Professional Documents
Culture Documents
$% Bài Quan Trọng%Energy Absorption and in-plane Crushing Behavior of Aluminium Reinforced
$% Bài Quan Trọng%Energy Absorption and in-plane Crushing Behavior of Aluminium Reinforced
Vacuum
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/vacuum
A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Aluminium honeycomb is a lightweight load carrying structure widely used in aerospace and automotive in-
Honeycomb core dustries. In this study, In-plane compression analysis of AA 8011 reinforced honeycomb was performed nu-
Reinforced honeycomb merically and experimentally. Geometrical parameters like cell size, cell wall thickness and node length were
In-plane crushing varied for attaining different models. Cell size was varied as 7 mm and 10 mm while node length as 25 mm,
LS-DYNA
30 mm and 35 mm respectively. Cell wall thickness of reinforced honeycomb was kept as 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 mm
Energy absorber
respectively. Finite element simulations were performed on various combination of reinforced honeycomb
configuration using LS DYNA. Numerical model was validated with experimental results performed on re-
inforced core. Cell-wall thickness has major influence on energy absorption and peak crushing force of honey-
comb. Enhancement in cell wall thickness increased crushing strength and energy absorption capacity of the
structure whereas reverse effect was observed with increase in cell size. Node length has less impact on per-
formance characteristics of honeycomb core.
1. Introduction using plateau stress and densification strain. Plateau stress was derived
considering behavior of vertical cell walls equivalent to columns under
Aerospace and automobile structures in present era strive for compressive loading to develop the elastic buckling of cell walls
lightweight structures with high energy absorption. In the quest of at- [13,14]. Furthermore, Becker et al. postulated elastic core strain energy
taining highly efficient energy absorbing structure hollow tubes, on specified displacement for establishing effect of core thickness on in-
sandwich foams, lattice cores and honeycomb cores [1–6] were studied. plane stiffness [15]. Hexagonal core have more in-plane stiffness than
Honeycomb core was found to perform exceedingly proficiently in square, triangular, kagome and diamond core configuration [7].
crushing conditions. In-plane crushing analysis of honeycomb core was Honeycomb being an anisotropic material was observed to be
executed to assess the mechanical properties and failure mechanisms in comparatively weak in in-plane impact than out-of-plane impact. In-
this direction [7]. Different energy absorbing and stress criterion were plane application of honeycomb was very limited as in-plane properties
applied for estimating mechanical properties and crush strength of were two times lesser than out-of-plane properties. But in reality impact
honeycombs in in-plane direction. All such theoretical models were doesn't always happen in out-of-plane direction therefore crushing
validated with experimental results [8–11]. Finite element models were analysis in in-plane direction becomes significant to understand de-
proficiently employed for exhibiting deformation mechanism in in- formation mechanism. Although in recent times lower in-plane stiffness
plane impact. Failure behavior like crush band initiation and wave was utilized for designing highly flexible meso-structure for functional
trapping were acclaimed. Hu et al. [10,12] augmented finite element material applications like actuators, sensors, shape memory aerospace
model of in-plane analysis of honeycomb and acquired the impact of antenna using auxetic honeycombs and shape control devices.
cell topology on performance of honeycomb in in-plane direction. Cell Honeycomb structure behaves as a low density cellular structure with
shape and cell arrangement significantly plays an important role in controllable shape in in-plane direction. Low shear stiffness honeycomb
crushing analysis of honeycomb in in-plane direction [11]. Cell failure has ability of shape control applicable in actuators and smart structures
mechanism majorly effects In-plane crushing strength of honeycomb [16–19]. Various novel structures were studied by various researchers
core as Plateau stress was significantly influenced by cell failure. Energy to improve the performance of core structure in in-plane crushing. Zero
absorption capacity of honeycomb core was predominantly described poisson's ratio novel honeycomb core was analysed with the aid of
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tiju.thomas30@gmail.com (T. Thomas).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2018.10.057
Received 31 July 2018; Received in revised form 8 October 2018; Accepted 20 October 2018
0042-207X/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Finite element method. Reduction in cell wall angle reduces poisson's epoxy adhesive to attain required reinforced honeycomb core [25], see
ratio, it approaches zero when cell wall angle becomes less than 10° Fig. 2 (b). Developed reinforced honeycomb core has cell wall angle
[20]. A new honeycomb core configuration was developed combining 45°. Both reinforced and conventional honeycomb core were manu-
rhombic and auxetic honeycomb core, resulting in significant en- factured by AA8011. Reinforced honeycomb samples were prepared
hancement in-plane stiffness while auxetic effect was reduced. Novel with varying cell size as 7 mm and 10 mm, node length as 35 mm and
honeycomb became transversely isotropic at 30° cell wall angle [18]. cell wall thickness as 0.3 mm respectively.
