Energy absorption of a bio-inspired honeycomb sandwich panel
Source abstract
Abstract
In this study, a novel bio-inspired honeycomb sandwich panel (BHSP) based on the microstructure of a woodpecker’s beak is proposed. Unlike a conventional honeycomb, the walls of the bio-inspired honeycomb (BH), which is used as the core of a sandwich panel, are made wavy. Finite element simulation shows that under dynamic crushing the proposed BHSPs exhibit superior energy absorption capability compared with the conventional honeycomb sandwich panel (CHSP). In particular, the specific energy absorption (SEA) of the BHSP increases by 125% and 63.7%, respectively, compared with that of the honeycomb sandwich panel with the same thickness core or the same volume core. In addition, a parametric study of the BHSPs is carried out to investigate the influences of the wave amplitude, wave number and core thickness on the energy absorption performance of the BHSPs. It is found that the BH core with a larger wave number and amplitude shows higher SEA. Furthermore, an increase in core thickness can improve the SEA. These results provide guidelines in the design of a lightweight sandwich panel for high-energy absorption capability.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Cellular and Composite Structures · Polymer composites and self-healing · Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (42)
Show source-provided references
1. Zhu F, Lu G, Ruan D, Wang Z (2010) Plastic deformation, failure and energy absorption of sandwich structures with metallic cellular cores. Int J Protect Struct 1:507–54110.1260/2041-4196.1.4.507 ↗
2. Birman V, Kardomateas GA (2018) Review of current trends in research and applications of sandwich structures. Compos Part B Eng 142:221–24010.1016/j.compositesb.2018.01.027 ↗
3. Manalo A, Aravinthan T, Fam A, Benmokrane B (2017) State-of-the-art review on FRP sandwich systems for lightweight civil infrastructure. J Compos Constr 21:0401606810.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000729 ↗
4. Feng L-J, Wei G-T, Yu G-C, Wu L-Z (2019) Underwater blast behaviors of enhanced lattice truss sandwich panels. Int J Mech Sci 150:238–24610.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.10.025 ↗
5. Liu C, Zhang YX, Li J (2017) Impact responses of sandwich panels with fibre metal laminate skins and aluminium foam core. Compos Struct 182:183–19010.1016/j.compstruct.2017.09.015 ↗
6. Yahaya MA, Ruan D, Lu G, Dargusch MS (2015) Response of aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels subjected to foam projectile impact—an experimental study. Int J Impact Eng 75:100–10910.1016/j.ijimpeng.2014.07.019 ↗
7. Sun G, Chen D, Huo X, Zheng G, Li Q (2018) Experimental and numerical studies on indentation and perforation characteristics of honeycomb sandwich panels. Compos Struct 184:110–12410.1016/j.compstruct.2017.09.025 ↗
8. Rong Y, Liu J, Luo W, He W (2018) Effects of geometric configurations of corrugated cores on the local impact and planar compression of sandwich panels. Compos Part B Eng 152:324–33510.1016/j.compositesb.2018.08.130 ↗
9. Wang J, Shi C, Yang N, Sun H, Liu Y, Song B (2018) Strength, stiffness, and panel peeling strength of carbon fiber-reinforced composite sandwich structures with aluminium honeycomb cores for vehicle body. Compos Struct 184:1189–119610.1016/j.compstruct.2017.10.038 ↗
10. Mozafari H, Khatami S, Molatefi H (2015) Out of plane crushing and local stiffness determination of proposed foam filled sandwich panel for Korean Tilting Train eXpress—numerical study. Mater Des 66:400–41110.1016/j.matdes.2014.07.037 ↗
11. Burlayenko VN, Sadowski T (2010) Effective elastic properties of foam-filled honeycomb cores of sandwich panels. Compos Struct 92:2890–290010.1016/j.compstruct.2010.04.015 ↗
12. Chen J, Fang H, Liu W et al (2018) Energy absorption of foam-filled multi-cell composite panels under quasi-static compression. Compos Part B Eng 153:295–30510.1016/j.compositesb.2018.08.122 ↗
13. Han B, Qin K, Yu B, Wang B, Zhang Q, Lu TJ (2016) Honeycomb–corrugation hybrid as a novel sandwich core for significantly enhanced compressive performance. Mater Des 93:271–28210.1016/j.matdes.2015.12.158 ↗
14. Imbalzano G, Linforth S, Ngo TD, Lee PVS, Tran P (2018) Blast resistance of auxetic and honeycomb sandwich panels: comparisons and parametric designs. Compos Struct 183:242–26110.1016/j.compstruct.2017.03.018 ↗
15. Qi C, Remennikov A, Pei L-Z, Yang S, Yu Z-H, Ngo TD (2017) Impact and close-in blast response of auxetic honeycomb-cored sandwich panels: experimental tests and numerical simulations. Compos Struct 180:161–17810.1016/j.compstruct.2017.08.020 ↗
16. Jin X, Wang Z, Ning J, Xiao G, Liu E, Shu X (2016) Dynamic response of sandwich structures with graded auxetic honeycomb cores under blast loading. Compos Part B Eng 106:206–21710.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.037 ↗
17. Zhao L, Qian X, Sun Y et al (2018) Ballistic behaviors of injection-molded honeycomb composite. J Mater Sci 53:14287–14298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-018-2611-y10.1007/s10853-018-2611-y ↗
