![\"(no](\"https:\/\/www.raxpanel.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Aramid-Honeycomb-Core.jpg\")
<\/figure>\nWeight Reduction by Panel Material<\/h2>\n\nReplacing traditional mild steel with aluminum or glass fiber composites reduces vehicle curb weight by 25% to 60%. The optimal material selection depends entirely on your acceptable cost-per-part multiplier and structural load requirements.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Aluminum vs. Steel Mass Savings<\/h3>\n
When commercial vehicle OEMs shift from traditional mild steel to aluminum sandwich panels<\/a>, engineers consistently record a 40% to 60% mass reduction. According to research from the Colorado School of Mines<\/a> (Taub et al.), this weight saving comes at a 1.3x to 2.0x relative cost per part. For manufacturers building RV walls, truck bodies, or marine superstructures, this cost premium is offset by massive gains in payload capacity and a direct reduction in vehicle fuel consumption<\/a>.<\/p>\nAt Rax Panel, we manufacture our aluminum sandwich panels using a range of core materials<\/a> to calibrate this weight-to-cost ratio precisely. By bonding aluminum facings to lightweight cores, we achieve high specific stiffness while maintaining strict thickness tolerances of \u00b10.3mm for structural assemblies. This consistency is critical for keeping your production line moving without assembly defects.<\/p>\nComposite Panel Strength-to-Weight Ratios<\/h3>\n
Glass fiber composites currently offer the most cost-effective strength-to-weight ratio<\/a> for specialized vehicle manufacturing. They achieve a 25% to 35% mass reduction over conventional materials at a relative cost of only 1.0x to 1.5x. While carbon fiber provides superior weight savings, its 2x to 10x cost multiplier restricts it to premium or high-performance applications. We outline the exact engineering tradeoffs below:<\/p>\n\n- Glass Fiber Composites (GRP\/FRP):<\/strong> 25-35% mass reduction at 1.0-1.5x relative cost.<\/li>\n
- Aluminum Systems:<\/strong> 40-60% mass reduction at 1.3-2.0x relative cost.<\/li>\n
- Advanced High-Strength Steel (AHSS):<\/strong> 15-25% mass reduction at 1.0-1.5x relative cost.<\/li>\n
- Carbon Fiber Composites:<\/strong> 50-60% mass reduction at 2.0-10.0x relative cost.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
We engineer our GRP\/FRP and CFRT sandwich panels to capitalize on these composite advantages. By utilizing specific core structures (such as PP honeycomb, XPS foam, or PET foam<\/a>), we manufacture lightweight composite panels for truck bodies and marine vessels that absorb structural loads without the severe weight penalties of solid laminate construction.<\/p>\n
\n\n\nMaterial<\/th>\n Mass Reduction vs Mild Steel<\/th>\n Relative Cost per Part<\/th>\n Best Use Case<\/th>\n Tradeoff<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n\nAdvanced High-Strength Steel<\/td>\n 15\u201325%<\/td>\n 1.0\u20131.5x<\/td>\n Structural reinforcement, crash zones<\/td>\n Least weight savings; minimal disruption to existing welding\/assembly lines<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nGlass Fiber Composites (FRP\/GRP)<\/td>\n 25\u201335%<\/td>\n 1.0\u20131.5x<\/td>\n RV walls, truck bodies, marine hulls<\/td>\n Most cost-effective composite; proven in high-volume commercial vehicle production<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nAluminum Sandwich Panels<\/td>\n 40\u201360%<\/td>\n 1.3\u20132.0x<\/td>\n RV walls\/roofing, marine superstructures, dry freight bodies<\/td>\n Excellent strength-to-weight ratio; superior corrosion resistance and flat surface finish<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nCFRT (Continuous Fiber Thermoplastic)<\/td>\n 30\u201345%<\/td>\n 1.5\u20133.0x<\/td>\n Marine vessel construction, modular housing<\/td>\n Lighter and thinner than traditional FRP; recyclable thermoplastic matrix<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nCarbon Fiber Composites<\/td>\n 50\u201360%<\/td>\n 2.0\u201310.0x<\/td>\n Premium EVs, aerospace, high-performance applications<\/td>\n Maximum weight savings; cost prohibitive for most commercial vehicle programs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nPP Honeycomb Core Panels<\/td>\n 45\u201365%<\/td>\n 1.5\u20133.0x<\/td>\n Lightweight flooring, partitions, furniture panels<\/td>\n Core density 28\u2013120 kg\/m\u00b3; exceptional specific stiffness when paired with fiberglass facings<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nCore Material Selection Guide<\/h2>\n\nThe core material dictates 70% of a sandwich panel’s thermal and mechanical performance. Selecting between foam and honeycomb isn’t a preference: it’s an engineering decision driven by whether your vehicle prioritizes insulation R-value or specific stiffness.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Foam Core for Insulated Vehicles: PU vs. PET in Refrigerated Truck Bodies<\/h3>\n
