JOURNAL OF

COMPOSITE
Article M AT E R I A L S
Journal of Composite Materials
0(0) 1–14
! The Author(s) 2014
In plane compressive response and Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
crushing of foam filled aluminum DOI: 10.1177/0021998314561069
jcm.sagepub.com
honeycombs

Hozhabr Mozafari1, Habibollah Molatefi1, Vincenzo Crupi2,

Gabriella Epasto2 and Eugenio Guglielmino2

Abstract
In this paper, the influence of foam filling of aluminum honeycomb core on its in-plane crushing properties is investigated.
An aluminum honeycomb core and a polyurethane foam with densities of 65, 90, and 145 kg/m3 were used to produce
foam filled honeycomb panels, and then experimental quasi-static compression tests were performed. Moreover, finite
element model, based on the conducted tests, was developed. In the finite element analyses, three different polyurethane
foams were used to fill three different honeycomb cores. The effects of foam filling of aluminum honeycomb core on its
in-plane mechanical properties (such as mean crushing strength, absorbed energy, and specific absorbed energy) were
analyzed experimentally and numerically. The results showed that the foam filling of honeycomb core can increase the in
plane crushing strength up to 208 times, and its specific absorbed energy up to 20 times. However, it was found that the
effect of foam filling decreases in heavier honeycombs, producing an increment of the above mentioned properties only
up to 36 and 6 times, respectively.

Keywords
Polyurethane foam, crushing strength, specific absorbed energy, finite element method, foam filled honeycomb

under in-plane loading conditions such as, shear

Introduction
Core-based sandwich panels such as honeycombs have
been developed and are growing in use as new engin-
eering materials.1 The out of plane crushing behavior of
honeycomb has attracted much attention since the
honeycomb is more effective in energy absorption
under out of plane impacts. Several researches have
been done about out of plane crashworthiness of
honeycombs in recent years.2–12 However, in some
applications, such as using a honeycomb block as an
energy absorption layer in aircraft against bird or
debit’s collision, the crushing could occur along any
direction of the honeycomb. Hence, the in-plane
crushing behavior of a honeycomb also needs to be
known besides its out of plane crushing behavior.
Furthermore, honeycombs are used as core of sandwich
panels in lightweight structures.13–20 Since in-plane
loads are inevitable in these structures, honeycomb
cores are exposed to crushing and failure under these
conditions.21,22 Bitzer23 listed various failure modes of
honeycomb sandwich panels. Some of them occurred
crimping, face wrinkling, general buckling, and core
compression failure. Therefore, the reinforcement of
honeycomb cores is important to avoid premature fail-
ure. While the compressive performance depends on the
honeycomb cell morphology, the filled foam acts as an
effective reinforcement for cell walls of the honeycomb
by preventing premature bending, buckling, and shear
failure. Filling of honeycomb cells with metallic and
polymeric foams is growing in use as a reinforcement
of honeycomb cores. Jhaver and Tippur24 investigated
the compression behavior of syntactic foam filled
aluminum honeycomb composites. They used three
1
Railway Engineering School, Iran University of Science and Technology,
Tehran, Iran
2
Department of Electronics Engineering, Chemistry and Industrial
Engineering, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
Corresponding author:
Hozhabr Mozafari, Railway Engineering School, Iran University of Science
and Technology, Tehran 6931817519, Iran.
Email: hozhabr@rail.iust.ac.ir

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitu on December 20, 2014
2 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

syntactic foams with different volume fractions of filled honeycomb structures as energy-absorbing mater-
micro balloons. Uniaxial compression tests were car- ials. Implementing rigid inclusions in honeycomb struc-
ried out under quasi-static conditions. They have ture decreases significantly its densification strain.
found that filling aluminum honeycomb by syntactic Moreover, the randomly filling honeycombs with rigid
foam can improve elastic modulus and plateau stress inclusions results in severe oscillation in stress–strain
values by 26–31% and 36–39% when compared to the response, especially at the plateau stress region. On
syntactic foam with the same volume fraction of micro the other hand, in the present study, honeycomb cells
balloons. This research gave useful information of were filled with rigid polyurethane foam. Uniformly
foam-filling technique in order to enhance the required filled honeycombs lead to stable variation of stress–
mechanical properties of honeycomb. Syntactic foams strain response and avoid abrupt changes. Moreover,
are multifunctional structural foams with closed-cell due to the cellular structure of rigid polyurethane
microstructure. These foams are relatively heavier in foams, the filled honeycomb cells deform to absorb
comparison with other polymeric foams. If the honey- energy in spite of rigid inclusions which do not partici-
comb core is filled with heavy foams, this produces an pate in energy absorption.
undesirable overweight of the all structure. Therefore,
some researchers have worked on the effects of filling
honeycomb cores with lightweight polyurethane foams. Experimental tests
However, their researches mostly heed to the determin-
ation of out of plane crushing properties of honeycomb
Materials
cores.25 AlaviNia and Sadeghi26 investigated the
Honeycomb core. Commercially available aluminum
effects of strain (in low strain rate regime) on the out
honeycomb core (made of Al 5052-H32; manufactured
of plane compressive mechanical behavior of bare
by Hexcel Corporation, USA) was used for the speci-
and polyurethane foam filled honeycomb structures.
mens. The specifications of the honeycomb sample are
They have found that bare panels are more sensitive
listed in Table 1 and shown in Figure 1.
to the strain rate than the foam filled ones. The incre-
ment of the plateau stress, induced by an increase in the
strain rate, is much more considerable in bare panels PU foam. The apparent density of polyurethane foam
than that of foam filled ones. Mozafari et al.27 studied which was selected for filling of honeycomb cores was
the application of polyurethane foam filled honeycomb
sandwich panels in Korean tilting train express (TTX).
They investigated the out of plane crushing behavior Table 1. Specifications of honeycomb sample.
and local stiffness of bare and foam filled honeycombs.
Honeycomb
They found that the local stiffness and out of plane
material S (mm) h (mm) Panel size (mm) b (mm)
crushing behavior could increase significantly, using
the polyurethane foam filled honeycomb as core of Al 5052-H32 9 0.14 50  50 35
TTX sandwich panel.
In this paper, the in plane crushing behavior of foam
filled honeycomb is investigated experimentally and
numerically. An aluminum honeycomb core and a
polyurethane foam were used to prepare the foam
filled honeycomb, then experimental quasi-static com-
pression tests were carried out. A finite element model,
based on conducted tests, was developed, then three
different polyurethane foams were used to fill three
types of honeycomb cores with different ratios between
the thickness and the length of the cell wall. Finally, the
effects of foam filling of aluminum honeycomb core on
its in-plane mechanical properties (such as mean crush-
ing strength, absorbed energy, and specific absorbed
energy) were studied. Nakamoto et al.28 studied the
in plane impact behavior of honeycomb structures
randomly filled with inclusions. They used FE method
to clarify the effect of rigid inclusions on the deform-
ation process, mean stress, densification strain, and
absorbed energy. They finally proposed randomly Figure 1. Aluminum honeycomb core with its dimension in mm.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitu on December 20, 2014
Mozafari et al.
65 kg/m3. The foam density was evaluated according to
ASTM D1622 standard. For obtaining the compressive
stress–strain curve of the foam, 70  70 mm samples
with thickness of 25.4 mm were provided according to
ASTM D1621 standard. The samples were subjected to
compressive load, applied under displacement control
at a velocity of 2 mm/min. Figure 2 shows the stress-
strain curves of polyurethane foams. Except
Polyurethane (PU) foam with density of 65 kg/m3,
two other PU foams were considered and their mechan-
ical properties of which were obtained from previous
work.29
Foam filled honeycomb. In order to fill the honeycomb cell
with foam, it was realized a die with dimensions similar
to those of honeycomb samples. The foam in solution
state, when the polymerization process was not still
started, was poured into the die and the honeycomb
sample was set on it immediately with a small distance
with respect to the die bottom. In this case after the
foam solidification, it filled the honeycomb cells, then
the excess of foam was removed. Figure 3 shows the
steps involved in honeycomb foam filling.
Test setup
All of bare and foam filled honeycomb cores were sub-
jected to quasi-static compressive loads under displace-
ment control at a velocity of 2 mm/min. The tests were
carried out with SANTAM (STM-150) machine, shown
in Figure 4.
This machine has two circular section jaws: the lower
jaw is stationary and the upper one is movable. The
samples were set on the lower jaw and then were com-
pressed with movement of upper jaw. For each typol-
ogy of the investigated sandwiches, 3–5 tests were
carried out and the average values were considered in
this study.
Figure 2. Stress–strain curves for polyurethane foams, F2, and
F3 obtained from Nakamoto et al.28
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitu on December 20, 2014
3
Numerical model
In the previous section, the conduction of quasi-static
compression tests was explained. Whereas foam filled
cores were made of a specific PU foam and a honey-
comb core, further study is needed to include the effects
of PU foam types and honeycomb relative density.
Hence, the FE method was used for this investigation.
The 3D FE models of the foam, bare, and foam-
filled honeycombs were developed by means of
ABAQUS software package.30 The FE model, based
on experimental tests, included three parts: the core
(bare or foam filled), the stationary plate, and the mov-
able plate as shown in Figure 5. The hexagonal honey-
comb block consisted of six cells in X direction and six
cells in Y direction. The material properties of Al 5052
aluminum alloy are shown in Table 2.
Mesh sensitivity analyses were performed, and finally
each honeycomb cell wall was meshed with an element
size of 1 mm. Figure 6 shows the results of the mesh
sensitivity analyses. Therefore, the foam-filled honey-
comb model consisted of 19608 S4R shell elements for
honeycomb walls, while 134444 3D8R and 2356 C3D6
solid elements were employed to model the foam. Bare
honeycomb and foam models consisted of 19608 S4R
shell and 122500 3D8R solid elements, respectively.
Since the crushing properties of honeycomb are a func-
tion of the ratio between the cell wall thickness and the
cell wall length (h/l), three types of honeycomb cores with
h/l ratios of 0.013, 0.027, and 0.038 were considered in the
FE analyses. These cores were named HC1, HC2, and
HC3, respectively. HC2 is the FE model of honeycomb
core used in the experimental tests.
Ali Ghamarian et al.29 studied the crashworthiness of
empty and foam filled end-capped conical tubes. In their
research, PU foams with densities of 90 and 145 kg/m3
and mechanical properties obtained by experimental
tests, were implemented. In this research, except for the
PU foam that was used in the experimental tests, two
other PU foams29 were also considered. The crushable
foam mechanical model was used to model the PU foam.
The apparent densities of PU foams were 65, 90, and
145 kg/m3 and were named F1, F2, and F3, respectively.
Foam filled cores were named in correspondence with
Honeycomb (HC) core type and filler foam. Thus, since
HC1 was filled with F1, F2, and F3 foams, the foam filled
cores were HC1F1, HC1F2, and HC1F3, respectively.
The stress–strain curves of the foams have been used to
calibrate the CRUSHABLE FOAM HARDENING
material model (Figure 2). The crushable foam model
with isotropic hardening developed by Deshpandeh
and Fleck31 has been applied to simulate the plasticity
of the polyurethane foam. The isotropic hardening
model available in ABAQUS/Explicit30 uses a yield sur-
face that is ellipse centered at the origin in the p  q stress
plane.
4 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

Figure 3. Preparation of foam filled cores.

According to this material model, the yield where B defines the size of the yield ellipse, p and q are
function is: the pressure and the Von Mises stress, respectively. The
yield surface represents the Von Mises circle in the
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
f¼ q2 þ  2 p2  B ð1Þ deviatoric stress plane and the flow potential is an
ellipse centered at the origin. The typical yield surface
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
g¼ q2 þ  2 p2 ð2Þ and flow potential are shown in Figure 7. The shape
factor  can be computed using the initial yield stress in

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitu on December 20, 2014
Mozafari et al. 5

uniaxial compression, 0C and the initial yield stress in close to a circle in the p  q stress plane, which indicates
hydrostatic compression, pC0 using the relation: that the value of  is approximately equal to unity.
Parameter  (the shape of the flow potential ellipse on
2k 0C the p  q stress plane) in equation (4) for the isotropic
 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi with k ¼ ð3Þ hardening model is defined as:
9k pC
0
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where k is the yield stress ratio. For a valid surface, the 3 1  2#p
 ¼ pffiffiffi ð4Þ
choice of the yield stress ratio must be in range 0–3.31 2 1 þ #p
For many low-density foams, the initial yield surface is

The plastic Poisson’s ratio #p , which is the ratio of

the transverse to the longitudinal plastic strain under
uniaxial compression, must be in the range between
1 and 0.531, and the upper limit (#p ¼ 0.5) corresponds
to the case of incompressible plastic flow ( ¼ 0).
For many low-density types of foams, the plastic
Poisson’s ratio (#p ) is near zero, which corresponds to
a value of  ’ 2:12.
Assuming that Poisson’s ratio is equal to zero, two
parameters are needed to set the initial ellipse.

Table 2. Mechanical properties of Al 5052.2

E (MPa)  ys (MPa) Poisson’s ratio s (kg/m3)

Figure 4. SANTAM (STM-150) apparatus that is used for quasi- 68,000 80 0.3 2680
static compression tests.

Figure 5. Finite element model of compression test. (a) PU foam, (b) bare honeycomb, and (c) foam filled honeycomb core.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitu on December 20, 2014
6 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

These could be the initial yield stress in uniaxial com- movable plate was set just 1 mm above the honeycomb
pression, 0C initial yield stress in hydrostatic compres- core to have a better stability. Movable plate was con-
sion, pC C
0 . Parameter 0 is the stress of point B in straint to move with a constant velocity to crush the
Figure 2. Here the value of k is assuming to unity in honeycomb core under quasi-static conditions. The
equation (3). The corresponding value of  can be analysis duration was defined according to the time
determined and then pC 0 is estimated. The line B-C of required for the compressed panel to reach its densifi-
uniaxial compression test is sufficient to define the evo- cation point. Then analyses were carried out. By con-
lution of yield surface (Figure 2). The hardening law sidering effective contact area and initial distance,
defines the value of the axial plastic strain.31 The stress–strain curves were obtained.
obtained data, used in this study, are shown in Table 3.
The general surface-to-surface contact algorithm
was defined on the unfilled honeycomb model in
order to avoid probable penetration between cell Table 3. Crushable foam mechanical properties used in this
simulation.
walls. Abaqus/Explicit automatically defines an all-
inclusive surface that is convenient for prescribing the Elasticity Plasticity
contact domain. In the case of foam filled honeycomb,
tie constraint was used in order to stick foam cell faces f (kg/m3) Foam type E (MPa) # k #p
to the adjacent honeycomb cell walls. 65 F1 5.5 0 1 0
The movable plate was constrained to move only in 90 F2 10.9 0 1 0
the Y direction. The stationary plate was constrained in
145 F3 27.2 0 1 0
its degrees of freedom. The initial position of the

Figure 6. Mesh sensitivity analysis of honeycomb core (HC1) and PU foam (F1).

Figure 7. Crushable foam model with isotropic hardening: yield surface and flow potential in the p–q stress plane.28

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitu on December 20, 2014
Mozafari et al. 7

Results and discussion Table 4 and compared with FE results. In order to

In quasi-static analysis, mean crushing strength, local-
ization pattern, absorbed energy, and SAE of bare and
foam filled honeycomb cores are studied.
Mean crushing strength
The mechanical properties of honeycomb core largely
rely on its geometric configuration and base material
properties. As reported in the literature, foam-filling
technique could increase in-plane mean crushing
strength of honeycomb cores.24–27 In this section, the
mean crushing strength of honeycomb cores were deter-
mined under in-plane loading conditions. Stress–strain
curves of foam, bare, and foam filled honeycomb cores,
which were obtained by quasi-static compression tests,
are shown in Figure 8.
The comparison between experimental and numer-
ical results for HC2F1 is shown in Figure 9, and the
mean crushing strength values of samples are listed in
obtain the mean crushing strengths in FE model,
load–displacement response of movable plate was
obtained in each case. Then, by dividing load variation
to the effective contact area and displacement to the
initial distance, a stress–strain curve was obtained.
After that, the mean crushing strength was calculated
by using equation (5).
Z "D
1
m ¼ d" ð5Þ
"D 0
It is clear in Figure 8 that the stress values of foam
filled core (HC2F1) are significantly higher than those
of bare honeycomb core (HC2). Table 4 shows that the
mean crushing strengths of HC2 and HC2F1 are 0.044
and 0.9 MPa, respectively. Hence, foam filling of
honeycomb core (HC2) with PU foam (F1) increases
its in-plane crushing strength by up to 20 times. The
stress–strain curves in Figure 9 show that FE model is
able to predict the crushing behavior of foam-filled core
(HC2F1). It can be seen that there is a difference of
about 35% in linear portion of the curves although

Table 4. Comparison of mean crushing strength from test with

finite element model.

 m (MPa)

Finite element Difference

Core type c (kg/m3) method Experimental (%)

F1 65 0.36 0.37 2.7

HC2 83.24 0.045 0.044 2.2
HC2F1 148 0.95 0.9 5.5
Figure 8. Stress–strain curves obtained from experimental
tests.

Figure 9. Stress–strain curve of HC2F1.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitu on December 20, 2014
8 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

nonlinear portions are approximately the same.
Furthermore, the calculated mean crushing strength
in Table 4 shows that FE model is in good agreement
with experimental results; the largest difference is for
foam filled case and is <6%.
The mean crushing strength values of bare honey-
combs which are obtained from FE model are listed in
Table 5. In this table, the FE results are compared with
Gibson and Ashby7 formulation which is written as
 2
2 h
m,HC ¼ ys
3 l
Mean crushing strength values for foam filled cores
are listed in Table 6. It is seen that when a honeycomb
is filled with specific foam, the lower honeycomb dens-
ity, the greater the increase in mean crushing strength
of core. For example, when the honeycombs are filled
with F1 foam, it is seen that for HC1F1 core, whose
density is equal to 41.46 kg/m3, the mean crushing
strength increases by about 5900%, whereas this
increase for HC2F1 (with 83.24 kg/m3 density) and
HC3F1 (with 117.59 kg/m3 density) is about 2011%
and 1877%, respectively.
In foam filled cores, the effect of the foam filled
panels on the mean crushing strength reduces with the
decreasing the foam density. Furthermore, the lower
the foam density, the greater the differences between
changes in crushing strength of different cores. It is
seen from Table 6 that for all cores with any foam
density, the mean crushing strength of foam filled
core is always greater than the sum of mean crushing
strengths of bare honeycomb and foam when con-
sidered separately. Difference between these quantities
is proportional to the percentage of increase of mean
ð6Þ crushing strength of core due to foam filling.
Increase of  m is calculated by using equation (7)
m,HCF  m,HCþF
increase of m ð %Þ ¼  100 ð7Þ
m,HCþF
where  m,HCþF ¼  m,HC þ  m,F.

Table 5. Comparison of mean crushing strength from finite

element model with analytical formulation.

 m,HC (MPa)

Core type FEM Analytical Difference (%)

HC1 0.0105 0.0095 10.5

HC2 0.045 0.0385 16.9 Figure 10. Mean crushing strength of foam filled core with
HC3 0.088 0.077 14.2 respect to the summation of mean crushing strengths of bare
core and foam.

Table 6. Comparison of mean crushing strengths of foam filled samples with bare honeycombs and bare foams:
finite element results.

Core HC f  m,HC  m,HCF Increase of  m,HCþF Difference between

type (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (MPa) (MPa)  m (%) (MPa)  m,HCF and  m,HCþF (%)

HC1F1 41.46 65 0.0105 0.63 5900 0.37 72

HC1F2 90 1 9423 0.68 47
HC1F3 145 2.2 20852 1.73 27

HC2F1 83.24 65 0.045 0.95 2011 0.4 137.5

HC2F2 90 1.3 2788 0.7 85.7
HC2F3 145 2.6 5677 1.76 48

HC3F1 117.59 65 0.088 1.74 1877 0.45 286

HC3F2 90 2.05 2229 0.75 173
HC3F3 145 3.27 3615 1.8 81

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitu on December 20, 2014
Mozafari et al. 9

This difference could be attributed to the interaction
between cell walls and foam.25 Another interesting
result is in the relation between mean crushing strength
of foam filled cores and the sum of mean crushing
strengths of bare core and foam (Figure 10).
It can be seen that there is a linear relation between
the mean crushing strength of foam filled core and the
sum of the mean crushing strengths of bare honeycomb
and foam. Approximate ratio of these two quantities in
all of the cores was determined by calculating the slope

Figure 11. In-plane crushing of HC2 and HC2F1 cores: experimental test.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitu on December 20, 2014
10 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

of each trend line. It can be seen that the ratio is nearly foam-filled cores is approximately the same, and this
equal to 1.2 in all foam filled cores. feature is independent of foam type (Figure 13).

Localization pattern Energy absorption

With regard to the cellular structure of honeycombs, Absorbed energy of the samples was obtained by inte-
failure modes of the cells are related to the cell wall grating the load-displacement curve. The SAE was cal-
thickness, and impact velocity and material properties culated by dividing the absorbed energy by the mass of
of cellular solid.32 The first localization bands form the panel. The absorbed energy of bare and foam filled
‘‘X’’ shapes and develop into rhombus shapes, until honeycomb cores and their SAE is listed in Table 7.
the honeycomb is completely crushed. When the The comparison between results illustrates that
impact velocity is higher, only a localized transverse filling of honeycomb cores interestingly increases the
band perpendicular to the impact (called the ‘‘I’’ absorbed energy and SAE. It is seen that the existence
mode) is observed at the loading edge and it propa- of foam in panel HC1F3 results in 10278% increase in
gates, layer by layer, to the fixed edge. As the compres- energy absorption, whereas this value for panel HC3F1
sion tests were conducted in quasi-static states, it was is about 777%. Also, SAE in foam filled cores is sig-
expected that the pattern of localization bands of nificantly increases. The highest enhancement of SAE
honeycombs form ‘‘X’’ shapes. However, the effects value is for HC1F3 that is about 2005%, while this
of inserted foam in honeycomb cells on its deformation
shape need to be studied.
Hence, different steps of deformation were com-
pared for both bare and foam filled honeycomb cores
(Figures 11 and 12).
It can be seen that filling the honeycomb with the PU
foam does not have a significant effect on crushing
shape of the panel, and failure modes in both cases
are approximately in ‘‘X’’ shape. However, it is clear
that the existence of PU foam in honeycomb cells
decreases their local densification, and the foam filled
core deforms more regularly. Furthermore, it was
found that the deformation patterns in all of the

Table 7. Absorbed energy and specific absorbed energy of bare

honeycomb and foam filled cores.

Increase in
Core f Eabsorbed absorbed SAE
type (kg/m3) (kN mm) energy (%) (kJ/kg)

HC1 – 0.748 – 0.2

HC1F1 65 17.215 2201 1.71
HC1F2 90 30.555 3985 2.44
HC1F3 145 77.63 10,278 4.21
HC2 – 3.031 – 0.4
HC2F1 65 30.37 902 2
HC2F2 90 39.077 1189 2.6
HC2F3 145 95.126 3038 4.32
HC3 – 6.063 – 0.6
HC3F1 65 53.207 777 2.7
HC3F2 90 70.94 1070 3.3
HC3F3 145 123.27 1933 4.7
Note: SAE, specific absorbed energy. Figure 12. In plane crushing of HC2 and HC2F1 cores: FEM.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitu on December 20, 2014
Mozafari et al. 11

Figure 13. Deformation pattern of HC3F1, HC3F2, and HC3F3.

value is 980% and 683% for HC2F3 and HC3F3,
respectively (Figure 14).
Figures 14 and 15 show the effect of foam filling of
bare honeycomb cores associated with PU foam type
on their absorbed energy and SAE, respectively. As it
was expected, the use of heavier PU foam as a filler of
honeycomb core results in higher absorbed energy. For
example, absorbed energy of HC1F1 is 17.215 kNmm,
whereas this value increases up to 77.63 kNmm in
HC1F3, which means that the absorbed energy of

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitu on December 20, 2014
12 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

HC3F3
140 avoid premature failure. Foam filling is considered as
an effective method to strengthening of honeycomb

HC2F3
120 cores. However, previous studies are mostly associated
E absorbed (KNmm)

with out of plane crushing of honeycombs.20–22 This

HC1F3
100

HC3F2
study revealed the benefits of foam filling of honey-

HC3F1
80 comb core to reinforcing the core under in plane crush-

HC2F2
60 ing load. It was concluded that using lightweight

HC1F2
HC2F1

polyurethane foams as the filler of honeycomb core

HC1F1

40 can increase mean crushing strength, absorbed energy,

20 and SAE, significantly.

0
Conclusions
F1 F2 F3
Foam type As reported in literature, honeycomb cores are widely
used as core of sandwich panels in lightweight struc-
Figure 14. Absorbed energy of foam filled cores. tures. These cores are exposed to crushing and failure
under in plane loading conditions. Therefore, reinforce-
ment of honeycomb cores is necessary to avoid prema-
HC3F3

ture failure. Foam filling is considered as an effective

HC2F3
HC1F3

5 method to strengthening of honeycomb cores.

4.5 However, previous studies are mostly associated with
HC3F2

4 out of plane crushing of honeycombs.21–23 Presented

HC3F1

HC2F2

research revealed the benefits of foam filling of honey-

S.A.E (kJ/kg)

HC1F2

3.5
comb core to reinforcing the core under in plane crush-
HC2F1

3
HC1F1

ing load. It was concluded that using lightweight

2.5
2
1.5
1 In this paper the effects of foam filling of aluminum
0.5
0 such as mean crushing strength, absorbed energy and
F1 F2
Foam type
Figure 15. Specific absorbed energy of foam filled cores.
HC1F3 is nearly 351% higher than that of HC1F1. The
comparison between Figures 14 and 15 shows that
when bare honeycomb cores are filled with specific
PU foam, the differences in SAE values are less than
associated values of absorbed energy. For instance, the
absorbed energy of HC3F1 is 75.2% higher than that of
HC2F1, whereas SAE value of HC3F1 is 35% higher
than that of HC2F1. Furthermore, it is obvious in
Figure 15 that there is a significant decrement of SAE
values in foam filled panels conclusions are in previous
studies,25–27 where it is reported that the decrement of
the foam density in foam filled panels reduces its effect
on the absorbed energy.
As mentioned in literature, honeycomb cores are
widely used as core of sandwich panels in lightweight
structures. These cores are exposed to crushing and
failure under in plane loading conditions. Therefore,
reinforcement of honeycomb cores is necessary to
polyurethane foams as the filler of honeycomb core
can increase mean crushing strength, absorbed energy
and specific absorbed energy, significantly.
honeycomb core on its in plane mechanical properties
F3 specific absorbed energy are studied experimentally and
numerically.
Therefore, three different polyurethane foams
were implemented to fill three different honeycomb
cores. Based on quasi static experimental tests and
FE analyses carried out, foam filling of honeycomb
cores causes many changes in their in plane structural
behavior and the following conclusion could be
extracted:
. foam filling of HC1 core with F3 foam can increase
its mean crushing strength and energy absorption up
to 20852% and 10278% and specific energy absorp-
tion up to 2005%;
. maximum and minimum energy absorptions are
determined about 123.27 and 17.215 kN mm for
HC3F3 and HC1F1 panels, respectively;
. the mean crushing strength of foam filled panel is
greater than the sum of mean crushing strengths of
bare honeycomb and foam separately;
. there is a linear relation between mean crushing
strength of foam filled honeycomb and sum of
mean crushing strengths of bare honeycomb and
foam;

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitu on December 20, 2014
Mozafari et al.
. foam filling of honeycomb core has no effect on its
deformation pattern. However, in foam filled cores,
local densification of honeycomb cells decreases;
. calculated mean crushing strength shows that FE
model is in good agreement with experimental
results and the largest difference is for foam filled
case and is <6%.
Conflict of interest
None declared.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
1. Bai Z, Guo H, Jiang B, et al. A study on the mean crush-
ing strength of hexagonal multi-cell thin-walled struc-
tures. Thin-Walled Struct 2014; 80: 38–45.
2. Wierzbicki T. Crushing analysis of metal honeycombs.
Int J Impact Eng 1983; 2: 157–174.
3. Santosa S and Wierzbicki T. Crash behavior of box col-
umns filled with aluminum honeycomb or foam. Comput
Struct 1998; 68: 343–367.
4. Crupi V, Epasto G, Guglielmino E, et al. Computed
tomography-based reconstruction and finite element
modelling of honeycomb sandwiches under low-velocity
impacts. J Sandwich Struct Mater 2014; 16: 377–397.
5. Aaron Jeyasingh V. Finite element analysis of drop test
equipment for nose landing gear configuration and its appli-
cation to aircraft crashworthiness and occupant safety.
Master Thesis. Wichita State University, Wichita KS,
USA, 2001.
6. Wierzbicki T and Mohr D. Crush response of double-
walled sandwich columns with a honeycomb core.
Sandwich Constr 2000; 5: 607–616.
7. Gibson L and Ashby M. Cellular solids, structures and
properties. Pergamon Press, 1988, pp.110–112.
8. Paik J, Thayamballi AK and Kim GS. The strength char-
acteristics of aluminum honeycomb sandwich panels.
Thin-Walled Struct 1999; 35: 205–231.
9. Chou C. Honeycomb materials models for simulating
responses of foams. Report, Safety and Biomechanics
CAE Department, MD-48, AEC, Ford Motor
Company, USA.
10. We E and Jiang W. Axial crush of metallic honeycombs.
Int J Impact Eng 1997; 19: 439–456.
11. Goldsmith W and Sackman J. An experimental study of
energy absorption in impact on sandwich plates. Int J
Impact Eng 1992; 12: 241–262.
12. Bandak M and Bitzer T. Honeycomb, a lightweight
energy absorbing material. 22nd International Society
for the Advancement of Material and Process
Engineering Technical Conference, pp. 1250–1262.
13. Jang BW, Lee JR, Park SO, et al. A health management
algorithm for composite train carbody based on FEM/
FBG hybrid method. Compos Struct 2010; 92: 1019–1026.
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitu on December 20, 2014
13
14. Kim JS, Jeong JC and Lee SJ. Numerical and experimen-
tal studies on the deformational behavior a composite
train carbody of the Korean tilting train. Compos Struct
2007; 81: 168–175.
15. Kim JS, Jeong JC, Lee SJ, et al. Structural safety evalu-
ation of the hybrid composite bodyshell for Korean tilt-
ing train by a whole body test. Adv Compos Mater Struct
2007; 334–335: 313–316.
16. Koronis G, Silva A and Fontul M. Green composites: a
review of adequate materials for automotive applications.
Composites: Part B 2013; 44: 120–127.
17. Liu Q, Lin Y, Zong Z, et al. Lightweight design of carbon
twill weave fabric composite body structure for electric
vehicle. Compos Struct 2013; 97: 231–238.
18. He M and Hu W. A study on composite honeycomb
sandwich panel structure. Mater Des 2008; 29: 709–713.
19. Stocchia A, Colabellab L, Cisilinob A, et al.
Manufacturing and testing of a sandwich panel honey-
comb core reinforced with natural-fiber fabrics. Mater
Des 2014; 55: 394–403.
20. Crupi V, Epasto G and Guglielmino E. Comparison of
aluminum sandwiches for lightweight ship structures:
honeycomb vs. foam. Mar Struct 2013; 1: 74–96.
21. Hua L, Youa F and Yub T. Analyses on the dynamic
strength of honeycombs under the y-directional crushing.
Mater Des 2014; 53: 293–301.
22. Hua L, Youa F and Yu T. Effect of cell-wall angle on the
in plane crushing behavior of hexagonal honeycombs.
Mater Des 2013; 46: 511–523.
23. Bitzer T. Honeycomb technology, materials, design, man-
ufacturing, application and testing. Dordrecht: Springer
Science þ Business Media, 1997.
24. Jhaver R and Tippur H. Characterization and
modeling of compression behavior of syntactic foam
filled honeycombs. J Reinf Plast Compos 2010; 29:
3185–3196.
25. AlaviNia A and Sadeghi MZ. The effects of foam filling
on compressive response of hexagonal cell aluminum
honeycombs under axial loading-experimental study.
Mater Des 2010; 31: 1216–1230.
26. AlaviNia A and Sadeghi MZ. An experimental investiga-
tion on the effect of strain rate on the behaviour of bare
and foam filled aluminium honeycombs. Mater Des 2013;
52: 748–756.
27. Mozafari H, Khatami S and Molatefi H. Out of plane
crushing and local stiffness determination of proposed
foam filled sandwich panel for Korean Tilting Train
eXpress – numerical study. J Mater Des 2014.
28. Nakamoto H, Adachi T and Wakako Araki W. In plane
impact behavior of honeycomb structures filled with lin-
early arranged inclusions. Int J Impact Eng 2009; 36:
1019–1026.
29. Ali Ghamarian A, Zarei HR and Abadi MT.
Experimental and numerical crashworthiness investiga-
tion of empty and foam filled end-capped conical tubes.
Thin-Walled Struct 2011; 49: 1312–1319.
30. Manual of ABAQUS finite element analysis software
package. Analysis User’s Guide. Explicit dynamic
analysis, version 6.11, 2011.
14 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

31. Deshpandeh VS and Fleck NA. Multi-axial yield behav- S honeycomb cell size (mm)
ior of polymer foams. Acta Materialia 2001; 49: SAE specific absorbed energy (kJ/kg)
1859–1866. m core mean crushing strength (MPa)
32. Tong-xi YU, Zi-yang G and Ling-ling H. Dynamic col-  m,HC honeycomb mean crushing strength
lapse of honeycombs under in plane compressions.
(MPa)
J Ningbo Univ 2012; 25: 53–59.
 m,HCF foam filled honeycomb mean crushing
strength (MPa)
 m,HCþF sum of mean crushing strengths of
Appendix honeycomb and foam (MPa)
"D densification strain
Notation  ys material yield stress (MPa)
C core density (kg/m3)
f foam density (kg/m3)
b panel thickness (mm)
HC honeycomb core density (kg/m3)
E elasticity modulus (MPa)
s material density (kg/m3)
Eabsorbed absorbed energy of core (kN mm)
h honeycomb cell wall thickness (mm)

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitu on December 20, 2014