See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/273109924

Strain Rate Effect on Mechanical Behavior of

Metallic Honeycombs Under Out-of-Plane
Dynamic Compression
ARTICLE in JOURNAL OF APPLIED MECHANICS FEBRUARY 2015
Impact Factor: 1.4 DOI: 10.1115/1.4029471

DOWNLOADS

VIEWS

23

73

4 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Yong Tao

Daining Fang

Peking University

Tsinghua University

2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

156 PUBLICATIONS 1,016 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Yong Tao

Retrieved on: 19 September 2015

Yong Tao
LTCS,
College of Engineering,
Peking University,
Beijing 100871, China

Mingji Chen1
National Center for Nanoscience
and Technology,
Beijing 100190, China
e-mail: mjchen81@gmail.com

Yongmao Pei
LTCS,
College of Engineering,
Peking University,
Beijing 100871, China

Daining Fang
LTCS,
College of Engineering,
Peking University,
Beijing 100871, China

Strain Rate Effect on Mechanical

Behavior of Metallic
Honeycombs Under Out-of-Plane
Dynamic Compression
Although many researches on the dynamic behavior of honeycombs have been reported,
the strain rate effect of parent materials was frequently neglected, giving rise to the
underestimated plateau stress and energy absorption (EA). In this paper, the strain rate
effect of parent materials on the out-of-plane dynamic compression and EA of metallic
honeycombs is evaluated by both numerical simulation and theoretical analysis. The
numerical results show that the plateau stress and the EA increase significantly if the
strain rate effect is considered. To account for the strain rate effect, a new theoretical
model to evaluate the dynamic compressive plateau stress of metallic honeycombs is proposed by introducing the CowperSymonds relation into the shock theory. Predictions of
the present model agree fairly well with the numerical results and existing experimental
data. Based on the present model, the plateau stress is divided into three terms, namely
static term, strain rate term, and inertia term, and thus the influences of each term can be
analyzed quantitatively. According to the analysis, strain rate effect is much more important
than inertia effect over a very wide range of impact velocity. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4029471]
Keywords: metallic honeycomb, dynamic compression, strain rate effect, plateau stress,
energy absorption

Introduction

Metallic honeycombs are generally employed as core materials

of sandwich structures for energy absorbers or cushions to resist
impact loads, owing to their lightweight, excellent mechanical
properties, and high EA efficiency. For such applications, it is
important to understand their mechanical behavior, especially
their response under dynamic loading. Much effort has been made
on the quasi-static behavior of honeycombs under out-of-plane
compression. A pioneering study was reported by McFarland [1],
who provided a semi-empirical expression to predict the plateau
stress of hexagonal honeycombs. Wierzbicki [2] developed a
more reasonable model as he correctly identified the deformation
of cell walls. Zhang and Ashby [3] proposed a formula for the plateau stress of hexagonal honeycombs with uniform cell wall thickness. A comprehensive summary of honeycombs was given in the
book of Gibson and Ashby [4]. In the numerical aspect, Aktay
et al. [5] simulated the compressive behavior of honeycomb with
a detailed three-dimensional mesostructure model. Wilbert et al.
[6] presented a comprehensive study of the compressive response
of hexagonal honeycombs through experiments and simulations.
However, as revealed by existing experiments, the dynamic compressive strength of honeycombs is usually larger than that of the
quasi-static case [715]. Therefore, the quasi-static model cannot
be utilized directly to describe the dynamic compressive behavior
of honeycombs.
In order to explain the dynamic enhancement of wood specimens under dynamic compression, a shock theory considering the
inertia effect was first proposed by Reid and Peng [16], and it was
1
Corresponding author.
Contributed by the Applied Mechanics Division of ASME for publication in the
JOURNAL OF APPLIED MECHANICS. Manuscript received November 27, 2014; final
manuscript received December 15, 2014; accepted manuscript posted December 31,
2014; published online January 8, 2015. Editor: Yonggang Huang.

Journal of Applied Mechanics

applied to predict the dynamic strength of honeycombs [12].