18. Xiang XM, Lu G, Ruan D, You Z, Zolghadr M (2017) Large deformation of an arc-Miura structure under quasi-static load. Compos Struct 182:209–22210.1016/j.compstruct.2017.09.023 ↗
19. Fischer S (2015) Aluminium foldcores for sandwich structure application: mechanical properties and FE-simulation. Thin Walled Struct 90:31–4110.1016/j.tws.2015.01.003 ↗
20. Gattas JM, You Z (2015) The behaviour of curved-crease foldcores under low-velocity impact loads. Int J Solids Struct 53:80–9110.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.10.019 ↗
21. McKittrick J, Chen PY, Tombolato L et al (2010) Energy absorbent natural materials and bioinspired design strategies: a review. Mater Sci Eng, C 30:331–34210.1016/j.msec.2010.01.011 ↗
22. Wang B, Yang W, McKittrick J, Meyers MA (2016) Keratin: structure, mechanical properties, occurrence in biological organisms, and efforts at bioinspiration. Prog Mater Sci 76:229–31810.1016/j.pmatsci.2015.06.001 ↗
23. Weaver JC, Milliron GW, Miserez A et al (2012) The stomatopod dactyl club: a formidable damage-tolerant biological hammer. Science 336:1275–128010.1126/science.1218764 ↗
24. Chen J, Zhang X, Okabe Y, Saito K, Guo Z, Pan L (2017) The deformation mode and strengthening mechanism of compression in the beetle elytron plate. Mater Des 131:481–48610.1016/j.matdes.2017.06.014 ↗
25. Ha NS, Le VT, Goo NS (2018) Investigation of punch resistance of the Allomyrira dichtoloma beetle forewing. J Bionic Eng 15:57–6810.1007/s42235-017-0004-6 ↗
26. Xiang J, Du J, Li D, Scarpa F (2017) Numerical analysis of the impact resistance in aluminum alloy bi-tubular thin-walled structures designs inspired by beetle elytra. J Mater Sci 52:13247–13260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-017-1420-z10.1007/s10853-017-1420-z ↗
27. Hao P, Du J (2018) Mechanical properties of bio-mimetic energy-absorbing materials under impact loading. J Mater Sci 53:3189–3197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-017-1798-710.1007/s10853-017-1798-7 ↗
28. Yang X, Ma J, Shi Y, Sun Y, Yang J (2017) Crashworthiness investigation of the bio-inspired bi-directionally corrugated core sandwich panel under quasi-static crushing load. Mater Des 135:275–29010.1016/j.matdes.2017.09.040 ↗
29. Wu Y, Liu Q, Fu J, Li Q, Hui D (2017) Dynamic crash responses of bio-inspired aluminium honeycomb sandwich structures with CFRP panels. Compos Part B Eng 121:122–13310.1016/j.compositesb.2017.03.030 ↗
30. Zhang X, Xie J, Chen J, Okabe Y, Pan L, Xu M (2017) The beetle elytron plate: a lightweight, high-strength and buffering functional-structural bionic material. Sci Rep 7:444010.1038/s41598-017-03767-w ↗
31. Yu X, Pan L, Chen J, Zhang X, Wei P (2019) Experimental and numerical study on the energy absorption abilities of trabecular–honeycomb biomimetic structures inspired by beetle elytra. J Mater Sci 54:2193–2204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-018-2958-010.1007/s10853-018-2958-0 ↗
32. Wang L, Cheung JT-M, Pu F, Li D, Zhang M, Fan Y (2011) Why do woodpeckers resist head impact injury: a biomechanical investigation. PLoS ONE 6:e2649010.1371/journal.pone.0026490 ↗
33. Liu Y, Qiu X, Zhang X, Yu T (2015) Response of woodpecker’s head during pecking process simulated by material point method. PLoS ONE 10:e012267710.1371/journal.pone.0122677 ↗
34. Liu Y, Qiu X, Ma H, Fu W, Yu TX (2017) A study of woodpecker’s pecking process and the impact response of its brain. Int J Impact Eng 108:263–27110.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.05.016 ↗
35. Lee N, Horstemeyer MF, Rhee H, Nabors B, Liao J, Williams LN (2014) Hierarchical multiscale structure–property relationships of the red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus) beak. J R Soc Interface 11:2014027410.1098/rsif.2014.0274 ↗
36. Alkhatib SE, Tarlochan F, Eyvazian A (2017) Collapse behavior of thin-walled corrugated tapered tubes. Eng Struct 150:674–69210.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.081 ↗
37. Ha NS, Lu G, Xiang X (2018) High energy absorption efficiency of thin-walled conical corrugation tubes mimicking coconut tree configuration. Int J Mech Sci 148:409–42110.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.08.041 ↗
38. Tarlochan F, Samer F, Hamouda AMS, Ramesh S, Khalid K (2013) Design of thin wall structures for energy absorption applications: enhancement of crashworthiness due to axial and oblique impact forces. Thin Walled Struct 71:7–1710.1016/j.tws.2013.04.003 ↗
39. Ashab ASM, Ruan D, Lu G, Bhuiyan A (2016) Finite element analysis of aluminium honeycombs subjected to dynamic indentation and compression loads. Materials 9:162–17810.3390/ma9030162 ↗
40. Xu S, Beynon JH, Ruan D, Lu G (2012) Experimental study of the out-of-plane dynamic compression of hexagonal honeycombs. Compos Struct 94:2326–233610.1016/j.compstruct.2012.02.024 ↗
41. Zhang X, Zhang H, Wen Z (2014) Experimental and numerical studies on the crush resistance of aluminium honeycombs with various cell configurations. Int J Impact Eng 66:48–5910.1016/j.ijimpeng.2013.12.009 ↗
42. Wierzbicki T (1983) Crushing analysis of metal honeycombs. Int J Impact Eng 1:157–17410.1016/0734-743X(83)90004-0 ↗