Mechanics Based Design of Structures and Machines

An International Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/lmbd20

Crashworthiness behavior of multi-cell structures

reinforced with small tubes under axial and
inclined loading

Sadjad Pirmohammad & Elnaz Vosoughifard

To cite this article: Sadjad Pirmohammad & Elnaz Vosoughifard (17 Jun 2024):
Crashworthiness behavior of multi-cell structures reinforced with small tubes under
axial and inclined loading, Mechanics Based Design of Structures and Machines, DOI:
10.1080/15397734.2024.2364888

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15397734.2024.2364888

Published online: 17 Jun 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 44

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lmbd20
MECHANICS BASED DESIGN OF STRUCTURES AND MACHINES
https://doi.org/10.1080/15397734.2024.2364888

Crashworthiness behavior of multi-cell structures reinforced

with small tubes under axial and inclined loading
Sadjad Pirmohammad and Elnaz Vosoughifard
Impact and Fracture Research Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this paper, a novel design for the cross-sectional shapes of square, hex­ Received 1 March 2024
agonal, octagonal, and decagonal structures has been proposed for the Accepted 1 June 2024
development of energy-absorbing devices. The deformation behavior of
KEYWORDS
these structures, which contain multiple small tubes, was analyzed under
Crashworthiness behavior;
axial and inclined loads (0� , 10� , 20� , and 30� ) using a validated finite multi-cell structure; small
element model in LS-DYNA, supported by experimental and analytical tubes; axial and inclined
data. Various crushing metrics such as specific energy absorption (SEA), loading; TOPSIS
peak crushing force (PCF), mean crushing force (MCF), crush force efficiency
(CFE), and undulation of load-carrying capacity (ULC) were evaluated for
the structures. The results indicated an optimal size for the small tubes
that maximizes energy absorption capability. Through the TOPSIS method
considering 12 criteria, the multi-cell octagonal structure O5, which
includes the highest number of small tubes, was identified as the most
effective energy absorber. It demonstrated significantly higher Specific
Energy Absorption (SEA) values compared to simpler structures S1, H1, O1,
and D1, with improvements of 89%, 65%, 53%, and 46%, respectively.
Therefore, it could be utilized in automotive structures for crashworthiness
applications.

1. Introduction
Nowadays, the use of thin-walled energy absorbers has expanded due to their lightweight, eco­
nomic efficiency, energy consumption reduction, high energy absorption capacity, and high ratio
of absorbed energy to weight. Therefore, one of the intriguing topics in the field of impact
mechanics is research on the design and optimization of thin-walled energy-absorbing systems.
These studies have been conducted in the form of a series of numerical and experimental investi­
gations on components with various cross-sectional shapes. These cross-sections include different
shapes such as circular, square, rectangular, and polygonal (Andrews, England, and Ghani 1983;
Lu and Yu 2003; Nia, Badnava, and Nejad 2011; Pirmohammad and Nikkhah 2018; Tian et al.
2020). Due to the presence of inertial forces resulting from the impact process, elastoplastic defor­
mations occur in the components, and these desirable deformations, along with the high energy
absorption capacity, add to the attractiveness of using these types of impact absorbers.
In recent decades, researchers in the field of impact mechanics have shown more interest in
designing multi-cell structures, as these structures offer advantages such as low weight, high
energy absorption capability, and a simple manufacturing process (Gao and Ruan 2023; He et al.

CONTACT Sadjad Pirmohammad s_pirmohammad@uma.ac.ir Impact and Fracture Research Laboratory, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran.
Communicated by K. Shankar.
� 2024 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 S. PIRMOHAMMAD AND E. VOSOUGHIFARD

2023; Li et al. 2023; Qin, Deng, and Liu 2023; Song et al. 2023; Wang et al. 2020; Yang, Yao, and
Yang 2022; Yu et al. 2023; Zhao et al. 2023; Zhou et al. 2024). For example, Hosseini Tehrani
and Pirmohammad (2010) showed that dual-layer thin-walled structures made of aluminum out­
perform thick-walled structures in energy absorption, making them more efficient as impact
absorbers. Najafi and Rais-Rohani (2011) subjected multi-cell and multi-cornered structures to
quasi-static loading and concluded that multi-cell structures had better energy absorption capabil­
ities compared to single-cell structures. In another study, Nia and Parsapour (2014) demonstrated
that in the design of multi-cellular tubes, connecting reinforcing plates from the middle of the
walls leads to better results than considering connections from the corners. Qi, Yang, and Dong
(2012) designed simple and conical-shaped tubes with square cross-sections and subjected them
to dynamic loading, showing that conical multi-cell structures with reinforcement blades con­
nected to the center of the edges had better energy absorption capabilities than simpler tubes.
Another result from this study indicated that increasing the cone generator angle resulted in
higher energy absorption. Pirmohammad and Esmaeili-Marzdashti (2016) designed nested tubes
connected through reinforcements. The results of collapsing these tubes indicated that the struc­
ture with an inner tube to outer tube ratio of 0.5 exhibited better collapse behavior. Azimi,
Asgari, and Salaripoor (2019) investigated the crush behavior of homo-polygonal multi-cell struc­
tures, finding that the maximum crush force initially increased and then decreased with the
increase in the size of the inner tubes, in accordance with their results. Deng, Chen, et al. (2023)
investigated the crushing behavior of hierarchical multi-cell structures and concluded that they
perform better than single-cell ones. Chen et al. (2023) studied the crushing behavior of hierarch­
ical hexagonal structures and found that they were able to diminish initial peak forces during the
impact process. Gong, Bai, and Hu (2023) found that hierarchical multi-cell structures perform
better than traditional multi-cell ones. Tran and Baroutaji (2018) investigated the crashworthiness
capacity of triangular multi-cell structures with various cross-sectional shapes and found that the
crushing load and the number of cells play an important role in determining the value of the
mean crushing force. In another research, Nikkhah, Crupi, and Baroutaji (2022) studied the
crashworthiness behavior of multi-layered bio-inspired tubes and concluded that this type of
tubes offer better performance compared to traditional tubes.
Data collected from accidents generally indicate that structures are inclined during impact
loading, emphasizing the importance of considering the impact angle in collapse analysis. In the
industry, the design of vehicle bumpers is done in a way that they can absorb impact energy up
to a collision angle of 30 degrees (Azarakhsh and Ghamarian 2017; Azimi and Asgari 2016; Deng
and Liu 2019; Deng et al. 2021; Djamaluddin et al. 2018; Gao et al. 2016; Han and Park 1999; Li,
Yu, and Guo 2012; Mills and Gilchrist 1996; Park, Park, and Han 2000; Pirmohammad and
Ramezani 2024; Qi-Hua et al. 2023; Qi, Yang, and Dong 2012; Reid and Reddy 1986; Reyes,
Langseth, and Hopperstad 2002, 2003; Song and Guo 2013; Witteman 1999; Yang et al. 2021; Yue
et al. 2024; Zhang et al. 2023; Zhang and Zhang 2015). There are many studies that considered
inclined loading up to 30� during their investigations (Nia et al. 2012). Hence, the effect of
inclined loading, along with axial loading, is also examined in the current research on the crash­
worthiness behavior of the proposed structures.
Given the above-mentioned points, the cross-sectional area of the structures plays a significant
role in their energy absorption capability and one attractive method for enhancing the energy
absorption of tubes. Therefore, in this study, small tubes are proposed at the corners and middle
points of double-walled structures with different cross-sectional shapes, and their energy absorp­
tion capabilities are investigated. For simulating these structures, the LS-DYNA software is used,
which utilizes the finite element model validated by both experimental and analytical results.
Additionally, the TOPSIS method is employed to determine the best energy absorber.
 MECHANICS BASED DESIGN OF STRUCTURES AND MACHINES 3

2. Geometry of polygonal multi-cell structures

The structures considered in this research include double-walled tubes with square (S1 to S5),
hexagonal (H1 to H5), octagonal (O1 to O5), and decagonal (D1 to D5) cross-sections, as illus­
trated in Fig. 1. These structures consist of two nested tubes with an inner-to-outer tube perim­
eter ratio of 0.5 and are connected to each other through reinforcing plates. Additionally, the
structures contain a number of smaller tubes with the same initial cross-sectional shape and a
perimeter ratio of R ¼ 0.1 to the outer tube within their structure. According to the arrangement
of these smaller tubes and their number in different configurations, the aim of this research is to
identify the structure with the best energy absorption capacity. The height of all structures is
240 mm and the wall thickness is 1.5 mm. The perimeter of the outer tube is also considered to
be 400 mm.

