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

EconCore licenses technology for thermoplastic honeycomb panels to a leading non-woven manufacturer EconCore, the technology provider for continuous production of honeycomb sandwich materials, has signed a license agreement with a leading non-woven manufacturer.

[view details]03-04-2019

EconCore to highlight lightweight honeycomb production technology for transportation at TMC19 EconCore will be exhibiting at TMC19 in Atlanta, Georgia, USA from 18th-21st March.

[view details]19-03-2019

EconCore to showcase new high-performance honeycomb technology at JEC World 2019 in Paris New material for aircraft and railway interior components

[view details]19-02-2019

Steel composite panels from Tata cut trailer weight by 22% Tesco is trialling eight demonstrator trailers as part of a project, funded by Innovate UK, to test prototype units which are 22% lighter than conventional double-deckers.

[view details]12-02-2019

Covestro and EconCore join forces in composites development Polycarbonate applications in mass transportation - Fire, smoke and toxicity (FST)-performing honeycomb cores and panels

[view details]30-01-2019

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]