Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 90 (2014) 84–92

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Finite Elements in Analysis and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/finel

An approach on identification of equivalent properties of honeycomb

core using experimental modal data
Dong Jiang a,b, Dahai Zhang a,b, Qingguo Fei a,b,n, Shaoqing Wu a,b
a
Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Engineering Mechanics, Nanjing 210096, China
b
Department of Engineering Mechanics, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The honeycomb sandwich composite material has been widely applied in engineering due to its
Received 10 January 2014 excellent mechanical performance. The elastic properties of honeycomb core is of crucial importance in
Received in revised form efficient mechanical analysis. An approach on determining the equivalent elastic modulus of honeycomb
6 June 2014
core using experimental modal data is proposed in this paper. Based on analytically predicted elastic
Accepted 12 June 2014
constants of the pure core, the initial finite element model of a honeycomb panel is constructed using a
Available online 18 July 2014
three-layer sandwich theory; according to errors that exist in analytically estimated equivalent
Keywords: parameters and the sensitivity analysis of modal frequencies with respect to system parameters, the
Honeycomb core out-of-plane shear moduli Gcxz and Gcyz are selected to be determined. Consequently, the two parameters
Equivalent elastic properties
are determined by minimizing an objective function which is formulated with vibration test and
Analytical–experimental
numerical modal data. Comparative investigations are conducted to illustrate that the initial values of
Dynamic characteristics
Parameter identification the parameters with physical significance play an important role in the identification procedure. The
presented method can provide accurate and reliable predictions of material constitutive parameters of
honeycomb core.
& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Honeycomb sandwich composites are widely used in lightweight
structures owing to their high strength and stiffness-to-mass ratio [1].
The honeycomb core principally carries the shear loads, the perfor-
mance of which markedly affects the mechanical behavior of the
composite. For reasons of numerical efficiency, the mechanical
analysis of honeycomb sandwich panels during the design process is
performed in terms of effective properties rather than by means of a
direct computational model. Hence the cellular core is replaced by a
quasi-homogeneous medium, and the sandwich structure can be
analyzed by adopting sandwich theory. Predicting the elastic proper-
ties of honeycomb cores is of growing interest [2,3].
The elastic properties of the homogeneous medium, by which the
sandwich core is replaced in the mechanical analysis, can be deter-
mined by either experimental, analytical, numerical methods or a
hybrid method which integrates any two of the previously mentioned
three approaches.
Experimental methods on testing the elastic properties of
honeycomb cores has been developed. Young's moduli in the
thickness direction were determined by compression tests [4].
Shear characterization of sandwich cores was carried out based on
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: qgFei@seu.edu.cn (Q. Fei).
a sandwich beam subjected to Three Point Bending (TPB) [5], out-
of-plane shear modulus was obtained according to a recently
proposed methodology with TPB experiments, and Cunningham
et al. [6] proposed a new measurement technique for estimating
the shear strain in a totally enclosed core. Schwingshackl et al. [7]
proposed a method for obtaining out-of-plane shear modulus by
using a simple dynamic technique with four accelerometers. These
methods can provide accurate material constitutive parameters;
however, their disadvantages are also truly remarkable in terms of
the cost of specimen fabrication and difficulties of test handling.
In the past decades, many researchers have studied the
equivalent stiffness of honeycomb cores analytically. The phenom-
enon of honeycomb skin effect was first assessed by Kelsey et al.
[8]; the lower limit and the upper limit of the transverse shear
stiffness of hexagonal honeycomb core were investigated. The cell
wall is assumed to be a Timoshenko beam; neglecting shear
deformation and axial extension/compression of the beams, the
in-plane modulus and Poisson's ratio are determined by Gibson
et al. [9]. An extension of earlier work has been developed by
Masters and Evans [10] to derive expressions of elastic parameters
based on the deformation of the honeycomb cores. In considera-
tion of core face sheet constraints, Hohe and Becker [11] homo-
genized the microstructure to determine all elastic tensors and
general honeycomb cores. Gibson's formulas are modified by Fu
and Yin [12] through considering the extension and compression
of the cell wall. The adhesive layer of honeycomb composites is

