from equation (7) in equation (17)
will give the latter equation as

Te   2 (mij wi w j  Iij ( xi x j  yi yj )) (18)

Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 14 (2017) 17-35

26 A. Abbasloo and M.R. Maheri / Prediction of Modal Damping of FRP-Honeycomb Sandwich Panels with Arbitrary Geometries

in which

m ij  s (h  hc )  i  j dx dy
Ωe
, i , j  1, 2, 316 (19)
1
I ij  ( s ( h 3  hc3 )  c hc3 )  i  j dx dy
24 Ωe

The displacements within each element of the discretised plate are computed from the dis-
placements in the sixteen nodes that immediately surround the element (Figure 3) using the lagran-
gian quadrilateral interpolating functions. Hence, the displacement functions in each element 1 are
computed from the nodes that are shared by that element and the three successive neighboring
elements on each side. The sixteen nodes that surround the element are effectively the support do-
main that is used in the meshless method. This support domain has an overlap with the surround-
ing elements which should ensure the continuity of the displacements and their first and second
derivatives at the elements’ boundaries.

Figure 3: Elements and their shared domains in a rectangular plate.

The total strain, damping and kinetic energies of the plate in terms of the elemental energies
are given respectively as

n n n
U  Ue , U  Ue , T  Te (20)
e 1 e 1 e 1

in which n is the number of elements. Since the total energy of the system is constant at any given
time, one may write

U  T  constant, (21)

thus,

Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 14 (2017) 17-35

 A. Abbasloo and M.R. Maheri / Prediction of Modal Damping of FRP-Honeycomb Sandwich Panels with Arbitrary Geometries 27

   U  T   
 
  wi  
 
   U  T   
    0 , i  1, 2, 3 N (22)
    xi 
 
   U  T   
   yi  
 

in which N is the total number of nodes. One may further write

  U     T  
   
  wi    w      wi  
 w  
    
 
i i
   U        T  
  xi   
    xi  , i  1, 2, 3 N

2
  [ K ] ,  [ M ] (23)
   xi        xi    
   yi     yi 
  
  U     T  
   yi      yi  
   

in which [K] and [M] are the stiffness and mass matrices respectively. In order to determine the
elements of the stiffness and mass matrices of the panel, the elemental stiffness and mass matrices
are considered

  U  
 e 
  wi    w  
 
 
i
 U e 
   [ K ]
e   
xi  , i  1, 2, 316 (24)
  xi   
   yi 

 U e 
  yi 
 

  T  
 e 
  w i  
   w  
 
i
  T e  
    [M e ]  x i  , i  1, 2, 316
2
 (25)
   x i    
   y i 

 T e 
 
  y i 

Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 14 (2017) 17-35

28 A. Abbasloo and M.R. Maheri / Prediction of Modal Damping of FRP-Honeycomb Sandwich Panels with Arbitrary Geometries

Using Equation (9) in equation (24), the elemental stiffness matrix is given as

  A*   B C  
  
 Ke     D*  H   (26)
 
 Sym  F *  
 

in which

A*ij  Aij  Aji

D*ij  Dij  D ji , i, j  1, 2,316 (27)
F *ij  Fij  Fji

where Aij, Bij etc. have been given in Equations (10).

Similarly, the elemental mass matrix is given by Equations (18) and (25) as

M *  0 0 
  
Me     *
I   0  (28)
 
 Sym  I *  
 
in which

M *ij  mij  m ji
, i, j  1, 2,316 (29)
I ij*  I ij  I ji

where mij and I ij have been given in Equations (19).

