0
Research Papers

Design of Honeycomb Mesostructures for Crushing Energy Absorption

[+] Author and Article Information
Jesse Schultz

Force Protection, Summerville, SC 29483jesse.c.schultz@gmail.com

David Griese

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0921dgriese@clemson.edu

Jaehyung Ju

Department of Mechanical and Energy Engineering,  University of North Texas, Denton, TX76207jaehyung.ju@unt.edu

Prabhu Shankar

 JLG Industries, Inc., Hagerstown, MD 21742pshankar@jlg.com

Joshua D. Summers1

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0921jsummer@clemson.edu

Lonny Thompson

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0921lonny@clemson.edu

1

Corresponding author.

J. Mech. Des 134(7), 071004 (Jun 08, 2012) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4006739 History: Received September 01, 2011; Revised April 07, 2012; Published June 07, 2012; Online June 08, 2012

This paper presents the energy absorption properties of hexagonal honeycomb structures of varying cellular geometries under high speed in-plane crushing. While the crushing responses in terms of energy absorption and densification strains have been extensively researched and reported, a gap is identified in the generalization of honeycombs with contr’olled and varying geometric parameters. This paper addresses this gap through a series of finite element (FE) simulations where the cell angle and the inclined wall thickness, are varied while maintaining a constant mass of the honeycomb structure. A randomly filled, nonrepeating design of experiments (DOEs) is generated to determine the effects of these geometric parameters on the output of energy absorbed and a statistical sensitivity analysis is used to determine the parameters significant for the crushing energy absorption of honeycombs. It is found that while an increase in the inclined wall thickness enhances the energy absorption of the structure, increases in either the cell angle or ratio of cell angle to inclined wall thickness have adverse effects on the output. Finally, the optimization results suggest that a cellular geometry with a positive cell angle and a high inclined wall thickness provides for maximum energy absorption, which is verified with a 6% error when compared to a FE simulation.

Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Physical configuration of crushing simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Reaction force comparison at proximal and distal ends of honeycomb structure

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Type A (left) and type B (right) response to 1 m/s impact

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Type C (left) and type D (right) response to 1/ms impact

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Honeycomb reaction forces to 1 m/s impact—proximal (top) and distal (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Honeycomb reaction forces to 100 m/s impact—proximal (top) and distal (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Honeycomb unit cell and nomenclature (traditional honeycomb on right and auxetic honeycomb on left)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Optimization algorithm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Normal probability plot of t2 from Kolomogorov-Smirnoff test

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Normal probability plot of θ from Kolomogorov-Smirnoff test

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Pareto effect chart

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

ISIGHT RBF model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Cellular geometry providing maximum (left—type X) and minimum (right—type Y) plastic energy absorption from DOE simulations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Type X (a) and type Y (b) honeycomb response to 100 m/s crushing

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Types X and Y response to 100 m/s crushing: Proximal (top) and distal (bottom) reaction forces

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Optimum unit cell for maximum energy absorption

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Crushing response of optimal configuration provided by ISIGHT

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Proximal and distal reaction forces of optimal configuration as specified by ISIGHT

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In