Energy absorption efficiency of auxetic structure was better than reg- Quasi-static tests were carried out on 60 Tonne capacity INSTRON
ular honeycomb while energy loss was dependent on honeycomb cell compression testing machine accompanying computer control and data
geometric parameters [21–24]. acquisition system. The velocity of the moveable jaw was kept as 2 mm/
It was clearly evident from literature that various novel structural min and compresses the sample placed in between the two platens
cores perform better than conventional honeycomb core (Fig. 1 (a)) where the bottom platen was fixed and top platen was moving down-
under in-plane loading condition. In this paper, a novel core named wards in in-plane direction.
reinforced honeycomb core (Fig. 1 (b)) was analysed in in-plane com-
pression (Fig. 2 (a)) both experimentally and numerically. Performance 2.2. Material characterization
of reinforced honeycomb core (RHC) was compared with conventional
honeycomb core (CHC) with same geometrical parameters. Modes of Aluminium 8011 material was used for fabrication of aluminium
deformation of reinforced honeycomb core under in-plane compression reinforced honeycomb. Accuracy of numerical model in non-linear
were also studied. Effect of different geometrical parameters on the analysis was dependent on material properties of model, therefore at-
crushing performance of reinforced honeycomb core was evaluated. taining exact material properties was a primary objective. Herewith
1 mm thick sheet of AA 8011 was cut in desired shape and size (of
2. Experimental analysis ASTM standard E345) using Electrode discharge machining. Further,
cut sheet samples were loaded in INSTRON Universal testing machine
2.1. Reinforced honeycomb fabrication and testing with computerized data acquisition system and mechanical parameters
(Table 1) were obtained, see Fig. 3.
Conventionally, hexagonal honeycomb cores were manufactured
with various techniques like corrugation and adhesion, expansion and 3. Numerical modeling
embossing [25,26]. In the present work, reinforced honeycomb core
were developed using corrugation and adhesion technique. High In-plane crush response of aluminium reinforced honeycomb was
Carbon high chromium steel corrugated male and female dies were executed in commercial explicit non-linear finite element code LS-
developed using cutting techniques for fabricating reinforced honey- DYNA. Three dimensional reinforced honeycomb cores were modeled
comb core. Aluminium sheets were pressed between both dies to attain with varying cell size as 7 mm, 10 mm and 15 mm, node length as
corrugated desired shapes which were further adhered together using 25 mm, 30 mm and 35 mm and cell wall thickness as 0.1 mm, 0.2 mm
2
T. Thomas, G. Tiwari Vacuum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Table 1 element with higher accuracy to minimize the hourglass effect, see
Nomenclature of reinforced honeycomb core samples. Fig. 4. Different mesh size 0.2, 0.25, 0.35 and 0.5 mm were considered
Nomenclature Cell size Cell wall Node Reinforced wall for meshing reinforced honeycomb core. It was evident that peak force
thickness Length thickness obtained from mesh size 0.25 mm numerical model was close to peak