Afterward, this model has been utilized and extended to discuss
the dynamic enhancement of cellular materials [1724]. However,
such a model did not account for strain rate effect of parent materials. Despite various previous studies on the dynamic compressive behavior of honeycombs, a theory considering the strain rate
effect of parent materials has hardly been seen and most of
dynamic finite element (FE) analysis [2529] employed a rate
independent constitutive law. Besides, no experiment was
designed to examine the influences of strain rate effect as experimental researchers [25,28] regarded that the strain rate effect of
metallic parent materials was small and thus often neglected. So
far, it is still unknown whether or not, and how much the strain
rate effect influences the dynamic behavior of metallic honeycombs. Therefore, it is necessary to study the influences of strain
rate effect in order to get a clear understanding on the dynamic
compressive behavior of metallic honeycombs when the parent
material is strain rate dependent.
Although experimental research is a necessary way to investigate the mechanical behavior of materials, it is difficult to distinguish the influences of strain rate effect from those of other
factors through experiment. Moreover, the repeatability of
dynamic experiments is limited and the dispersion of experimental
data may cover up the strain rate effect [30]. Alternatively, in this
paper, both numerical simulation and theoretical analysis are carried out to examine the influences of strain rate effect on dynamic
compressive behavior of honeycombs. Firstly, a FE model considering the detailed three-dimensional mesostructure of hexagonal
honeycomb is developed and verified. Second, dynamic compression simulations with different strain rate parameters of parent
materials are performed in order to investigate the strain rate
effect on the plateau stress and the EA. Finally, a new theoretical
model considering strain rate effect for the plateau stress of metallic honeycombs is proposed by improving the shock theory

C 2015 by ASME
Copyright V

FEBRUARY 2015, Vol. 82 / 021007-1

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

[12,16], and is verified by the numerical results and existing

experimental data. Based on the present model, the influences of
strain rate effect are analyzed quantitatively.

2 Evaluation Indicators for the Dynamic Compression

Performance of Honeycombs
Typically, the stressstrain curves of honeycombs under out-ofplane compression exhibits three regions, namely the initial linear
elastic region followed by the plateau region, and finally the
sharply rising densification region [4]. Nominal stress and strain
are defined as
r

F
;
A

d
d0

(1)

where F is the compressive force, A is the cross-sectional area of

honeycomb, d is the compression displacement, and d0 is the initial height of the honeycomb structure. The plateau stress is
given by
eD
1
rede
(2)
rm
eD  ey ey
where ey is the yield strain and eD is the densification strain, which
can be defined through [18]




d
1 e
rede 
0
(3)
de re 0
eeD
In order to evaluate the EA capability of honeycombs, it is
important to introduce the crashworthiness indicators. EA and
specific energy absorption (SEA), as given in Eqs. (4) and (5),
respectively, are widely used as the major indicators to evaluate
crashworthiness of a structure. The EA of a structure, which measures the absorbed impact energy as a function of the compression
displacement, can be calculated by integrating the area under the
loaddisplacement curves
EAd

Fddd

(4)

As a key factor, the SEA is defined as the absorbed energy per

unit mass, which can be written as [31]
SEAd

EAd
M

(5)

where M is the mass of the structure. Apparently, a higher value

of the SEA means a better EA efficiency of a structure.

Numerical Modeling

3.1 FE Model. Hexagonal honeycombs are most common

because of ease in manufacturing [32]. Due to its manufacturing
techniques of expansion or corrugated method, the cell wall thickness in the ribbon direction is double that in the width direction.
Therefore, the honeycomb is regarded as an orthotropic material,
and the orthotropic directions may be denoted as the L, W, and T
directions, as shown in Fig. 1. The T direction, also called the outof-plane direction, is aligned with the axis of the cell wall. The
other two directions, which are referred to in-plane (L and W)
directions, denote the ribbon and width directions of the hexagonal cross section, respectively. Generally speaking, the out-ofplane stiffness and strength are much higher than those with
respect to the in-plane directions [4].
In numerical modeling, Yamashita and Gotoh [25,33]
employed a single Y cross-sectional FE model to simulate the
021007-2 / Vol. 82, FEBRUARY 2015