Refrigerated truck manufacturers live and die by thermal retention. Every watt of heat that leaks through a panel wall translates directly to compressor runtime, fuel burn, and temperature excursions that risk cargo spoilage. This is where closed-cell foam cores, specifically Polyurethane (PU) and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), dominate the specification sheets.<\/p>\n
PU foam has been the default core for refrigerated truck bodies for decades, and for good reason. Its thermal conductivity sits at approximately \u03bb \u2248 0.022 W\/m\u00b7K, making it one of the most effective insulating cores available at commercial scale.<\/p>\n
When we manufacture PU foam core sandwich panels for truck bodies at our facility, we typically pair it with GRP\/FRP or aluminum facings to create a continuous thermal break. The closed-cell structure also resists moisture ingress, critical for vehicles that cycle between ambient loading docks and sub-zero transit conditions daily.<\/p>\n
PET foam has gained significant traction in recent years, particularly among European OEMs who prioritize recyclability and consistent mechanical properties across temperature extremes. PET offers slightly higher thermal conductivity than PU (roughly \u03bb \u2248 0.030\u20130.035 W\/m\u00b7K depending on density), but it compensates with superior dimensional stability.<\/p>\n
Where PU can experience thermal drift, a gradual loss of insulating capacity as blowing agents diffuse out over years, PET maintains its stated \u03bb-value indefinitely because it is physically foamed rather than chemically blown.<\/p>\n
\n- PU Foam Core:<\/strong> Best for maximum thermal insulation per unit thickness (\u03bb \u2248 0.022 W\/m\u00b7K), cost-sensitive builds, and applications where panel thickness is constrained by vehicle width regulations.<\/li>\n
- PET Foam Core:<\/strong> Best for long-term thermal stability, high-temperature exposure during curing or painting processes, and OEMs requiring recycled content certifications for sustainability reporting.<\/li>\n
- Core Density Range:<\/strong> 60\u2013200 kg\/m\u00b3 for structural foam cores; we typically specify 100\u2013130 kg\/m\u00b3 for refrigerated truck sidewalls to balance rigidity against weight.<\/li>\n
- Thickness Tolerances:<\/strong> \u00b10.3mm for structural load-bearing panels (floors, front walls); \u00b10.5mm for non-structural sidewalls and roof panels.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The practical decision matrix is straightforward. If your refrigerated truck body operates in a cold-chain logistics network where every millimeter of insulation counts and replacement cycles are 7\u201310 years, PU foam core paired with gelcoat-finished GRP facings remains the most cost-effective specification. If you are building for a fleet operator who tracks lifecycle carbon footprint and plans 15+ year service life with potential panel re-use, PET foam justifies the modest cost premium.<\/p>\n
We also manufacture panels with XPS and PVC foam cores for specialized thermal applications. XPS offers a middle ground between PU and PET on both cost and thermal performance, while PVC foam (density range 60\u2013200 kg\/m\u00b3) provides excellent fire resistance characteristics that simplify certification under European and North American vehicle flammability standards.<\/p>\n
Honeycomb Core for Structural Rigidity: PP and Fiberglass Honeycomb in RV Walls and Marine Bulkheads<\/h3>\n
When the engineering priority shifts from thermal insulation to specific stiffness (maximum bending rigidity per unit weight), honeycomb cores become the correct specification. RV manufacturers and marine vessel builders face a distinct challenge: their panels must span large unsupported areas (RV sidewalls, cabin bulkheads) while resisting wind loads, wave slap, and vibration fatigue, all without adding unnecessary curb weight.<\/p>\n