3. Research method and material

To simulate the crashworthiness behavior of multi-cell structures shown in Fig. 1, finite element
code LS-DYNA is employed. Prior to conducting finite element simulations, it is crucial to valid­
ate them through experimental tests conducted at different crushing angles and analytical solu­
tions. Furthermore, to evaluate and choose the most effective energy-absorbing device from the
structures analyzed in this study, the TOPSIS method is applied. It is worth noting that five dif­
ferent crushing indices are utilized in this research to evaluate the crashworthiness behavior of

Figure 1. Cross section of multi-cell structures containing different numbers of small tubes and reinforcing plates.
4 S. PIRMOHAMMAD AND E. VOSOUGHIFARD

the multi-cell structures. These topics, along with the material used for the structures, will be dis­
cussed in the following sections.

3.1. Finite element modeling

As schematically shown in Fig. 2, dynamic loading is applied in LS-DYNA to the structures
studied in the current research by the impact of a rigid wall with a mass of 700 kg and a speed of
15 m/s, causing the structures to deform up to 70% of their initial length (i.e., 168 mm).
Additionally, the rigid wall is impacted onto the structures at various crushing angles, including
h ¼ 0� , 10� , 20� , and 30� . The boundary condition considered at the impact section of the rigid
wall with the structure is completely free, while at the other end of the structure, it is constrained
in all directions. To define the elements, four-node Belytschko-Tsay shell elements with five inte­
gration points through the thickness direction are used. Based on the convergence analysis results
displayed in Fig. 3, element sizes of 2 mm � 2 mm are considered in the meshing. Contact
between the rigid wall and the structures is defined using surface-to-surface contact constraints.
To prevent the penetration of structure walls into each other, the automatic single surface contact
constraint is utilized. It is also worth mentioning that in defining these contacts, the values of
dynamic and static friction are chosen as 0.2 and 0.3, respectively. Additionally, a friction value
of 0.3 between the rigid wall and the structures is considered (Altin, G€ uler, and Mert 2017;
Pirmohammad, Ahmadi-Saravani, and Zakavi 2019; Zhang, Bai, and Bai 2018).

3.2. Material
The multi-cell structures investigated in this research are constructed from 6060-T4 aluminum,
featuring a yield stress of 80 MPa, an ultimate stress of 173 MPa, Young’s modulus of 68.2 GPa, a
Poisson’s ratio of 0.3, a power law exponent of n ¼ 0.23, and a density of 2700 kg/m3. The stress-
plastic strain characteristics for aluminum 6060-T4 can be found in Table 1. These material

Figure 2. Boundary and loading conditions applied to the multi-cell structure.

 MECHANICS BASED DESIGN OF STRUCTURES AND MACHINES 5

Figure 3. Effect of element size on the numerical results for the structure S1.

Table 1. True stress-plastic strain behavior of aluminum 6060-T4.

r (MPa) 80 107 135 149 162 181 190 202
ep 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.16

properties are represented using a piecewise linear elastic-plastic material model, MAT 24, within
LS-DYNA. Since the strain rate does not impact aluminum, the simulations do not consider rate-
dependent effects (Deng, Wang, et al. 2023; Yin et al. 2015).

3.3. Crushing indices

In this study, five key energy absorption indices have been calculated for the multi-cell structures.
These indices are introduced herein in a general manner. One crucial and influential index in the
energy absorption capacity of thin-walled structures is the specific energy absorption index (SEA),
which is defined as follows (Hou et al. 2007):
ðd
f ðxÞdx
EA 0
SEA ¼ ¼ (1)
m m
This index is obtained by dividing the energy absorption (EA) by the mass of the structure
(m). It is worth noting that the energy absorption itself is the area under the force-displacement
curve. A higher value of SEA implies that the structure has an acceptable collapse performance.
Another key index in the design of energy absorbers is the peak crushing force (PCF), which,
the lower it is, the less likelihood there will be of injury to passengers.
The mean crushing force (MCF) is another crucial indicator of energy absorber collapse,
defined as follows (Guler et al. 2010):
ðd
f ðxÞdx
0
MCF ¼ (2)
d
In this equation, d represents the length of the structure where the crushing process occurs
(i.e., d ¼ 168 mm).
The crush force efficiency index (CFE), which considers the effects of both MCF and PCF, is
defined as follows (Guler et al. 2010):
MCF
CFE ¼ (3)
PCF
6 S. PIRMOHAMMAD AND E. VOSOUGHIFARD

The deviation of crushing force from its average value per unit energy absorption, also known
as the undulation of load-carrying capacity (ULC), is another crushing index expressed as follows
(Xiang et al. 2015):

ðd
jf ðxÞdx − MCFjdx
0
ULC ¼ (4)
ðd
f ðxÞdx
0

A lower ULC value indicates that the force-displacement curve is closer to a rectangular shape.
Also, a higher ULC value suggests that the energy absorber may exhibit instability in its deform­
ation behavior.

3.4. TOPSIS method

As different crushing indices are utilized in this study, the TOPSIS method has been selected to
rank the structures examined in this research. The Technique for Order of Preference by
Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is a decision-making method widely utilized in various
fields, including engineering, economics, and management. It is a Multi-Criteria Decision Making
(MADM) approach that assists in selecting the optimal alternative from a range of options based
on multiple criteria. TOPSIS aims to pinpoint the option that closely aligns with the ideal solu­
tion while being farthest from the worst solution.
The TOPSIS method comprises several steps. These steps are introduced herein briefly, and
more can be found in our previous works (see for example (Pirmohammad 2021; Pirmohammad
and Nikkhah 2018).
Initially, a decision matrix is constructed, where each column represents an alternative and
each row represents a criterion. The subsequent step involves normalizing the decision matrix to
ensure all criteria are on an equal scale. This normalization process is vital as it facilitates a fair
comparison between different criteria. Following normalization, weights are assigned to each cri­
terion based on their relative importance. Subsequently, the ideal and anti-ideal solutions are
determined. The ideal solution signifies the optimal values for each criterion, whereas the anti-
ideal solution represents the worst values. The distance of each alternative from these two
solutions is then calculated using a suitable distance measure, such as Euclidean or Manhattan
distance. Based on these distances, a score (Cþi) is computed for each alternative, reflecting its
similarity to the ideal solution. Ultimately, alternatives are ranked according to their scores, with
the alternative scoring highest deemed the best choice.
The TOPSIS method offers a systematic and objective approach to evaluating and ranking
alternatives in decision-making processes, considering multiple criteria concurrently. By taking
into account both ideal and anti-ideal solutions, TOPSIS aids decision-makers in identifying the
most well-rounded and optimal alternative that aligns best with their objectives.