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2014.06.006
0168-874X/& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 D. Jiang et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 90 (2014) 84–92 85

taken into account by Jiang et al. [13] and the expressions of parameters; (4) transforming the parameter identification into an
equivalent elasticity are derived. The so called analytical or optimization problem with constraints; and (5) estimating the
theoretical method has been investigated abundantly for provid- parameters by minimizing the objective function of vibration test
ing sophisticated equivalent elastic constants. and numerical modal data. Then, the inaccurate elastic constants of
Numerical method can avoid complicated derivations and the honeycomb core will be accurately and efficiently determined.
extensive experiments, and is an efficient alternative mean for
acquiring the orthotropic mechanical properties. A variety of
methods has been developed for homogenization of honeycomb 2. Parameter identification procedure
sandwich materials. The accuracy of nine different computational
models is assessed by Burton and Noor [14] based on two- 2.1. Equivalent elastic modulus for initial modeling
dimensional shell theories. Different detailed finite element models
of a sandwich panel with the actual honeycomb core geometry are In conventional sandwich analysis, the three-layer sandwich
developed by Aydincak and Kayran [15], and comparative investi- theory requires equivalent properties of a pure core and investiga-
gations are undertaken to evaluate the existing equivalent con- tion on the equivalent homogenization of the unit cell is of
tinuum models of honeycomb cores. A multi-scale finite element primary importance.
method and post-processing technique for considering the elastic The unit cell of general cellular structure is shown in Fig. 1.
mechanical problems of a honeycomb structure are presented by Each cell wall is assumed to be a Timoshenko beam of thickness t,
Liu et al. [16]. A homogenization method is introduced by Wang length l (h), and Young's modulus Es; neglecting shear deformation
et al. [17] for linear elastic problems to analyze the complicated and the axial extension or compression of the beams, the in-plane
distribution of stresses and strains in the solid areas neighboring equivalent elastic properties are obtained through static analysis
the cell edges due to the stress concentration. Because of the [1,12]. Particularly for the regular hexagon cells (θ ¼301 and h¼l)
advantages of numerical method, finite element model of a Repre-  
4 t 3
sentative Volume Element (RVE) of more complicated honeycomb Ecx ¼ Ecy ¼ pffiffiffi Es ð1Þ
3 l
sandwich cores such as foam-filled [18,19] and corrugated cores
[20] can be constructed to predict the equivalent elastic modulus. pffiffiffi 3
3 t
Idealization assumptions have to be made prior to homogeniz- Gcxy ¼ Es ð2Þ
2 l
ing unit cell of the honeycomb core by the analytical and
numerical methods, so that errors are inevitably introduced into where Ecx, Ecy are the in-plane equivalent Young's moduli, and Gcxy
the equivalent elastic parameters. is the shear modulus. The out-of-plane modulus Ecz is obtained by
Hybrid methods are verified more efficient to determine the elastic utilizing extension or compression stiffness equivalence in the
properties of the honeycomb cores. Shi and Tong [21] evaluated the z direction:
analytical equivalent transverse shear modulus of a hexagonal honey- 2 t
comb core by the finite element method using a three-dimensional Ecz ¼ pffiffiffi Es ð3Þ
3l
model of the unit cell. The effective mechanical behavior of regular
honeycomb core was studied by analytical means and correlated with Gcxz and Gcyz are the material parameters with maximum
experimental results [22]. Modal data can well reflect macro- influence on the dynamic behavior, exact analytical expressions
mechanical properties of the honeycomb sandwich composites and of which are unavailable due to the complexity of stress distribu-
can be measured by vibration test efficiently. Based on minimization of tion in the sheared honeycomb core. The principles of minimum
the discrepancies between the natural frequencies of finite element potential energy and minimum complementary energy are used
models with adjustable elastic properties and the corresponding for estimating the lower and upper bounds of the out-of-plane
experimental modal data, sophisticated identification techniques have shear modulus [8], and for convenience in engineering applica-
been developed during the last two decades for estimating accurately tions a correction factor γ is introduced:
the elastic properties of composite materials. Saito et al. [23] treated an γ t
aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel as an orthotropic Timoshenko Gcxz ¼ pffiffiffi Gs ð4Þ
3l
beam and identified the corresponding parameters by solving the least
pffiffiffi
squares problems by a non-linear optimization method. A mixed 3γ t
numerical–experimental characterization method is proposed by Gcyz ¼ Gs ð5Þ
2 l
Schwaar et al. [24] based on minimizing the discrepancies between
modal quantities computed with a highly accurate orthotropic shell FE
model with adjustable elastic properties and the corresponding
experimental data measured with a precise measurement setup
formed by a scanning laser vibrometer with loudspeaker excitation.
However, up to now, limited attention has been focused towards
adopting analytical or numerical method to supply initial values of
parameters in the procedure of identifying equivalent elastic constants.
The initial value of parameters is of crucial importance in
parameter identification problems, and a hybrid analytical–experi-
mental approach on predicting equivalent elastic modulus of
honeycomb core is proposed in this paper. The method consists in
(1) determining the initial value of equivalent elastic parameters by
using an analytical method; (2) according to the initial values
obtained in step (1), discretizing the elasto-dynamic problem by
using the finite element method for a honeycomb sandwich
composite panel; (3) selecting the sensitive and inaccurate para-
meters by analyzing the internal architecture and the relative
sensitivity analysis of natural frequencies with respect to equivalent Fig. 1. Unit cell of honeycomb core.
86 D. Jiang et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 90 (2014) 84–92