Fig. 1 FE model of a hexagonal honeycomb

impact behavior of double-walled hexagonal honeycombs, and

some appropriate boundary conditions were applied on the cell
wall edge to hold the geometrical symmetry of the cell arrangement in the original honeycomb. The model has the advantages of
simplicity and low computational effort, but such a FE model
without periodic boundary condition does not fully reflect the
actual loading conditions as it cannot model the interaction
between cell walls. In order to better capture the dynamic behavior, the simulation performed here is based on a three-dimensional
mesostructure model with cell wall length of 5 mm, cell wall
thickness of 0.1 mm, and height of 25 mm. It consists of 10  11
cells, which has been found to be sufficient to model the dynamic
response of hexagonal honeycombs [27].
ABAQUS/explicit is employed for out-of-plane dynamic compression simulations. The honeycomb is sandwiched between two
rigid plates. Shell elements of type S4R and adequately fine
meshes are adopted to ensure computational accuracy. The honeycomb is connected to the lower rigid plate through tie constrain,
while a general contact interaction is defined between the upper
rigid plate and the honeycomb. The self-contact is employed for
all the cell walls of the honeycomb to avoid interpenetration. A
friction coefficient of 0.15 is adopted for all of the contact interactions [34]. During the compressive loading, all degrees of freedom
are fixed for the lower rigid plate and a time-dependent linear displacement is applied to the upper rigid plate [35].
In order to investigate the strain rate effect of parent materials,
the rate dependent bilinear constitutive relation is adopted for the
parent materials
8
rdy
>
>
>
e
< Ee;
E
!
(6)
r
d
d
r
r
>
y
y
d
>
e>
>
: ry E t e  E ;
E
where E is the Youngs modulus, Et is the tangent modulus, and
rdy is the flow stress that depends on strain rate. The well-known
CowperSymonds relation [36] is adopted for the flow stress
"
 P1 #
e_
d
s
(7)
ry ry 1
D
where rsy denotes the static yield stress, e_ represents the strain
rate, and D and P are the CowperSymonds strain rate parameters,
which can be identified by particular experiments. The parent
material used in the present study is aluminum alloy (Al6061-T6),
of which the strain rate parameters are given by Bodner and
Symonds [37], as listed in Table 1. For comparison purpose, the
Table 1 Material parameters for Al6061-T6 used in the numerical analysis
EGPa
68.97

Et MPa

rsy MPa

qkg=m3

D1=s

200

276

0.33

2700

6500

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

parameters of mild steel, i.e., D 40:4 and P 5, are also

adopted in the simulations.
3.2 Validation of FE Model. In order to validate the developed FE model, the modeling results are compared with the experimental results reported by Alavi and Sadeghi [38]. The parent
material of honeycombs in experiment was Al5052-H39, another
type of aluminum alloy, of which the elastic modulus of
68.97 GPa and the yield strength of 265 Mpa were adopted. The
strain rate parameters of D 6500 s1 and P 4 were the same as
most aluminum alloys. In the validation, the honeycomb geometry
of FE model is kept the same as that in the experiment with cell
wall length, cell wall thickness, and honeycomb thickness of
2.748 mm, 0.0508 mm, and 19.05 mm, respectively. As shown in
Fig. 2, the stressstrain curves obtained from experiment and simulation show a reasonable agreement and the calculated plateau
stresses are close to each other with a difference less that 10%.
Therefore, the numerical modeling is validated to be effective and
accurate, which will be utilized to investigate the out-of-plane
dynamic compression of metallic honeycombs in the rest of this
paper.
3.3 Numerical Results. To investigate the influences of
strain rate effect on the dynamic compressive behavior, the
CowperSymonds strain rate parameters (D and P) are artificially
changed in the FE simulations, while all other material parameters, such as the density, the Youngs modulus, the tangent modulus and the static yield stress of the parent material, are kept the
same. The dynamic compression simulations are performed at
impact velocity of v 20 m=s, with associated nominal strain rate
of 800 s1.
As illustrated in Fig. 3(a), the dynamic stressstrain curves of
honeycombs can be quite different when different strain rate
parameters are adopted for the parent material. The plateau
stresses corresponding to the rate dependent models are much
higher than that corresponding to the rate independent case, while
the densification strains corresponding to the rate dependent models only become slightly smaller. Since the energy absorbing
capability of a structure is mostly determined by the plateau stress
and densification strain, it can be deduced that neglecting the
strain rate effect can give rise to significantly underestimated EA
for honeycombs made of strain rate dependent materials. This
conclusion is further demonstrated by the calculated EA, as shown
in Fig. 3(b). It can be seen that the EA corresponding to rate dependent models are always larger than that corresponding to rate
independent model in the entire range of strain. A specific comparison at the strain of 0.8 is as follows: when the weak strain rate
dependence (D 6500 and P 4) is considered, the EA

