See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326414870

Crushing Behaviour of Honeycomb structure: A Review

Article · June 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 4,126

1 author:

Tiju Thomas
Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology
10 PUBLICATIONS   25 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Crashworthiness analysis of honeycomb structure View project

Blast Analysis of honeycomb and Reinforced honeycomb View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tiju Thomas on 22 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Crashworthiness

ISSN: 1358-8265 (Print) 1754-2111 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcrs20

Crushing behavior of honeycomb structure: a

review

Tiju Thomas & Gaurav Tiwari

To cite this article: Tiju Thomas & Gaurav Tiwari (2019): Crushing behavior of
honeycomb structure: a review, International Journal of Crashworthiness, DOI:
10.1080/13588265.2018.1480471

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2018.1480471

Published online: 18 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcrs20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS
https://doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2018.1480471

Crushing behavior of honeycomb structure: a review

Tiju Thomas and Gaurav Tiwari
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India;

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article concludes some of the important observation regarding quasi-static and dynamic Received 24 November 2017
crushing response of honeycomb structure carried out by authors and addressed in the litera- Accepted 4 May 2018
ture. The behaviour of honeycomb structure has been reported through experimentation, math-
KEYWORD
ematical and numerical models. The influence of cell wall thickness, node length, cell size and
Honeycomb structure;
loading has been studied in detail leading to some important findings which have not been crushing; relative density;
addressed earlier. The crushing responses of honeycomb structure have been studied in both out-of-plane loading;
out-of-plane and in-plane loading condition. Moreover, its bending behaviour has also been in-plane loading
reported in few studies. Geometrical core configuration and geometric property like cell size,
cell wall thickness and node length etc. play a defining role in administrating potential of
honeycomb. Relative density was a vital property of honeycomb dependent on cell configur-
ation and geometric properties. Facesheet material and thickness majorly effects the energy
absorption capability of the core during dynamic projectile and impulsive impacts.

1. Introduction
Nomenclature
With the advancement in design and materials, the
Pm mean crushing force structures of light weight and high stiffness have
ro flow stress of honeycomb material drawn the significant attention of researchers and
ry yield stress of honeycomb material industries. In this context, the behaviour of thin
rm Mean crushing stress of honeycomb
walled structures such as tubes of different material
qy Shear yield stress of material
K Width of basic element/Cell Size and cross sections, honeycomb core with the different
S Cell minor Diameter cross-section, lattice structure and foams of metal and
t Thickness of core non-metals have been studied due to their high
qc Density of hexagonal honeycomb core strength to weight ratio and high stiffness [1–7].
qs Density of Base material Moreover, in literature it has been found that the
h length of double cell wall of hex-
agonal honeycomb honeycomb structures offers better performance in
h1 half wavelength of plastic buckling comparison to foam and tube structures as it has
l length of single cell wall of hexagonal honeycomb higher energy absorption capability [8,9]. Due to their
h Cell angle superior properties, these structures are widely applic-
qQ Density of Quadric core able in airplane and helicopters, rocket substructures,
qt Density of triangular core
naval ships, racing cars, automotive industry and sat-
Es Modulus of Elasticity of base material,
E1 Modulus of Elasticity of honeycomb in ellites [10,11]. Therefore in this article major findings
x-direction, related to crushing response of honeycomb structures
E2 Modulus of Elasticity of honeycomb in have been addressed.
y-direction, Naturally, honeycomb is a combination of hex-
G12 Shear Modulus of honeycomb in x-y plane agonal cells prepared by honeybees for storing honey
P Load acting on DCB specimen,
a crack length, and pollen. These structures offer high strength with
Ef, Ec Elastic modulus of Facesheet and Facesheet/core, low weight and less material. Due to these superior
If,Ic Moment of Inertia of Facesheet and properties, honeycombs were widely used in the form
Facesheet/core of sandwich structures. Hugo Junkers first presented
b width of DCB the idea of using honeycomb core between two face