Polypropylene (PP) honeycomb has become the workhorse core for RV wall and roofing panels, and we produce it in volume at our facility with daily output exceeding 1,700 square meters of composite panel area.<\/p>\n
The appeal is direct: PP honeycomb cores typically weigh 28\u2013120 kg\/m\u00b3 depending on cell size and foil gauge, dramatically lighter than foam cores at equivalent thickness. When composited with fiberglass sheet facings (our standard CFRT or GRP skins), the resulting sandwich panel delivers a strength-to-weight ratio that foam cores simply cannot match for flat, panelized structures.<\/p>\n
The mechanics are worth understanding because they drive correct specification. A honeycomb core resists shear forces parallel to the panel plane, while the facings handle tensile and compressive loads. This means the core does not need to be dense. It needs to have consistent cell geometry and proper adhesive bonding to the skins.<\/p>\n
We have seen field failures in competitor panels where inadequate surface treatment of the PP honeycomb caused delamination under sustained vibration. Our production process includes corona treatment of all PP honeycomb surfaces before lamination to ensure adhesion values that exceed industry shear test benchmarks.<\/p>\n
\n- PP Honeycomb Core:<\/strong> Best for RV walls, roofing, and flooring where weight reduction is the primary KPI; also suitable for furniture panels and interior partitions.<\/li>\n
- Fiberglass Honeycomb Core:<\/strong> Best for marine bulkheads and superstructure panels requiring higher shear modulus, fire performance, and resistance to moisture absorption than PP can provide.<\/li>\n
- Core Density Range:<\/strong> 28\u2013120 kg\/m\u00b3 for honeycomb cores, roughly half the density of equivalent-strength foam solutions.<\/li>\n
- Facing Compatibility:<\/strong> PP honeycomb bonds effectively with GRP\/FRP, CFRT, and aluminum skins. Fiberglass honeycomb pairs optimally with GRP facings for maximum structural symmetry.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Fiberglass honeycomb enters the specification conversation when fire certification becomes non-negotiable. Marine classification societies, and increasingly RV codes in the EU, require panels that meet specific flame spread and smoke density indices. Fiberglass honeycomb cores are inherently non-combustible, which simplifies the certification pathway for panels that must meet SOLAS or equivalent standards. We supply fiberglass honeycomb panels for vessel bulkheads and superstructures where the facing-core-facing system must perform as a unified fire barrier, not just a structural element.<\/p>\n
The trade-off is cost and processing complexity. Fiberglass honeycomb cores run 30\u201350% higher in raw material cost compared to PP honeycomb at equivalent thickness, and they require more careful handling during lamination to prevent cell wall damage.<\/p>\n
For RV manufacturers building price-sensitive product lines, PP honeycomb with GRP facings typically delivers 85% of the structural performance at 60% of the core cost. For marine OEMs building to classification society approval, fiberglass honeycomb is not optional: it is the minimum acceptable specification.<\/p>\n
Our engineering team works directly with vehicle manufacturers to determine the correct core selection based on actual loading conditions, not theoretical assumptions. We conduct experimental testing on custom core-skin combinations to validate that the finished panel meets your specific data standards, whether that means deflection limits under uniform wind load, impact resistance for road debris, or cyclic fatigue for marine applications.<\/p>\n
This is not a catalog selection process; it is a collaborative engineering specification, and our 15 years of production experience across 50+ export markets informs every recommendation.<\/p>\n
\n\n\nCore Material<\/th>\n Type<\/th>\n Density Range<\/th>\n Key Properties<\/th>\n Ideal Applications<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n\nPU Foam<\/td>\n Closed-cell Foam<\/td>\n 30-60 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n Thermal conductivity \u03bb\u22480.022 W\/m\u00b7K; superior insulation; waterproof<\/td>\n Refrigerated truck bodies, RV walls, mobile homes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nPET Foam<\/td>\n Closed-cell Foam<\/td>\n 60-200 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n Recyclable; excellent mechanical strength; temperature resistant<\/td>\n Marine vessel panels, truck bodies, structural panels<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nXPS Foam<\/td>\n Closed-cell Foam<\/td>\n 30-45 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n Moisture resistant; dimensionally stable; cost-effective insulation<\/td>\n RV roofing, lightweight wall panels, flooring<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nPVC Foam<\/td>\n Closed-cell Foam<\/td>\n 60-200 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n Good fire resistance; chemical resistant; proven marine track record<\/td>\n Marine superstructures, vessel interiors, wet environments<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nPMI Foam<\/td>\n High-performance Foam<\/td>\n 60-200 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n Highest specific strength; excellent thermal stability; fatigue resistant<\/td>\n Aviation, premium EV battery enclosures, high-stress structures<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nPP Honeycomb<\/td>\n Thermoplastic Honeycomb<\/td>\n 28-120 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n Strong and lightweight; cost-efficient; recyclable; impact absorbing<\/td>\n RV flooring, furniture panels, dry freight truck bodies<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nAluminum Honeycomb<\/td>\n Metallic Honeycomb<\/td>\n 28-120 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n Exceptional specific stiffness; fireproof; \u00b10.3mm structural tolerance<\/td>\n Aluminum sandwich panels, exterior wall cladding, flat panels<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nAramid Honeycomb<\/td>\n Aramid Fiber Honeycomb<\/td>\n 28-64 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n Outstanding strength-to-weight; flame resistant; superior toughness<\/td>\n Aviation panels, high-performance vehicle structures, ballistic applications<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nPC Honeycomb<\/td>\n Polycarbonate Honeycomb<\/td>\n Variable<\/td>\n Impact resistant; UV stabilizable; good optical clarity options<\/td>\n Light-transmitting panels, specialty vehicle applications<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nEPP Foam<\/td>\n Expanded Polypropylene<\/td>\n Variable<\/td>\n Excellent energy absorption; multiple impact recovery; recyclable<\/td>\n Crash protection zones, bumper cores, EV battery padding<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nBalsa Wood<\/td>\n Natural Core<\/td>\n 100-250 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n High compressive strength; sustainable; excellent fatigue resistance<\/td>\n Marine hull construction, wind energy, heavy-duty truck panels<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nPlywood<\/td>\n Engineered Wood<\/td>\n 300-500 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n High stiffness; easy to machine; mechanical fastener retention<\/td>\n FRP plywood panels, furniture panels, heavy-duty flooring<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nFacing Material Trade-offs<\/h2>\n\nChoosing a facing material determines the panel’s impact resilience and total lifecycle cost, not just its initial weight.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Traditional GRP vs. CFRT Facing Durability<\/h3>\n
Replacing traditional mild steel with aluminum or glass fiber composites reduces vehicle curb weight by 25% to 60%. The optimal material selection depends entirely on your acceptable cost-per-part multiplier and structural load requirements.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Aluminum vs. Steel Mass Savings<\/h3>\n
When commercial vehicle OEMs shift from traditional mild steel to aluminum sandwich panels<\/a>, engineers consistently record a 40% to 60% mass reduction. According to research from the Colorado School of Mines<\/a> (Taub et al.), this weight saving comes at a 1.3x to 2.0x relative cost per part. For manufacturers building RV walls, truck bodies, or marine superstructures, this cost premium is offset by massive gains in payload capacity and a direct reduction in vehicle fuel consumption<\/a>.<\/p>\n At Rax Panel, we manufacture our aluminum sandwich panels using a range of core materials<\/a> to calibrate this weight-to-cost ratio precisely. By bonding aluminum facings to lightweight cores, we achieve high specific stiffness while maintaining strict thickness tolerances of \u00b10.3mm for structural assemblies. This consistency is critical for keeping your production line moving without assembly defects.<\/p>\n Glass fiber composites currently offer the most cost-effective strength-to-weight ratio<\/a> for specialized vehicle manufacturing. They achieve a 25% to 35% mass reduction over conventional materials at a relative cost of only 1.0x to 1.5x. While carbon fiber provides superior weight savings, its 2x to 10x cost multiplier restricts it to premium or high-performance applications. We outline the exact engineering tradeoffs below:<\/p>\n We engineer our GRP\/FRP and CFRT sandwich panels to capitalize on these composite advantages. By utilizing specific core structures (such as PP honeycomb, XPS foam, or PET foam<\/a>), we manufacture lightweight composite panels for truck bodies and marine vessels that absorb structural loads without the severe weight penalties of solid laminate construction.<\/p>\n The core material dictates 70% of a sandwich panel’s thermal and mechanical performance. Selecting between foam and honeycomb isn’t a preference: it’s an engineering decision driven by whether your vehicle prioritizes insulation R-value or specific stiffness.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Refrigerated truck manufacturers live and die by thermal retention. Every watt of heat that leaks through a panel wall translates directly to compressor runtime, fuel burn, and temperature excursions that risk cargo spoilage. This is where closed-cell foam cores, specifically Polyurethane (PU) and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), dominate the specification sheets.<\/p>\n PU foam has been the default core for refrigerated truck bodies for decades, and for good reason. Its thermal conductivity sits at approximately \u03bb \u2248 0.022 W\/m\u00b7K, making it one of the most effective insulating cores available at commercial scale.<\/p>\n When we manufacture PU foam core sandwich panels for truck bodies at our facility, we typically pair it with GRP\/FRP or aluminum facings to create a continuous thermal break. The closed-cell structure also resists moisture ingress, critical for vehicles that cycle between ambient loading docks and sub-zero transit conditions daily.<\/p>\n PET foam has gained significant traction in recent years, particularly among European OEMs who prioritize recyclability and consistent mechanical properties across temperature extremes. PET offers slightly higher thermal conductivity than PU (roughly \u03bb \u2248 0.030\u20130.035 W\/m\u00b7K depending on density), but it compensates with superior dimensional stability.<\/p>\n Where PU can experience thermal drift, a gradual loss of insulating capacity as blowing agents diffuse out over years, PET maintains its stated \u03bb-value indefinitely because it is physically foamed rather than chemically blown.<\/p>\n The practical decision matrix is straightforward. If your refrigerated truck body operates in a cold-chain logistics network where every millimeter of insulation counts and replacement cycles are 7\u201310 years, PU foam core paired with gelcoat-finished GRP facings remains the most cost-effective specification. If you are building for a fleet operator who tracks lifecycle carbon footprint and plans 15+ year service life with potential panel re-use, PET foam justifies the modest cost premium.<\/p>\n We also manufacture panels with XPS and PVC foam cores for specialized thermal applications. XPS offers a middle ground between PU and PET on both cost and thermal performance, while PVC foam (density range 60\u2013200 kg\/m\u00b3) provides excellent fire resistance characteristics that simplify certification under European and North American vehicle flammability standards.<\/p>\n When the engineering priority shifts from thermal insulation to specific stiffness (maximum bending rigidity per unit weight), honeycomb cores become the correct specification. RV manufacturers and marine vessel builders face a distinct challenge: their panels must span large unsupported areas (RV sidewalls, cabin bulkheads) while resisting wind loads, wave slap, and vibration fatigue, all without adding unnecessary curb weight.<\/p>\n Polypropylene (PP) honeycomb has become the workhorse core for RV wall and roofing panels, and we produce it in volume at our facility with daily output exceeding 1,700 square meters of composite panel area.<\/p>\n The appeal is direct: PP honeycomb cores typically weigh 28\u2013120 kg\/m\u00b3 depending on cell size and foil gauge, dramatically lighter than foam cores at equivalent thickness. When composited with fiberglass sheet facings (our standard CFRT or GRP skins), the resulting sandwich panel delivers a strength-to-weight ratio that foam cores simply cannot match for flat, panelized structures.<\/p>\n The mechanics are worth understanding because they drive correct specification. A honeycomb core resists shear forces parallel to the panel plane, while the facings handle tensile and compressive loads. This means the core does not need to be dense. It needs to have consistent cell geometry and proper adhesive bonding to the skins.<\/p>\n We have seen field failures in competitor panels where inadequate surface treatment of the PP honeycomb caused delamination under sustained vibration. Our production process includes corona treatment of all PP honeycomb surfaces before lamination to ensure adhesion values that exceed industry shear test benchmarks.<\/p>\n Fiberglass honeycomb enters the specification conversation when fire certification becomes non-negotiable. Marine classification societies, and increasingly RV codes in the EU, require panels that meet specific flame spread and smoke density indices. Fiberglass honeycomb cores are inherently non-combustible, which simplifies the certification pathway for panels that must meet SOLAS or equivalent standards. We supply fiberglass honeycomb panels for vessel bulkheads and superstructures where the facing-core-facing system must perform as a unified fire barrier, not just a structural element.<\/p>\n The trade-off is cost and processing complexity. Fiberglass honeycomb cores run 30\u201350% higher in raw material cost compared to PP honeycomb at equivalent thickness, and they require more careful handling during lamination to prevent cell wall damage.<\/p>\n For RV manufacturers building price-sensitive product lines, PP honeycomb with GRP facings typically delivers 85% of the structural performance at 60% of the core cost. For marine OEMs building to classification society approval, fiberglass honeycomb is not optional: it is the minimum acceptable specification.<\/p>\n Our engineering team works directly with vehicle manufacturers to determine the correct core selection based on actual loading conditions, not theoretical assumptions. We conduct experimental testing on custom core-skin combinations to validate that the finished panel meets your specific data standards, whether that means deflection limits under uniform wind load, impact resistance for road debris, or cyclic fatigue for marine applications.<\/p>\n This is not a catalog selection process; it is a collaborative engineering specification, and our 15 years of production experience across 50+ export markets informs every recommendation.<\/p>\n Choosing a facing material determines the panel’s impact resilience and total lifecycle cost, not just its initial weight.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\nComposite Panel Strength-to-Weight Ratios<\/h3>\n
\n
\n\n
\n \nMaterial<\/th>\n Mass Reduction vs Mild Steel<\/th>\n Relative Cost per Part<\/th>\n Best Use Case<\/th>\n Tradeoff<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n Advanced High-Strength Steel<\/td>\n 15\u201325%<\/td>\n 1.0\u20131.5x<\/td>\n Structural reinforcement, crash zones<\/td>\n Least weight savings; minimal disruption to existing welding\/assembly lines<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Glass Fiber Composites (FRP\/GRP)<\/td>\n 25\u201335%<\/td>\n 1.0\u20131.5x<\/td>\n RV walls, truck bodies, marine hulls<\/td>\n Most cost-effective composite; proven in high-volume commercial vehicle production<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Aluminum Sandwich Panels<\/td>\n 40\u201360%<\/td>\n 1.3\u20132.0x<\/td>\n RV walls\/roofing, marine superstructures, dry freight bodies<\/td>\n Excellent strength-to-weight ratio; superior corrosion resistance and flat surface finish<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n CFRT (Continuous Fiber Thermoplastic)<\/td>\n 30\u201345%<\/td>\n 1.5\u20133.0x<\/td>\n Marine vessel construction, modular housing<\/td>\n Lighter and thinner than traditional FRP; recyclable thermoplastic matrix<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Carbon Fiber Composites<\/td>\n 50\u201360%<\/td>\n 2.0\u201310.0x<\/td>\n Premium EVs, aerospace, high-performance applications<\/td>\n Maximum weight savings; cost prohibitive for most commercial vehicle programs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n PP Honeycomb Core Panels<\/td>\n 45\u201365%<\/td>\n 1.5\u20133.0x<\/td>\n Lightweight flooring, partitions, furniture panels<\/td>\n Core density 28\u2013120 kg\/m\u00b3; exceptional specific stiffness when paired with fiberglass facings<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Core Material Selection Guide<\/h2>\n