Fig. 2 Comparison between experimental [38] and numerical

results

Journal of Applied Mechanics

increases by 55% compared to the rate independent case; when a

relatively stronger strain rate dependence (D 40:4 and P 5) is
considered, the EA can even increase by 141%. The significant
influence of strain rate effect is the major motivation for us to develop a strain rate dependent theoretical model as will be introduced in Sec. 4.
In order to investigate the strain rate effect at different impact
velocities, simulations are also performed at higher impact velocities from 40 to 120 m/s. As shown in Fig. 4(a), the plateau stress
is almost proportional to the impact velocity, which is in agreement with the experimental results of Wu and Jiang [9]. As shown
in Fig. 4(b), the EA also presents a linear relationship with the
impact velocity, regardless of different strain rate parameters of
parent materials. Comparing Figs. 4(a) and 4(b) shows that the
plateau stress and the EA calculated by rate dependent models are
always larger than that given by rate independent model in the
velocity range studied. Therefore, it can be concluded that the
strain rate effect of parent materials plays an important role on
the dynamic compression and EA of honeycombs made of strain
rate dependent materials.

4 A Strain Rate Dependent Model for Dynamic

Compressive Plateau Stress
4.1 Theoretical Model. Since the energy absorbing capability of honeycombs is mostly determined by the plateau stress and
densification strain, to effectively evaluate the plateau stress by a
concise analytical expression has been of great importance for the
application of honeycomb as an energy absorbing structure. A
widely used theoretical model for the dynamic compressive plateau stress of honeycomb is the shock theory, which can be
expressed as [12,16]

Fig. 3 Comparison of (a) compressive stress and (b) EA of

honeycombs when different strain rate dependent parameters
are adopted (impact velocity v 20 m=s)

FEBRUARY 2015, Vol. 82 / 021007-3

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

strain rate of the cell walls during their rolling deformation

process. It has been suggested that the average strain during the
rolling deformation is equal to [2]
eave

t
4b

(11)

p
where b 0:683 3 t2 l is the rolling radius [2]. Therefore, an estimate for the average strain rate during the rolling of cell walls can
be expressed as
e_

eave
eave

Dt
H=v

(12)

p
where H 0:821 3 tl2 is the half-wavelength of the folded cell
walls [2]. By substituting Eqs. (11) and (12) into Eq. (10), the formula for dynamic compressive plateau stress of honeycomb can
be written as

 v P1 t53 q v2

rdm 6:63rsy 1
2:24lD
l
eD

(13)

This formula automatically degrades to the expression of static

plateau stress as in Eq. (9) when the impact velocity equals to
zero. It should be mentioned that the strain rate is cell size
dependent since the deformation of the folded cell wall depends
on the cell wall length. Thus, the strain rate effect is not only
determined by the impact velocity but also the honeycomb cell
size, as shown in Eq. (13).