As shown in Figure 3, the nodes are denoted by both the local as well as global numbers. The
element matrices [Ke] and [Me] are obtained using the local numbers, and the elements of these ma-
trices are lodged in the global matrices [K] and [M] using the interrelationship between the local
and the global numbers, thus obtaining the full global matrices. By substituting these matrices in
Equations (23) before substituting the resulting equations into Equation (22), the following general-
ized eigenvalue problem is obtained, the solution of which yields the natural frequencies and mode
shapes of the panel

 w  
 
i

 K     M   xi   0 , i  1, 2, 3 N
2
(30)
 
 y i 

Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 14 (2017) 17-35

 A. Abbasloo and M.R. Maheri / Prediction of Modal Damping of FRP-Honeycomb Sandwich Panels with Arbitrary Geometries 29

The eigenvector produces nodal displacements that have been assigned a global number. Again,
the interrelation between the local and the global nodal numbers is used to determine the local
nodal displacements, and hence the strain and damping energies, of each element. The SDC for
each mode is then computed by using the first two of the energy equations (20) in equation (11).
The method of solution in this study can be generalized for a panel with any arbitrary shape, as
well as a rectangular geometry. In Figure 4, one such arbitrary shape is considered. The nature of
the node distribution shown is what is typically required for the analysis, in that the extension of
node distribution beyond the boundary is needed to provide the support domain for the boundary
elements.

Figure 4: Defining the geometry of the problem.

As the figure indicates, for an arbitrary geometry two types of elements are used. The type 1 el-
ement lies entirely within the panel and, therefore, is the same element as previously introduced in
Figure 1. However, the type 2 element shown in Figure 5, lies on the plate boundary and is no long-
er of a rectangular shape. In order to compute the stiffness and mass matrices of this element, it is
only necessary to carry out the integrals in Equations (10) and (19) within the geometric bounds of
this element.

Figure 5: The type 2 element.

Thus, the procedure for the solution of the problem outlined in Figure 4 is the same as that for
a rectangular plate except that the integrations are carried out to within the actual boundary of the
type 2 element.

Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 14 (2017) 17-35

30 A. Abbasloo and M.R. Maheri / Prediction of Modal Damping of FRP-Honeycomb Sandwich Panels with Arbitrary Geometries

It is possible to extend the analysis in an analogous manner to include the through-thickness

dimension as well, thereby removing the need for the requirement of an explicit formulation for the
lateral shear deformations. However, the solution would obviously expend a substantially more
computational resources than a two-dimensional analysis.

3 RESULTS

The sandwich panels considered are made from CFRP skins and aluminium or Nomex honeycomb
core materials. The mechanical and damping properties of the skins and of the core are given in the
following tables. It is noted that these data are actual test results which have been obtained in pre-
vious works for the CFRP skin (Maheri et al., 2008) and the honeycomb core (Adams and Maheri,
1993). The honeycomb web is aligned along the x direction (Figure 2).

E1 E2 G12 Ψ1 Ψ2 Ψ12 Ψ13 Ψ23 ρ

12
(GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (kg/m3)
271.0 6.02 5.46 0.45 7.30 8.16 8.16 8.16 0.34 1563.3

Table 1: [-60, 0, 60] CFRP skin mechanical and damping data.

Gxz Gyz Ψxz Ψyz ρ

(MPa) (MPa) (%) (%) (kg/m3)
140.0 75.4 0.74 1.02 40.39

Table 2: Aluminium core honeycomb mechanical and damping data.

Gxz Gyz Ψxz Ψyz ρ

(MPa) (MPa) (%) (%) (kg/m3)
40.0 29.0 11.2 10.5 40.43

Table 3: Nomex core honeycomb mechanical and damping data.

Modal response results were obtained for a number of mid-plane symmetric, carbon fibre rein-
forced polymer (CFRP) skin, honeycomb core sandwich panels with arbitrary geometries and differ-
ent boundary conditions. Direct comparison with published results were possible only in the case of
rectangular plates with all-free boundary conditions (Table 4), since these were the only compatible
published results available.
Table 4 shows a comparison of the present results with those of (Maheri et al., 2008) where the
method of Rayleigh-Ritz (RR) as well as experimental measurements (Exp) have been used to pro-
duce modal data for the all-free, rectangular panels with CFRP skins and aluminium honeycomb
core. A high degree of correlation is observed between the present results and both the theoretical
and the experimental results of the earlier work. It should be pointed out, however, that the test
results quoted in Table 4 have been obtained for testing the plate in-vacuo, as the proportion of air-
damping is significantly high in the overall damping of light sandwich structures (Maheri et al.,
2008).

Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 14 (2017) 17-35

 A. Abbasloo and M.R. Maheri / Prediction of Modal Damping of FRP-Honeycomb Sandwich Panels with Arbitrary Geometries 31

CFRP skin, Alum. HC core panels: a=b= 400 (mm), hc = 24.315 (mm), h = 24.915 (mm)

Mode Shape

Present method 795 1225 1474 1814

Freq.
Numeric (Maheri et al., 2008) 796 1221 1469 1817
(Hz)
Experiment (Maheri et al., 2008) 757 1202 1471 1755
Present method 1.06 1.03 0.78 0.99
SDC.
Numeric (Maheri et al., 2008) 1.03 1.00 0.76 0.97
(%)
Experiment (Maheri et al., 2008) 1.11 1.51 1.06 1.21

Table 4: Comparison of the present results with those of (Maheriet al.,2008)

for a symmetric, CFRP skin, aluminium HC core sandwich panel

In Table 5, the results of a mesh-refinement examination have been tabulated for the first four
modes of the above plate. These results show that while convergence of the SDC results in all
modes occurs for as coarse as a 6 6 nodes mesh, a somewhat finer 10 10 mesh would suffice to
ensure of a complete convergence in both the frequency and damping values in all the modes con-
sidered. The present results were obtained using a 14×14 mesh.

CFRP skin, Alum. HC core panels: a=b= 400 (mm), hc = 24.315 (mm), h = 24.915 (mm)

Quantity Freq. SDC. SDC. SDC. SDC.

Freq. (Hz) Freq. (Hz) Freq. (Hz)
of nodes (Hz) (%) (%) (%) (%)
4×4 803.9 1.05 1358.7 1.06 1719.3 0.74 2090.9 0.98
6×6 798.5 1.06 1251.6 1.04 1522.8 0.77 1861.4 0.98
8×8 796.1 1.06 1227.9 1.03 1479.0 0.78 1818.9 0.99
10×10 795.6 1.06 1225.9 1.03 1475.3 0.78 1815.1 0.99
12×12 795.5 1.06 1225.6 1.03 1474.8 0.78 1814.4 0.99
14×14 795.4 1.06 1225.4 1.03 1474.3 0.78 1814.2 0.99
16×16 795.4 1.06 1225.4 1.03 1474.3 0.78 1814.2 0.99

Table 5: An examination of the mesh refinement requirement for complete convergence.

Tabulated in Tables 6, to 9 are the modal characteristics, including modal damping, of symmet-
ric sandwich panels with different geometries. In each case, free (F) and/or clamped (C) edges have
been considered.

Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 14 (2017) 17-35

32 A. Abbasloo and M.R. Maheri / Prediction of Modal Damping of FRP-Honeycomb Sandwich Panels with Arbitrary Geometries

CFRP skin, Nomex. HC core panels: a=b= 400 (mm), hc=24.315, h= 24.915 (mm)

Mode Shape
(CCCC)

Freq. (Hz) 814.1 1239.0 1347.6 1665.1

SDC. (%) 9.7745 9.8721 10.0962 10.2235

Mode Shape
(CCCF)

Freq. (Hz) 583.7 968.8 1094.5 1400.8

SDC. (%) 9.0122 8.8828 9.5757 9.7142

Mode Shape
(CCFF)

Freq. (Hz) 306.0 721.3 800.3 1154.7

SDC. (%) 6.1249 8.0177 8.3659 9.0493

Mode Shape
(CFCF)