4. Validation of simulations
To validate the crushing behavior of the structures studied in this research, two crucial methods
are utilized: experimental tests and analytical solutions. These methods will be detailed in the fol­
lowing sections.
 MECHANICS BASED DESIGN OF STRUCTURES AND MACHINES 7

4.1. Experimental tests

In order to evaluate and validate the numerical modeling experimentally, a compression test is
conducted using a universal testing machine (UTM) on simple square specimens under various
crushing angles of 0� , 10� , 20� , and 30� .
The UTM is capable of performing various tests and is equipped with a sensor to measure
length changes with an accuracy of 0.1 microns. Tensile, buckling, compression, bending tests,
among others, can be conducted using this machine. The structure of this machine consists of
two jaws. The lower jaw is fixed, while the upper jaw is movable and adjustable. The upper jaw
moves vertically through a controller embedded in the machine. The structure of the jaws is
designed to accommodate any type of fixture. For analysis and result extraction, a computer sys­
tem is connected to the UTM machine. To position the tubes on the machine and apply inclined
loading, three sets of fixtures are used (see Fig. 4). These fixtures consist of upper and lower
parts, with the upper part connected to the upper jaw of the UTM and responsible for applying
the load. The lower part of the fixture, where the structure is placed and used to apply boundary
conditions and prevent structure buckling, especially at steeper buckling angles (30� ), is welded to
the lower jaw. The tubes are connected to the lower fixture using argon welding, and the position
of the two fixtures on the two jaws of the machine is fixed. In constructing these fixtures, efforts
were made to use standard parts and ensure their material is rigid so that they do not deform
during loading.
The square tubes used in these tests have a length of 45 mm, a thickness of 1.8 mm, and a
height of 120 mm. The material of the tubes is the same AA6060-T4 aluminum used in simula­
tions, as mentioned earlier. The type of loading applied is quasi-static due to the loading speed
(15 mm/min), with boundary conditions such that the upper jaw part is free while the lower part
is welded to the plate or lower jaw of the machine using argon welding. By applying compressive
loading on square specimens, the test results are stored as force-displacement curves in the com­
puter system, as shown in Fig. 5. Furthermore, square tubes with the boundary and loading con­
ditions mentioned above are modeled in LS-DYNA, and the results including tube deformations
and force-displacement curves under different loading angles are also shown in Fig. 5. As

Figure 4. Test set-up for the performance of experiments.

8 S. PIRMOHAMMAD AND E. VOSOUGHIFARD

Figure 5. Comparision between the experiments and simulations under various crushing angles.

observed, the tubes exhibit similar patterns of deformations in terms of the number of wrinkles
in both numerical and experimental analyses, with force-displacement variations closely matching
each other.

4.2. Analytical solutions

In order to further validate the crushing behavior of structures using the finite element modeling
in LS-DYNA, analytical solutions are also employed. For this purpose, the first structures among
the proposed structures with the cross-sections of square, hexagonal, octagonal, and decagonal
 MECHANICS BASED DESIGN OF STRUCTURES AND MACHINES 9

(i.e., S1, H1, O1 and D1) are chosen. The analytical solutions of these structures are investigated
using the Simplified Super Folded Element (SSFE) theory proposed by Chen and Wierzbicki (W.
Chen and Wierzbicki 2001). According to the law of energy conservation in a folding wavelength
2H, the average crushing force (Pm) is calculated. Therefore, external work done due to compres­
sion is equal to the energy required for bending energy (plastic deformations) and membrane
energy:
2HPm K ¼ Ebending þ Emembrane (5)
In which k, Ebending, and Emembrane represent the crushing distance factor, bending energy, and
membrane energy, respectively. In practice, the value of crushing wavelength is less than 2H.
Studies by Wierzbicki and Abramowicz (Wierzbicki and Abramowicz 1983) indicate that the
value of k typically ranges from 0.7 to 7.5. In this research, a value of 7.5 has been considered for
this coefficient.
In Eq. (5), the bending energy (Ebending) is equal to the sum of energy losses in the three sta­
tionary hinges:
X
3
Ebending ¼ M0 ai Li (6)
i¼1

where M0 ¼ r0 t2 =4 is the plastic deformation moment at the edges, ai is the rotation angle at
each hinge line, and Li is the length of the edges. The stress flow (r0) is calculated as:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ry ru
r0 ¼ (7)
1þn
where ry is the yield stress, ru is the ultimate stress, and n is the strain hardening coefficient.
According to the SSFE theory, the edge folding is considered flat, resulting in rotation angles of
p/2, p, and p/2 in the hinges. Therefore, we have:
Ebending ¼ 2pM0 Lc (8)
where LC is the total length of the cross-section edges.
For calculating membrane energy losses during collapsing, the elements in the tubes are div­
ided into two categories: corner elements and three-panel angular elements (see Fig. 6). Thus, the
membrane energy can be calculated as:
4M0 H 2 tan ðu=2Þ
Ecorner
membrane ðuÞ ¼ (9)
ð tan ðu=2Þ þ 0:05= tan ðu=2Þt=1:1Þ

Figure 6. Different types of elements available in the polygonal multi-cell structures.

10 S. PIRMOHAMMAD AND E. VOSOUGHIFARD

!
3−panel 4M0 H 2 tan ðuÞ
Emembrane ðuÞ ¼ � þ 2 tan ðu=2Þ (10)
t tan ðuÞ þ 0:05= tan ðuÞ =1:1

3−panel−I
Emembrane ¼ Nc Ecorner
membrane þ N3−panel−I Emembrane (11)
In Eq. (11), Nc represents the number of corner elements, while N3-panel represents the number
of three-panel angular elements.
The membrane energy for the corner and three-panel angular elements available in polygonal
structures shown in Fig. 6 can be calculated as (Zhang, Bai, and Bai 2018):
4:190M0 H 2
Ecorner ð Þ
membrane 908 ¼ (12)
t

4:328M0 H 2
Ecorner ð Þ
membrane 1208 ¼ (13)
t

4:363M0 H 2
Ecorner ð Þ
membrane 1358 ¼ (14)
t

4:377M0 H 2
Ecorner ð Þ
membrane 1448 ¼ (15)
t

T−shape 3−panel 12:4M0 H 2

Emembrane ¼ Emembrane ð908Þ ¼ (16)
t
The average crushing force of structures can be calculated using the abovementioned
equations.

4.2.1. Average crushing force for the structure with square cross-section
The average crushing force for the structure with square cross-section (S1) can be determined by
considering eight corner elements and eight T-shaped elements:
T−shape
ESmembrane
1
¼ 8Ecorner ð Þ
membrane 908 þ 8Emembrane (17)
By substituting this into Eq. (5), we get:

S1 4:190M0 H 2 12:4M0 H 2 132:72M0 H 2

Pm � 2H:k ¼ 2pM0 Lc þ 8 � þ8� ¼ 3:5pM0 P þ (18)
t t t
P is the perimeter of the outer tube in the structure S1. The value of H can be calculated by
taking the derivative of Pm with respect to H and solving for H, leading to:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
H ¼ 0:0828Pt (19)
By substituting this equation into the Eq. (18), we can find the average crushing force as:
S1 9:55
Pm ¼k r0 P0:5 t1:5 (20)
k
where k is the dynamic enhancement factor. For aluminum alloys, this factor typically ranges
from 1.3 to 1.6, with a value of 1.3 used in this research for calculations (Qiu et al. 2016; Tran
et al. 2015; Yin and Wen 2011).
 MECHANICS BASED DESIGN OF STRUCTURES AND MACHINES 11

4.2.2. Average crushing force for the structure with hexagonal cross-section
This structure consists of twelve corner elements and twelve T-shaped elements, therefore:
T−shape
EH1 corner ð Þ
membrane ¼ 12Emembrane 1208 þ 12Emembrane (21)
By substituting this into Eq. (5), we get:
H1 4:328M0 H 2 12:4M0 H 2 200:736M0 H 2
Pm � 2H:k ¼ 2pM0 Lc þ 12 � þ 12 � ¼ 3:866pM0 P þ (22)
t t t
The value of H can be calculated by taking the derivative of Pm with respect to H and solving
for H, leading to:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
H ¼ 0:0605Pt (23)
By substituting this equation into the Eq. (22), we can find the average crushing force as:
H1 12:344
Pm ¼k r0 P0:5 t1:5 (24)
k

4.2.3. Average crushing force for the structure with octagonal cross-section
This structure consists of sixteen corner elements and sixteen T-shaped elements, therefore:
T−shape
EOmembrane
1
¼ 16Ecorner ð Þ
membrane 1358 þ 16Emembrane (25)
By substituting this into Eq. (5), we get:
O1 4:363M0 H 2 12:4M0 H 2 268:208M0 H 2
Pm � 2H:k ¼ 2pM0 Lc þ 16 � þ 16 � ¼ 3:7pM0 P þ (26)
t t t
The value of H can be calculated by taking the derivative of Pm with respect to H and solving
for H, leading to:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
H ¼ 0:0433Pt (27)
By substituting this equation into the Eq. (26), we can find the average crushing force as:
O1 13:958
Pm ¼k r0 P0:5 t 1:5 (28)
k