CONTACT Gaurav Tiwari gauraviitdelhi@gmail.com

ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 T. THOMAS AND G. TIWARI
Figure 1. Geometric Parameters of honeycomb.
sheets in 1915. Cell size is defined as the distance
between the top and bottom edge of hexagonal
honeycomb. In a regular hexagonal honeycomb cell
size is equal to the edge length of honeycomb. The
depth of honeycomb is called as node length or thick-
ness of honeycomb cell. While cell wall thickness
equates to thickness of sheet from which honeycomb
is manufactured. Expanded honeycombs have con-
stant cell wall thickness (equal to thickness of sheet)
throughout honeycomb while cell wall thickness of
corrugated honeycomb have double thickness of sheet
at each interface or node of honeycomb, see Figure 1.
Honeycomb sandwich structures comprise of the
honeycomb core and faceplates adhered together by
Epoxy or Phenolic resins. Commercially honeycomb
cores were manufactured by corrugation and adhesive
bonding and expansion [12]. In corrugation, metal
sheets were rolled between two corrugated rollers to
obtain desired corrugated profiled sheets. Such sheets
were finally cut and adhere accordingly to obtain
honeycomb core. In expansion, sheets were provided
with adhesive lines slots in an initial condition.
Further sheets were cut into size and piles together
using resins which were subsequently expanded at
high temperature to get desired shapes due to the
provided cuts. Modern techniques like embossing
technique using trapezoidal dies, corrugation along
with braze welding, and extrusion were also used for
manufacturing honeycomb cores [13].
The crashworthiness of honeycomb panels was bet-
ter as compared to monolithic plates made of same
material and having same wall thickness [14,15].
Moreover, it has higher resistance against crush load
than foam structures [8,9]. Various geometrical
parameters like cell shape, cell size, cell wall thickness
and node length influences the performance of struc-
ture under the action of various types of loads like
static, dynamic impact, bending or shear
loads [16–20].
The available studies addressed the energy absorp-
tion capability of a structure for both quasi-static and
dynamic tests through various parameters like mean
crushing force, crushing efficiency, stroke efficiency,
specific energy absorption, energy absorbed per unit
crush length and total energy absorption. While for
dynamic projectile impact terms like ballistic limit
and perforation energy was utilized for specifying per-
formance of honeycomb sandwich panel.
Mean crushing load Total energy absorbed divided
by maximum deformation termed as the mean crush-
ing load.
Specific energy absorption Term quantified as
energy absorbed per unit mass of the structure.
Structures used as an energy absorbing structure
should have a high strength to weight ratio represent-
ing high specific energy absorption.
Energy absorbed per unit crush length It was calcu-
lated by dividing impact energy by maximum
crush distance.
Total energy Energy absorbed by the structure. It
depicts performance of a system of energy absorber.
Total energy absorbed was obtained when load-