Freq. (Hz) 605.0 713.6 1150.4 1211.0

SDC. (%) 9.6462 8.8021 8.7383 9.9814

Mode Shape
(CFFF)

Freq. (Hz) 196.1 355.4 725.4 936.9

SDC. (%) 4.4649 6.2149 8.0913 8.3440

Mode Shape
(FFFF)

Freq. (Hz) 595.9 889.5 1012.8 1125.4

SDC. (%) 5.9674 6.7851 7.1415 8.2916

Table 6: Modal characteristics results for the symmetric, CFRP skin, Nomex.
HC core sandwich panels with different boundary conditions.

Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 14 (2017) 17-35

 A. Abbasloo and M.R. Maheri / Prediction of Modal Damping of FRP-Honeycomb Sandwich Panels with Arbitrary Geometries 33

CFRP skin, Nomex. HC core panels: d= 400 (mm), hc,= 24.315, h = 24.915 (mm)

Mode Shape
Clamped edge

Freq. (Hz) 601.7 949.9 961.3 1299.0

SDC. (%) 9.9240 9.7237 9.5659 9.5414

Mode Shape
Free edge

Freq. (Hz) 896.1 1285.4 1422.9 1424.7

SDC. (%) 6.8606 8.1703 8.8596 8.8468

Table 7: Modal characteristics results for the symmetric, CFRP skin,

Nomex. HC core circular panels with free and clamped edges.

CFRP skin, Nomex. HC core panels: b

a=b= 400 (mm), hc,= 24.315, h= 24.915 (mm) a

Mode Shape
CCC

Freq. (Hz) 1348.7 1902.1 2185.1 2488.3

SDC. (%) 10.4005 10.4153 10.4806 10.5082

Mode Shape
CCF

Freq. (Hz) 787.9 1268.7 1615.5 1820.5

SDC. (%) 9.1864 9.6788 9.6950 9.9518

Mode Shape
CFF

Freq. (Hz) 292.8 733.6 901.3 1291.1

SDC. (%) 5.9824 7.9784 7.4185 9.0745

Mode Shape
FFF

Freq. (Hz) 837.2 1116.7 1407.5 1420.5

SDC. (%) 6.6980 7.6200 8.7411 8.5280

Table 8: Modal characteristics results for the symmetric, CFRP skin,

Nomex. HC core triangular panels with different boundary conditions.

Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 14 (2017) 17-35

34 A. Abbasloo and M.R. Maheri / Prediction of Modal Damping of FRP-Honeycomb Sandwich Panels with Arbitrary Geometries

CFRP skin, Nomex. HC core panels: a/2

a=b= 400 (mm), hc =24.315, h= 24.915 (mm) b

a

Mode Shape
CCCC

Freq. (Hz) 1030.3 1419.7 1751.8 1882.7

SDC. (%) 10.1838 10.1574 10.3458 10.2493

Mode Shape
CCCF

Freq. (Hz) 624.3 1088.5 1261.7 1577.5

SDC. (%) 8.7628 9.4860 9.1760 9.8772

Mode Shape
CCFF

Freq. (Hz) 510.7 844.6 1238.1 1340.2

SDC. (%) 7.9008 8.7065 9.1239 9.3688

Mode Shape
CFFF

Freq. (Hz) 211.9 511.2 676.7 1056.4

SDC. (%) 5.2095 6.5687 7.9930 8.4498

Mode Shape
FFFF

Freq. (Hz) 721.5 906.0 1169.1 1271.3

SDC. (%) 6.4716 7.1738 8.0930 8.2458

Table 9: Modal characteristics results for the symmetric, CFRP skin,

Nomex. HC core Trapezoid panels with different boundary conditions.

The results in these tables show that a correlation generally exists between the amount of the
fixity of the plate and the modal damping, in that damping increases with the number of fixed edg-
es. Restricted edges inhibit the movement of the skins relative to each other and this increases the
degree of the interlocking between the lateral displacement of the plate and the shear deformation
of the core, resulting in increased core damping. Furthermore, increased fixity of the panel makes
modal damping increasingly invariant of the sandwich mode shape.

Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 14 (2017) 17-35

 A. Abbasloo and M.R. Maheri / Prediction of Modal Damping of FRP-Honeycomb Sandwich Panels with Arbitrary Geometries 35

4 CONCLUSIONS

Modal damping of sandwich panels comprising FRP skins and a honeycomb core can be computed
using the mixed finite element-meshless technique. This is a viable and accurate method for predict-
ing the modal response of sandwich panels with arbitrary geometries and different boundary condi-
tions. The method is versatile, in that it can readily and conveniently use the same initially set-up
node and element distributions to analyse different geometries. Furthermore, the continuity of the
displacements at the elements’ boundaries are assured.
A number of sandwich panels with different geometries and boundary conditions were considered
and, where possible, the modal characteristics, including the damping results were compared with
those reported in the literature, whereupon it was shown that a high degree of correlation exists
between the two sets of results. It was further shown that as the number of fixed edges increases,
the sandwich damping increases and it becomes increasingly invariant of the sandwich mode shape.

References

Adams, R.D., Maheri, M.R., (1993). The dynamic shear properties of structural honeycomb materials. Composites
Science and Technology 47: 15-23.
Elmalich, D., Rabinovitch, O., (2012). A high-order finite element for dynamic analysis of soft-core sandwich plates.
Journal of Sandwich Structure and Materials 14(5): 525–555.
Koo, K.N., Lee, I., (1995). A refined analysis of vibration and damping for anisotropic laminates in cylindrical bend-
ing. Journal of Sound and Vibration 184(4): 553-566.
Liu, Q., Zhao, Y., (2001). Prediction of Natural Frequencies of a Sandwich Panel Using Thick Plate Theory. Journal
of Sandwich Structure and Materials 3: 289-309.
Liu, Q., Zhao, Y., (2007). Effect of Soft Honeycomb Core on Flexural Vibration of Sandwich Panel using Low Order
and High Order Shear Deformation Models. Journal of Sandwich Structure and Materials 9: 95-108.
Maheri, M.R., Adams, R.D., (1994). Steady-state flexural vibration damping of honeycomb sandwich beams. Compo-
sites Science and Technology 52: 333-347.
Maheri, M.R., Adams, R.D., Hugon, J., (2008). Vibration damping in sandwich panels. Journal of Materials Science
43: 6604-6618.
Meunier, M., Shenoi, R.A., (2001). Dynamic analysis of composite sandwich plates with damping modelled using
high-order shear deformation theory. Composite Structures 54: 243-254.
Phan, C., Frostig, Y., Kardomateas, G.A., (2013). Free vibration of unidirectional sandwich panels, Part II: Incom-
pressible core. Journal of Sandwich Structure and Materials 15(4): 412–428.
Soovere, J., (1984). Dynamic Response of Acoustically Excited Stiffened Composite Honeycomb Panels. PhD Thesis,
ISVR: University of Southampton.
Thamburaj, P., Sun, J.Q., (2001). Effect of Material and Geometry on the Sound and Vibration Transmission across
a Sandwich Beam. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 123: 205-212.
Yaman, M., Onal, T., (2015). Investigation of dynamic properties of natural material-based sandwich composites:
Experimental test and numerical simulation. Journal of Sandwich Structure and Materials 0(00): 1–18.
Yim, J.H., Gillespie, J.W., (2000). Damping characteristics of 0° and 90° AS4/3501-6 unidirectional laminates includ-
ing the transverse shear effect. Composite Structures 50: 217-225.
Zhao, D., Stronge, W.J., (2006). Modal Frequencies of Circular Sandwich Panels. Journal of Sandwich Structure and
Materials 8: 343-357.

Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 14 (2017) 17-35