Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T14:07:10.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Energy absorption of sandwiched honeycombs with facesheets under in-plane crushing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

B. Atli-Veltin  and
F. Gandhi
B. Atli-Veltin*
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, USA TNO Structural Dynamics, Van Mourik Broekmanweg, Delft, The Netherlands
F. Gandhi
Affiliation:
Endowed Chair in Aerospace Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, USA
*
bilim.atli@tno.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The in-plane crushing and energy absorption of sandwiched honeycomb cores with facesheets are examined through finite element simulations. Assuming no debonding between the facesheet and honeycomb core (which would be the case if manufacturing techniques such as brazing are used to produce very strong bonds between the facesheeet and the core), intracellular buckling mode for thin facesheets, and wrinkling mode for thick facesheets are observed. In the dimpling mode, deformation is governed by the core, honeycomb vertical cell walls do not deform, and the inclined wall deformation does not vary through the cell depth. In the wrinkling mode, deformation is governed by the facesheet, the vertical cell walls deform significantly, and the inclined cell wall deformation varies through the cell depth. Increasing cell angle increased Specific Energy Absorption (SEA) for honeycombs with thin facesheets. Decreasing vertical cell wall length increased SEA for honeycombs with thick facesheets. Increasing wall thickness and decreasing core depth increased SEA for honeycombs with thin and thick facesheets. With geometric changes, SEA increased ~3 times over the baseline configurations. For a given keel beam dimensions, using fewer rows of larger cells reduces the effective non-dimensional core-depth, thereby increasing the effect of the facesheet and the SEA significantly. The SEA of sandwiched honeycombs with facesheets in in-plane crushing appears to be competitive with, or better than, SEA honeycombs in out-of-plane crushing.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 117 , Issue 1193 , July 2013 , pp. 687 - 708
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Research for Crashworthiness of Aircraft Structures, NLR Annual Report 2000, National Aerospace Laboratory, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
2. US Army Aviation Research & Technology Activity, Aircraft crash survival design guide, Volume III-Aircraft Structural Crash Resistance, December 1989, Volume IV-Aircraft Seats, Restraints, Litters and Padding, June 1980.Google Scholar
3. Bisagni, C. Crashworthiness of helicopter subfoor structural components, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal, 1999, 71–1, pp 6–11.Google Scholar
4. Cronkhite, J.D. and Berry, V.L. Crashworthy Airframe Design Concepts, Fabrication and Testing, NASA Contractor Report 3603, 1982.Google Scholar
5. Fasanella, E.L., Jackson, K.E., Sparks, C.E. and Sareen, A.K. Water impact test and simulation of a composite energy absorbing fuselage section, J American Helicopter Society, April 2005, 50, (2) pp 150–164.Google Scholar
6. Ludin, D. and Renninger, M. The Development of a Floor Former Concept Incorporating Energy-Absorbing Composite Tubes, 65th AHS Annual Forum, 27-29 May 2009, Grapevine, Texas, USA.Google Scholar
7. Kellas, S. and Norman, F.K. Design, Fabrication and Testing of Composite Energy-Absorbing Keel Beams for General Aviation Type Aircraft, 42nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference and Exhibit, Seattle, WA, USA, 16-19 April 2001.Google Scholar
8. Gibson, J.L., and Ashby, M.F. Cellular Solids, Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed 1997.Google Scholar
9. Atli-Veltin, B. and Gandhi, F. Effect of cell geometry on the energy absorption of honeycombs under in-plane compression, AIAA J, 2010, 48, (2), pp 466–478.Google Scholar
10. Stapleton, S.E. and Adams, D.O. Core design for energy absorption in sandwich composites, J Composite Materials, 2009, 43, (2), pp 175–190.Google Scholar
11. Jing, Y., Guo, S., Han, J., Zhang, Y. and Li, W. Fabrication and compressive performance of plain carbon steel honeycomb sandwich panels, J University of Science and Technology, Beijing, China, June 2008, 15, (3), pp 255–260.Google Scholar
12. Zimmerman, F.R., Gentz, S.J., Miller, J.B., MacKay, R.A. and Bright, M.L. Pitting and Repair of the Space Shuttle’s Inconel® Honeycomb Conical Seal Panel, 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Sacramento, California, USA, 9-12 July 2006.Google Scholar
13. Goldsmith, W. and Sackman, J.L. An experimental study of energy absorption in impact on sandwich plates, Int J Impact Eng, 1992, 12, (2), pp 241–262.Google Scholar
14. Moriarty, K. and Goldsmith, W. Dynamic energy absorption characteristics of sandwich shells, Int J Impact Eng, 1993, 13, (2), pp 293–317.Google Scholar
15. Zhu, F., Wang, Z., Lu, G. and Nurick, G. Some theoretical considerations on the dynamic response of sandwich structures under impulsive loading, Int J Impact Engineering, June 2010, 37, (6), pp 625–637.Google Scholar
16. Hoff, N.J. and Mautner, S.E. The buckling of sandwich-type panels, J Aeronautical Sciences, 1945, 12, pp 285–297.Google Scholar
17. Hoff, N.J. and Mautner, S.E. Bending and buckling of sandwich beams, J Aeronautical Sciences, 1948, pp 707–720.Google Scholar
18. Ley, R., Lin, W. and Uy, M. Facesheet Wrinkling in Sandwich Structures, NASA/CR-1999-208984, January 1999.Google Scholar
19. Gallagher, R.H. Buckling strength of structural plates, NASA SP-8068, June 1971.Google Scholar
20. Hu, H., Belouettar, S., Potier-Ferry, , and M., Makdari, A. A novel fnite element for global and local buckling analysis of sandwich beams, Composite Structures, 2009, 90, pp 270–278.Google Scholar
21. Pahr, D.H. and Rammerstorfer, F.G. Analytical and computational models for investigations of local buckling in honeycomb sandwiches, Materials Science Forum, 2007, 539–543, pp 2467–2472.Google Scholar
22. Mohr, D. Multi-scale finite-strain plasticity model for stable metallic honeycombs incorporating microstructural evolution, Int J Plasticity, 2006, 22, pp 1899–1923.Google Scholar
23. Papka, S.D. and Kyriakides, S. In-plane compressive response and crushing of honeycomb, J Mech. Phys Solids, 1994, 42, (10), pp1499–1532.Google Scholar
24. Chung, J. and Waas, A.M. Compressive response of circular cell polycarbonate honeycombs under in-plane biaxial static and dynamic loading – Part I: Experiments, AIAA J, May 2002, 40 (5), pp 966–973.Google Scholar
25. Chung, J. and Waas, A.M. Compressive response of circular cell polycarbonate honeycombs under in-plane biaxial static and dynamic loading – Part II: Simulations, AIAA J, May 2002, 40, (5), pp 974–980.Google Scholar
26. Ley, R., Lin, W. and Uy, M. Facesheet Wrinkling in Sandwich Structures, NASA/CR-1999-208984, January 1999.Google Scholar
27. Norris, C.B. Structural Sandwich Composites, Department of Defense, MIL-HNDBK-23A, Washington, DC, USA, 1968.Google Scholar
28. Becker, W. The in-plane stiffnesses of a honeycomb core including the thickness effect, Archive of Applied Mechanics, 1998, 68, pp 334–341.Google Scholar
29. Cronkhite, J.D. Impact of MIL-STD-1290 crashworthiness requirements on design of helicopter composite structures, 42nd Annual Conference of Society of Allied Weight Engineers, Inc., Anaheim, Ca, USA, 23-25 May 1983.Google Scholar
30. McCarthy, M.A. and Wiggenraad, J.F.M. Numerical investigation of a crash test of a composite helicopter subfoor structure, Composite Structures, 2001, 51, pp 345–359.Google Scholar
31. Taher, S.T., Mahdi, E., Mokhtar, A.S., Magid, D.L., Ahmadun, F.R. and Arora, P.R. A new composite energy absorbing system for aircraft and helicopter, Composite Structures, 2006, 75, pp 14–23.Google Scholar
32. Zarei, H.R. and Kroger, M. Optimization of the foam-flled aluminum tubes for crush box application, Thin-Walled Structures, 2008, 46, pp 214–221.Google Scholar
33. Doengi, F., Burnage, S.T., Cottard, H. and Roumeas, R. Lander shock-alleviation techniques, ESA Bulletin-European Space Agency, 1998, (93), pp 51–60.Google Scholar