page header
Download company brochure:
  • French
  • German
  • Italian
  • Japanese
  • Polish
  • Russian
  • Spanish
Latest News

Global summit for users of EconCore´s lightweight ThermHex honeycomb core technology EconCore, world leader in lightweight thermoplastic honeycomb core technology, hosted their fourth technology summit in Leuven, Belgium at the end of last month.

[view details]26-11-2019

Composite-Sandwich Conference 2020 Save the date!

[view details]05-11-2019

EconCore showcases advanced honeycomb technology at JEC Asia 2019 World leader in technologies for economic honeycomb sandwich material production, EconCore, will be exhibiting at JEC Asia 2019 in Seoul, Korea on 13 – 15 November.

[view details]05-11-2019

From Organosandwich to component For the first time, several prototypes of an Organosandwich component will be displayed at the K trade fair in Düsseldorf.

[view details]08-10-2019

EconCore chooses MEAF 50-H34 extruder for R-PET honeycomb sandwich panels EconCore from Leuven (Louvain) in Belgium has chosen the high speed, energy efficient MEAF 50-H34 extruder for its trial production of recycled PET (R-PET) ThermHex honeycomb sandwich panels.

[view details]29-08-2019

Sandwich-effect



The economic advantage of low cost core materials

The table shows the effect of the sandwich concept on bending stiffness, panel weight and panel material cost. For this simple comparison the core density is assumed to be 20 times lower than the density of the skin material, which is commonly reached in honeycomb sandwich construction.

Two sandwich examples show the positive effect of the sandwich height on the bending stiffness. Only 1.2 times the height allows to reach the bending stiffness a monolithic panel with only 30% of the amount of skin material compared to a monolithic panel. The "optimized" sandwich example in the last column of the table shows that only 6% of skin material can be sufficient to reach the same bending stiffness. The lower amount of skin material allows not only weight reductions, but also substantial cost reductions if a low cost core material is used.

The two lowest rows of the table present a comparison of the relative cost per m² based on material cost with an expensive core and a low cost core. For the expensive core material costs per weight are assumed to be 20 times higher than the cost per weight of the skin material. Since our exemplary core material has a 20 times lower density this results in equal cost per volume for core and skin material. For the low cost core, the material costs per weight are assumed to be equal to the cost per weight of the skin material. The relative cost per m², based only on cost per m² of the core and skin materials, compared to the monolithic panel show the large effect of the core material cost.

The cost savings due to low cost core materials can be as big as the weight savings due to low density core materials.



[Back]