where Gs is the shear moduli of the core material; the theoretical

value of γ is 1, which is needed to be modified in practical
engineering.
Schwingshackl et al. [7] reviewed 15 published sets of analy-
tical and experimental methods; it was found that Poisson's ratios
νxy, νxz, and νyz range from 0 to 1, this demonstrating a strong
variability as regards their true values, but the Poisson's ratios
have no effect on dynamic response of the honeycomb sandwich
structure. The following values for Poisson's ratios of Gibson and
Ashby [1] are selected:
vxy ¼ 1; vxz ¼ vyz ¼ 0 ð6Þ
For analyzing dynamical characteristics of the honeycomb
sandwich composite, the equivalent density of the cell in Fig. 1 is
needed and easily shown to be
8 t
ρeq ¼ pffiffiffi ρs ð7Þ
3 3l

2.2. Parameter identification method

The traditional model updating method is adopted for deter-

mining elastic modulus of honeycomb core, the essence of which
is an optimization problem to minimize the discrepancies between
the measured and predicted modal data. The objective function
and the constraint is defined as
(
min JðpÞ ¼ εT Wε ¼ ∥W 1=2 ðzm za ðpÞÞ∥22
ð8Þ Fig. 2. Flow chart of the parameter identification procedure.
s:t: p1 r p r p2

where p A ℝN is a vector of the selected parameters to be
determined, zm and za ðpÞ A ℝn are, respectively, the experimental
and analytical modal parameters, ε is the error of numerical modal
data, W is a diagonal weighting matrix representing the relative
weight of each error, and the superscript T denotes the matrix
transpose. It is necessary to ensure that the measured and
numerical data are paired in terms of the same mode, which can
be achieved by carrying out a modal correlation using the modal
assurance criterion (MAC) [25,26]. If a reasonable value pA exists in
the domain of definition [p1,p2] for minimizing the objective
function, then pA is the accurate solution of parameter identifica-
tion. Using a gradient-based approach to solve the optimization
problem Eq. (8), the problem at the jth iteration step is expressed as
W1=2 ðzm zaj Þ ¼ Sj ðpj þ 1  pj Þ
1/2
where Sj ¼W ∂zaj/∂pj
is the weighted sensitivity matrix of modal
data with respect to structural parameters. When the experimental
and numerical modal data (zm and zaj) are eigenvalues which are
defined as the squares of the system natural frequencies, λj ¼ ω2j (zj—
λj), the term ∂zaj/∂pj in the weighted sensitivity matrix may be
determined by the following expression:
! analysis using the initial finite element model;
∂zaj ∂Kðpj Þ ∂Mðpj Þ
¼ ΦTj  zj Φj ð10Þ
∂pj ∂pj ∂pj
where M; K A ℝss are the mass and stiffness matrices respectively;
Φj is the mode shape matrix at the jth step; and s is the number of
Degrees Of Freedom (DOFs) of the model. It is available to obtain
numerical approximations of the sensitivity matrix by the simple
procedure of perturbing the parameters in turn by a suitably small
quantity and determining numerically the change in the predicted
eigenvalues.
The iteration format of parameters to be identified is obtained:
pj þ 1 ¼ pj þ ðSTj Sj Þ  1 STj W1=2 ðzm  zaj Þ
where Gj ¼ ðSTj Sj Þ  1 STj W1=2 is a transformation matrix, the
weighted pseudo-inverse of the sensitivity matrix Sj, which is
often ill-conditioned; under this condition, direct pseudo-inverse
solution to Eq. (9) may yield poor estimation. In this case, the
regularization method is applied to obtain stable solutions, and
the transformation matrix is expressed as
Gj ¼ ðSTj Sj þ αIÞ  1 STj W1=2 ð13Þ
in which α is the regularization parameter that locates the corner
of the L-curve obtained by plotting the norms ∥pj þ 1  pj ∥ vs
∥Sj ðpj þ 1  pj Þ  W1=2 ðzm  zaj Þ∥ as α varies [27].
The prediction of equivalent elastic parameters of the honey-
comb core is modified by using the model updating method whose
ð9Þ
implementation procedure, shown in Fig. 2, can be illustrated as
follows:
(1) initialize j ¼0, construct an initial finite element model of the
honeycomb sandwich composite panel using the analytical
equivalent elastic modulus of the core;
(2) select the elastic parameters p through relative sensitivity
(3) pair the experimental and numerical modal shapes using
modal correlation analysis, calculate the modal assurance
criterion (MAC) to achieve this;
(4) calculate the residual zm zaj between the experimental and
numerical modal data, solve the iteration format Eq. (9), obtain
the variation pj þ 1  pj;
(5) if the variables pj are converged, go to step (6); otherwise set
j¼ jþ1, go to step (2); the stop criterion is ‖pj þ 1  pj‖r10  6;
(6) stop.
3. Case study
ð11Þ

or The presented method is investigated on a honeycomb sand-

m
wich panel with experimental modal data. Geometric dimensions
pj þ 1 ¼ pj þ Gj ðz  zaj Þ ð12Þ of the panel and the unit core are shown in Fig. 3. The face sheet
 D. Jiang et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 90 (2014) 84–92 87

and the core are made of an aluminum alloy, the material

properties of which are shown in Table 1. Elastic properties
identification of the honeycomb core is conducted according to
the procedure introduced in Section 2.
For the purpose of measuring the dynamic characteristics of
the honeycomb sandwich composite panel, an impact vibration
testing is performed with the sample frequency of 2000 Hz. The
panel is hanged with soft ropes to simulate the Free–Free bound-
ary condition for getting rid of boundary effects and the presence
of any other errors. Arrangement of the accelerometer and excita-

400
tion points is shown in Fig. 4; 121 excitation points are arranged at
the intersection point of the horizontal and vertical lines, and the
accelerometer is located near the corner of the panel. Conse-
quently, the modal frequencies and mode shapes of the honey-
comb sandwich panel are obtained.
Accelerometer

400
3.1. Initial finite element model
Fig. 4. Arrangement of accelerometer and excitation points (unit: mm).
In this study, initial finite element model of the honeycomb
sandwich panel is constructed using Nastran, and the named SVS
Table 2
(Shell–Volume–Shell) model comprises three separate parts: two
Equivalent elastic properties of the honeycomb core.
face sheets which are modeled using shell elements, and one
honeycomb core which is homogenized to orthotropic volume Parameters Analytical predictions
can be modeled with solid elements. the full finite element (MPa)
model consisted of 726 nodes and 700 elements; the solid
Ecx 0.2494
elements and the shell elements are connected by multiple point
Ecy 0.2494
connections for avoiding DOFs mismatch of the interfacial nodes. Ecz 916.1
The elastic properties of the orthotropic volume used for repre- Gcxy 0.0935
senting the core are derived from Eqs. (1)–(5), and shown in Gcxz 172.2
Gcyz 258.3
Table 2; the equivalent density is calculated by Eq. (7),
ρeq ¼48.54 kg/m3.
In Table 3 the experimental data compared with the numerical
modal frequencies of initial finite element model are presented.
Table 3
Comparison between experimental modal frequencies and results from initial
model.

Mode order Experimental data Computational results Error (%)

(Hz) (Hz)

Mode 1 376.95 411.66 9.21

Mode 2 604.62 615.87 1.86
Mode 3 730.24 771.87 5.70
Mode 4 925.62 999.02 7.93
Mean error 6.17

The error of each order of modal frequencies is calculated by

a m
f i f i
errori ¼ m  100% ð14Þ
fi
where the subscript i is the order of modal frequency. And the
mean error of N frequencies is defined as
N

Mean error ¼ ∑ absðerrori Þ N ð15Þ
i¼1

Fig. 3. The honeycomb sandwich composite panel (unit: mm). The maximum error is 9.21%, and the mean error is 6.17%; results
show that the equivalent elastic properties are not so accurate for
reflecting the macro-mechanical characteristic of the honeycomb
Table 1 core. Comparison of the first four main mode shapes obtained from
Material properties of aluminum. FE analysis with test data is shown in Fig. 5. It is clearly seen that
good mode shapes of the panel are extracted by impact vibration test
Young's modulus Density Poisson's ratio and the experimental and numerical shapes are paired well from the
68 Gpa 2700 kg/m 3
0.33
visual inspection. However the equivalent elastic parameters pre-
dicted by analytical method can be used as an efficient initial value
88 D. Jiang et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 90 (2014) 84–92

Mode shapes Identified from Mode shapes Obtained from

Mode vibration test FE analysis

1st
Torsion

2nd
Bending

3rd
Coupling

4th
Torsion

Fig. 5. Four main mode shapes obtained from FE analysis and tests.

for the parameter identification, which will lead to more precise Table 4
parameters and a more sophisticated numerical model of the panel. Relative sensitivity matrix of the first four modal frequencies w.r.t. elastic parameters.

Elastic parameter Mode order

3.2. Elastic parameter identification
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4
3.2.1. Selection of parameters
Parameter selection is a crucial step in parameter identification Ecx 7.83E  5 4.60E  3 2.90E  3 4.40E  3
through model updating [28,29], and considerable mechanical insight Ecy 1.24E  4 8.40E  3 7.40E  3 1.70E 3
Ecz 8.32E  4 4.00E  3 7.09E  3 1.43E  2
of the structure is always needed for selecting proper parameters to be
Gcxy 5.40E  3 7.83E  6 8.03E  5 6.70E 3
identified in order to ensure not only correlations between experi- Gcyz 9.61 7.75 17.99 35.96
mental and numerical modal data but also physical significance of the Gcxz 13.36 13.59 23.34 59.99
parameters. ρeq  43.44  64.73  81.20  104.68
Generally, the honeycomb core is not strictly regular hexagon
due to not very precise manufacturing; this will introduce errors
into the analytical predictions of the equivalent properties; parti- previously introduced analytical method; therefore, the imprecise
cularly the out-of-plane shear modulus is more susceptible to the predictions of the two shear modulus are inevitable.
irregular form; in addition, the effects of the connection between Relative sensitivity analysis is an additional method for
face sheet and the honeycomb core are not considered in selecting parameters which has an advantage that it can avoid
 D. Jiang et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 90 (2014) 84–92 89

x 108
0 3

-10
2.5 Shear Moduli (Gyz)
Variation of parameters(%)

Shear Moduli (Gyz)

Parameter values (MPa)

Shear Moduli (Gxz)
-20
Shear Moduli (Gxz)
2
-30
1.5
-40

1
-50

0
-60
0 5 10 15 0.5 5 10 15
Iteration (n) Iteration (n)
Fig. 6. Convergence of the out-of-plane shear modulus: (a) iteration of the parameter variations and (b) iteration of the parameter values.

Table 5 1,000
Out-of-plane shear modulus of the honeycomb core after identification.
Shear Moduli (Gyz)
800

Variation of parameters(%)
Parameters Analytical predictions Identified values Ratio of γ
Shear Moduli (Gxz)
(MPa) (MPa) variation (%)

Gcxz 172.2 95.1 44.8 0.552 600

Gcyz 258.3 106.4 58.8 0.412

400
10
200
Mode 1
Error of computational frequencies(%)

8
Mode 2
0
Mode 3
6 -100
Mode 4 0 20 40 60 80 100
Iteration (n)
4
Fig. 8. Convergence of the out-of-plane shear modulus (Case I).

2
follows:

0 ∂f i
Sr ¼ p ð16Þ
∂pj j

-2 in which fi is the ith order of modal frequency, and pj is the jth

0 5 10 15
element of the elastic parameter vector p. For the honeycomb
Iteration (n)
core, the orthotropic material property contains nine indepen-
Fig. 7. Convergence of the first four modal frequencies. dent elements, p ¼(E11, E22, E33, G12, G23, G31, μ12, μ23, μ31)T;
consequently, ∂fi/∂pj is the sensitivity of ith order frequency with
respect to jth element of vector p. The partial derivative ∂fi/∂pj
Table 6 cannot be calculated directly but using a chain rule
Comparison between experimental modal frequencies and identified results.
∂f i 6 6 ∂f i ∂C mn
Mode order Experimental data After identification Error (%) ¼ ∑ ∑ ð17Þ
∂pj m ¼ 1 n ¼ 1 ∂C mn ∂pj
(Hz) (Hz)
where Cmn is element of the material stiffness matrix in mth row
Mode 1 376.95 391.32 3.81
Mode 2 604.62 594.51  1.67
and nth column; ∂fi/∂Cmn can be calculated using the SOL200
Mode 3 730.24 730.45 0.03 solver in Nastran [30], which is an effective optimization module
Mode 4 925.62 913.56  1.30 in the famous commercial finite element analysis code. Elements
Mean error 1.70 of the stiffness matrix for an orthotropic material are given via
1  μ23 μ32 μ12 þ μ13 μ32
C 11 ¼ ; C 12 ¼
the influence of the quantity or unit used for parameters. This E22 E33 Δ E11 E33 Δ
feature makes comparison of sensitivities for different parameter 1  μ13 μ31 μ23 þ μ21 μ13
C 22 ¼ ; C 23 ¼
types available and effective. Relative sensitivity is defined as E11 E33 Δ E11 E22 Δ
90 D. Jiang et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 90 (2014) 84–92

in which
1  μ12 μ21 μ31 þ μ12 μ32  
C 33 ¼ ; C 31 ¼  1  μ21 μ31 
E11 E22 Δ E22 E33 Δ 
1  μ μ32 
Δ¼  12 1 ð19Þ
E11 E22 E33  
C 44 ¼ G12 ; C 55 ¼ G23 ; C 66 ¼ G31 ð18Þ   μ13  μ23 1 

Hence, the stiffness matrix is function of the equivalent elastic

parameters.
10 Relative sensitivity matrix of the first four modal frequencies
Error of computational frequencies(%)

5 with respect to (w.r.t.) the seven equivalent parameters is calcu-

lated by using Eq. (16), and the result is shown in Table 4; three
0 elastic parameters, the out-of-plane shear modulus Gcyz, Gcxz and
-5 the density ρeq, have greater impact on the dynamical character-
istics. It is necessary to mention that the density of the honeycomb
-10 core is always supposed to be accurately predicted, so the shear
Mode 1 moduli are selected to be determined.
-15 Mode 2
-20 Mode 3
Mode 4 3.2.2. Results of identification
-25
The measured data are obtained by using impact vibration test,
-30 which is accurate enough for measuring the dynamical character-
istics of a panel. In order to ensure that the optimization problem
-35
0 20 40 60 80 100 has a unique solution and the solution has physical significance,
Iteration (n) the number of the equations should be greater than or equal to the
number of the unknown parameters; this will result in over-
Fig. 9. Convergence of the first four modal frequencies (Case I).
determined equations; the first four measured natural frequencies
were used in the parameter identification. In the identification
Table 7
procedure the weighting matrix is W ¼ [diag(zm)]  2, for equalizing
Initial guess values of the two shear moduli compared with the identified results the effect of magnitude of each residual [25]; the regularization
(Case I). parameter is α¼0, because the governing equation of uncertain
parameter identification is well-posed. The shear moduli are
Parameters Initial values Identified values
positively correlated with the modal frequencies, and each order
Gcxz 10.0 MPa 96.1 MPa of the experimental frequencies is lower than corresponding order
Gcyz 1.0 GPa 95.7 MPa of the numerical results; even more, the shear performances in
reality are weaker than the analytical values. Hence, the upper and
lower bounds of the parameters to be identified are defined as
Table 8 follows:
Comparison between experimental and identified modal frequencies when initial
shear constants are speculated (Case I). 0 o Gcxz r 172:2 MPa

Mode order Experimental data (Hz) After identification (Hz) Error (%) 0 o Gcyz r 258:3 MPa ð20Þ

Mode 1 376.95 390.55 3.61 After parameter identification by using the proposed approach,
Mode 2 604.62 593.66  1.81 convergence of the out-of-plane shear modulus is illustrated in
Mode 3 730.24 728.65  0.22 Fig. 6: (a) is the iteration of parameter variations and (b) is the
Mode 4 925.62 911.70  1.50
iteration of parameter values. Comparison of parameter values of
Mean error 1.79
the shear modulus between before and after identification is

900 1,000
800 Shear Moduli (Gyz)
800
Variation of parameters(%)
Variation of parameters(%)

Shear Moduli (Gxz)

600 Density (ρeq)
600
Shear Moduli (Gyz)
400
Shear Moduli (Gxz) 400

Density (ρeq)
200 200

0 0
-100 -100
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Iteration (n) Iteration (n)
Fig. 10. Convergence of the out-of-plane shear modulus (Case II): (a) constraint condition A and (b) constraint condition B.
 D. Jiang et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 90 (2014) 84–92 91

shown in Table 5. The ratio of parameter variation is calculated by
pj  p0
Ratio ¼  100%
p0
where pj and p0 are respectively the identified and initial value of
parameters. Results indicate that parameters (Gcxz and Gcyz) are
converged after the eighth step of the iteration; after identification
the ratio of parameter variations are respectively 44.8% and 58.8%,
and the correction factor γ of the shear modulus is obtained.
Convergence of the first four modal frequencies of the panel is
shown in Fig. 7. Comparison between experimental modal fre-
quencies and identified results is presented in Table 6. The
maximum error of the frequencies is no more than 4%, and the
mean value of errors is reduced to 1.703%.
3.3. Comparative studies
In order to further explain that the initial values of the
parameters are of crucial importance in the identification proce-
dure, comparative investigations are conducted through two cases.
Case I: Initial values of the shear modulus are assumed.
Assume that the equivalent parameters of the honeycomb core
are determined by the analytical method besides the out-of-
plane shear modulus, and the initial guess values Gcxz ¼10 MPa,
Gcxz ¼1 GPa, constraints for which are defined as
results compared with the initial guess values are presented in
Table 7, and comparison between experimental and identified
ð21Þ modal frequencies is indicated in Table 8. It can be seen that the
error of the first order frequency is even less than the identified
results of Section 3.2.2, but the mean error is slightly larger and
more steps are needed. Results show that, supposing known
which parameters of the honeycomb core are inaccurate in
advance, after identification, the parameters can converge close
to the accurate values, even when the initial values of the
parameters have large errors and extensive ranges of various
parameter are defined.
Case II: Three equivalent parameters are unknown.
In this case, comparative study of parameter identification with
different constraints is conducted assuming that three equiva-
lent parameters are unknown. The initial parameters and the
constraint conditions of the shear modulus are defined to be
the same as those of the previous case. Another equivalent
parameter, the density ρeq, is taken into account for making
clear the necessity of determining the initial value of para-
meters by analytical method before parameter identification,
the initial value of which is 20 kg/m3; the upper and lower
bounds of density are defined in two different constraint
conditions as follows:
A: 5 kg=m3 r ρeq r 80 kg=m3
B: 20 kg=m3 r ρeq r 80 kg=m3 ð23Þ

0 o Gcxz r 210 MPa

0 o Gcyz r9 GPa ð22Þ Under the two different constraint conditions, the parameter
identification is performed. Comparison of convergence of the

which are large constraint conditions relevant to the initial

guess values. Table 10
After nearly 80 steps of iteration, the shear moduli converge; Comparison between experimental and identified modal frequencies when three
the convergence curve is shown in Fig. 8, convergence of the parameters are assumed (Case II).

first four modal frequencies is illustrated in Fig. 9, identified Mode Test data After identification
order (Hz)
Table 9 Constraint Error Constraint Error
Comparison between initial and identified values of three unknown parameters of condition A (%) condition B (Hz) (%)
the honeycomb core (Case II). (Hz)

Parameters Initial values Constraint condition A Constraint condition B Mode 1 376.95 383.41 1.71 389.50 3.33
Mode 2 604.62 533.43  11.77 590.94  2.26
Gcxz 10.0 MPa 16.3 MPa 107.0 MPa Mode 3 730.24 801.35 9.74 727.82  0.33
Gcyz 1.0 GPa 9.0 GPa 105.5 MPa Mode 4 925.62 805.59  12.97 914.94  1.15
ρeq 20.0 kg/m3 5.0 kg/m3 53.7 kg/m3 Mean error 9.05 1.77

10
Error of computational frequencies(%)
Error of computational frequencies(%)

10 5

0 0

-5
-10
-10
Mode 1
-20 Mode 1 -15 Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 2
-20 Mode 4
-30 Mode 3
Mode 4 -25

-40 -30
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Iteration (n) Iteration (n)
Fig. 11. Convergence of the first four modal frequencies (Case II): (a) constraint condition A and (b) constraint condition B.
92 D. Jiang et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 90 (2014) 84–92
parameter variations is shown in Fig. 10, and the initial and the
identified values of three unknown parameters are presented
in Table 9. The corresponding comparisons of convergence of
the modal data, the experimental and the numerical modal
frequencies, are respectively illustrated in Fig. 11 and Table 10.
When the equivalent density of the core is restrained to
constraint condition A, parameters cannot converge to the
accurate value and large error to the modal analysis results;
on the contrary if the value of density varies in the relative
narrow domain of constraint condition B, after identification,
the results approximate to the true value and the numerical
modal frequencies are calculated with evidently higher
accuracy. It can be seen that, on increasing the number of
parameters, the varying domains of parameters to be deter-
mined get more important to the identification problem, and
the constraint conditions strongly depend on understanding
the physical significance of parameters.
4. Conclusions
An approach for predicting equivalent material constitutive
parameters of honeycomb core has been proposed in this paper.
The dynamical characteristics of a honeycomb sandwich compo-
site panel linked with an initial numerical model using analytically
predicted elasticity of the core are considered in this method.
Inaccurate and sensitive parameters, out-of-plane shear moduli
Gcxz and Gcyz, are selected to be determined through the mini-
mization of an objective function constructed with experimental
and numerical modal data. The following conclusions on the
proposed method can be drawn:
(1) the initial values of parameters play an important role in
identifying the equivalent elastic constants of honeycomb
core, and physical significances of the parameters should be
considered by using analytical method before parameter
identification;
(2) if the parameters of the honeycomb core are known to be
inaccurate in advance, after identification, the presented
method can provide accurate and efficient predictions of
material constitutive parameters, even when large errors exist
in the initial value of the parameters;
(3) when the number of the unknown factors increases, in order
to improve the accuracy of the proposed method, the con-
straint conditions of parameters should be defined properly
which strongly depends on the theoretical analysis of the core;
otherwise, the identification results may fail to converge.
Acknowledgment
The work described in this paper was supported by a Program
for New Century Excellent Talents in University (NCET-11-0086),
a research grant by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (10902024), Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China
(20130092120039), and a project funded by the Priority Academic
Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions
(PAPD-1105007001).
References
[1] L.J. Gibson, M.F. Ashby, Cellular Solids: Structure and Properties, 2nd edition,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997.
[2] J. Mackerle, Finite element analyses of sandwich structures: a bibliography
(1980–2001), Eng. Comput. 19 (2) (2002) 206–245.
[3] J. Hohe, W. Becker, Effective stress–strain relations for two-dimensional
cellular sandwich cores: homogenization, material models, and properties,
Appl. Mech. Rev. 55 (1) (2002) 61.
[4] F. Mujika, J. Pujana, M. Olave, On the determination of out-of-plane elastic
properties of honeycomb sandwich panels, Polym. Test. 30 (2) (2011) 222–228.
[5] G. Caprino, A. Langella, Study of a three-point bending specimen for shear
characterisation of sandwich cores, J. Compos. Mater. 34 (9) (2000) 791–814.
[6] P.R. Cunningham, R.G. White, A new measurement technique for the estima-
tion of core shear strain in closed sandwich structures, Compos. Struct. 51 (3)
(2001) 319–334.
[7] C.W. Schwingshackl, G.S. Aglietti, P.R. Cunningham, Determination of honey-
comb material properties: existing theories and an alternative dynamic
approach, J. Aerosp. Eng. 19 (3) (2006) 177–183.
[8] S. Kelsey, R.A. Gellatly, B.W. Clark, The shear modulus of foil honeycomb cores:
a theoretical and experimental investigation on cores used in sandwich
construction, Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Technol. 30 (10) (1958) 294–302.
[9] L.J. Gibson, M.F. Ashby, G.S. Schajer, et al., The mechanics of two-dimensional
cellular materials, Proc. R. Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 382 (1782) (1982)
25–42.
[10] I.G. Masters, K.E. Evans, Models for the elastic deformation of honeycombs,
Compos. Struct. 35 (1996) 403–422.
[11] J. Hohe, W. Becker, A refined analysis of the effective elasticity tensor for
general cellular sandwich cores, Int. J. Solids Struct. 38 (21) (2001) 3689–3717.
[12] M. Fu, J. Yin, Equivalent elastic parameters of the honeycomb core, Acta Mech.
Sin. 31 (1) (1999) 113–118 (in Chinese).
[13] D. Jiang, Z. Jiang, Q. Fei, et al., Dynamic characteristics of honeycomb sandwich
composite considering effect of adhesive layer, J. Southeast Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.)
43 (5) (2013) 1068–1073 (in Chinese).
[14] W.S. Burton, A.K. Noor, Assessment of computational models for sandwich
panels and shells, Computer Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 124 (1–2) (1995)
125–151.
[15] I. Aydincak, A. Kayran, An approach for the evaluation of effective elastic
properties of honeycomb cores by finite element analysis of sandwich panels,
J. Sandw. Struct. Mater. 11 (5) (2009) 385–408.
[16] X.Q. Liu, L.Q. Cao, Q.D. Zhu, Multiscale algorithm with high accuracy for the
elastic equations in three-dimensional honeycomb structures, J. Comput. Appl.
Math. 233 (4) (2009) 905–921.
[17] F. Wang, S. Zhuang, J. Yu, Application of homogenization FEM to the equivalent
elastic constants of honeycomb structures, Acta Mech. Sin. 34 (6) (2002)
914–923 (in Chinese).
[18] E. Nilsson, A.C. Nilsson, Prediction and measurement of some dynamic
properties of sandwich structures with honeycomb and foam cores, J. Sound
Vib. 251 (3) (2002) 409–430.
[19] V.N. Burlayenko, T. Sadowski, Effective elastic properties of foam-filled
honeycomb cores of sandwich panels, Compos. Struct. 92 (12) (2010)
2890–2900.
[20] N. Buannic, P. Cartraud, T. Quesnel, Homogenization of corrugated core
sandwich panels, Compos. Struct. 59 (3) (2003) 299–312.
[21] G.Y. Shi, P. Tong, Equivalent transverse-shear stiffness of honeycomb-cores, Int.
J. Solids Struct. 32 (10) (1995) 1383–1393.
[22] S. Balawi, J.L. Abot, The effect of honeycomb relative density on its effective in-
plane elastic moduli: an experimental study, Compos. Struct. 84 (4) (2008)
293–299.
[23] T. Saito, R.D. Parbery, S. Okuno, et al., Parameter identification for aluminum
honeycomb sandwich panels based on orthotropic Timoshenko beam theory,
J. Sound Vib. 208 (2) (1997) 271–287.
[24] M. Schwaar, T. Gmur, J. Frieden, Modal numerical–experimental identification
method for characterising the elastic and damping properties in sandwich
structures with a relatively stiff core, Compos. Struct. 94 (7) (2012)
2227–2236.
[25] J.E. Mottershead, M. Link, M.I. Friswell, The sensitivity method in finite
element model updating: a tutorial, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 25 (7) (2011)
2275–2296.
[26] J.E. Mottershead, M.I. Friswell, Model updating in structural dynamics – a
survey, J. Sound Vib. 167 (2) (1993) 347–375.
[27] H. Ahmadian, J.E. Mottershead, M.I. Friswell, Regularisation methods for finite
element model updating, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 12 (1) (1998) 47–64.
[28] V. Arora, S.P. Singh, T.K. Kundra, Damped FE model updating using complex
updating parameters: its use for dynamic design, J. Sound Vib. 324 (1–2)
(2009) 350–364.
[29] G. Kim, Y. Park, An automated parameter selection procedure for finite-
element model updating and its applications, J. Sound Vib. 309 (3–5) (2008)
778–793.
[30] MSC Software, Design Sensitivity and Optimization User's Guide, 2012.