\n
Foam Core for Insulated Vehicles: PU vs. PET in Refrigerated Truck Bodies<\/h3>\n
\n
Honeycomb Core for Structural Rigidity: PP and Fiberglass Honeycomb in RV Walls and Marine Bulkheads<\/h3>\n
\n
\n\n
\n \nCore Material<\/th>\n Type<\/th>\n Density Range<\/th>\n Key Properties<\/th>\n Ideal Applications<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n PU Foam<\/td>\n Closed-cell Foam<\/td>\n 30-60 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n Thermal conductivity \u03bb\u22480.022 W\/m\u00b7K; superior insulation; waterproof<\/td>\n Refrigerated truck bodies, RV walls, mobile homes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n PET Foam<\/td>\n Closed-cell Foam<\/td>\n 60-200 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n Recyclable; excellent mechanical strength; temperature resistant<\/td>\n Marine vessel panels, truck bodies, structural panels<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n XPS Foam<\/td>\n Closed-cell Foam<\/td>\n 30-45 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n Moisture resistant; dimensionally stable; cost-effective insulation<\/td>\n RV roofing, lightweight wall panels, flooring<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n PVC Foam<\/td>\n Closed-cell Foam<\/td>\n 60-200 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n Good fire resistance; chemical resistant; proven marine track record<\/td>\n Marine superstructures, vessel interiors, wet environments<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n PMI Foam<\/td>\n High-performance Foam<\/td>\n 60-200 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n Highest specific strength; excellent thermal stability; fatigue resistant<\/td>\n Aviation, premium EV battery enclosures, high-stress structures<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n PP Honeycomb<\/td>\n Thermoplastic Honeycomb<\/td>\n 28-120 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n Strong and lightweight; cost-efficient; recyclable; impact absorbing<\/td>\n RV flooring, furniture panels, dry freight truck bodies<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Aluminum Honeycomb<\/td>\n Metallic Honeycomb<\/td>\n 28-120 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n Exceptional specific stiffness; fireproof; \u00b10.3mm structural tolerance<\/td>\n Aluminum sandwich panels, exterior wall cladding, flat panels<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Aramid Honeycomb<\/td>\n Aramid Fiber Honeycomb<\/td>\n 28-64 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n Outstanding strength-to-weight; flame resistant; superior toughness<\/td>\n Aviation panels, high-performance vehicle structures, ballistic applications<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n PC Honeycomb<\/td>\n Polycarbonate Honeycomb<\/td>\n Variable<\/td>\n Impact resistant; UV stabilizable; good optical clarity options<\/td>\n Light-transmitting panels, specialty vehicle applications<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n EPP Foam<\/td>\n Expanded Polypropylene<\/td>\n Variable<\/td>\n Excellent energy absorption; multiple impact recovery; recyclable<\/td>\n Crash protection zones, bumper cores, EV battery padding<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Balsa Wood<\/td>\n Natural Core<\/td>\n 100-250 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n High compressive strength; sustainable; excellent fatigue resistance<\/td>\n Marine hull construction, wind energy, heavy-duty truck panels<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Plywood<\/td>\n Engineered Wood<\/td>\n 300-500 kg\/m\u00b3<\/td>\n High stiffness; easy to machine; mechanical fastener retention<\/td>\n FRP plywood panels, furniture panels, heavy-duty flooring<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Facing Material Trade-offs<\/h2>\n
\n
Traditional GRP vs. CFRT Facing Durability<\/h3>\n
![\"CTA](\"https:\/\/www.raxpanel.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/core-material-factory-core-material-factory-audit-checklist-overview-scaled.jpg\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n