Fig. 4 Curves of (a) plateau stress and (b) EA versus impact

velocities when different strain rate parameters are adopted for
parent material

rdm rsm

q  v2
eD

(8)

where q is the density of honeycomb and rsm is the static plateau

stress, which can be expressed in the following form [2]:
rsm 6:63rsy

t53
l

(9)

where t is the cell wall thickness and l is the cell wall length. The
shock theory has taken into account the dynamic enhancement
caused by the inertia effect. However, the strain rate effect of parent materials which has been regarded as a possible cause
[9,28,30] for dynamic enhancement of metallic honeycombs is
still not considered. Numerical results in Sec. 3 have confirmed
that the strain rate effect has a significant influence on the
dynamic compressive behavior of metallic honeycombs.
In order to incorporate the strain rate effect of parent materials
into the theoretical model, the static yield stress rsy in Eq. (9) is
replaced by the flow stress rdy as expressed by Eq. (7). Thereby,
the theoretical model for the dynamic compressive plateau stress
becomes
"
 P1 # 5
t 3 q  v2
e_
d
s

(10)
rm 6:63ry 1
D
l
eD
Although Eq. (7) known as the CowperSymonds relation has
been widely used to evaluate the flow stress of metals, this is the
first time to introduce it into the theoretical model to evaluate the
dynamic compressive plateau stress of honeycomb.
It should be noted that the strain rate e_ in Eq. (10) does not
denote the nominal strain rate of honeycomb, but the average
021007-4 / Vol. 82, FEBRUARY 2015

4.2 Results and Discussion. The dynamic plateau stress

predicted by the shock theory (Eq. (8)) and the present model
(Eq. (13)) are plotted in Fig. 5, with the comparison to the strain
rate dependent numerical results. As shown in Fig. 5, when compared with numerical results, the shock theory gives lower predictions since it neglects the strain rate effect. While the plateau
stresses evaluated by the present model correspond better with numerical results over the whole impact velocity range investigated.
In addition to the numerical validation, the present theoretical
model is also verified by existing experimental data on 25.4 mm
thick aluminum honeycombs [9]. The parent material of honeycombs in experiment was Al5052-H39. In the comparison, the
honeycomb geometry in the theoretical model is kept the same as
that in the experiment with cell wall length and cell wall thickness
of 1.833 mm and 0.0254 mm, respectively. Figure 6 shows the
dynamic compressive plateau stresses evaluated by the present
model and shock theory, together with the published experiment
data at impact velocities up to 26.4 m/s, with associated nominal
strain rate of about 1040 s1 [9]. It can be seen that there is also a

Fig. 5 Comparison between theoretical predictions and

numerical results

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Fig. 6 Comparison between theoretical predictions and experimental results [9]

reasonable agreement between the results of present model and

experiment, while the shock theory underestimates the plateau
stress again. When the impact velocity is as high as 30 m/s, the
plateau stress evaluated by the present model reaches up to almost
twice that of the shock theory.
To quantitatively investigate the influences of the different factors on the dynamic compressive plateau stress of honeycombs,
the present model as expressed by Eq. (13) is divided into three
parts: static term, strain rate term, and inertia term, as given in
Eqs. (14)(16), respectively,
t53
l
t53  v

s
rd1
m 6:63ry
s
rd2
m 6:63ry

rd3
m

P1

2:24lD

q v2

eD

Static term

(14)

Strain rate term

(15)

Inertia term

(16)

By equaling the strain rate term and the static term, the first critical impact velocity can be defined as
vcr1 2:24lD

(17)

Similarly, by equaling the strain rate term and the inertia term,
the second critical impact velocity can be defined as

vcr2

1
2:24lD

1 
 P
2P1
rsy eD t53 2P1
6:63 
l
q

(18)

For comparison of the three terms, the material parameters of

aluminum alloy (Al6061-T6) are used here, and the geometrical
parameters are the same as before. Figure 7(a) shows the different
parts of plateau stress contributed by the three terms. It can be
seen that the impact velocitystress plots can be divided into three
regions according to the critical impact velocities. In region I,
when the impact velocity is less than vcr1 72:8 m=s, the static
term is the biggest while the inertia term is the smallest. Meanwhile, the strain rate term increases sharply and surpasses the
static term at the beginning of region II. The inertia term increases
quickly in regions II and III, and becomes the biggest when
impact velocity higher than vcr2 153 m=s. In the whole impact
velocity range studied, both the strain rate term and the inertia
term increase with the increasing impact velocity. However, the
increasing trends are quite different: the strain rate term firstly
increases sharply and then increases slowly, while the inertia term
shows a reverse trend. The sharp rise of the strain rate term in the
beginning means that the strain rate effect of parent materials
Journal of Applied Mechanics

