View More View Less
  • 1 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc H-3515 Miskolc, Egyetemváros, Hungary
Open access

The aim of the research was to develop a new lightweight sandwich structure, which can be used for elements of air containers. The structure consists of aluminum foam core with fiber reinforced composite face-sheets. Nine different laminated glass or/and carbon fiber reinforced plastic face-sheet combinations were investigated. Finite element analysis of the sandwich structures was introduced. Single-objective optimization of the new sandwich structure was achieved for minimal weight. Five design constraints were considered: stiffness of the structure, face-sheet failure, core shear, face-sheet wrinkling, size constraints for design variables. The elaborated composite structure results significant weight savings due to low density.

Abstract

The aim of the research was to develop a new lightweight sandwich structure, which can be used for elements of air containers. The structure consists of aluminum foam core with fiber reinforced composite face-sheets. Nine different laminated glass or/and carbon fiber reinforced plastic face-sheet combinations were investigated. Finite element analysis of the sandwich structures was introduced. Single-objective optimization of the new sandwich structure was achieved for minimal weight. Five design constraints were considered: stiffness of the structure, face-sheet failure, core shear, face-sheet wrinkling, size constraints for design variables. The elaborated composite structure results significant weight savings due to low density.

1 Introduction

The purpose of the study is the design of a lightweight structure consists of fiber reinforced plastic face-sheets (nine different laminated glass fiber or/and carbon fiber reinforced plastic face-sheet combinations) and aluminum foam core. The fiber reinforced plastic face-sheets and the core has a small density and high specific stiffness, which can meet the stiffness requirements and reduce the weight of the sandwich structure. The elaborated structural model can be used for manufacturing of walls, floor and roof of containers to fulfill the requirements of shipping and airlines carriers. The aim of the application of lightweight containers is to provide a huge savings in weight compared to conventional steel containers, which results in lower fuel consumption of transport vehicles and less environmental damage.

The sandwich structures consist of composite face-sheets and foam core are widely utilized in many engineering applications such as aerospace and automotive applications due to its high performance like bending stiffness and strength to weight ratios [1]. Huang and Alspaugh [2] introduced a method to determine the minimum weight of sandwich beams. The most common applied design constraints related to bending stress, shear stress and deflection, where the face-sheets thickness and the core thickness are design variables. Gibson [3] described an analytical method to find the optimum thickness and density of the foam core sandwich beam to minimize the weight. Gibson and Triantafillou described the way to minimize the weight of a sandwich beam with a foam core. The analysis gave the optimum core and face-sheets thicknesses and the density of the core [4]. In the books of Zenkert and Bitzer several methods and algorithms are described to minimize the weight of sandwich structures with symmetrical and unsymmetrical face-sheets and subjected to bending and torsional stiffness requirement [5]-[6]. Kota and Jarmai show also a very well scalable discrete firefly algorithm. The built in general reduced gradient and evolutionary algorithms of the Excel solver are also compared solving similar problems [7]. Hazim and Jarmai estimate the minimum structural dimensions of robot arms [8]. Many researchers have studied the influence of hybrid composite materials on mechanical properties of the structure [9]. Dong and Davies studied the flexural behavior of hybrid composites consist of glass and carbon fibers [10]. The effect of hybrid observed when the natural fiber reinforced plastics layers built into the conventional sandwich panels with aluminum face-sheets [11]. Lot of algorithms is available for optimization of composite laminated structures [12]. A few studies included the cost of the sandwich structure as a design aim [13].

2 A new sandwich structural model

The newly constructed sandwich structure consists of aluminum (Al) foam core with laminated glass fiber and/or carbon fiber reinforced plastic face-sheets, see Fig. 1. The dimensions and weights of the core and face-sheets used in this structure are given in Table I. The technical notes of the flexure model program for symmetrical sandwich structures were clarified. The norm of the model is MIL-STD-401B [14].

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Aluminum foam core sandwich structure with laminated composite face-sheets

Citation: Pollack Periodica 15, 3; 10.1556/606.2020.15.3.11

Table I

Data relating to the structural elements of the investigated sandwich structure

FibersDimensionDensityWeight
lbtctfpcpgpcrwcorewskinwt
Unitmmmmmmmmmmkg/m3kg/m3kg/m3kgkgkg
E-glass1000100242023000.60.381.36
Carbon100010024202300190016000.60.321.24
Hybrid1000100242023000.60.351.30

where l is the length;b is the width of the sandwich structure; &Jai_unknown_entity_euclidsymbol_F072;g is the density of the E-glass fiber/epoxy resin laminate; is the density of the carbon fiber/epoxy resin laminate; &Jai_unknown_entity_euclidsymbol_F072;cr is the density of the foam core; tf is the thickness of the face-sheet; tc is the thickness of the foam core and ℎ is the total thickness of the sandwich structure. Wcore is the weight of the foam core; is the weight of the face-sheet;Wt is the total weight of the sandwich structure.

2.1 Aluminum foam core

The foam core is closed cell formed from Al alloy. The mechanical properties of the core make it ideal for several applications. These properties include high strength and stiffness to weight ratio and high energy absorption as shown in Table II, [15].

Table II

Data of Cymat A35620SC 030SS stabilized aluminum foam

ECompressive modulus1200MPa
υPoission's ratio0.33----
GShear modulus1000MPa
σCompressive strength4MPa
τShear strength1MPa
&Jai_unknown_entity_euclidsymbol_F072;Density300kg/m3

2.2 Laminated fiber reinforced plastic face-sheets

Nine different sandwich constructions were studied, which consist of Al foam core with upper and lower skin face-sheets. The laminated glass fiber and/or carbon fiber reinforced plastic face-sheets were symmetrical concerning to the mid-plane of the sandwich structure. Every skin face-sheet composed of 4-layers. The fiber orientation in the face-sheets is having cross ply (0°, 90°) and angle ply ±45°. Table III includes the mechanical properties of the different composite layers.

Table III

Mechanical properties of composite materials [16]

Fiber 0°, 90° fabric to loading axis, Dry, Room Temperature, Vf = 50%
Property

Young’s Modulus 0° Young’s Modulus 90° In-plane Shear Modulus Major Poisson’s Ratio Ultimate Tensile Strength 0° Ultimate Compression Strength 0° Ultimate Tensile Strength 90° Ultimate Compression Strength 90° Ultimate In-plane Shear Strength
Symbol

E1

E2

G12

V12

Xt

Xc

Yt

Yc

S
E-glass 25

25

4

0.2 440 425 440 425

40
Carbon 70

70

5

0.1 600 570 600 570

90
Units GPa GPa GPa ----MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa
Fiber ±45° to loading axis, Dry, Room Temperature, Vf = 50% (fabric)
Property

Longitudinal Modulus

Transverse Modulus

In-plane Shear Modulus

Poisson’s Ratio

Tensile Strength

Compression Strength

In-plane Shear Strength
Symbol

E1

E2

G12

V12

Xt

Xc

S
E-glass 12.2 12.2

8

0.53 120 120 150
Carbon 19.1 19.1 30 0.74 120 120 310Units GPa GPa GPa ----MPa MPa MPa

E-glass fiber/epoxy resin face-sheets

Three constructions were investigated: Al foam core sandwich structure with 4-layers in the upper and 4-layers in the lower skin face-sheets made of fabric of E-glass fiber/epoxy resin with fiber orientation (0°, 90°, 0°, 90°), (0°, 90°, +45°, –45°) and (+45°, –45°, +45°, –45°).

Carbon fiber/epoxy resin face-sheets

Three constructions were investigated: Al foam core sandwich structure with 4-layers in the upper and 4-layers in the lower skin face-sheets made of fabric of carbon fiber/epoxy resin with fiber orientation (0°, 90°, 0°, 90°), (0°, 90°, +45°, –45°) and (+45°, –45°, +45°, –45°).

Hybrid face-sheets (combination of glass and carbon fiber layers)

Three constructions were investigated: Al foam core sandwich structure with 4-layers in the upper and 4-layers in the lower skin face-sheets (outer two layers of carbon and inner two layers of E-glass laminas). The hybrid face-sheet is the combination of carbon fiber and E-glass fiber/epoxy resin laminas with different fiber orientations: (0°, 90°, 0°, 90°), (0°, 90°, +45°, –45°) and (+45°, –45°, +45°, –45°).

3 Finite element analysis of the investigated sandwich structures

In this study, the deflection, skin stress and core shear stress were calculated numerically by using finite element analysis (Digimat-HC) program for 4-point flexural model, where is the applied load; is the deflection of sandwich structure; is the skin stress and is the core shear stress. Numerical results of the finite element analysis can be seen in (Table IV- Table VI); and in (Fig. 2- Fig. 4). The introduction of print screens of the finite element analysis results for all of nine constructions is not possible in this study due to space constraints.

Table IV

Analytical and numerical results for aluminum foam core sandwich structure with E-glass fiber/epoxy resin face-sheets with different fiber orientations (0°, 90° and ±45°)

E-glass fiberNumerical resultsOptimum resultsWtWred
Symbolp&Jai_unknown_entity_euclidsymbol_F064;σskinτcoretc opttf optWmin
UnitNmmMPaMPammmmkgkg%
0°, 90°, 0°, 90°10009.87725.61.0823.2240.9981.0761.3620.88
0°, 90°, ±45°100010.94928.41.1823.2441.0121.0811.3620.51
±45°, ±45°100012.59725.11.3623.2240.9841.0701.3621.32
Table V

Analytical and numerical results for aluminum foam core sandwich structure with carbon fiber/epoxy resin face-sheets with different fiber orientations (0°, 90° and ±45°)

E-glass fiberNumerical resultsOptimum resultsWtWred
Symbolp&Jai_unknown_entity_euclidsymbol_F064;σskinτcoretc opttf optWmin
UnitNmmMPaMPammmmkgkg%
0°, 90°, 0°, 90°10003.74626.60.5421.2041.1100.9911.2420.08
0°, 90°, ±45°10004.28129.30.5721.2040.9980.9551.2422.98
±45°, ±45°10005.50226.40.6719.1830.9700.8861.2428.54
Table VI

Analytical and numerical results for aluminum foam core sandwich structure with hybrid face-sheets with different fiber orientations (0°, 90° and ±45°)

E-glass fiberNumerical resultsOptimum resultsWtWred
Symbolp&Jai_unknown_entity_euclidsymbol_F064;σskinτcoretc opttf optWmin
UnitNmmMPaMPammmmkgkg%
0°, 90°,0°, 90°10005.18537.60.6623.224. 1.1811.1101.3014.61
0°, 90°, ±45°10005.46139.60.6823.2241.2791.1441.3012.00
±45°, ±45°10009.70830.91.0723.2241.0961.0801.3016.92
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Numerical results by using (Digimat-HC) program; flexural model of the sandwich structure consists of E-glass fiber/epoxy resin face-sheets (0°, 90°, 0°, 90°) with Al foam core

Citation: Pollack Periodica 15, 3; 10.1556/606.2020.15.3.11

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Numerical results by using (Digimat-HC) program; flexural model of the sandwich structure consists of carbon fiber/epoxy resin face-sheets (±45°, ±45°) with Al foam core

Citation: Pollack Periodica 15, 3; 10.1556/606.2020.15.3.11

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Numerical results by using (Digimat-HC) program; flexural model of the sandwich structure consists of hybrid face-sheets (0°, 90°, +45°, –45°) with Al foam core

Citation: Pollack Periodica 15, 3; 10.1556/606.2020.15.3.11

4 Minimum weight optimization of the investigated sandwich structure

The optimization method for the newly constructed sandwich structure (Fig. 1) was elaborated. The fibers orientation in the face-sheets is having angles of cross ply 0°, 90° and angle ply ±45°. The optimal design variables were face-sheet thickness and core thickness to minimize the weight of the sandwich structures, Eqs. (1)-(3). During the optimization five design constraints were taken into consideration, Eqs. (4)-(8). The equations of the optimization problem are listed below [17]. The classical lamination theory and Tsai-Hill criteria of the first ply failure used to calculate the mechanical properties of the laminated face-sheet [18]. The constraints of the optimization problem are stiffness, face-sheet failure, core shear, face-sheet wrinkling.

The sandwich structure stiffness, the maximum load of face-sheet failure, core shear and skin wrinkling for every core thickness and face-sheet thickness were calculated. With all these data, for every step, the minimum face-sheet thickness was calculated that accomplishes the load defined and the stiffness required, Eq. (4). The software calculates the minimum weight condition for the sandwich structure, which corresponds to the face-sheet thickness and the core thickness. This software is a modified version of the software in the composite sandwich optimizer 2017, GitHub, Inc [19]. The program was developed to fit with the flexure model. The results of numerical (Digimat-HC) program were used as inputs to achieve the desired results (maximum deformation "#$ and maximum load pmax).

4.1 Total weight objective functions

Weight of E-glass fiber/epoxy resin face-sheets with aluminum foam core:

Wt=Wf+Wc=2Wg+Wc=2pgtglb+pctcl  (1)

Weight of carbon fiber/epoxy resin face-sheets with aluminum foam core:

Wt=Wf+Wc=2Wcr+Wc=2pcrtcrlb+pctclb.   (2)

Weight of hybrid face-sheets with aluminum foam core:

Wt=Wf+Wc=2(Wg+Wcr)+Wc=2(pgtglb+pcrtcrlb)+pctclb.   (3)

4.2 Design constraint

Constraint for the stiffness of the sandwich structure:

The minimum stiffness of sandwich structure * +," was calculated by using given data from and numerical results (Digimat-HC) ( and ).

(EI)min=pl3B3δD=Eftfh2b2, h=tc+tf.  (4)

Constraint for face-sheets failure

PactPff=σfbtfhB1l  (5)

Constraint for core shear

PactPcs=τcbhB2  (6)

Constraint for face-sheet wrinkling

PactPwr=btfh2B1l(EcGcEf)1/3  (7)

Size constraint for design variables

10mmtcopt100mm, and 0.1mmtfopt5mm,  (8)

Where B1=18,B2=12,B3=76811, and Pact=1000 N (Simply supported, flexural model).

4.3 Results of the optimization

The final results are optimum core thickness ( ! ), optimum face thickness ( ! ) and minimum weight ( " ) as shown in (Table IV- Table VI) and (Fig. 5- Fig. 7). The optimization results of all 9 constructions are not possible in this study due to space constraints.

Fig. 5
Fig. 5

Theoretical results by using MATLAB program, flexure model, the sandwich structure consists of E-glass fiber/epoxy resin face-sheets (0°, 90°, 0°, 90°) with Al foam core

Citation: Pollack Periodica 15, 3; 10.1556/606.2020.15.3.11

Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Theoretical results by using MATLAB program, flexure model, the sandwich structure consists of carbon fiber/epoxy resin face-sheets (+45°, –45°, +45°, –45°) with Al foam core

Citation: Pollack Periodica 15, 3; 10.1556/606.2020.15.3.11

Fig. 7
Fig. 7

Theoretical results by using MATLAB program, flexure model, the sandwich structure consist of hybrid face-sheets (0°, 90°, +45°, –45°) with Al foam core

Citation: Pollack Periodica 15, 3; 10.1556/606.2020.15.3.11

5 Evaluation of the results

5.1 Numerical results in case of different types of laminated composite face-sheets

According to the numerical results of sandwich structures with aluminum foam core and different types of composite face-sheets, as shown in (Table IV- Table VI) and (Fig. 2- Fig. 4), the deflection and core shear stress of the sandwich structures with carbon fiber/epoxy resin face-sheet are less than the deflection and core shear stress of the sandwich structures with hybrid and E-glass fiber/epoxy resin face-sheet respectively, because of the carbon fiber having higher stiffness-to-weight ratio compared to E-glass fiber. The skin stress of the sandwich structures with E-glass fiber/epoxy resin face-sheet is less than the skin stress of the sandwich structures with carbon fiber/epoxy resin and hybrid face-sheet respectively, because of the E-glass fiber having high strength-to-weight ratio and more flexible compared to carbon fiber.

5.2 Numerical results in case of different fiber orientations of composite layers

The numerical results of sandwich structures with aluminum foam core and different fiber orientations of composite face-sheets cross ply (0°, 90°) and angle ply (±45°) are the following: the deflection and core shear stress of the sandwich structures with face-sheet fiber orientation (0°, 90°, 0°, 90°) are less than the deflection and core shear stress of the sandwich structures with face-sheets fiber orientation (0°, 90°, +45°, –45°) and fiber orientation (+45°, –45°, +45°, –45°) respectively, because of the fiber with cross ply orientation (0°, 90°, 0°, 90°) having higher young modulus of elasticity and stiffness compare with angle ply (+45°, –45°, +45°, –45°). The skin stress of the sandwich structures with fiber orientation (+45°, –45°, +45°, –45°) of face-sheet are less than the skin stress of the sandwich structures with fiber orientation (0°, 90°, 0°, 90°) and fiber orientation (0°, 90°, +45°, –45°).

5.3 Theoretical results in case of different types of laminated composite face-sheets

According to the theoretical results, as shown in (Table IV- Table VI) and (Fig. 5-Fig. 7), the weight of the sandwich structures with carbon fiber/epoxy resin face-sheet is smaller than the weight of the sandwich structures with E-glass fiber/epoxy resin and hybrid of face-sheets.

5.4 Theoretical results in case of different fiber orientations of composite layers

According to the theoretical results of sandwich structures with aluminum foam core and different fiber orientation of composite materials face-sheet cross ply (0°, 90°) and angle ply ±45°, the weight of the sandwich structure with fiber orientation (+45°, –45°, +45°, –45°) of face-sheet is less than the weight of the sandwich structures with fiber orientation (0°, 90°, 0°, 90°) and fiber orientation (0°, 90°, +45°, –45°).

6 Conclusions

The aim of the study was to develop a new sandwich structure, which can be used for manufacturing of walls, floor and roof of lightweight containers. The aim of the application of lightweight containers is to provide significant weight savings compared to conventional steel containers, which results in lower fuel consumption of transport vehicles and less environmental damage.

The new sandwich structure consists of aluminum foam core with upper and lower composite face-sheets. Nine different laminated glass fiber or/and carbon fiber reinforced plastic face-sheet combinations were investigated. In the study the finite element analysis of the investigated sandwich structures was introduced.

The optimization method was also elaborated for the new sandwich structure. The objective function was the total weight of the structure and five design constraints were taken into consideration, which were the following: total stiffness of the structure; face-sheet failure; core shear; face-sheet wrinkling and size constraint for design variables.

Single-objective optimization of the new sandwich structural model was achieved for minimal weight. In the case study the optimal structure, which ensures the minimal weight of the sandwich structure is a carbon fiber/epoxy laminated face-sheet with 4 layers, with fiber orientation (+45°, –45°, +45°, –45°) and Al foam core, which thickness is 19.183 mm. This optimal Al foam sandwich structure provides 28.54% weight saving compared to the original structure.

It can be concluded based on the results of the research, that the application of the elaborated sandwich structure can be suggested in those applications where weight saving is the most important design aim.

Acknowledgements

The described article was carried out as part of the EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00011 ‘Younger and Renewing University - Innovative Knowledge City - institutional development of the University of Miskolc aiming at intelligent specialization’ project implemented in the framework of the Szechenyi 2020 program. The realization of this project is supported by the European Union, co-financed by the European Social Fund.

  • [1]

    Li X., Li G., Wang C. H., You M.. Optimum design of composite sandwich structures subjected to combined torsion and bending loads, Applied Composite Materials, Vol. 19, No. 3-4, 2012, pp. 315331.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [2]

    Huang S., Alspaugh D. Minimum weight sandwich beam design, AIAA Journal, Vol. 12, No. 12, 1974, pp. 16171618.

  • [3]

    Gibson L. J. Optimization of stiffness in sandwich beams with rigid foam cores, Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 67, No. 2, 1984, pp. 125135.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [4]

    Triantafillou T. C., Gibson, L. J. Minimum weight design of foam core sandwich panels for a given strength, Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 95, 1987, pp. 5562.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [5]

    Zenkert D. An introduction to sandwich construction, Engineering Materials Advisory Services, Emas Publishing, London, 1995.

  • [6]

    Bitzer T. N. Honeycomb technology: Materials, esign, Manufacturing, Applications and Testing, London, Chapman & Hall, 1997.

  • [7]

    Kota L., Jármai K. Efficient algorithms for optimization of objects and systems, Pollack Periodica, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2014, pp. 121132.

  • [8]

    Hazim N., Jármai K. Kinematic-based structural optimization of robots, Pollack Periodica, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2019, pp. 213222.

  • [9]

    Giancaspro J. W., Papakonstantinou C. G., Balaguru P. N. Flexural response of inorganic hybrid composites with E-glass and carbon fibers, Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol. 132, No. 2, 2010, pages 18.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [10]

    Dong C, Davies I. J. Optimal design for the flexural behavior of glass and carbon fiber reinforced polymer hybrid composites, Materials and Design, Vol. 37, 2012, pp. 450457.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [11]

    Fajrin J., Zhuge Y., Bullen, F., Wang H. Significance analysis of flexural behavior of hybrid sandwich panels, Open Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 3B, 2013, pp. 17.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [12]

    Rodrigues G. P., Guedes J. M., Folgado J. O. Combined topology and stacking sequence optimization of composite laminated structures for structural performance measures, In 4th Engineering Optimization Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 8-11 September 2014, pp. 971976.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [13]

    Kassapoglou C. Simultaneous cost and weight minimization of composite stiffened panels under compression and shear, Composites, Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, Vol. 28, No. 5, 1997, pp. 419435.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [14]

    Mechanical testing of sandwich panels, Technical notes, 2007, https://www.hexcel.com/user_area/content_media/raw/SandwichPanels_global.pdf (last visited 20 September 2019).

  • [15]

    Cymat stabilized aluminium foam, http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?MatGUID=bdd72d2af76c4e379ff82766b747ff9a&ckck=1 (last visited 20 September 2019).

  • [16]

    Composite materials engineering specialists in carbon fiber, 2009, http://www.performance-composites.com/carbonfibre/mechanicalproperties_2.asp, (last visited 20 September 2019).

  • [17]

    Honeycomb sandwich design technology, 2007, https://www.hexcel.com/user_area/content_media/raw/Honeycomb_Sandwich_Design_Technology.pdf, (last visited 15 September 2019).

  • [18]

    Kollár L. P., Springer G. S. Mechanics of composite structures, 2003.

  • [19]

    Composite sandwich optimizer, 2017, https://github.com/dinospiller/Composite-Sandwich-Optimizer (last visited 5 September 2019).

  • [1]

    Li X., Li G., Wang C. H., You M.. Optimum design of composite sandwich structures subjected to combined torsion and bending loads, Applied Composite Materials, Vol. 19, No. 3-4, 2012, pp. 315331.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [2]

    Huang S., Alspaugh D. Minimum weight sandwich beam design, AIAA Journal, Vol. 12, No. 12, 1974, pp. 16171618.

  • [3]

    Gibson L. J. Optimization of stiffness in sandwich beams with rigid foam cores, Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 67, No. 2, 1984, pp. 125135.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [4]

    Triantafillou T. C., Gibson, L. J. Minimum weight design of foam core sandwich panels for a given strength, Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 95, 1987, pp. 5562.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [5]

    Zenkert D. An introduction to sandwich construction, Engineering Materials Advisory Services, Emas Publishing, London, 1995.

  • [6]

    Bitzer T. N. Honeycomb technology: Materials, esign, Manufacturing, Applications and Testing, London, Chapman & Hall, 1997.

  • [7]

    Kota L., Jármai K. Efficient algorithms for optimization of objects and systems, Pollack Periodica, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2014, pp. 121132.

  • [8]

    Hazim N., Jármai K. Kinematic-based structural optimization of robots, Pollack Periodica, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2019, pp. 213222.

  • [9]

    Giancaspro J. W., Papakonstantinou C. G., Balaguru P. N. Flexural response of inorganic hybrid composites with E-glass and carbon fibers, Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol. 132, No. 2, 2010, pages 18.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [10]

    Dong C, Davies I. J. Optimal design for the flexural behavior of glass and carbon fiber reinforced polymer hybrid composites, Materials and Design, Vol. 37, 2012, pp. 450457.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [11]

    Fajrin J., Zhuge Y., Bullen, F., Wang H. Significance analysis of flexural behavior of hybrid sandwich panels, Open Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 3B, 2013, pp. 17.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [12]

    Rodrigues G. P., Guedes J. M., Folgado J. O. Combined topology and stacking sequence optimization of composite laminated structures for structural performance measures, In 4th Engineering Optimization Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 8-11 September 2014, pp. 971976.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [13]

    Kassapoglou C. Simultaneous cost and weight minimization of composite stiffened panels under compression and shear, Composites, Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, Vol. 28, No. 5, 1997, pp. 419435.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [14]

    Mechanical testing of sandwich panels, Technical notes, 2007, https://www.hexcel.com/user_area/content_media/raw/SandwichPanels_global.pdf (last visited 20 September 2019).

  • [15]

    Cymat stabilized aluminium foam, http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?MatGUID=bdd72d2af76c4e379ff82766b747ff9a&ckck=1 (last visited 20 September 2019).

  • [16]

    Composite materials engineering specialists in carbon fiber, 2009, http://www.performance-composites.com/carbonfibre/mechanicalproperties_2.asp, (last visited 20 September 2019).

  • [17]

    Honeycomb sandwich design technology, 2007, https://www.hexcel.com/user_area/content_media/raw/Honeycomb_Sandwich_Design_Technology.pdf, (last visited 15 September 2019).

  • [18]

    Kollár L. P., Springer G. S. Mechanics of composite structures, 2003.

  • [19]

    Composite sandwich optimizer, 2017, https://github.com/dinospiller/Composite-Sandwich-Optimizer (last visited 5 September 2019).

Submit Your Manuscript
 
The author instructions template is available in MS Word.
Please, download the file from HERE.

 

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Iványi, Amália

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Iványi, Péter

 

Scientific Secretary

Miklós M. Iványi

Editorial Board

  • Bálint Bachmann (Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Jeno Balogh (Department of Civil Engineering Technology, Metropolitan State University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA)
  • Radu Bancila (Department of Geotechnical Engineering and Terrestrial Communications Ways, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, “Politehnica” University Timisoara, Romania)
  • Charalambos C. Baniotopolous (Department of Civil Engineering, Chair of Sustainable Energy Systems, Director of Resilience Centre, School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, U.K.)
  • Oszkar Biro (Graz University of Technology, Institute of Fundamentals and Theory in Electrical Engineering, Austria)
  • Ágnes Borsos (Institute of Architecture, Department of Interior, Applied and Creative Design, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Matteo Bruggi (Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale, Politecnico di Milano, Italy)
  • Ján Bujňák (Department of Structures and Bridges, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Žilina, Slovakia)
  • Anikó Borbála Csébfalvi (Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Mirjana S. Devetaković (Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade, Serbia)
  • Szabolcs Fischer (Department of Transport Infrastructure and Water Resources Engineering, Faculty of Architerture, Civil Engineering and Transport Sciences Széchenyi István University, Győr, Hungary)
  • Radomir Folic (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad Serbia)
  • Jana Frankovská (Department of Geotechnics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia)
  • János Gyergyák (Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Kay Hameyer (Chair in Electromagnetic Energy Conversion, Institute of Electrical Machines, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, RWTH Aachen University, Germany)
  • Elena Helerea (Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Applied Physics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania)
  • Ákos Hutter (Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technolgy, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Károly Jármai (Institute of Energy and Chemical Machinery, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc, Hungary)
  • Teuta Jashari-Kajtazi (Department of Architecture, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Prishtina, Kosovo)
  • Róbert Kersner (Department of Technical Informatics, Institute of Information and Electrical Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Rita Kiss  (Biomechanical Cooperation Center, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary)
  • István Kistelegdi  (Department of Building Structures and Energy Design, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Stanislav Kmeť (President of University Science Park TECHNICOM, Technical University of Kosice, Slovakia)
  • Imre Kocsis  (Department of Basic Engineering Research, Faculty of Engineering, University of Debrecen, Hungary)
  • László T. Kóczy (Department of Information Sciences, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Informatics and Electrical Engineering, University of Győr, Hungary)
  • Dražan Kozak (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Croatia)
  • György L. Kovács (Department of Technical Informatics, Institute of Information and Electrical Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Balázs Géza Kövesdi (Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Budapest University of Engineering and Economics, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Tomáš Krejčí (Department of Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic)
  • Jaroslav Kruis (Department of Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic)
  • Miklós Kuczmann (Department of Automations, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Informatics and Electrical Engineering, Széchenyi István University, Győr, Hungary)
  • Tibor Kukai (Department of Engineering Studies, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Maria Jesus Lamela-Rey (Departamento de Construcción e Ingeniería de Fabricación, University of Oviedo, Spain)
  • János Lógó  (Department of Structural Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary)
  • Carmen Mihaela Lungoci (Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Universitatea Transilvania Brasov, Romania)
  • Frédéric Magoulés (Department of Mathematics and Informatics for Complex Systems, Centrale Supélec, Université Paris Saclay, France)
  • Gabriella Medvegy (Department of Interior, Applied and Creative Design, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Tamás Molnár (Department of Visual Studies, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Ferenc Orbán (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Zoltán Orbán (Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Dmitrii Rachinskii (Department of Mathematical Sciences, The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas, USA)
  • Chro Radha (Chro Ali Hamaradha) (Sulaimani Polytechnic University, Technical College of Engineering, Department of City Planning, Kurdistan Region, Iraq)
  • Maurizio Repetto (Department of Energy “Galileo Ferraris”, Politecnico di Torino, Italy)
  • Zoltán Sári (Department of Technical Informatics, Institute of Information and Electrical Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Grzegorz Sierpiński (Department of Transport Systems and Traffic Engineering, Faculty of Transport, Silesian University of Technology, Katowice, Poland)
  • Zoltán Siménfalvi (Institute of Energy and Chemical Machinery, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc, Hungary)
  • Andrej Šoltész (Department of Hydrology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia)
  • Zsolt Szabó (Faculty of Information Technology and Bionics, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Hungary)
  • Mykola Sysyn (Chair of Planning and Design of Railway Infrastructure, Institute of Railway Systems and Public Transport, Technical University of Dresden, Germany)
  • András Timár (Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Barry H. V. Topping (Heriot-Watt University, UK, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)

