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

EconCore joins Audi and others to develop composite battery casings EconCore is pleased to announce a partnership involving AZL, Audi and others to establish the potential of using composites for battery housings.

[view details]23-11-2020

Composite materials for lighter vehicles The automotive industry has long been seeking to find a cost-effective solution to weight reduction.

[view details]20-10-2020

EconCore proud to be key partner of sustainable concept LUCA car EconCore, is proud to be a major partner of an innovative project to build a car made entirely out of recycled materials by the TU/ecomotive team at Eindhoven University of Technology, launched on 8 October 2020.

[view details]08-10-2020

Job openings Are you interested to actively participate in the growth of EconCore?

[view details]01-10-2020

JEC Composites Webinar Thermoplastic Honeycomb Sandwich Panel Technology – Meeting the Cost-Efficiency and Sustainability Targets

[view details]17-09-2020

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]