4.2.4. Average crushing force for the structure with decagonal cross-section
This structure consists of twenty corner elements and twenty T-shaped elements, therefore:
T−shape
EDmembrane
1
¼ 20Ecorner ð 8Þ
membrane 144 þ 20Emembrane (29)
By substituting this into Eq. (5), we get:
D1 4:377M0 H 2 12:4M0 H 2 335:54M0 H 2
Pm � 2H:k ¼ 2pM0 Lc þ 20 � þ 20 � ¼ 3:95pM0 P þ (30)
t t t
The value of H can be calculated by taking the derivative of Pm with respect to H and solving
for H, leading to:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
H ¼ 0:0369Pt (31)
By substituting this equation into the Eq. (30), we can find the average crushing force as:
D1 16:131
Pm ¼k r0 P0:5 t 1:5 (32)
k
12 S. PIRMOHAMMAD AND E. VOSOUGHIFARD

Table 2. Average crushing force (Pm (kN)) of structures for the numerical and theoretical solutions.
S1 H1 O1 D1
SSFE theory 64.52 83.39 94.29 108.97
LS-DYNA 62.29 82.16 95.29 110.67
Error (%) −3.46 −1.47 1.06 1.56

In the next step, all structures of S1, H1, O1, and D1 are modeled and analyzed in LS-DYNA,
and the results are compared with those of the theoretical solutions described above. As shown in
Table 2, it can be observed that the numerical results have good agreement with the SSFE theory,
indicating that the code implemented in LS-DYNA is reliable.

5. Results of simulations and discussion

5.1. Pattern of deformation
Square, hexagonal, octagonal, and decagonal structures shown in Fig. 1 are modeled and analyzed
in LS-DYNA under axial and inclined loading. Since the deformation patterns for structures with
different cross-sections were similar, only these patterns are shown for octagonal structures in
Fig. 7 for brevity. In general, the modes of deformation of structures during collapse are progres­
sive buckling, global bending, and a combination of these two states. Based on Fig. 7, it can be
observed that the collapse of structures under axial loading appears as progressive buckling.
Under inclined loading of 10� , the collapse is a combination of axial and inclined loading, and at
higher angles such as 20� and 30� , the collapse of structures is in the form of global bending. As
visible in Fig. 7, as the number of smaller tubes in the cross-section of structures increases (from
structure O1 to O5), the empty space between cells becomes more filled. As a result, the amount
of wall contacts with each other increases, leading to an expectation of higher energy absorption.
On the other hand, excessive increase in the number of wall contacts can disrupt the order of the
collapse process, resulting in instability of the collapse process of structures and ultimately leading
to a decrease in energy absorption.

5.2. Force-displacement curves

In order to investigate and compare the energy absorption of structures, force-displacement
curves need to be drawn. These curves are extracted from LS-DYNA software. Since they are
similar for all the structures considered in this research, the curves are only plotted for the octag­
onal structures, as shown in Fig. 8. By analyzing the curves, it can be concluded that during axial
loading, initially, the increase in forces occurs with a relatively steep slope, reaching its maximum
value at the first wrinkle, followed by smaller oscillations corresponding to the subsequent wrin­
kles. The steep slope of force increase in the first wrinkle indicates that more energy dissipation
has occurred. In inclined loading, when the loading angle is low, i.e., 10� , the trend of force-dis­
placement changes is similar to axial loading, with differences in the initial slope of force changes
and their maximum values, which allocate lower values to themselves. This is because when the
impact occurs at an angle, initially the contact of the structure’s cross-section with the rigid-wall
is not complete, starting from the corner and then expanding to a larger contact area. Whereas
during axial loading, from the beginning of impact, the entire cross-sectional area of the structure
is in contact with the rigid-wall, resulting in a higher collapse force. In inclined loading with
higher angles such as 20� and 30� , a noticeable decrease in the initial slope of force increase
occurs, and also the number of force oscillations decreases compared to the axial loading state, as
at these angles, the collapse of structures occurs in the form of global bending.
 MECHANICS BASED DESIGN OF STRUCTURES AND MACHINES 13

Figure 7. Deformation modes of octagonal multi-cell structures under various crushing angles.

5.3. Values of crushing indices

In this section, the crushing indices for the proposed structures in this research are discussed.
The specific energy absorption (SEA), peak crushing force (PCF), mean crushing force (MCF),
crush force efficiency (CFE), and undulation of load-carrying capacity (ULC) for structures with
square, hexagonal, octagonal, and decagonal cross-sections are shown in Figs. 9–12, respectively.
Based on these figures, it can be said that for all the structures examined under axial and 10�
inclined loading conditions, increasing the number of small tubes in all structures from number 1
to 4 (e.g., S1 to S4) has led to an increase in SEA. Therefore, it can be concluded that increasing
the number of small tubes in the structure improves the SEA value. However, this improvement
is more significant initially and diminishes as the number of small tubes increases. On the other
hand, increasing the number of reinforcing plates for structures from number 4 to 5 (e.g., S4 to
S5) does not have a significant positive effect on SEA, and in some cases, for example, for the
hexagonal cross-section, it even has a slight negative impact (in other words, SEA for H5 is
smaller than that for H4). It is worth mentioning that the difference between structures with
14 S. PIRMOHAMMAD AND E. VOSOUGHIFARD

Figure 8. Force-displacement curves obtaned from LS-DYNA under a) h ¼ 0� , b) h ¼ 10� , c) h ¼ 20� and d) h ¼ 30� .

numbers 4 and 5 (e.g., S4 and S5) is in their number of reinforcing plates, while both structures
have the same number of small tubes. The reason for the diminishing positive effect of increasing
the number of small tubes and the number of reinforcing plate (from structures with number 1
 MECHANICS BASED DESIGN OF STRUCTURES AND MACHINES 15

Figure 9. Crashworthiness indicators of the square structure under various loading angles.

to 5 (e.g. S1 to S5)) on the SEA parameter can be justified as follows: although increasing the
number of small tubes or reinforcements increases the energy absorption capacity of structures
(this is clearly shown in Fig. 8 in force-displacement diagrams. In fact, the area under the force-
displacement curve determines the energy absorption capacity of the structure), they also increase
the mass of the structures. Therefore, the simultaneous increase in energy absorption (EA) and
mass of the structure (m) (according to Eq. (1)) affects the SEA trend as shown in Figs. 9–12.
However, the issue of crashworthiness of structures is very complex, and the effect of the contact
of structure walls with each other by increasing the number of small tubes and reinforcements
cannot be ignored. The trend of changes in SEA in larger inclined loading conditions, namely 20�
and 30� , is different from that for axial and 10� inclined loading. This is because, in larger
inclined loading conditions, the behavior of structure collapse is global bending which means that
structures cannot demonstrate their energy absorption capability well at these loading angles.
Therefore, as observed in Figs. 9–12, for these loading angles, increasing the number of small
tubes or reinforcements does not have a significant effect on SEA and in some cases, it has a
16 S. PIRMOHAMMAD AND E. VOSOUGHIFARD

Figure 10. Crashworthiness indicators of the hexagonal structure under various loading angles.

slight negative effect. Another conclusion from the SEA diagrams is that with an increase in load­
ing angle from 0 to 30� , the SEA index decreases. This decrease is more noticeable when chang­
ing the loading angle from 10 to 20� due to the elimination of progressive buckling deformation
mode at 20� , as discussed in detail in Section 5.1. By considering all loading angles, S5, H4, O5
and D4 have the highest SEA among their own cross-sectional group. However, the D4 has the
greatest SEA among all the structures considered in this research.
The results of PCF are shown in Figs. 9–12. Since various parameters such as the contact area
of the structure with the rigid-wall and the loading angle have a significant impact on the PCF
index, structures with the number 5 (i.e., S5, H5, O5, and D5) have the highest PCF values com­
pared to other structures with similar cross-sectional shape due to having the largest contact area
with the rigid-wall during impact. Additionally, increasing the loading angle leads to a decrease
in PCF for all structures with different cross-sections, which is due to the transition from progres­
sive buckling deformation mode to global bending one. It can be concluded that by considering
all loading conditions, the structures S5, H5, O5 and D5 demonstrate the highest PCF among
their own cross-sectional group. However, the D5 has the greatest PCF.
 MECHANICS BASED DESIGN OF STRUCTURES AND MACHINES 17

Figure 11. Crashworthiness indicators of the octagonal structure under various loading angles.

As per Eq. (3), MCF is defined as the energy absorption (EA) divided by the crush length d
(which is considered 168 mm for all the structures). Therefore, MCF is proportional to the energy
absorbed by the structure, which is equal to the area under the force-displacement curve. Hence,
the MCF results for the proposed structures in this research are presented in Figs. 9–12. It is
evident from these figures that increasing the number of small tubes or reinforcing plates in
structures from number 1 to 5 (e.g., S1 to S5) leads to an increase in MCF for all examined
cross-sections. Furthermore, increasing the loading angle results in a decrease in MCF, again due
to the change in deformation mode from progressive buckling to global bending. Based on the
explanations provided above, it can be inferred that when taking all loading conditions into
account, structures S5, H5, O5, and D5 exhibit the highest MCF within their respective cross-
sectional categories. However, the D5 has the highest MCF.
The results for the CFE are also shown in Figs. 9–12 for all the structures. When considering
all loading conditions, the CFE value increases as the number of small tubes increases for all
cross-sectional categories. Additionally, the increase in reinforcing plate generally has a negative
18 S. PIRMOHAMMAD AND E. VOSOUGHIFARD

Figure 12. Crashworthiness indicators of the decagonal structure under various loading angles.

effect on the CFE value. As a result, structures S5, H4, O4, and D4 exhibit the highest CFE within
their respective cross-sectional groups, with D4 showing the highest CFE among all structures
considered in this research.
The results of ULC are shown in Figs. 9–12. No clear trend is observed for variations in ULC.
Among their respective cross-sectional groups, structures S3, H3, O3, and D3 exhibit the highest
ULC, with S3 demonstrating the greatest ULC.

5.4. Ranking of structures using the TOPSIS method

To select a better structure, we need to classify the indices in terms of profitability and non-
profitability in energy absorption performance. The SEA, CFE, and MCF indices are classified as
profitable, while PCF and ULC are among the non-profitable indices. The performance of profit­
able and non-profitable indices is always contradictory, so to select a structure with the best
crashworthiness performance, we need a method that ranks structures based on the profitability
 MECHANICS BASED DESIGN OF STRUCTURES AND MACHINES 19

of the indices and introduces the best-proposed design. A good energy absorber should have
maximum values of SEA, MCF, and CFE, and minimum values of PCF and ULC. The TOPSIS
method is a subset of multi-criteria decision-making models, and the relevant explanations are
provided in Section 3.4.
In this study, for ranking structures in terms of energy absorption capability, three indices
SEA, ULC, and CFE have been used. The reason for excluding the MCF and PCF indices in the
TOPSIS process is that these two parameters are considered in the CFE index. Therefore, consid­
ering four loading conditions (0, 10, 20, and 30� ) alongside 3 energy absorption indices (i.e., SEA,
CFE and ULC), it can be said that a total of 12 criteria (four loading conditions � three crushing
indices) are considered in ranking structures using the TOPSIS method.
Based on the implementation steps of this method detailed in the references (Pirmohammad
2021; Pirmohammad and Nikkhah 2018), decision matrices and normalized matrices are first
formed for square, hexagonal, octagonal, and decagonal cross-sections. Then, the weighting of
each index with a coefficient of 0.33 (namely, an equal weight is considered for all indices) is
done. Finally, after determining positive and negative ideal solutions and calculating the distance
of each option from them, the ranking results for structures with square, hexagonal, octagonal,
and decagonal cross-sections are presented in Tables 3–6. Therefore, the rankings of structures
investigated for different sections are as follows:

Square cross-sections: S5 > S4 > S2 > S1 > S3

Hexagonal cross-sections: H5 > H4 > H3 > H2 > H1
Octagonal cross-sections: O5 > O4 > O2 > O3 > O1
Decagonal cross-sections: D5 > D4 > D2 > D3 > D1

From the TOPSIS results, it can be concluded that generally increasing small tubes and rein­
forcing plates enhances the energy absorption performance of structures. Therefore, structures
with the highest number of small tubes and reinforcements (i.e., S5, H5, O5, and D5) have the
best energy absorption performance within their respective cross-section groups. Additionally,
structures with simple designs without small tubes have the weakest performance.
Furthermore, to determine the best energy absorber among structures S5, H5, O5, and D5, the
TOPSIS method is applied again to these structures, with results presented in Table 7. According

Table 3. Results of TOPSIS for square structures, (a) decision and normalized decision matrixes and (b) rankings.
(a)
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
h Crash indicator Decision matrix Normalized decision matrix
0� CFE 52.17 67.27 81.46 81.79 80.89 0.32 0.41 0.49 0.50 0.49
SEA 15.07 19.68 23.94 25.90 26.02 0.30 0.39 0.48 0.51 0.52
ULC 0.15 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.07 0.62 0.45 0.37 0.43 0.29
10� CFE 67.34 75.69 75.03 77.29 83.06 0.40 0.45 0.44 0.46 0.49
SEA 12.66 16.96 19.58 21.16 22.67 0.30 0.40 0.46 0.50 0.54
ULC 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.12 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.50 0.45
20� CFE 72.58 52.46 48.77 54.78 54.52 0.57 0.41 0.38 0.43 0.43
SEA 10.70 9.08 7.77 9.52 10.57 0.50 0.42 0.36 0.44 0.49
ULC 0.16 0.29 0.44 0.35 0.33 0.22 0.40 0.60 0.48 0.45
30� CFE 51.81 63.14 57.12 61.73 62.77 0.39 0.47 0.43 0.46 0.47
SEA 6.39 6.60 5.90 6.96 7.79 0.42 0.44 0.39 0.46 0.52
ULC 0.29 0.26 0.30 0.28 0.24 0.48 0.42 0.49 0.45 0.39
(b)
Structure S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
Cþ i 0.177 0.185 0.170 0.212 0.256
Rank 4 3 5 2 1
20 S. PIRMOHAMMAD AND E. VOSOUGHIFARD

Table 4. Results of TOPSIS for hexagonal structures, (a) decision and normalized decision matrixes and (b) rankings.
(a)
H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5
Crash
h indicator Decision matrix Normalized decision matrix
0� CFE 63.26 76.81 76.23 84.33 80.55 0.37 0.45 0.45 0.49 0.47
SEA 18.38 24.52 27.96 32.36 31.22 0.30 0.40 0.46 0.53 0.51
ULC 0.12 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.58 0.42 0.47 0.41 0.32
10� CFE 83.49 84.18 86.35 84.49 84.47 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.45 0.45
SEA 16.12 22.02 25.94 28.94 28.97 0.29 0.40 0.47 0.52 0.52
ULC 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.39 0.41 0.46 0.50 0.47
20� CFE 57.46 55.18 57.35 60.61 58.11 0.44 0.43 0.44 0.47 0.45
SEA 10.18 10.92 10.54 11.46 11.78 0.41 0.44 0.43 0.47 0.48
ULC 0.29 0.26 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.45 0.42 0.47 0.44 0.45
30� CFE 55.05 62.67 65.65 71.03 68.98 0.38 0.43 0.45 0.49 0.48
SEA 6.75 7.78 7.65 8.44 8.38 0.39 0.44 0.44 0.48 0.48
ULC 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.50 0.43 0.47 0.42 0.41
(b)
Structure H1 H2 H3 H4 H5
Cþi 0.070 0.192 0.195 0.258 0.285
Rank 5 4 3 2 1

Table 5. Results of TOPSIS for hexagonal structures, (a) decision and normalized decision matrixes and (b) rankings.
(a)
O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O1 O2 O3 O4 O5
Crash
h indicator Decision matrix Normalized decision matrix
0� CFE 64.57 77.14 79.61 83.64 81.56 0.37 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.47
SEA 19.58 26.97 30.16 33.48 33.72 0.30 0.41 0.46 0.51 0.52
ULC 0.11 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.66 0.38 0.48 0.33 0.29
10� CFE 86.13 84.18 86.58 84.25 86.64 0.45 0.44 0.45 0.44 0.45
SEA 17.71 23.91 28.05 30.38 30.49 0.30 0.40 0.47 0.51 0.51
ULC 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.39 0.40 0.46 0.51 0.47
20� CFE 55.36 54.54 55.92 59.68 57.58 0.44 0.43 0.44 0.47 0.45
SEA 10.40 11.47 10.98 11.74 12.06 0.41 0.45 0.43 0.46 0.48
ULC 0.29 0.29 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.42 0.44 0.47 0.45 0.45
30� CFE 56.01 62.84 66.52 70.26 67.26 0.39 0.43 0.46 0.49 0.46
SEA 7.71 8.37 8.03 8.61 8.64 0.42 0.45 0.43 0.47 0.47
ULC 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.48 0.46 0.47 0.44 0.38
(b)
Structure O1 O2 O3 O4 O5
Cþ i 0.068 0.209 0.189 0.253 0.281
Rank 5 3 4 2 1

to the results, the ranking is as follows: O5 > D5 > H5 > S5. Therefore, the structure O5 is
selected as the best energy absorber among all the structures examined in this study.

5.5 Effect of geometrical parameters on the crushing indices

The octagonal structure O5 was identified as the best structure in terms of energy absorption cap­
ability among the proposed structures in this research with the help of the TOPSIS method. This
section focuses on studying the effect of two parameters: the thickness of the structure walls (t)
and the ratio of the perimeter of small tubes to the perimeter of the outer tube (R) on this struc­
ture (i.e., structure O5). Indeed, R corresponds to the size of the small tubes. It is worth mention­
ing that in this study, the thickness ranges from 1.3 to 1.7 mm, and the parameter R varies from
 MECHANICS BASED DESIGN OF STRUCTURES AND MACHINES 21

Table 6. Results of TOPSIS for hexagonal structures, (a) decision and normalized decision matrixes and (b) rankings.
(a)
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
Crash
h indicator Decision matrix Normalized decision matrix
0� CFE 68.13 78.52 82.73 84.66 82.54 0.38 0.44 0.47 0.48 0.46
SEA 21.05 29.29 32.83 34.58 34.68 0.30 0.42 0.48 0.50 0.50
ULC 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.53 0.38 0.51 0.43 0.36
10� CFE 84.63 83.01 84.80 85.29 86.44 0.45 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.46
SEA 18.59 25.19 28.68 31.94 31.17 0.30 0.41 0.47 0.52 0.51
ULC 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.36 0.44 0.45 0.50 0.47
20� CFE 50.79 56.44 57.77 62.56 58.62 0.40 0.44 0.45 0.49 0.46
SEA 10.55 12.26 11.49 12.19 12.18 0.40 0.47 0.44 0.46 0.46
ULC 0.26 0.29 0.31 0.28 0.29 0.41 0.45 0.48 0.44 0.45
30� CFE 59.44 65.34 65.74 71.21 70.11 0.40 0.44 0.44 0.48 0.47
SEA 7.82 8.47 8.35 8.87 8.78 0.41 0.45 0.44 0.47 0.46
ULC 0.19 0.23 0.24 0.19 0.17 0.41 0.50 0.51 0.42 0.38
(b)
Structure D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
Cþi 0.118 0.190 0.183 0.241 0.268
Rank 5 3 4 2 1

Table 7. Results of TOPSIS for the selected structures, (a) decision and normalized decision matrixes and (b) rankings.
(a)
S5 H5 O5 D5 S5 H5 O5 D5
Crash
h indicator Decision matrix Normalized decision matrix
0� CFE 80.89 80.55 81.56 82.54 0.50 0.49 0.50 0.51
SEA 26.02 31.22 33.72 34.68 0.41 0.49 0.53 0.55
ULC 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.54 0.52 0.38 0.54
10� CFE 83.06 84.47 86.64 86.44 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.51
SEA 22.67 28.97 30.49 31.17 0.40 0.51 0.53 0.55
ULC 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.46 0.50 0.51 0.53
20� CFE 54.52 58.11 57.58 58.62 0.48 0.51 0.50 0.51
SEA 10.57 11.78 12.06 12.18 0.45 0.50 0.52 0.52
ULC 0.33 0.28 0.30 0.29 0.55 0.47 0.50 0.48
30� CFE 62.77 68.98 67.26 70.11 0.47 0.51 0.50 0.52
SEA 7.79 8.38 8.64 8.78 0.46 0.50 0.51 0.52
ULC 0.24 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.60 0.45 0.49 0.44
(b)
Structure S5 H5 O5 D5
Cþ i 0.074 0.275 0.360 0.291
Rank 4 3 1 2

0.06 to 0.14. The results of finite element simulations are presented in Fig. 13. According to this
figure, for all the values of R, increasing the thickness leads to an increase in SEA. On the other
hand, for all wall thicknesses, increasing R initially results in an increase in the SEA index, fol­
lowed by a decrease. Therefore, it can be said that there is an optimal size for the small tubes,
and increasing their size does not always improve SEA. In general, the optimal size of small tubes
occurs at R ¼ 0.1.
The effect of parameters t and R on the CFE index is also shown in Fig. 13. It can be observed
that increasing the thickness improves CFE, but the extent of this improvement is not as signifi­
cant as SEA. On the other hand, in general, increasing the parameter R leads to a decrease in the
CFE index, with the highest value of CFE occurring at R ¼ 0.06.
22 S. PIRMOHAMMAD AND E. VOSOUGHIFARD

Figure 13. Effect of parameters t and R on the crushing indices of SEA, CFE and ULC.

Although the parameter t does not have a significant impact on the ULC index, in general,
increasing R results in a decrease in ULC, with the highest and lowest values occurring at
R ¼ 0.06 and R ¼ 0.14, respectively.
 MECHANICS BASED DESIGN OF STRUCTURES AND MACHINES 23

6. Conclusions
This study examined the crushing response of square, hexagonal, octagonal, and decagonal multi-
cell structures with a novel cross-sectional design under various crushing angles (0, 10, 20, and
30� ) using the finite element software LS-DYNA.

� Prior to simulating the collapse behavior, the finite element model in LS-DYNA was validated
through experimental tests under axial and oblique loads. The final element model was also
validated via analytical solutions for several structures (S1, H1, O1, and D1). It was observed
that the numerical results had good agreement with the SSFE theory and experiments, indicat­
ing that the code implemented in LS-DYNA was reliable.
� Five different crushing indices (SEA, PCF, MCF, CFE, and ULC) were calculated for all 20
structures at different loading angles. By considering all loading angles, the following results
were observed:
� The structures S5, H4, O5 and D4 had the highest SEA among their own cross-sectional
group. However, the D4 had the greatest SEA among all the structures.
� The structures S5, H5, O5 and D5 demonstrated the highest PCF among their own cross-
sectional group. However, the D5 had the greatest PCF.
� The structures S5, H5, O5, and D5 exhibited the highest MCF within their respective
cross-sectional categories. However, the D5 had the highest MCF.
� The structures S5, H4, O4, and D4 exhibited the highest CFE within their respective cross-
sectional groups, with D4 showing the highest CFE among all structures.
� Among their respective cross-sectional groups, the structures S3, H3, O3, and D3 exhibited
the highest ULC, with S3 demonstrating the greatest ULC.
� Utilizing the TOPSIS method and considering 12 criteria, the octagonal structure with the
highest number of small tubes (referred to as O5) was identified as the best structure among
those studied. Additionally, the structure O5 exhibited significantly higher SEA values com­
pared to simple structures S1, H1, O1, and D1 (89%, 65%, 53%, and 46% higher, respectively).
� The impact of two key parameters, wall thickness (t) and small tube size (R), was also investi­
gated on the crushing indices SEA, CFE, and ULC. Results showed that increasing wall thick­
ness led to higher SEA and CFE values, with minimal effect on ULC. The highest SEA, CFE,
and ULC values were observed at small tube sizes (R) of 0.1, 0.06, and 0.06, respectively.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Altin, M., M. A. G€ uler, and S. K. Mert. 2017. “The Effect of Percent Foam Fill Ratio on the Energy Absorption
Capacity of Axially Compressed Thin-Walled Multi-Cell Square and Circular Tubes.” International Journal of
Mechanical Sciences 131-132: 368–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2017.07.003
Andrews, K., G. England, and E. Ghani. 1983. “Classification of the Axial Collapse of Cylindrical Tubes under
Quasi-Static Loading.” International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 25 (9-10): 687–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0020-7403(83)90076-0
Azarakhsh, S., and A. Ghamarian. 2017. “Collapse Behavior of Thin-Walled Conical Tube Clamped at Both
Ends Subjected to Axial and Oblique Loads.” Thin-Walled Structures 112: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.
2016.11.020
Azimi, M. B., and M. Asgari. 2016. “A New bi-Tubular Conical–Circular Structure for Improving Crushing
Behavior under Axial and Oblique Impacts.” International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 105: 253–265. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2015.11.012
24 S. PIRMOHAMMAD AND E. VOSOUGHIFARD

Azimi, M. B., M. Asgari, and H. Salaripoor. 2019. “A New Homo-Polygonal Multi-Cell Structures under Axial and
Oblique Impacts; considering the Effect of Cell Growth in Crashworthiness.” International Journal of
Crashworthiness 25 (6): 628–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2019.1628461
Chen, W., and T. Wierzbicki. 2001. “Relative Merits of Single-Cell, Multi-Cell and Foam-Filled Thin-Walled
Structures in Energy Absorption.” Thin-Walled Structures 39 (4): 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-
8231(01)00006-4
Chen, Y., X. Deng, H. Huang, H. Ran, and C. Wang. 2023. “Crashworthiness of Bionic Tree-Shaped Hexagonal
Hierarchical Gradient Structures under Oblique Crushing Conditions.” Mechanics of Advanced Materials and
Structures: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2023.2240328
Deng, X., Y. Chen, and J. Huang. 2023. “Crashworthiness Analysis of Hexagonal Hierarchical Gradient Tubes with
Axial Variable Thickness Inspired by Tree Fractal Structure.” Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures:
1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2023.2215778
Deng, X., and W. Liu. 2019. “Crushing Analysis and Multi-Objective Crashworthiness Optimization of Multi-Cell
Conical Tube Subjected to Oblique Loading.” Advances in Mechanical Engineering 11 (1): 168781401882446.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814018824467
Deng, X., G. Wang, and Z. Cai. 2023. “Crashworthiness of Multicellular Tubes with Tree-like Fractal Hierarchical
Structure under Axial Impact.” Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15376494.2023.2284430
Deng, Y., Y. Ren, X. Fu, and H. Jiang. 2021. “Bionic-Bamboo Design for Enhancing the Crashworthiness of
Composite Tube with Groove Trigger Subjected to Oblique Load.” International Journal of Mechanical Sciences
206: 106635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2021.106635
Djamaluddin, F., S. Abdullah, A. Arrifin, and Z. Nopiah. 2018. “Crush Analysis of the Foam-Filled Bitubal Circular
Tube under Oblique Impact.” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 308: 12040. https://doi.
org/10.1088/1757-899X/308/1/012040
Gao, Q., L. Wang, Y. Wang, and C. Wang. 2016. “Crushing Analysis and Multiobjective Crashworthiness
Optimization of Foam-Filled Ellipse Tubes under Oblique Impact Loading.” Thin-Walled Structures 100: 105–
112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2015.11.020
Gao, Z., and D. Ruan. 2023. “Axial Crushing of Novel Hierarchical Multi-Cell Square Tubes.” Engineering
Structures 286: 116141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116141
Gong, C., Z. Bai, and Y. Hu. 2023. “Crushing Behaviors of Novel Multi-Cell Square Tubes and Its Hierarchical
Multi-Cell Structures under Axial Loading.” Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures 30 (15): 3156–
3171. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2022.2070309
Guler, Mehmet A., Muhammed E. Cerit, Bertan Bayram, Bora Gerçeker, and Emrah Karakaya. 2010. “The Effect
of Geometrical Parameters on the Energy Absorption Characteristics of Thin-Walled Structures under Axial
Impact Loading.” International Journal of Crashworthiness 15 (4): 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13588260903488750
Han, D., and S. Park. 1999. “Collapse Behavior of Square Thin-Walled Columns Subjected to Oblique Loads.”
Thin-Walled Structures 35 (3): 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-8231(99)00022-1
He, Y., X. Zhang, J. Sun, X. Shu, X. Li, B. Su, and G. Xiao. 2023. “Energy Absorption of Self-Similar Inspired
Multi-Cell Hexagonal Tubes.” Engineering Structures 277: 115455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115455
Hosseini Tehrani, P., and S. Pirmohammad. 2010. “Study on Crashworthiness Characteristics of Several Concentric
Thin Wall Tubes.” Paper presented at the Engineering Systems Design and Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1115/
ESDA2010-24027
Hou, S., Q. Li, S. Long, X. Yang, and W. Li. 2007. “Design Optimization of Regular Hexagonal Thin-Walled
Columns with Crashworthiness Criteria.” Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 43 (6-7): 555–565. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.finel.2006.12.008
Li, X., Y. Yin, X. Zhu, R. Wang, T. Li, Q. Zhang, and W. Li. 2023. “Performance of Hollow and Aluminum Foam-
Filled Multi-Cell Thin-Walled Aluminum Alloy Tubes (6063-T5) under Axial Impact.” Structures 47: 1803–
1821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.12.019
Li, Z., J. Yu, and L. Guo. 2012. “Deformation and Energy Absorption of Aluminum Foam-Filled Tubes Subjected
to Oblique Loading.” International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 54 (1): 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmecsci.2011.09.006
Lu, G., and T. Yu. 2003. Energy absorption of structures and materials. Cambridge, UK: Wood Head Publishing
Limited.
Mills, N., and A. Gilchrist. 1996. “Response of Helmets in Direct and Oblique Impacts.” International Journal of
Crashworthiness 2 (1): 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1533/cras.1997.0032
Najafi, A., and M. Rais-Rohani. 2011. “Mechanics of Axial Plastic Collapse in Multi-Cell, Multi-Corner Crush
Tubes.” Thin-Walled Structures 49 (1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2010.07.002
 MECHANICS BASED DESIGN OF STRUCTURES AND MACHINES 25

Nia, A. A., H. Badnava, and K. F. Nejad. 2011. “An Experimental Investigation on Crack Effect on the Mechanical
Behavior and Energy Absorption of Thin-Walled Tubes.” Materials & Design 32 (6): 3594–3607. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matdes.2011.02.029
Nia, A. A., K. F. Nejad, H. Badnava, and H. Farhoudi. 2012. “Effects of Buckling Initiators on Mechanical
Behavior of Thin-Walled Square Tubes Subjected to Oblique Loading.” Thin-Walled Structures 59: 87–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2012.03.002
Nia, A. A., and M. Parsapour. 2014. “Comparative Analysis of Energy Absorption Capacity of Simple and Multi-
Cell Thin-Walled Tubes with Triangular, Square, Hexagonal and Octagonal Sections.” Thin-Walled Structures
74: 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2013.10.005
Nikkhah, H., V. Crupi, and A. Baroutaji. 2022. “Crashworthiness Analysis of Bio-Inspired Thin-Walled Tubes
Based on Morpho Wings Microstructures.” Mechanics Based Design of Structures and Machines 50 (10): 3683–
3700. https://doi.org/10.1080/15397734.2020.1822184
Park, J.-S., S.-H. Park, and D.-C. Han. 2000. Energy Capacity of Vehicle Structure under Oblique Load.
Pirmohammad, S. 2021. “Crashworthiness Performance of Concentric Structures with Different Cross-Sectional
Shapes under Multiple Loading Conditions.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D:
Journal of Automobile Engineering 235 (2-3): 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954407020961885
Pirmohammad, S., S. Ahmadi-Saravani, and J. Zakavi. 2019. “Crashworthiness Optimization Design of Foam-Filled
Tapered Decagonal Structures Subjected to Axial and Oblique Impacts.” Journal of Central South University 26
(10): 2729–2745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-019-4209-1
Pirmohammad, S., and S. Esmaeili-Marzdashti. 2016. “Crushing Behavior of New Designed Multi-Cell Members
Subjected to Axial and Oblique Quasi-Static Loads.” Thin-Walled Structures 108: 291–304. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tws.2016.08.023
Pirmohammad, S., and H. Nikkhah. 2018. “Crashworthiness Investigation of Bitubal Columns Reinforced
with Several inside Ribs under Axial and Oblique Impact Loads.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering 232 (3): 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/09544070
17702986
Pirmohammad, S., and M.-H. Ramezani. 2024. “Crushing Behavior of Polygonal Multicellular Structures with a
Novel Pattern of Design for Their Cross-Section under Multiple Crushing Angles.” Mechanics of Advanced
Materials and Structures: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2023.2299215
Qi-Hua, M., D. Fan, G. Xue-Hui, and Z. Tianjun. 2023. “Crashworthiness Design of Gradient Bionic Al/CFRP
Hybrid Tubes under Multiple Loading Conditions.” Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures 30 (14):
2953–2970. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2022.2066233
Qi, C., S. Yang, and F. Dong. 2012. “Crushing Analysis and Multiobjective Crashworthiness Optimization of
Tapered Square Tubes under Oblique Impact Loading.” Thin-Walled Structures 59: 103–119. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tws.2012.05.008
Qin, S., X. Deng, and F. Liu. 2023. “Energy Absorption Characteristics and Crashworthiness of Rhombic
Hierarchical Gradient Multicellular Hexagonal Tubes.” Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures: 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2023.2194299
Qiu, N., Y. Gao, J. Fang, Z. Feng, G. Sun, and Q. Li. 2016. “Theoretical Prediction and Optimization of Multi-Cell
Hexagonal Tubes under Axial Crashing.” Thin-Walled Structures 102: 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.
2016.01.023
Reid, S., and T. Reddy. 1986. “Static and Dynamic Crushing of Tapered Sheet Metal Tubes of Rectangular Cross-
Section.” International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 28 (9): 623–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-
7403(86)90077-9
Reyes, A., M. Langseth, and O. S. Hopperstad. 2002. “Crashworthiness of Aluminum Extrusions Subjected to
Oblique Loading: Experiments and Numerical Analyses.” International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 44 (9):
1965–1984. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7403(02)00050-4
Reyes, A., M. Langseth, and O. S. Hopperstad. 2003. “Square Aluminum Tubes Subjected to Oblique Loading.”
International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (10): 1077–1106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0734-743X(03)00045-9
Song, J., and F. Guo. 2013. “A Comparative Study on the Windowed and Multi-Cell Square Tubes under Axial
and Oblique Loading.” Thin-Walled Structures 66: 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2013.02.002
Song, J., J. Yan, B. Yi, W. Gong, Z. Du, T. Liu, … Z. Pu. 2023. “Bamboo-Inspired Hierarchical Microlattice
Structures (BHMSs) for High Strength and Energy Absorption.” Mechanics of Advanced Materials and
Structures: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2023.2253530
Tian, K., Y. Zhang, F. Yang, Q. Zhao, and H. Fan. 2020. “Enhancing Energy Absorption of Circular Tubes under
Oblique Loads through Introducing Grooves of Non-Uniform Depths.” International Journal of Mechanical
Sciences 166: 105239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.105239
Tran, T., and A. Baroutaji. 2018. “Crashworthiness Optimal Design of Multi-Cell Triangular Tubes under Axial
and Oblique Impact Loading.” Engineering Failure Analysis 93: 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.
2018.07.003
26 S. PIRMOHAMMAD AND E. VOSOUGHIFARD

Tran, T., S. Hou, X. Han, and M. Chau. 2015. “Crushing Analysis and Numerical Optimization of Angle Element
Structures under Axial Impact Loading.” Composite Structures 119: 422–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comp­
struct.2014.09.019
Wang, Z., Z. Li, C. Shi, and W. Zhou. 2020. “Theoretical and Numerical Analysis of the Folding Mechanism of
Vertex-Based Hierarchical Honeycomb Structure.” Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures 27 (10):
789–799. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2019.1665760
Wierzbicki, T., and W. Abramowicz. 1983. On the crushing mechanics of thin-walled structures.
Witteman, W. J. 1999. Improved vehicle crashworthiness design by control of the energy absorption for different
collision situations.
Xiang, Y., M. Wang, T. Yu, and L. Yang. 2015. “Key Performance Indicators of Tubes and Foam-Filled Tubes
Used as Energy Absorbers.” International Journal of Applied Mechanics 07 (04): 1550060. https://doi.org/10.
1142/S175882511550060X
Yang, M., B. Han, P. Su, F. Li, Z. Zhao, Q. Zhang, … T. J. Lu. 2021. “Oblique Crushing of Truncated Conical
Sandwich Shell with Corrugated Core.” Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures 28 (23): 2458–2471.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2020.1743396
Yang, Z., S. Yao, and C. Yang. 2022. “Crashworthiness Analysis of Circumferential Sinusoidal Hierarchical Tubes
(CSHTs): Experiment, Simulation and Theoretical Prediction.” Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures
29 (27): 6459–6476. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2021.1980161
Yin, H., and G. Wen. 2011. “Theoretical Prediction and Numerical Simulation of Honeycomb Structures with
Various Cell Specifications under Axial Loading.” International Journal of Mechanics and Materials in Design
7 (4): 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10999-011-9163-5
Yin, H., Y. Xiao, G. Wen, Q. Qing, and Y. Deng. 2015. “Multiobjective Optimization for Foam-Filled Multi-Cell
Thin-Walled Structures under Lateral Impact.” Thin-Walled Structures 94: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.
2015.03.031
Yu, Y., X. Gong, J. Li, G. Gao, and J. Li. 2023. “Crashworthiness Performance and Optimization of Multi-Cell
Aluminum Tubes under Axial Loading” Structures 55: 1556–1571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.06.085
Yue, L., H. Liu, Z. Cheng, Q. Kan, and G. Kang. 2024. “Dynamic Crushing Behavior of a Novel bi-Directional
Gradient Lattice Structure under Axial and Oblique Impact Loadings.” Thin-Walled Structures 198: 111697.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2024.111697
Zhang, J., J. Xie, T. Zhang, B. Lu, D. Zheng, and H. Zhou. 2023. “A Prediction Method for Oblique Load Stability
of Multi-Cell Tubes Based on SVM.” Engineering Structures 283: 115885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.
2023.115885
Zhang, L., Z. Bai, and F. Bai. 2018. “Crashworthiness Design for Bio-Inspired Multi-Cell Tubes with Quadrilateral,
Hexagonal and Octagonal Sections.” Thin-Walled Structures 122: 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2017.10.010
Zhang, X., and H. Zhang. 2015. “Relative Merits of Conical Tubes with Graded Thickness Subjected to Oblique
Impact Loads.” International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 98: 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2015.
04.013
Zhao, R., B. Yuan, D. Zhou, Z. Li, M. Zhao, and Y. Tao. 2023. “On the out-of-Plane Crashworthiness of
Incorporating Hierarchy and Gradient into Hexagonal Honeycomb.” Mechanics of Advanced Materials and
Structures: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2023.2222315
Zhou, B., H. Zhang, S. Han, and X. Ji. 2024. “Crashworthiness Analysis and Optimization of a Novel Thin-Walled
Multi-Cell Structure Inspired by Bamboo.” Structures 59: 105827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105827