force attained from experimental study. Peak force of 0.25 mm mesh
R_10_25_0.1 10 0.1 25 0.1
size was 11501 N while peak force obtained experimentally was
R_10_25_0.2 10 0.2 25 0.2
R_10_25_0.3 10 0.3 25 0.3
11620 N. There was an error of 1.01% and 1.013% for 0.25 and 0.2 mm
R_10_30_0.1 10 0.1 30 0.1 mesh size respectively while error rises to 5.16% and 10.17% for 0.35
R_10_30_0.2 10 0.2 30 0.2 and 0.5 mm respectively. Although 0.2 mm also almost gave approxi-
R_10_30_0.3 10 0.3 30 0.3 mately same results to that of 0.25 mm mesh size but computational
R_10_35_0.1 10 0.1 35 0.1
time for 0.2 mm mesh size was considerably higher. Therefore, after
R_10_35_0.2 10 0.2 35 0.2
R_10_35_0.3 10 0.3 35 0.3 convergence study 0.25 mm was considered as optimum mesh size, see
R_7_25_0.1 7 0.1 25 0.1 Fig. 5 (b). Material behavior of AA 8011 honeycomb was depicted using
R_7_25_0.2 7 0.2 25 0.2 Mat 024 (Piecewise_Linear_Plasticity) (Table 2). Yield criterion (Peice-
R_7_25_0.3 7 0.3 25 0.3
wise_Linear_Plasticty) was selected because AA 8011 was a non-linear
R_7_30_0.1 7 0.1 30 0.1
R_7_30_0.2 7 0.2 30 0.2
material and in order to incorporate effects of non-linearity above
R_7_30_0.3 7 0.3 30 0.3 mentioned yield criterion was used. With the aid of this material model,
R_7_35_0.1 7 0.1 35 0.1 non-linear behavior was converted to combination of approximately
R_7_35_0.2 7 0.2 35 0.2 infinitesimal small linear behaviors. In LS-DYNA, non linear material
R_7_35_0.3 7 0.3 35 0.3
property was mostly incorporated with aid of material model
(MAT_24). Reinforced honeycomb core was pressed in between two
rigid plates (shell surfaces), see Fig. 4. Top rigid plate allocated to move
in downward direction with rate of 2 mm/min while bottom rigid plate
was fixed. Automatic surface to surface contact was provided between
the rigid plate surface and reinforced honeycomb surface. Coefficient of
friction between the surfaces in contact was assumed as 0.3 [25]. The
yielding function criterion for MAT 024 was expounded as [30]:
1
ϕ= ∗Sab ∗Sab − r y2 ≤ 0
2 (1)
3
T. Thomas, G. Tiwari Vacuum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 5. a) Validation of experimental with numerical force vs displacement curve for reinforced core, b) Mesh size vs Peak force.
Table 2
Mechanical properties of AA 8011.
Property Value
4
T. Thomas, G. Tiwari Vacuum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Table 4
Properties of Reinforced honeycomb core.
Nomenclature Mean Force Maximum Force Maximum Energy
(N) (N) absorbed (J)
5
T. Thomas, G. Tiwari Vacuum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
10 mm. Therefore 7 mm core has more energy absorption capacity. metallic tubes, Thin-Walled Struct. 39 (9) (2001) 745–772.
Similarly 7 mm reinforced core has more stiffness than 10 mm core, so [2] D. Siromani, J. Awerbuch, T.-M. Tan, Finite element modeling of the crushing be-
havior of thin-walled CFRP tubes under axial compression, Compos. B Eng. 64
increase in cell size reduces in-plane stiffness. Reinforced honeycombs (2014) 50–58.
having cell size 7 mm, cell wall thickness 0.1 mm and node length [3] W.-Y. Jang, S. Kyriakides, On the buckling and crushing of expanded honeycomb,
25 mm has 28.48% and 21.513% higher mean (MF) and peak force (PF) Int. J. Mech. Sci. 91 (2015) 81–90.
[4] X. Zhang, H. Zhang, Z. Wen, Experimental and numerical studies on the crush re-
than reinforced honeycomb core with 10 mm cell wall thickness 0.1 mm sistance of aluminum honeycombs with various cell configurations, Int. J. Impact
and node length 25 mm. Energy absorbed by 7 mm cell size reinforced Eng. 66 (2014) 48–59.
honeycomb was 302.47 J while that of 10 mm cell size core was [5] S. Gaitanaros, S. Kyriakides, On the effect of relative density on the crushing and
energy absorption of open-cell foams under impact, Int. J. Impact Eng. 82 (2015)
93.11 J. Similarly reinforced honeycomb with cell size 7 mm, cell wall 3–13.
thickness 0.2 mm and node length 25 mm has 27.8% and 23.553% [6] A. Rajaneesh, I. Sridhar, S. Rajendran, Relative performance of metal and polymeric
higher mean and peak force than reinforced honeycomb core with foam sandwich plates under low velocity impact, Int. J. Impact Eng. 65 (2014)
126–136.
10 mm cell wall thickness 0.2 mm and node length 25 mm.
[7] A.-J. Wang, D. McDowell, In-plane stiffness and yield strength of periodic metal
honeycombs, J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 126 (2) (2004) 137–156.
4.5. Effect of cell-wall thickness [8] S.D. Papka, S. Kyriakides, In-plane compressive response and crushing of honey-
comb, J. Mech. Phys. Solid. 42 (10) (1994) 1499–1532.
[9] S.D. Papka, S. Kyriakides, In-plane crushing of a polycarbonate honeycomb, Int. J.
Cell-wall thickness also plays a defining role in establishing crush Solid Struct. 35 (3–4) (1998) 239–267.
strength for honeycomb core in out-of-plane and in-plane direction. Cell [10] L. Hu, T. Yu, Dynamic crushing strength of hexagonal honeycombs, Int. J. Impact
wall thickness also influences the performance of reinforced honey- Eng. 37 (5) (2010) 467–474.
[11] A. Hönig, W. Stronge, In-plane dynamic crushing of honeycomb. Part I: crush band
comb core under out-of-plane loads [25]. Increment in cell wall initiation and wave trapping, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 44 (8) (2002) 1665–1696.
thickness of reinforced honeycomb core enhances the In-plane crushing [12] L. Hu, F. You, T. Yu, Analyses on the dynamic strength of honeycombs under the y-
strength and energy absorbing capacity of the core. Cell-wall thickness directional crushing, Mater. Des. 53 (2014) 293–301.
[13] F.A. El-Sayed, R. Jones, I. Burgess, A theoretical approach to the deformation of
increment attributes to increase in relative density or core density of honeycomb based composite materials, Composites 10 (4) (1979) 209–214.
reinforced honeycomb, consequently crushing strength, in-plane stiff- [14] L. Gibson, Modelling the mechanical behavior of cellular materials, Mater. Sci. Eng.
ness and energy absorbing capacity of core was enhanced. Reinforced 110 (1989) 1–36.
[15] W. Becker, The in-plane stiffnesses of a honeycomb core including the thickness
honeycomb core with cell size 10 mm, 25 mm node length and cell effect, Arch. Appl. Mech. 68 (5) (1998) 334–341.
thickness 0.3 mm absorbs 107.15 J energy while 0.2 mm and 0.1 mm [16] K.E. Evans, A. Alderson, Auxetic materials: functional materials and structures from
cell wall thickness cores absorbs 97.24 and 93.11 J energy. Similarly lateral thinking!, Adv. Mater. 12 (9) (2000) 617–628.
[17] C. Lira, F. Scarpa, Transverse shear stiffness of thickness gradient honeycombs,
Reinforced honeycomb core with cell size 7 mm, 25 mm node length
Compos. Sci. Technol. 70 (6) (2010) 930–936.
and cell thickness 0.3 mm absorbs 317.35 J energy while 0.2 mm and [18] H.N. Wadley, Multifunctional periodic cellular metals, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond.:
0.1 mm cell wall thickness cores absorbs 309.56 and 302.47 J energy Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 364 (1838) (2006) 31–68.
respectively, see Fig. 9 (b). [19] J. HE, Y. TOI, Enhanced computational modeling of shape memory alloys and its
applications to honeycomb analysis, J. Solid Mech. Mater. Eng. 7 (1) (2013) 27–42.
[20] J. Huang, X. Gong, Q. Zhang, F. Scarpa, Y. Liu, J. Leng, In-plane mechanics of a
5. Conclusions novel zero Poisson's ratio honeycomb core, Compos. B Eng. 89 (2016) 67–76.
[21] J. Huang, Q. Zhang, F. Scarpa, Y. Liu, J. Leng, In-plane elasticity of a novel auxetic
honeycomb design, Compos. B Eng. 110 (2017) 72–82.
In-plane crushing analysis of reinforced and conventional honey- [22] Z. Zhou, J. Zhou, H. Fan, Plastic analyses of thin-walled steel honeycombs with re-
comb structure was performed both experimentally and numerically entrant deformation style, Mater. Sci. Eng. 688 (2017) 123–133.
with varying cell size, wall thickness and node length. Reinforce hon- [23] J. Qiao, C. Chen, In-plane crushing of a hierarchical honeycomb, Int. J. Solid Struct.
85 (2016) 57–66.
eycomb structure showed 18.55%, 121% and 39.81% higher mean [24] M.-H. Fu, Y. Chen, L.-L. Hu, A novel auxetic honeycomb with enhanced in-plane
force, peak force and energy absorption capacity as compared to con- stiffness and buckling strength, Compos. Struct. 160 (2017) 574–585.
ventional honeycomb structure. Moreover for reinforced honeycomb [25] G. Tiwari, T. Thomas, R. Khandelwal, Influence of reinforcement in the honeycomb
structures under axial compressive load, Thin-Walled Struct. 126 (2018) 238–245.
structure, 7 mm cell size structure showed 28.48%, 21.513% and 225%
[26] V. Crupi, G. Epasto, E. Guglielmino, Collapse modes in aluminium honeycomb
higher mean force, peak force and energy absorption as compared to sandwich panels under bending and impact loading, Int. J. Impact Eng. 43 (2012)
10 mm cell size structure. Similarly, 0.3 mm wall thickness structure 6–15.
[27] S.P. Santosa, T. Wierzbicki, A.G. Hanssen, M. Langseth, Experimental and numerical
provided 10.23%, 8.32% and 15.08% higher mean force, peak force
studies of foam-filled sections, Int. J. Impact Eng. 24 (5) (2000) 509–534.
and energy absorption as compared to 0.1 mm wall thickness structure. [28] H. Yin, G. Wen, Theoretical prediction and numerical simulation of honeycomb
The influence of nodal length was not found significant on the perfor- structures with various cell specifications under axial loading, Int. J. Mech. Mater.
mance of the structure. Reinforced honeycomb core offered higher in- Des. 7 (4) (2011) 253.
[29] Y. Aminanda, B. Castanie, J.-J. Barrau, P. Thevenet, Experimental analysis and
plane stiffness which enhanced crashworthiness property as well as modeling of the crushing of honeycomb cores, Appl. Compos. Mater. 12 (3–4)
showed stable deformation which is desirable for functional material. (2005) 213–227.
[30] S. Tabacu, C. Ducu, Experimental testing and numerical analysis of FDM multi-cell
inserts and hybrid structures, Thin-Walled Struct. 129 (2018) 197–212.
Appendix A. Supplementary data [31] Q. He, D. Ma, Z. Zhang, L. Yao, Mean compressive stress constitutive equation and
crashworthiness optimization design of three novel honeycombs under axial com-
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// pression, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 99 (2015) 274–287.
[32] S. Balawi, J. Abot, The effect of honeycomb relative density on its effective in-plane
doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2018.10.057. elastic moduli: an experimental study, Compos. Struct. 84 (4) (2008) 293–299.
References
[1] N. Gupta, G. Sekhon, P. Gupta, A study of lateral collapse of square and rectangular