Fig. 7 Comparison of the (a) stress and (b) proportion of every

term under different impact velocities

begins to influence the plateau stress even though the impact

velocity is not so high. Moreover, the higher strain rate term compared with the inertia term in regions I and II implies that the
strain rate effect plays a more important role within these regions.
Though the inertia effect becomes the dominant factor at impact
velocities higher than vcr2 , the strain rate effect should not be
neglected as the strain rate term still holds a relatively high value.
It should be mentioned that the first and second critical velocities
as expressed by Eqs. (17) and (18) are dependent not only on the
parent material of honeycomb but also on the honeycomb configuration, and thus they are not intrinsic parameters. However, once
the honeycomb is prepared, these critical velocities can be calculated and the proportions of the three terms can be evaluated
accordingly.
The importance of the strain rate effect is more evident in
Fig. 7(b), which plots the proportion that each term takes in the
dynamic compressive plateau stress at different impact velocities.
It can be seen that the proportion of static term and inertia term
consistently decreases and increases, respectively, while the proportion of strain rate term first increases sharply and then
decreases slowly. At the impact velocity of vcr1 , the proportion of
inertia term is only about 10%, while the static term and strain
rate term are almost equally weighted. Although the proportion
decreases at high impact velocity, the strain rate term still holds a
large proportion. From Figs. 7(a) and 7(b), we can found that the
strain rate effect plays an important role on the dynamic plateau
stress of honeycomb structure if the material of the structure is
strain rate dependent.

Conclusions

In this paper, the strain rate effect of parent materials on the

out-of-plane dynamic compression and EA performance of metallic honeycombs is studied through numerical simulation and
FEBRUARY 2015, Vol. 82 / 021007-5

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

theoretical analysis. The numerical results of nonlinear dynamic

FE modeling show that the dynamic plateau stress and the EA
increase significantly if the strain rate effect is considered. To
account for the strain rate effect, the CowperSymonds relation is
introduced into the shock theory for the first time and thus a new
simple model considering strain rate effect for the dynamic compressive plateau stress of metallic honeycombs is proposed. This
model corresponds well with the numerical results and existing
experimental data, so it can be used to predict the dynamic compression performance of metallic honeycombs efficiently and
accurately. According to the present model, the plateau stress consists of three terms, namely static term, strain rate term, and inertia term. It is demonstrated that the strain rate effect has a great
contribution to the plateau stress even though the impact velocity
is not so high. Moreover, two critical impact velocities have been
introduced which are material and cell size dependent. The strain
rate effect is indicated to be much more important than inertia
effect when the impact velocity is less than the second critical
impact velocity. However, at impact velocity higher than the second critical impact velocity, the inertia effect becomes the dominant factor, but the strain rate effect still cannot be neglected.

Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful for the support by National Natural Science Foundation of China (11227801 and 11232001). The support
by the National Basic Research Program of China (2011CB610303,
G2010CB832701, and 2011CB606105) is also acknowledged.

References
[1] McFarland, R. K., 1963, Hexagonal Cell Structures Under Post-Buckling
Axial Load, AIAA J., 1(6), pp. 13801385.
[2] Wierzbicki, T., 1983, Crushing Analysis of Metal Honeycombs, Int. J. Impact
Eng., 1(2), pp. 157174.
[3] Zhang, J., and Ashby, M. F., 1992, The Out-of-Plane Properties of Honeycombs, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 34(6), pp. 475489.
[4] Gibson, L. J., and Ashby, M. F., 1997, Cellular Solids: Structure and Properties, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
[5] Aktay, L., Johnson, A. F., and Kr
oplin, B. H., 2008, Numerical Modeling of
Honeycomb Core Crush Behavior, Eng. Fract. Mech., 75(9), pp. 26162630.
[6] Wilbert, A., Jang, W. Y., Kyriakides, S., and Floccari, J. F., 2011, Buckling
and Progressive Crushing of Laterally Loaded Honeycomb, Int. J. Solids
Struct., 48(5), pp. 803816.
[7] Goldsmith, W., and Sackman, J. L., 1992, An Experimental Study of Energy
Absorption in Impact on Sandwich Plates, Int. J. Impact Eng., 12(2), pp.
241262.
[8] Goldsmith, W., and Louie, D. L., 1995, Axial Perforation of Aluminum Honeycombs by Projectiles, Int. J. Solids Struct., 32(8), pp. 10171046.
[9] Wu, E., and Jang, W. S., 1997, Axial Crush of Metallic Honeycombs, Int. J.
Impact Eng., 19(5), pp. 439456.
[10] Baker, W. E., Togami, T. C., and Weydert, J. C., 1998, Static and Dynamic
Properties of High-Density Metal Honeycombs, Int. J. Impact Eng., 21(3), pp.
149163.
[11] Zhao, H., and Gary, G., 1998, Crushing Behaviour of Aluminium Honeycombs
Under Impact Loading, Int. J. Impact Eng., 21(10), pp. 827836.
[12] Harrigan, J. J., Reid, S. R., and Peng, C., 1999, Inertia Effects in Impact
Energy Absorbing Materials and Structures, Int. J. Impact Eng., 22(9), pp.
955979.
[13] Zhou, Q., and Mayer, R. R., 2002, Characterization of Aluminum Honeycomb
Material Failure in Large Deformation Compression, Shear, and Tearing,
ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 124(4), pp. 412420.
[14] Zhao, H., Elnasri, I., and Abdennadher, S., 2005, An Experimental Study on
the Behaviour Under Impact Loading of Metallic Cellular Materials, Int.
J. Mech. Sci., 47(4), pp. 757774.

021007-6 / Vol. 82, FEBRUARY 2015

[15] Wang, Z., Tian, H., Lu, Z., and Zhou, W., 2014, High-Speed Axial Impact of
Aluminum HoneycombExperiments and Simulations, Compos., Part B,
56(1), pp. 18.
[16] Reid, S. R., and Peng, C., 1997, Dynamic Uniaxial Crushing of Wood, Int. J.
Impact Eng., 19(5), pp. 531570.
[17] Ruan, D., Lu, G., Wang, B., and Yu, T. X., 2003, In-Plane Dynamic Crushing
of HoneycombsA Finite Element Study, Int. J. Impact Eng., 28(2), pp.
161182.
[18] Tan, P. J., Reid, S. R., Harrigan, J. J., Zou, Z., and Li, S., 2005, Dynamic Compressive Strength Properties of Aluminium Foams. Part IExperimental Data
and Observations, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 53(10), pp. 21742205.
[19] Tan, P. J., Reid, S. R., Harrigan, J. J., Zou, Z., and Li, S., 2005, Dynamic Compressive Strength Properties of Aluminium Foams. Part IIShock Theory
and Comparison With Experimental Data and Numerical Models, J. Mech.
Phys. Solids, 53(10), pp. 22062230.
[20] Elnasri, I., Pattofatto, S., Zhao, H., Tsitsiris, H., Hild, F., and Girard, Y., 2007,
Shock Enhancement of Cellular Structures Under Impact Loading: Part I
Experiments, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 55(12), pp. 26522671.
[21] Pattofatto, S., Elnasri, I., Zhao, H., Tsitsiris, H., Hild, F., and Girard, Y., 2007,
Shock Enhancement of Cellular Structures Under Impact Loading: Part II
Analysis, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 55(12), pp. 26722686.
[22] Qiu, X. M., Zhang, J., and Yu, T. X., 2009, Collapse of Periodic Planar Lattices Under Uniaxial Compression, Part II: Dynamic Crushing Based on Finite
Element Simulation, Int. J. Impact Eng., 36(10), pp. 12311241.
[23] Zou, Z., Reid, S. R., Tan, P. J., Li, S., and Harrigan, J. J., 2009, Dynamic
Crushing of Honeycombs and Features of Shock Fronts, Int. J. Impact Eng.,
36(1), pp. 165176.
[24] Tan, P. J., Reid, S. R., and Harrigan, J. J., 2012, On the Dynamic Mechanical
Properties of Open-Cell Metal FoamsA Re-Assessment of the Simple-Shock
Theory, Int. J. Solids Struct., 49(1920), pp. 27442753.
[25] Yamashita, M., and Gotoh, M., 2005, Impact Behavior of Honeycomb Structures With Various Cell SpecificationsNumerical Simulation and
Experiment, Int. J. Impact Eng., 32(1), pp. 618630.
[26] Sun, G. Y., Li, G. Y., Stone, M., and Li, Q., 2010, A Two-Stage Multi-Fidelity
Optimization Procedure for Honeycomb-Type Cellular Materials, Comput.
Mater. Sci., 49(3), pp. 500511.
[27] Sun, D. Q., Zhang, W. H., and Wei, Y. B., 2010, Mean Out-of-Plane Dynamic
Plateau Stresses of Hexagonal Honeycomb Cores Under Impact Loadings,
Compos. Struct., 92(11), pp. 26092621.
[28] Hou, B., Zhao, H., Pattofatto, S., Liu, J. G., and Li, Y. L., 2012, Inertia Effects
on the Progressive Crushing of Aluminium Honeycombs Under Impact
Loading, Int. J. Solids Struct., 49(19), pp. 27542762.
[29] Partovi, M. A., Toprak, T., and Mu
gan, A., 2014, Numerical and Experimental
Study of Crashworthiness Parameters of Honeycomb Structures, Thin Wall
Struct., 78(1), pp. 8794.
[30] Liu, Y. D., Yu, J. L., Zheng, Z. J., and Li, J. R., 2009, A Numerical Study on
the Rate Sensitivity of Cellular Metals, Int. J. Solids Struct., 46(22), pp.
39883998.
[31] Kim, H. S., 2002, New Extruded Multi-Cell Aluminum Profile for Maximum
Crash Energy Absorption and Weight Efficiency, Thin Wall Struct., 40(4), pp.
311327.
[32] DMello, R. J., and Waas, A. M., 2013, In-Plane Crush Response and Energy
Absorption of Circular Cell Honeycomb Filled With Elastomer, Compos.
Struct., 106(1), pp. 491501.
[33] Gotoh, M., Yamashita, M., and Kawakita, A., 1996, Crush Behavior of Honeycomb Structure Impacted by Drop-Hammer and Its Numerical Analysis,
Mater. Sci. Res. Int., 2(4), pp. 261266.
[34] Hooputra, H., Gese, H., Dell, H., and Werner, H., 2004, A Comprehensive
Failure Model for Crashworthiness Simulation of Aluminium Extrusions, Int.
J. Crashworthiness, 9(5), pp. 449464.
[35] Heimbs, S., 2009, Virtual Testing of Sandwich Core Structures Using
Dynamic Finite Element Simulations, Comput. Mater. Sci., 45(2), pp.
205216.
[36] Cowper, G. R., and Symonds, P. S., 1957, Strain-Hardening and Strain-Rate
Effects in the Impact Loading of Cantilever Beams, Division of Applied Mathematics Report No. 28, Brown University, Providence, RI.
[37] Bodner, S. R., and Symonds, P. S., 1962, Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of the Plastic Deformation of Cantilever Beams Subjected to Impulsive
Loading, ASME J. Appl. Mech., 29(4), pp. 719728.
[38] Alavi, N. A., and Sadeghi, M. Z., 2013, An Experimental Investigation on the
Effect of Strain Rate on the Behaviour of Bare and Foam-Filled Aluminium
Honeycombs, Mater. Des., 52(1), pp. 748756.

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms