Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 16 (2019) 859–864 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

ICAMMAS17
Review on Sandwich Composite and their Applications
B. Vijaya Ramnath1, K. Alagarraja2, C.Elanchezhian3
1,3
Professor, Sri Sairam Engineering College, Chennai, India.
2
Research Scholar, Anna University, Chennai, India.

Abstract
Sandwich composite material structures arevery important factors because the advantages of light weight and high strength
and stiffness of the sandwich core composite structure. Honeycomb sandwich composite materials and corrugated cores are
mostly used in the aerospace, marine structure, automobile, structural and construction etc. To withstand high temperature and
low temperature applications are also on important factor to manufacture a new material sandwich structure. To find a new
method and to adopt a new technology for a new material sandwich structures and skin materials are the main objective of this
paper. The prepared sandwich core to work in high temperatures and low temperatures applications and withstand heavy loads is
important factor. This review paper aims to find a new method and materials for sandwich core materials for all suitable
applications of composite structures with cost effectiveness suitable for the next advancement.

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: sandwich composites, testing, honey comb structure, core materials

I .INTRODUCTION

Sandwich core materials and its structures are increasingly used in engineering applications in industries,
building structures and transports made of sandwich composite materials. In automobile industries, aerospace and
marine structures are mostly they want sandwich structure materials. Because lightweight in nature and it’s
compactness and also withstand heavy loads that is its flexural strength and stiffness of the composite sandwich
panels. Sandwich core material is mostly they were combined with lightweight skin materials. The skin materials
are used mostly glass fiber reinforced polymer and carbon fiber reinforced polymers and bio fiber are used. Mostly
the skin materials are fabricated through hand lay-up method or injection molding machines are they used. The
epoxy resin with hardener are properly mixed as per our requirement and applied between the layers of the
polymers. The two skin materials are used to form the sandwich core materials. The core materials are high flexural
strength and soft in nature because to reduce the weight of the structure.

* Corresponding author. Tel:+919841446655

2214-7853 © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Honeycomb or truss core are mainly used because they are low density and bending stiffness and light light.
Aramid, balsa wood, Aluminum and Nomex core are mainly used as a core material. Corrugated core are used in
mostly unidirectional support for the structural applications. They are preparing in the form of mostly in the
hexagonal and square shapes.The prepared core materials are mostly covered with the two skin materials. The
fabricated structures are ready to conduct the mechanical and thermal tests. Mostly flexural, bending, static and
dynamic tests are conducted and also hardness test are conducted. Mostly Scanning Electron Microscope is used to
note the material failure. The Mechanical tests are conducted in the different temperature limits suitable for its
applications.

II. MECHANICAL TESTING ON SANDWICH CORE MATERIALS

Taherishargh et al. [31] have investigated the foam filled tubes were manufactured. The stainless steel
tubes were filled with ultra-light porous expanded perlite particles. The molden aluminium infiltrated the gaps
between these particles. They conducted the quasi-static compression and the quasi-static dynamic three point
bending tests. The empty tubes are superior energy absorbers when compared to the bare foam. Chemical reaction
between the tubes and melt aluminium helps to achieve better load sharing. Jie Wang et al. [25] investigated the low
velocity impact test. The panel consist of polyurethane foam core and carbon fabric laminated face-sheets. The
hemispherical steel impactors of different diameters at various energy levels are used. Digital image correlation
technique was used to measure the displacement and velocity of impactors. The foam core crushes first then contact
force gradually increases progressively matrix crushing in the face-sheet. Salih N. Akour et al. [18] investigated the
sandwich panel behaviour beyond the core material yield point is carried. The model is studied numerically and
experimentally. The two face sheet made of metal. The core material is made of foam which is soft compared with
face sheet. The finite element model was very good agreement with the experimental results. They proved that
increasing core stiffness may increases the load carrying capacity of the sandwich structure. Chae Hong Lim et al.
[15] investigated the mechanical properties and optimization of PCMs (Periodic Cellular Metals). They prepared the
core sandwich panel is quasi kagome truss. They taken three kinds of optimization, they are core height, weight and
the load capacity. Finally all the design had small difference in their load capacity per weight. Bezazi et al. [16]
investigated the stiffness degradation after fatigue test of sandwich panels with PVC foam cores. Skin made of glass
fiber subjected to three point bending test. The different densities of Herex C7055 and C7075 foams of PVC are
they investigated. Sandwich specimen SD2 have densest core and have more strength and more resistance to fatigue
than sandwich SD1. The effect of core thickness increases from 15mm to 25mm then increase of 37% of the static
load and improved fatigue resistance. Giuseppe Demelio et al. [2] investigated to estimate the static and fatigue
behaviour of specimen. The specimen skin made of steel plates. The sandwich panel made of different combination
of layers of Carbon, Glass and Kevlar fibers and a Nomex honeycomb core. This structure was jointed together by
either blind or mechanical lock fasteners. In drilling process requires special tools. They concerning static tests,
joints are performed better when shear loaded. They concluded that the skin and core of sandwich panel affects the
fatigue strength of tested joint. Enrico Papa et al. [4] investigated the mechanical behaviour of the sandwich
composite materials. The structure formed by glass fiber with transvers piles interconnecting the skins. The core is
filled with glass microspheres syntactic foam and the skins of GFRP are formed. Both the experimental and
numerical of the mechanical behaviour are analysed. They conducted the compression test, tension test, torsion test,
three point bending test. This analysis is conceived to avoid the problem of delamination between skin and core.
EgidioRizzi et al. [1] investigated the mechanical behaviour of syntactic foam core material as a sandwich panel.
The experimental and numericalresults are compared at the microscopic scale. They conducted the uniaxial, biaxial
and Three Point Bending (TPM) test. They concluded that the energy calibrated from uniaxial tension and TPM test
shows the excellent performance.

III. TEMPERATURE TESTING ON SANDWICH CORE MATERIALS

KanthaRao et al. [20] investigated the thermal analysis on a heated Inconel 617 honeycomb core sandwich
panel. They used the finite element method to find the thermal distributions. Thermal bending analyses are
performed using ANSYS 12 software. Finally they concluded that the heat transfer rate is effective in hexagonal
honeycomb sandwich panels when compared with square honeycomb sandwich panels. Also they concluded the
hexagonal cells have less stress distribution and good stiffness compared with square cells. Gupta et al. [21]
 B. Vijaya Ramnath et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 16 (2019) 859–864 861

investigated the dynamic behaviour of sandwich composite made of E-glass Vinyl Ester skin and core cell M100
foam core material. During shock wave loading at different temperature Digital Image correlation was used to
record the real time deformation. Experiment was performed three temperatures they are room temperature at 22°c
and high temperature 80°c and lower temperature -40°c. They observed that the main failure mechanism occurred at
-40°c. The failures are core cracking and face sheet delamination. Zhibin Li et al. [22] investigated the effect of
temperature on the indentation behaviour of closed cell aluminium foam. They conducted the experiment at
different temperature by using flat-ended and hemispherical ended punches and compared with the uniaxial
compression. They have taken four temperatures of 25°c, 200°c, 350°c and 500°c. They found that the plastic
collapse strength, tear energy and energy absorption are depended on the temperatures. They used an Emperical
formula to analyse depth effect and test temperature effect. Cady et al. [17] Investigated the behaviour of a closed-
cell aluminium foam (ALPORAS) under static and dynamic loading condition as a function of temperature. They
conducted high strain-rate test (1000-2000 S-1) using a Split-Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB). Intermediate strain
rate test was conducted on a hydraulic load frame. They decided the deformation behaviour of the Al-foam found to
be strongly temperature dependent. Saha et al. [13] investigated the effect of different types of nanoparticles with
polyurethane (PUR) foam. The nanoparticles are Tio2, Nano clay, CNFs. They conducted tension, compression and
flexural test. Also they analysed through Microstructure TGA and FT-1R tests. From the result shows that
PUR/CNFs has highest enhancement and PUR/ Tio2 has lowest enhancement in the performed thermal and
mechanical tests. Addition of only 1 wt. % CNFs in the PUR foam increases the tension, compression and flexural
strength. Mohamed ShehataAly et al. [8] investigated the closed cell aluminium foams known as ALPORAS
undergoing compressive test at ambient temperature and also elevated temperature. They conducted test in terms of
foam density and temperature difference. If they increase the foam density then their mechanical properties was
opposite also they increases the temperature simultaneously. They found that the failure of cell walls took place due
to the initiation of cracks and it caused the fracture. MasatakaHakamada et al. [9] investigated that the compressive
deformation behaviour of a closed-cell aluminium foam at elevated temperature. They conducted compressive test at
the temperature of 573-773k with initial strain rate of 8.0x10-4 – 2.0x10-1 S-1 is carried out on closed cell aluminium
foam and its bulk reference aluminium. The stress exponent and activation energy at elevated temperature are
roughly agreement with bulk reference aluminium. They concluded that the deformation at elevated temperature for
aluminium foam is same in the bulk reference aluminium. Whitty et al. [5] investigated to design sandwich panel
with enhanced mechanical and thermal properties by variation of poisson’s ratios. They used finite element method
of both conventional and re-entrant (i.e. negative poission’s ratio) honeycombs. They analysed the failure through
crack propagation method. The conventional core undergoes less internal damage than the re-entrant core. But the
re-entrant honeycomb performed better than conventional honeycomb under thermal loading condition.

IV. ALUMINIUM HONEY COMB STRUCTURE

KanthaRao et al. [23] investigated the bending behaviour of aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels. They
conducted three point bending test. They concluded that the aluminium honeycomb sandwich panel more strength to
weight ratio compared to uniform aluminium rod. They vary the honeycomb thickness. When an increase in the
honeycomb thickness the plastic deformation was delayed and increase in the ultimate strength. Styles et al. [10]
investigated the effect of core thickness on the flexural behaviour of aluminium foam sandwich structure. They
conducted the test on aluminium foam core and thermoplastic composite facing sandwich structures. For each core
thickness they conducted strain analysis. They had taken three core thickness of 5, 10 and 20mm. The thinner
samples are deformed in skin failure. For thicker core dominate skin failure instead, shear cracking occurs as failure
mode. Kapil Mohan et al. [7] investigated the failure of sandwich beams having alumina face sheet and aluminium
foam core. They conducted four points bending test and concluded three failure modes they are face sheet cracking,
core indentation and core shear. In many specimens having lock cracking because local stresses exceed the tensile
strength. They found the analytical equation for failure modes are in good agreement with the finite element
simulation. They also concluded that core and face sheet strength ratio will help to identify the expected failure
mode. Anne-Marie Harte et al. [3] investigated the aluminium skin with Al-poras foam core sandwich panels. They
were tested in four point bending test. They observed three failure modes they are face sheet yield, core shearing and
indentation under the loading roller. They conducted static loading also also loaded in fatigue. They concluded that
the fatigue limit for core shear is lower than that for indention.
862 B. Vijaya Ramnath et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 16 (2019) 859–864

V. DIFFERENT CORE MATERIALS

Aniber Benin et al. [26] investigated the flexural strength and shear strength of sandwich structure by varying
the density of foam. They have taken woven open foam E-glass fabric cloth as a face sheet and diviny cell foam as a
core material. These materials are subjected to bending test. They investigated different foam densities are 60kg/m3,
80kg/m3 and 100kg/m3. They concluded that the sandwich structure with higher foam density withstand a higher
bending load and higher shear strength. Gpoichand et al. [27] investigated the construction and analysis of copper
Honeycomb sandwich structure. They prepared copper core with hexagonal cells and stainless steel facing. They
conducted static three point bending test. They compared the theoretical load and deflection values with
experimental and simulation results. They concluded that the gradient of deflection curve is higher for lower core
height. Also they concluded that the stress was low for higher value of core height. Yicheng Du et al. [24]
investigated the bio fiber reinforced polymer (PRP) as skin material; whatman fiber paper was used as a bio fiber
source. Phenolic-coated aramid Nomex paper honeycomb were used as the core material. Core of different cell sizes
and core heights were fabricated. They concluded that the comparable bending rigidity and flexural load bearing
capacity but lower areal weights when compared to the some commercial products for automotive interior
applications. Choon Chiang Foo et al. [11] investigated the mechanical properties of Nomex paper and Nomex
honeycomb structures. In-plane tensile tests and out-of-plane compressive tests are conducted to determine three
types of young’s modulus. They compared with numerical analyses for static tension and compression. They
concluded that the young’s moduli of the bar honeycomb are dependent on the size of the specimen. Fan et al. [12]
Investigated Carbon fiber reinforced kagome lattice grids were made through interlocked method. The two carbon
fiber reinforced laminates to assemble sandwich panels. They conducted in-plane compression, out-of-plane
compression and three point bending test to study the mechanical behaviour. They concluded that the high specific
strength and specific stiffness can be achieved when compared with other cellular materials. Peter H. Bull et al. [6]
investigated the impact damage resistance and residual strength of sandwich structure. They fabricated through
carbon fiber-vinyl ester faces and PVC foam core. They studied two types, one consist of thin faces and an
intermediate density core. The other one consist of thick faces and high density core. They used two impactors one
is spherical impactor and another one is pyramid shaped impactors. Spherical impactors give the accurate results.
They concluded that this method is useful in damage assessment of sandwich structures.

VI. TESTING BASED ON DIFFERENT SANDWICH CORE STRUCTURES

Jin-shui Yang et al. [32] investigated the model pyramidal truss sandwich panels combined with multiple
damping configurations. They conducted the compression test to investigate the vibration damping and stiffness
efficiency. From the experimental result shows that increasing of the face sheet thickness would effectively increase
the natural frequencies and approximately improve the structural damping. Kai Wei et al. [29] investigated the Zro2
ceramic corrugated core sandwich panels. The three point bending strength and compressive strength of Zro2
corrugated panel they analysed. The same three point bending and compressive strength of Zro2 was simulated
through finite element analysis. They concluded that for the three point bending test, the maximum stress at the top
joint connections between the struts and face sheets. Murat Yazici et al. [30] investigated on the blast resistivity of
corrugated steel core sandwich panels tested experimentally by shock tube facility and high speed photography.
Also they analysed numerically through finite element method. Experimental and FEM results were found to be in
good agreement. The very good impact on blast performance came through the addition of foam infill. So they
concluded that the foam fill reduces back-face deflection and front-face deflection. Rejab et al. [28] investigated the
compressive response and failure modes in a corrugated core sandwich panel. They analysed both the
experimentally and numerically in finite element method of sandwich panel made of aluminium alloy, GFRP and
CFRP. The face sheets are the same materials. They found buckling of the cell walls are the initial failure mode and
finally fracture of cell walls. They concluded that the thick GFRP properties are similar to the aluminium
honeycombs. Hyo Seon Ji et al. [19] investigated the design and construction process of glass fiber reinforced
polymer (GFRP) corrugated core sandwich bridge superstructure. They demonstrated based on field load testing and
finite element analysis. They also discussed dynamic effect of the FRP in truck live load. They concluded that the
FRP sandwich superstructure effectively meet the requirements for stiffness and strength. Haydn Wadley et al. [14]
investigated the compressive response of pyramidal lattice structure constructed from stainless steel. They attached
thick face sheets and investigated quasi-statically and dynamically. They concluded that the dynamic response in a
 B. Vijaya Ramnath et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 16 (2019) 859–864 863

reduction in the peak pressure transmitted at the back face. Also they concluded that the two layered core that
provides a soft response during the fluid structure interaction and also it gives stiff response during panel bending.

VII. CONCLUSION

The literature survey of the sandwich core materials and its structure gives the clear information about the
sandwich core and skin material to prepare the composite structure. They conducted various tests to verify the
strength and stiffness of the sandwich structure. They conducted tests in different temperatures and different load
conditions. From this temperature difference the stiffness of the sandwich structure may increase or decrease
depended on the sandwich material properties. From this literature survey gives clear information about to conduct
the test and to motivate to form a new sandwich core material and a new sandwich structures. The newly going to
find a sandwich structure must suitable for all the applications related to composite materials and suitable cost
effectiveness for end user.
REFERENCES
[1] EgidioRizzi, Enrico Papa, Alberto Corigliano, “Mechanical behaviour of a syntactic foam: experiments and modelling”, International Journal
of Solids and Structures, (2000), pp.5773-5794.
[2] Giuseppe Demelio, Katia Genovese, Carmine Pappalettere, “An experimental investigation of static and fatigue behaviour of sandwich
composite panels joined by fasteners”, International Journal of Composites: Part B, (2001),
pp.299-308.
[3] By Anne-Marie Harte, Norman A. Fleck, Michael F. Ashby, “Sandwich panel design using Aluminium alloy foam”, International Journal of
Advanced Engineering Materials, (2000), Vol-2, No-4, pp:219-222.
[4] Enrico papa and Alberto Corigliano, “Mechanical behaviour of a syntactic foam/glass fibre composite sandwich: experimental results”,
International Journal of Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 12, No.2 (2001), pp.169-188.
[5] J.P.M.whitty, A. Alderson, P. Myler, B. Kandola, “Towards the design of sandwich panel composites with enhanced mechanical and thermal
properties by variation of the in-plane poisson’s ratios”, Composite part A: applied science and manufacturing, (2003), pp.525-534.
[6] Peter H. Bull, Fredrik Edgren, “Compressive strength after impact of CFRP-foam core sandwich panels in marine applications”, International
Journal of Composites Part B, (2004), pp. 535-541.
[7] Kapil Mohan, Yip Tick Hon, Sridhar Idapalapati, Hong PheowSeow, “Failure of sandwich beams consisting of alumina face sheet and
aluminium foam core in bending”, International Journal of Materials Science and Engineering A, (2005), pp.292-301.
[8] Mohamed ShehataAly, “Behaviour of closed cell aluminium foams upon compressive testing at elevated temperatures: Experimental
results”, Materials Letters, (2007), pp.3138-3141.
[9] MasatakaHakamada, Tatsuho Nomura, Yasuo Yamada, Yasumasa Chino, Youqing Chen, HiromuKusuda and Mamoru Mabuchi,
“Compressive deformation behaviour at elevated temperatures in a closed-cell Aluminium foam”, Materials Transactions, (2005), Vol.46, No.7,
pp.1677-1680.
[10] M. Styles, P. Compston, S. Kalyanasundaram, “The effect of core thickness on the flexural behaviour of aluminium foam sandwich
structures”, International Journal of Composite structure, (2007), pp.532-538.
[11] Choon Chiang Foo, Gin Boay Chai, Leong KeeySeah, “Mechanical properties of Nomex material and Nomex honeycomb structure”,
International Journal of Composite Structure, (2007), pp.588-594.
[12] H.L. Fan, F.H. Meng, W. Yang, “Sandwich panels with Kagome lattice cores reinforced by carbon fibers”, International Journal of
Composite Structure, (2007), pp.533-539.
[13] M.C. Saha, Md.E. Kabir, S. Jeelani, “Enhancement in thermal and mechanical properties of polyurethane foam infused with nanoparticles”,
International Journal of Materials Science and Engineering A, (2008), pp.213-222
[14] Haydn Wadley, Kumar Dharmasena, Yungchia Chen, Philip Dudt, David Knight,RobertCharette, Kenneth Kiddy, “Compressive response of
multi-layered pyramidal lattices during underwater shock loading”, International Journal of Impact Engineering 35, (2008), pp.1102-1114.
[15] Chae-Hong lim, Insujeon, ki-jukang, “A new type of sandwich panel with periodic cellular metal cores and its mechanical performances”,
International Journal of Materials and Design, (2009), pp.3082-3093.
[16] A.Bezazi, A.ElMahi, J.M.Berthelot and B.Bezzazi, “Experimental analysis of behaviour and damage of sandwich composite materials in
three-point bending. Part 2. Fatigue Test results and damage mechanisms”, International Journal of Strength of Materials, Vol.41, N0.3 (2009).
pp.257-267.
[17] C.M. Cady, G.T.Gray III, C. Liu, M.L.Lovato, T.mukai, “Compressive properties of a closed-cell aluminium foam as a function of strain
rate and temperature”, International Journal of Materials Science and Engineering A, (2009), PP.1-6.
[18] Salih N. Akour, Hussein .Z.Maaitah, “Effect of core material stiffness on sandwich panel behaviour beyond the yield limit”, London U.K,
(2010).
[19] HyoSeonJi, Wenchao Song, Zhongguo John Ma, “Design, test and field application of a GFRP corrugated-core sandwich bridge”,
International Journal of Engineering Structures, (2010), pp.2814-2824.
[20] K. Kantharao, K. JayathirthaRao, “Thermo structural analysis of honey comb sandwich panels”, International Journal of Engineering
Science and Advanced Technology, (2012), Volume-2, Issue-5, pp.1402-1409.
[21] S. Gupta, A. Shukla, “Blast performance of marine foam core sandwich composites at extreme temperatures”, Society for Experimental
Mechanics, (2012),pp1521-1534
[22] Zhibin li, ZhijunZheng, Jilin Yu, liqun Tang, “Effect of temperature on the indentation behaviour of closed-cell aluminium foam”,
International Journal of Materials Science and Engineering A, (2012), pp.222-226.
864 B. Vijaya Ramnath et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 16 (2019) 859–864

[23] K. KanthaRao, K.JayathirthaRao, A.G. Sarwade, B. MadhavaVarma, “Bending behaviour of aluminium honey comb sandwich panels”,
International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, (2012), ISSN:2249-8958, Volume-1, Issue-4, pp.268-272.
[24] Yicheng Du, Ning Yan, Mark T. Kortschot, “Light-weight honeycomb core sandwich panels containing bio fiber- reinforced thermoset
polymer composite skin: Fabrication and evaluation”, International Journal of Composites:Part B, (2012), pp. 2875-2882.
[25] Jie Wang, Anthony M.Waas, Haiwang, “Experimental and numerical study on the low-velocity impact behaviour of foam –core sandwich
panels”, International Journal of Composite Structure, (2013), pp. 288-311.
[26] Aniber Benin. M, Dilip Thomas, “Estimation of Flexural Strength and shear strength of sandwich panel by varying foam density”,
International Journal of Science and Research, ISSN:2319-7064, (2013), pp.389-390.
[27] A. Gpoichand, R. Mohanrao, N.V.S Sankar, G.RamaBalaji, P.Sandeep Kumar, “Design and analysis of Copper honeycomb sandwich
structure”, International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, (2013), ISSN;2249-8958, Volume-2, Issue-4, pp. 635-638 .
[28] M.R.M.Rejab, W.J. Cantwell, “The mechanical behaviour of corrugated –core sandwich panels”, International Journal of Composites: Part
B, (2013), PP.267-277.
[29] Kai wei, Rujie He, Xiangmeng Cheng, Rubing Zhang, Yongmao Pei, Daining Fang, “Fabrication and mechanical properties of light weight
zro2 ceramic corrugated core sandwich panels”, International Journal of Materials and Design, (2014), pp.91-95.
[30] Murat Yazici, Jefferson Wight, Damien Bertin, ArunShukla, “Experimental and numerical study of foam filled corrugated core steel
sandwich structures subjected to blast loading”, International Journal of Composite structures, (2014), pp.98-109.
[31] M. Taherishargh, M. Vesenjak, I.V.belova, L.krstulovic-opera, G.E.murch, T.fiedler, “In situ manufacturing and mechanical properties of
syntactic foam filled tubes”, International Journal of Materials and Design, (2016), pp.356-368.
[32] Jin-Shui Yang, Li Ma, Rudiger Schmidt, Ge Qi, Kai-Uwe Schroder, Jianxiong, lin-zhiwu,“Hybrid light weight composite pyramidal truss
sandwich panls with high damping and stiffness efficiency”, International Journal of Composites structures, (2016), pp.85- 96.
[33]S. Rajesh, B. Vijaya Ramnath, C. Elanchezhian, A. Santosh Shankar, S. Pithchai Pandian, S. Vickneshwaran, R. Sundar Rajan,
“Investigation on Mechanical Behaviour of Twisted Natural Fiber Hybrid Composite Fabricated by Vacuum Assisted Compression Molding
Technique”, Fibers and Polymers 2016, Vol.17, No.1, 80-87.
[34]B.Vijaya Ramnath, V.Santhosh Kumar, P.V.Nirmal, S.Karthick, G.Prem Kumar, C. Elanchezhian , S.Rajesh , K.Suresh , :Experimental
Investigation of Mechanical behavior of Jute-Flax based Glass Fiber reinforced composite”, Fibers and polymers, Volume 15, Pages 1251-
1262,2014.
[35]B.Vijaya Ramnath, C. Elanchezhian, M.Jaivignesh, S. Rajesh, C. Parswajinan, A. Siddique Ahmed Ghias, “Evaluation of Mechanical
Properties of Aluminium Alloy-Alumina-Boron Carbide Metal Matrix Composites”, Materials and design, Volume 58, June 2014, Pages 332-
338.
[36] S. Rajesh , B. VijayaRamnath, “ Investigation Of Hardness And Impact Property of A Kevlar Composite”, International Journal of Applied
Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 10, Number 8 (2015).