POLLACK PERIODICA
Pollack Mihály Faculty of Engineering
Institute: University of Pécs
Address: Boszorkány utca 2. H–7624 Pécs, Hungary
Phone/Fax: (36 72) 503 650

E-mail: peter.ivanyi@mik.pte.hu 

or amalia.ivanyi@mik.pte.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • SCOPUS

 

2020  
Scimago
H-index
11
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,257
Scimago
Quartile Score
Civil and Structural Engineering Q3
Computer Science Applications Q3
Materials Science (miscellaneous) Q3
Modeling and Simulation Q3
Software Q3
Scopus
Cite Score
340/243=1,4
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 219/318 (Q3)
Computer Science Applications 487/693 (Q3)
General Materials Science 316/455 (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation 217/290 (Q4)
Software 307/389 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
1,09
Scopus
Cites
321
Scopus
Documents
67
Days from submission to acceptance 136
Days from acceptance to publication 239
Acceptance
Rate
48%

 

2019  
Scimago
H-index
10
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,262
Scimago
Quartile Score
Civil and Structural Engineering Q3
Computer Science Applications Q3
Materials Science (miscellaneous) Q3
Modeling and Simulation Q3
Software Q3
Scopus
Cite Score
269/220=1,2
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 206/310 (Q3)
Computer Science Applications 445/636 (Q3)
General Materials Science 295/460 (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation 212/274 (Q4)
Software 304/373 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,933
Scopus
Cites
290
Scopus
Documents
68
Acceptance
Rate
67%

 

Pollack Periodica
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2021 Online subsscription: 321  EUR / 402 USD
Print + online subscription: 384 EUR / 480 USD
Subscription fee 2022 Online subsscription: 327 EUR / 411 USD 321
Print + online subscription: 393 EUR / 492 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

 

Pollack Periodica
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
2006
Publication
Programme
2021 Volume 16
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
3
Founder Akadémiai Kiadó
Founder's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 1788-1994 (Print)
ISSN 1788-3911 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
May 2021 0 19 23
Jun 2021 0 14 16
Jul 2021 0 12 23
Aug 2021 0 14 23
Sep 2021 0 13 16
Oct 2021 0 7 24
Nov 2021 0 0 0