This paper is a review of activities concerning various damage tolerance modelling and testing aspects of sandwich panels for typical Naval applications. It starts with a review of testing methods for primarily core materials and how to extract properties and data required for damage tolerance assessment. Next some typical damage types are defined and how they are modelled with the aim of predicting their effect on load bearing capacity. The paper then describes in brief how such models can used in the context of providing a systematic damage assessment scheme for composite sandwich ship structures.


Fracture Toughness Sandwich Panel Face Sheet Impact Damage Sandwich Beam 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The work summarised in this chapter has been ongoing since the 1980s with various support. Thanks are due to The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration and Mr. Anders Lönnöfor funding parts of this. The Nordic Industrial Fund (NI) provided support for a long time in the 1990s. A lot of the more recent work was performed within the WEAG-project saNDI in collaboration with Prof. Brian Hayman at DNV. During most of the past 10 years invaluable support has been provided from the Structural Mechanics Programme of ONR through programme officer Dr. Y. Rajapakse.


  1. 1.
    Hayman B (2007) Approaches to damage assessment and damage tolerance for FRP sandwich structures. J Sand Struct Mater 9:571–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zenkert D, Bull P, Shipsha A, Hayman B (2005) Damage tolerance assessment of composite sandwich panels with localised damage. Compos Sci Technol 65:2597–2611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zenkert D, Bäcklund J (1989) PVC Sandwich core materials:Mode I fracture toughness. Compos Sci Technol 34:225–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zenkert D (1989) PVC Sandwich core materials:fracture behaviour under mode II and mixed mode loading. Mater Sci Eng A108:233–240Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shipsha A, Burman M, Zenkert D (2000) On mode I fatigue crack growth in foam core materials for sandwich structures. J Sandwich Struct 2:103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carlson LA (1991) On the design of the cracked sandwich beam (CSB) specimen. J Reinforced Plast 10:434–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shipsha A, Burman M, Zenkert D (1999) Interfacial fatigue crack growth in foam core sandwich structures. Fatigue Fracture Eng Mater Struct 22:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Østergaard RC, Sørensen BF, Brøndsted P (2007) Measurement of interface fracture toughness of sandwich structures under mixed mode loadings. Sandwich Struct Mater 9:445–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zenkert D (1990) Strength of sandwich beams with mid-plane debondings in the core. Compos Struct 15:279–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zenkert D (1991) Strength of sandwich beams with interface debondings. Compos Struct 17:331–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zenkert D, Groth HL (1989) The influence of flawed butt-joints in foam core sandwich beams. In:Olsson KA, Reichard RP (eds.), First International Conference on Sandwich Constructions, EMAS, UK, pp. 363–381Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Groth HL, Zenkert D (1990) Fracture of defect foam core sandwich beams. ASTM J Testing Eval 18(6):390–395Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zenkert D (1992) Effect of manufacturing-induced flaws on the strength of foam core sandwich beams. In:Masters JE (ed.), Damage Detection in Composite Materials, ASTM STP 1128, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 137–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zenkert D, Schubert O, Burman M (1997) Fracture initiation in foam core sandwich structures due to singular stresses at corners of flawed butt-joints. Mech Compos Mater Struct 4(1):1–21Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burman M, Zenkert D (1997) Fatigue of foam core sandwich beams. Part I:Undamaged specimens. Int J Fatigue 19(7):551–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burman M, Zenkert D (1997) Fatigue of foam core sandwich beams. Part II:Effect of initial damages. Int J Fatigue 19(7):563–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Burman M, Zenkert D (2000) Fatigue of undamaged and damaged honeycomb sandwich. J Sand Struct 2:50–74Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zenkert D, Shipsha A, Persson K (2004) Static indentation and unloading response of sandwich beam. Compos B 35(6–8):511–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rizov V, Shipsha A, Zenkert D (2005) Indentation study of foam core sandwich panels. Compos Struct 69:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koissin V, Shipsha A (2008) Residual dent in locally loaded foam core sandwich structures –analysis and use for NDI. Compos Sci Technol 68:57–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hallström S, Shipsha A, Zenkert D (2000) Failure of impact damaged foam core sandwich beams. In:Rajapakse YDS (ed.), ASME ICEME'2000, ASME AERO/AMD AD-Vol. 62/AMD Vol. 245, pp. 11–19Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shipsha A, Hallström S, Zenkert D (2003) Failure mechanisms and modelling of impact damage in sandwich beams —a 2D approach:Part I —Experimental investigation. J Sandwich Struct Mater 5(1):7–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shipsha A, Hallström S, Zenkert D (2003) Failure mechanisms and modelling of impact damage in sandwich beams —a 2D approach:Part II —Analysis and modelling. J Sandwich Struct Mater 5(1):33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koissin V, Skortsov V, Shipsha A (2007) Stability of the face layer of sandwich beams with sub-interface damage in the foam core. Compos Struct 78:507–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shipsha A, Zenkert D (2003) Fatigue behaviour of foam core sandwich beams with sub-interface impact damage. J Sand Struct Mater 5(1):147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zenkert D, Falk F (1991) Interface debondings in foam core sandwich beams and panels. In:Springer G, Tsai S (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Composite Materials, Publ. by SAMPE, (ICCM/VIII), 3-HGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Falk F (1992) Strength of foam-core sandwich panels with face-to-core debonds. In:Weissman-Berman D, Olsson KA (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sandwich Constructions, EMAS Ltd, UK, pp. 645–663Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wennhage P, Zenkert D (1998) Testing of sandwich panels under uniform pressure. J Testing Eval 26(2):101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jolma P, Segercrantz S, Berggreen C (2007) Ultimate failure of debond damaged sandwich panels loaded with lateral pressure —an experimental and fracture mechanics study. J Sand Struct Mater 9:167–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Berggreen C (2004). Damage tolerance of debonded sandwich structures, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nokkentved A, Lundsgaard-Larsen C, Berggreen C (2005) Non-uniform compressive strength of debonded sandwich panels —I. Experimental investigation. J Sand Struct Mater 7(6):461–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Berggreen C, Simonsen BC (2005) Non-uniform compressive strength of debonded sandwich panels —II. Fracture mechanics investigation. J Sand Struct Mater 7(6):461–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Causes, mechanisms and preventive actions to avoid blistering, Technical Bulletin, DIAB AB,
  34. 34.
    Shipsha A, Zenkert D (2005) Compression-after-impact strength of sandwich panels with core crushing damage. Appl Compos Mater 12(3–4):149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Edgren F, Asp L, Bull P (2004) Compressive failure of impacted NCF composite sandwich panels —characterisation of failure process. J Compos Mater 38(6):495–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bull P, Edgren F (2004) Compressive strength after impact of CFRP-foam core sandwich panels. Compos B 35:535–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sutcliffe M, Xin A, Fleck NA, Curtis P (1999) Composite compressive strength modeller, Engineering Department, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Edgren F, Soutis C, Asp L (2008) Damage tolerance analysis of NCF composite sandwich panels. Compos Sci Technol 68(13):2635–2645CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aeronautical and Vehicle EngineeringKungliga Tekniska HögskolanStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations