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.
BaiZGuoHJiangB. A study on the mean crushing strength of hexagonal multi-cell thin-walled structures. Thin-Walled Struct2014; 80: 38–45.
2.
WierzbickiT. Crushing analysis of metal honeycombs. Int J Impact Eng1983; 2: 157–174.
3.
SantosaSWierzbickiT. Crash behavior of box columns filled with aluminum honeycomb or foam. Comput Struct1998; 68: 343–367.
4.
CrupiVEpastoGGuglielminoE. Computed tomography-based reconstruction and finite element modelling of honeycomb sandwiches under low-velocity impacts. J Sandwich Struct Mater2014; 16: 377–397.
5.
Aaron Jeyasingh V. Finite element analysis of drop test equipment for nose landing gear configuration and its application to aircraft crashworthiness and occupant safety. Master Thesis. Wichita State University, Wichita KS, USA, 2001.
6.
WierzbickiTMohrD. Crush response of double-walled sandwich columns with a honeycomb core. Sandwich Constr2000; 5: 607–616.
7.
GibsonLAshbyM. Cellular solids, structures and properties, Pergamon Press, 1988, pp. 110–112.
8.
PaikJThayamballiAKKimGS. The strength characteristics of aluminum honeycomb sandwich panels. Thin-Walled Struct1999; 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.
WeEJiangW. Axial crush of metallic honeycombs. Int J Impact Eng1997; 19: 439–456.
11.
GoldsmithWSackmanJ. An experimental study of energy absorption in impact on sandwich plates. Int J Impact Eng1992; 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.
JangBWLeeJRParkSO. A health management algorithm for composite train carbody based on FEM/FBG hybrid method. Compos Struct2010; 92: 1019–1026.
14.
KimJSJeongJCLeeSJ. Numerical and experimental studies on the deformational behavior a composite train carbody of the Korean tilting train. Compos Struct2007; 81: 168–175.
15.
KimJSJeongJCLeeSJ. Structural safety evaluation of the hybrid composite bodyshell for Korean tilting train by a whole body test. Adv Compos Mater Struct2007; 334–335: 313–316.
16.
KoronisGSilvaAFontulM. Green composites: a review of adequate materials for automotive applications. Composites: Part B2013; 44: 120–127.
17.
LiuQLinYZongZ. Lightweight design of carbon twill weave fabric composite body structure for electric vehicle. Compos Struct2013; 97: 231–238.
18.
HeMHuW. A study on composite honeycomb sandwich panel structure. Mater Des2008; 29: 709–713.
19.
StocchiaAColabellabLCisilinobA. Manufacturing and testing of a sandwich panel honeycomb core reinforced with natural-fiber fabrics. Mater Des2014; 55: 394–403.
20.
CrupiVEpastoGGuglielminoE. Comparison of aluminum sandwiches for lightweight ship structures: honeycomb vs. foam. Mar Struct2013; 1: 74–96.
21.
HuaLYouaFYubT. Analyses on the dynamic strength of honeycombs under the y-directional crushing. Mater Des2014; 53: 293–301.
22.
HuaLYouaFYuT. Effect of cell-wall angle on the in plane crushing behavior of hexagonal honeycombs. Mater Des2013; 46: 511–523.
23.
BitzerT. Honeycomb technology, materials, design, manufacturing, application and testing, Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media, 1997.
24.
JhaverRTippurH. Characterization and modeling of compression behavior of syntactic foam filled honeycombs. J Reinf Plast Compos2010; 29: 3185–3196.
25.
AlaviNiaASadeghiMZ. The effects of foam filling on compressive response of hexagonal cell aluminum honeycombs under axial loading-experimental study. Mater Des2010; 31: 1216–1230.
26.
AlaviNiaASadeghiMZ. An experimental investigation on the effect of strain rate on the behaviour of bare and foam filled aluminium honeycombs. Mater Des2013; 52: 748–756.
27.
MozafariHKhatamiSMolatefiH. Out of plane crushing and local stiffness determination of proposed foam filled sandwich panel for Korean Tilting Train eXpress – numerical study. J Mater Des2014.
28.
NakamotoHAdachiTWakako ArakiW. In plane impact behavior of honeycomb structures filled with linearly arranged inclusions. Int J Impact Eng2009; 36: 1019–1026.
29.
Ali GhamarianAZareiHRAbadiMT. Experimental and numerical crashworthiness investigation of empty and foam filled end-capped conical tubes. Thin-Walled Struct2011; 49: 1312–1319.
30.
Manual of ABAQUS finite element analysis software package. Analysis User’s Guide. Explicit dynamic analysis, version 6.11, 2011.