HONEYCOMB
DIRECTION OF CORE
LOADING MATERIAL
IN-PLANE ALUMINIUM
STAINLESS
STEEL
OUT OF
PLANE
NOMEX
SHEAR PAPER
CARBON
FIBER
BENDING
NATURAL
FIBER
Figure 2. Categorization of Honeycomb analysis.
displacement curve is integrated from zero to max-
imum deformation.
Ballistic limit An average of highest velocity
encountered at partial penetration and lowest velocity
at complete penetration (perforation). In other words,
it is the velocity below which projectile doesn’t perfo-
rates target. High ballistic limit was preferable for
good armour.
Perforation energy Energy absorption of structure
during penetration. It is equated as change in kinetic
energy of projectile.
The analysis of the honeycomb was classified based
on the direction of loading, core material, core shape
and hybrid structures see Figure 2. In the current
study, the findings have been classified according to
experimental, numerical and analytical analysis.
Further, each section has been subdivided according
to the direction of loading out-of-plane compression,
in-plane compression, dynamic impact analysis and
bending and fracture analysis. Furthermore, dynamic
analysis was categorized into low-velocity impact,
medium velocity impact, high-velocity impact and
blast loads impact.
In real applications, honeycomb structure was basic-
ally subjected to dynamic loads however literature has
reported a greater emphasis on performance of honey-
comb against quasi-static loads. This was mainly
because numerically and theoretically analysing the
structure becomes uncomplicated under quasi-static
loading. The deformation profile of structure was
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 3
CORE SHAPE HYBRID
STRUCTURE
HEXAGONAL
MULTI LAYER
PYRAMID
SQUARE
TRIANGULAR
REINFORCED
CIRCULAR
HONEYCOMB
KAGOME GRID CORE
CHIRAL
assumed to be independent of inertial forces acting on
body so quasi-static testing provided approximately
same behaviour as that of dynamic condition. The
response of honeycomb structure against quasi-static
compression loading has been addressed both experi-
mentally as well as numerically to evaluate the modes
of failure, maximum compressive load, maximum dis-
placement of honeycomb and specific energy absorp-
tion capacity. Quasi-static compression test was
performed on honeycomb sample by applying load in
the direction of perpendicular to node length (in-
plane) and parallel to node length (out of plane) to
analyse the deformation behaviour and parameters
affecting the performance of honeycomb core in each
direction. Additionally, researchers have also per-
formed dynamic analysis to evaluate performance of
honeycomb core in order to attain closeness to prac-
tical conditions. In this case also performance of struc-
ture was analysed using same parameters which were
used for quasi-static condition.
2. Mathematical analysis
Researchers over the years gave a lot of emphasis on
obtaining the mathematical expression for crushing
strength of honeycomb for compression on both out-
of-plane and in-plane direction of loading.
Mathematical models were obtained for establishing
relations for crushing strength and different other
mechanical properties of honeycomb with its
4 T. THOMAS AND G. TIWARI
Moving Wall
Direction of
movement
Honeycomb
Fixed Wall
Figure 3. Out of plane loading.
Figure 4. Y shaped element.
geometric configurations. Mathematical relations
reflect effect of various parameters on the perform-
ance of honeycomb.
2.1. Out-of-plane compression
Plenty of studies were available which reported the
behaviour of honeycomb structure against crushing
load applied in out-of-plane direction. Figure 3 shows
the out-of-plane direction of loading with respect to
plane of honeycomb. Mathematical model of honey-
combs was postulated with various assumptions for
simplifying geometry of honeycomb core. Theoretical
methods like Conservation of energy and Minimum
principle in plasticity were used for analysing the unit
cell under crushing. Honeycomb unit cell was
assumed as columns under compressive loads.
Structure of honeycomb was considered to be regular
and symmetric so one typical folding element
assumed to be of two angle elements.
Mcfarland [21] gave an approximate model for
determining mean crushing stress of hexagonal cell
structures. Energy of deformation, energy of shear
deformation and energy of bending deformation were
calculated based on the assumed mode of deform-
ation. Collapse mode of a hexagonal cell was
expressed as a function of cell shape and geometrical
constraints. A trapezoidal section was assumed to be
a basic cell element for normal deformation while a
trapezoidal cell of different cross section was basic
element for bending deformation. Mean crushing
stress is defined as

2  
t 4:75 t
rm ¼ ry þ 28:628 þ 1:155qy (1)
S K S
Wierzbicki [22] established a theoretical method
for obtaining crushing strength of honeycomb cell
based on the minimum principle in plasticity and
energy considerations, considering a Y-shaped unit
cell (Figure 4) basic building unit of hexagonal honey-
comb with cell wall thickness t and cell width l. This
model is based on super folding element method.
Mcfarland assumed kinematics of three intersecting
plates with firm joints which were improved by
Wierzbicki by considering splitting between two angle
elements. The mean crushing force was given as
5 1
Pm ¼ 8:61ro t 3 l3 (2)
Liaghat et al. [23,24] also used minimum principle
in plasticity and energy considerations considering
typical folding element with two angle elements and
included angle 120 . The single honeycomb cell was
taken as a unit cell. Due to this honeycomb cell
behaved similarly to a hexagonal tube with small
thickness. Mean crushing force was established as
 1
Pm ¼ 34:44ry h1 5 l 3 (3)
Yin et al. [25] proposed another simplified method
for obtaining mean crushing force of honeycombs by
differentiating the folding mechanism into two differ-
ent folding modes with variation in the range of
branch angle and applying Simple folding element
theory for both of them separately. In this model
also Y shaped symmetric cell was considered as a basic
unit cell. Mean crushing force of honeycomb was
given as
2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pm ¼ ro t 6pklt (4)
3
p a
where k ¼ tgð2  2Þ þ ctgðp2  a2Þ , c and g are folding
mechanism area parameters and a is branch angle.
A comparison was done between three mathemat-
ical models with geometric parameters of hexagonal
honeycomb made of aluminium alloy AA5052 taken
from Yin et al. see Table 1. The model suggested by
Yin et al. found to be closer to the approximate mean
crushing stress obtained from numerical analysis of
honeycomb core compared to other two models while
it was seen that Wierzbicki model gave closer results
with respect to experimental results, see Table 1. It
was summarised that model suggested by Wierzbicki
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 5

Table 1. Mean crushing stress of honeycomb.

Mean stress Mean stress Mean stress Numerical Experimental
Thickness (t), Cell size (D) (MPa) Wierzbicki (MPa) Liaghat et al. (MPa) Yin et al. stress stress
t ¼ 0.006, D ¼ 10 0.1514 0.346 0.2002 0.237 0.176
t ¼ 0.008, D ¼ 10 0.224 0.417 0.3082 0.3327 0.253
t ¼ 0.010, D ¼ 10 0.298 0.627 0.4307 0.4096 0.358
t ¼ 0.008, D¼8 0.315 0.679 0.4307 0.4795 0.362
t ¼ 0.008, D ¼ 12 0.179 0.297 0.2344 0.254 0.196

Table 2. Relative density of hexagonal honeycomb cores.

Moving Wall S No. Cell size Cell wall thickness Relative density
1 6.35 0.0254 0.46
Honeycomb 2 6.35 0.051 0.92
Direction of 3 6.35 0.0381 0.69
movement 4 4.763 0.0254 0.61
5 4.763 0.0381 0.923
Fixed Wall
6 3.175 0.0254 0.92
7 9.525 0.0254 0.304
8 9.525 0.0381 0.617
9 9.525 0.051 0.462

Figure 5. In-plane loading.

considering total elastic core strain energy on crush

was considered to be most universal one as it pro-
vides accurate and conservative results for most of the
materials used for fabricating honeycomb core. Yin
et al. also gave mathematical model for another
deformation mode of failure which wasn’t considered
in other models. So, in practical conditions if such
deformation mode occurs then that mathematical
model has to be considered for better results.
2.2 In-plane compression
Mathematical models in the in-plane direction, see
Figure 5, were mostly derived for finding out mechan-
ical properties of the honeycomb core. Some research-
ers also found out crushing stress and plateau stress of
honeycomb in this direction by considering cell failure
mechanism (Plateau Stress effected by failure mechan-
ism). Most relevant properties related to energy
absorption are plateau stress and densification strain.
Gibson et al. [26–28] assumed cell walls to buckle elas-
distance of honeycomb. Whole hexagonal honeycomb
was represented by constitutive rectangular unit cells
with straight vertical cell walls and neglecting bending
moments and bending forces. In-plane stiffness was
directly affected by cell wall thickness and inversely
by cell size. Honeycomb core configuration also
effects in-plane stiffness and stiffness of hexagonal cell
configuration was high compared to Square,
Triangular, Kagome and diamond cell configuration
[30]. Relative density elucidated as the ratio of density
of honeycomb to the density of base material. High
relative density (most important characteristic of cel-
lular solid equivalent to volume fraction of solids)
was the main reason behind configuration effect of
hexagonal cell compared to other cell shapes. Relative
density was a function of cell wall thickness and cell
size [31–33]. Relative density of hexagonal honey-
comb (Table 2) given as


qc t 1 þ hl
tically so vertical walls behave like columns under com-
pressive loads. It was acknowledged that plastic
collapse of cell walls was major reason for collapse of
thick cell wall honeycombs. Principle of energy conser-
vation was considered for initial analysis but it over
estimated the results therefore later on external work-
done was expressed directly as a function of stress.
n2 p2 h3
r1 ¼ 2 (5)

2 24l cos h
r1 h 1
¼ (6)
rs l 2ð l
c = þ2 sin hÞ
b sin h
Becker [29] studied the effect of node length (core
thickness) on in-plane stiffness of honeycomb
¼   (7)
qs l
l þ sinh cosh
h
Relative density of hexagonal honeycomb with dif-
ferent geometric configuration was expressed in
Table 2. Geometric configurations were equal to geo-
metric parameters (specified in Table 2) of leading
manufacturing company Hexcel Co. Ltd. made from
aluminium alloy 5052.
Liu et al. [34] found out the relative density of
quadric and triangular cell core of honeycomb. It was
observed that relative density of quadric and triangu-
lar core was dependant on cell wall thickness and cell
size. Relative density of quadric and triangular was
6 T. THOMAS AND G. TIWARI

inversely proportional to cell size and proportional to elastic constants E1, E2, G12 and Poisson’s ratio c12
cell wall thickness. Relative density of triangular and or c21.
quadric core expressed as

pffiffiffi 
qt pffiffiffi t Es bt 3 
¼ 2 3 1
3t
(8) Kf

¼ 3 (14)
qs l 2 l h l
Kf þ l sin h
l (15)

 E1 ¼
qQ t 1t b cos 3 h
¼ 2 1 (9)
qs l 2l Kf cos h
E2 ¼

The in-plane properties were two to three orders less h (16)
in magnitude than out-of-plane properties limiting its b sin h þ l sin h
2
l
design application (in in-plane direction). However,

h
recently lower in-plane stiffness was utilised for Kf þ l sin h

l 
designing highly flexible meso-structure for applica- G12 ¼   (17)
2 h
tion undergoing high deformation like morphing air- b lh
1þ2 cos h
craft wings. Gibson et al. and Sayed et al. [27,35] l
considered cell walls as flexures fixed at one end and cos 2 h
m12 ¼   (18)
guided at other end to determine in-plane modulli. sin h hl þ l sin h
The elastic constants E1, E2, G12 and Poisson’s ratio
c12 or c21 are given as On the basis of plastic deformation characteristics

3 Sayed et al. [35] gave a theoretical approach for calcu-
E1 t cos h
¼
 lating and comparing elastic properties of unfilled
Es l h (10)
sin h þ l sin h
2 and filled honeycombs with material of low modulus.
l Load carrying capacity of filled honeycombs substan-

 tially increased with low deformation. Properties and

3 h þ l sin h deformation pattern of filled honeycomb (both
E2 t l (11)
¼ ordered fill and pattern fill) depend largely on infill
Es l cos 3 h material, geometric characteristics and configuration

 (hexagon or circular) of cell [37–40]. Prall et al. [41]

3 h
þ l sin h used same theoretical technique to establish mechan-
G12 t l
¼

l h2
(12) ical properties of Chiral honeycomb having Poisson’s
Es h
l 1þ2 cos h ratio 1. In case of Chiral honeycombs a curved liga-
l
ment was assumed instead of straight beam used in
cos 2 h normal honeycomb.
m12 ¼   (13)
sin h hl þ l sin h

Masters et al. [36] modified the model assuming

3. Numerical analysis
three different mechanisms of flexing, hinging Numerical simulations (see Table 3) in the modern
and stretching. Force constants (Kf) were calculated era have become an efficient and cost effective tech-
for each mechanism and further used for calculating nique in evaluating the performance of honeycomb

Table 3. Numerical modeling techniques.

S No. Technique Purposes References
1. Homogenized model Quasi-static analysis, Blast and High, low and [33, 42–47]
Medium velocity impacts
2. Linear Spring assumption Quasi-static analysis [48, 49]
3. Mindlin plates Low velocity impacts [50]
4. Three dimensional model with shell elements Quasi-static analysis, Blast and High, low and [34, 51–59]
Medium velocity impacts
5. Y shaped cell Quasi-static compression [60]
6. Tie-break contacts Quasi-static compression [60–62]
7. Smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) High velocity impact and Blast analysis [58, 63]
8. Multi-model arbitrary Langarangian Blast analysis [64–68]
Eulerian (MMALE) model

Figure 6. Meshed Honeycomb core.
core structure. ANSYS AUTODYN, ABAQUS, LS
DYNA and PAMCRASH have been used by research-
ers for modelling quasi-static and dynamic analysis of
honeycomb core. In the literature honeycomb core
has been modelled with the help of shell elements.
Mostly shell elements with five integration points
through the thickness and one integration point in
plane was used to simulate the behaviour of honey-
comb structure. The structure was meshed with small-
est element size possible to provide accurate
simulation results and convergence process was used
to acquire optimum mesh size element, see Figure 6.
Honeycomb was assigned non-linear material proper-
ties of same material (Aluminium, Nomex, Stainless
Steel) used for manufacturing. Mostly automatic sin-
gle surface contact was provided between cell wall of
honeycombs and automatic surface to surface contact
was provided between the plane surface (both moving
and fixed plates) and honeycomb. Automatic tiebreak
contact was used between cell walls to take account of
adhesive properties and achieve closeness to practical
conditions [25,42,48,52,60,61,69,70]. Few studies also
considered single wall at interface between two
honeycomb cells by merging the nodes. Computation
time required for merged nodes simulation was 2–3
times less than that of simulation with glued nodes
[71]. Numerical simulation with merged nodes show
only 5% variation in crushing strength as compared
to the same with glued nodes but computational time
taken for merged nodes honeycomb simulation was
found significantly low.
3.1 Quasi-static compression
Honeycomb structure shows different properties in
different directions. In out-of-plane it offered high
strength while in in-plane direction it deforms com-
paratively easily. Quasi-static compression test was
performed on honeycomb in out-of-plane direction to
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 7
analyse the deformation behaviour and parameters
affecting the performance of honeycomb core. While,
in-plane compression was mainly performed for
establishing mechanical properties (Modulus of elasti-
city, Poisson’s ration and Modulus of rigidity) in all
directions. Honeycomb core was comparatively
weaker in in-plane direction than out-of-
plane direction.
3.1.1. Out-of-plane analysis
Honeycomb core was placed between two rigid plates
of which top one was allowed to move in one direc-
tion quasi-static (1–10 mm/min) while bottom one
was fixed. The material of honeycomb core was
mostly nomex, paper and aluminium. Honeycomb
core were subjected to quasi-static compressive load
in out-of-plane direction to study the deformation
pattern, see Figure 3. It was noticed that vertical cell
walls carried maximum load so nomex honeycomb
was modelled with grid of nonlinear springs in place
of cell walls and results were validated with experi-
ments [48]. Nomex honeycomb was also modelled
with single layer orthotropic and multi-layer resin
corner approach to reduce the computational effort
considering the curvature effect to achieve closeness
to the practicality. Multi-layer resin corner approach
considered fact that resins accumulated more at cor-
ner of joint on comparison with other places. Simple
orthotropic elasto perfectly plastic material model was
found to be best suited for Nomex honeycomb mod-
els. Three different core geometries namely regular
hexagon, irregular hexagon and irregular curved hexa-
gon were numerically analysed. Regular hexagon
showed highest peak while curved irregular underper-
formed on comparison with irregular hexagonal core
[52]. Jang et al. [51] modelled honeycomb (alumin-
ium honeycomb) considering rounding off of hex-
agonal corner to achieve geometrical closeness to
honeycombs obtained from expansion process.
Obtained honeycomb cells were subjected to quasi-
static compression for getting deformation modes and
crushing stress. Crushing stress of expanded honey-
comb (rounded off corners) was 2.5% lower than the
model with idealised honeycomb shape (sharp cor-
ners). Zang et al. [60] stated that numerical results of
crushing with Y-shaped cell element provide almost
equivalent result to that of numerical analysis of full
model of honeycomb with less computational time.
Central angle had a very little (less than 10%) effect
on the strength of honeycomb due to interaction
effect between wall thickness and central angle.
Furthermore, a new numerical technique using
8 T. THOMAS AND G. TIWARI
(a) Grid reinforced Honeycomb core
Figure 7. Hybrid core structures (a) Grid reinforced Honeycomb core (b) Reinforced honeycomb.
homogenised material solid element model and semi-
adaptive numerical coupling (SAC) technique was
developed and compared with conventional micro-
mechanical model for honeycomb. Additionally,
homogenised model was used to estimate initial peak
and plateau of load compression curve. SAC tech-
nique captured exact crush behaviour of honeycomb
which homogenised model wasn’t able to show prop-
erly [42]. Reinforced honeycomb was modelled with
shell elements and thickness at connected node was
taken three times of cell wall thickness and obtained
results were used for optimising performance charac-
teristics of structure [61], see Figure 7(b).
3.1.2 In-plane analysis
Numerical modeling characteristics in in-plane direc-
tion remains almost same that of out-of-plane com-
pression model. But the position of honeycomb core
between rigid walls was different. Homogenisation
technique in conjunction with finite element tech-
nique was used for evaluating in-plane properties for
honeycomb of both hexagonal and square core. Wave
propagation characteristics of honeycomb were estab-
lished as approximate phase velocities were calculated
using this technique [43]. Biaxial in-plane analysis of
hexagonal honeycomb core was also represented using
same technique [44]. Moreover, Hueng et al. [72]
analysed novel honeycomb core of zero Poisson’s
ratio using finite element method. A thin plate was
placed on both upper and lower face of hexagonal as
well as auxetic honeycomb to enhance the in-plane
properties of honeycomb. Cell wall aspect ratio leads
to change in in-plane tensile modulus. Novel auxetic
honeycomb was modelled using ANSYS and meshed
with solid element. Poisson’s ratio of structure was
largely effected by cell wall angle as it reaches to zero
(b) Reinforced honeycomb
when cell wall angle was less 10 [73]. Rhombic
honeycomb was incorporated with auxetic honeycomb
to design a new honeycomb core configuration. At
cell wall angle 30 new honeycombs became trans-
versely isotropic. In-plane stiffness of new honeycomb
was significantly improved but reduced the auxetic
effect (negative Poisson’s ratio) [74]. Design of
Kagome honeycomb was optimised based on max-
imum stiffness and strength where relative density
and shape anisotropy-ratio were design variables [75].
Furthermore, mechanical properties of circular honey-
comb composed of bundled tube in diamond array
structure was obtained using curved beam theory and
thin ring theory and verified using finite element
method [76]. Honeycomb structure was replaced by
homogenised orthotropic solid structure and meshed
with solid elements, model was used to obtain mech-
anical properties [45]. Homogenised orthotropic solid
structure gave approximately closer value to original
numerical analysis. Li et al. [46] also used same hom-
ogenisation technique to study influence of honey-
comb thickness on mechanical properties and elastic
modulli specifically under in-plane shear loads.
Usually microscopic cell wall deformation was per-
ceived as bending of vertical wall so hyper elastic
strain energy was developed as a function of in-plane
shear deformation. While finite element simulations
were used to find effective shear stress–strain curve,
corresponding local stress values and deformation.
Re-entrant (Auxetic) honeycomb with negative
Poisson’s ratio have high shear flexible property asso-
ciated with vertical wall length [77]. In addition,
honeycomb structure was designed using an energy
efficient approach minimising hysteretic energy loss.
Auxetic honeycombs were better energy efficient
structure compared with regular honeycomb and

energy loss was dependent on honeycomb cell geo-
metrical properties [77–80]. Taylor et al. [81]
improved the elastic properties and damage tolerance
of honeycomb structure using hierarchical structures.
Functionally graded hierarchical honeycomb has bet-
ter specific elastic and energy absorbing properties.
Functionally graded unit cells enhance density specific
modulus up to 75% on comparison with conventional
honeycombs. Deformation mode of functionally
graded honeycomb was found in synchrony with con-
ventional honeycomb [82]. Homogenised solid models
were also used for honeycomb composed of laminated
cell walls to effectively establish its mechanical prop-
erties and study it stress vs strain behaviour [33].
Honeycomb sandwich beam with and without grid
were subjected to in-plane load and obtained that
honeycomb sandwich with grid performed better than
normal honeycomb sandwich, see Figure 7(a). Bottom
face of core was fixed and upper face was loaded with
multi-point constraint [83].
3.1.3. Bending and fracture analysis
Honeycomb sandwich core was designed with a
honeycomb core accompanying front and back face-
sheets. Honeycomb core was modeled with B-T shell
elements while front and back facesheets were mod-
eled using either solid or shell elements. Automatic
surface to surface contact was provided between them
with assumption of negligible effect of adhesive.
Honeycomb sandwich beam was placed over two roll-
ers (solid cylindrical models with fixed boundary con-
ditions) designed according to position of supports
and another cylindrical or rectangular section was
pressing honeycomb beam at desired position from
the top end. Different modes of deformation similar
to experimentation modes were observed for different
loading locations [38,84,85]. Alonso et al. [62] devel-
oped a finite element model of a plate with edge
crack and embedded crack to determine modes of
fracture of plate. Square mesh of diamond celled lat-
tice was modeled with Euler-Bernoulli beam element.
Loading was applied by displacement functions and
further stress intensity factor was calculated using
maximum principle tensile stress obtained from finite
element model.
3.2. Dynamic analysis
In real world honeycomb core was mostly subjected
to dynamic loads so inorder to achieve closeness to
practicality honeycombs were subjected to dynamic
conditions by different researchers. Dynamic study
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 9
was divided into three broad categories based on
impact velocity as low-velocity impact, medium vel-
ocity impact and high-velocity impact. It was
observed that numerical analysis of all three categories
was performed differently therefore it requires rigor-
ous classification and proper attention.
3.2.1. Low-velocity impact
Numerical analysis of low-velocity impact was pre-
scribed mostly with the aid of rigid walls. Honeycomb
core was placed in between one stationary and other
moving rigid wall at definite velocity. Material models
and elements selected were almost similar to that of
quasi-static study. It was observed that compressive
strength of honeycomb increases with increase in
impactor velocity. Deformation pattern doesn’t have
much effect of increase in velocity and mass of
impactor. Castanie et al. [49] used homogenization
technique to simplify the dynamic impact simulation.
Spring mass elements were used extensively for mod-
eling of aluminium honeycomb core under impact
while Castanie et al. [50] used spring elements for
modeling nomex honeycomb core but it was not pro-
viding accurate results therefore mindlin plates were
used instead of spring elements for modeling nomex
honeycombs. Moreover, Guj et al. [47] utilized
asymptotic technique for attaining orthotropic prop-
erties of honeycomb core and obtained properties
were used for modeling a solid structure to analyze
impact behavior. Meo et al. [86] predicted damage
mechanisms (delamination and core rupture due to
shear and compression) of honeycomb core under
impact loads using simulation in commercial software
LS-DYNA. Numerical simulations were further scruti-
nized to investigate contact forces between layers of
honeycomb. Foo et al. [87] investigated different
material models and elastic-plastic bilinear model was
found to yield closest result to practicality.
Low-velocity in-plane impact was also performed
for different configurations of honeycomb core by
various researchers. The deformation pattern for in-
plane impact seems to be effected by an increase in
velocity. With the increase in velocity collapse of cell
initiates from top further exceeding to centre of
honeycomb core followed by densification of core.
Deformation occurs with cells collapsing in symmetric
mode and percentage of cells following symmetric
crush pattern increases with impact speed [88]. Crush
band initiation was initiated due to elastic wave
propagation while stress enhancement occurs because
of micro inertia [89]. Triangular and quadric core
were also modeled in which plastic collapse also
10 T. THOMAS AND G. TIWARI
initiates from top cell edge and exhibits likewise
deformation pattern as that of hexagonal core.
Triangular core was found to have more plateau stress
and energy absorption [34]. Similarly, functionally
graded honeycomb obtained by varying packing space
(by increasing thickness in linear order) has identical
deformation pattern as that of conventional honey-
comb [90].
3.2.2. Medium velocity impact
Medium velocity impacts of honeycomb were numer-
ically modeled by different researchers. In most of the
cases, honeycomb model was held between one rigid
stationary and other moving wall with velocity of
20–80 m/s. Tao et al. [56] numerically established
that energy absorption and plateau stress increases
with enhancement in velocity of moving wall.
Although strain rate had more influence than inertia
in enhancement of energy absorption and plateau
stress. Meng et al. [91,92] obtained crashworthiness
properties like specific energy absorption and peak
stress of square cell honeycomb core using finite
element model and further optimized the core geo-
metrical parameters with an objective to maximize
energy absorption. Increase in cell length of 2 mm
decreases mean energy absorption from 33 to 24%.
Numerical analysis of in-plane medium velocity
impact was also performed to understand modes of
deformation of core structures and failure mecha-
nisms. Nakamoto et al. [39,40] analysed randomly
and ordered filled circular honeycomb to acquire
deformation modes in in-plane dynamic loads. X and
V modes of deformation pattern were visible on both
filled cores while similar modes of deformation were
present in conventional circular honeycomb [93].
Inclined cell wall thickness and cell angle were major
geometric parameters in defining energy absorption
of hexagonal honeycomb core in in-plane loading.
Inclined cell-wall thickness was directly related to
energy absorption while increase in cell wall angle
reduces energy absorption [94].
Moreover, honeycomb sandwich core were also
investigated for impact penetration of different shaped
projectiles with medium velocity. Honeycomb sand-
wich core were subjected to blunt and spherical pro-
jectiles and perforation of top and bottom facesheet
were investigated [57]. Ramberg and Osgood material
was better than elasto-plastic and bilinear material for
medium velocity projectile impact [95]. But medium
velocity impact was not enough to properly come to
the conclusion regarding performance of honeycomb
sandwich panel in front of projectile impacts therefore
projectile impacts were mostly performed at
high-velocity.
3.2.3 High-velocity impact
High-velocity impact was mostly investigated in
honeycomb sandwich panel concentrated to projectile
impact. Numerical model of honeycomb core penetra-
tion was considerably different to that of quasi-static
deformation and low-velocity rigid wall impact.
Generally, a symmetric square sandwich panel (only
one quarter plate) was modeled in order to save com-
putational time. Meshing plays a significant role in
attaining proper deformation, failure modes and exact
ballistic limits. Mesh region of honeycomb core was
divided into two or three regions—inner region where
impact of projectile occurs was meshed with fine ele-
ments while outer region was meshed coarsely to
optimize the number of elements. Projectiles were
considered as a rigid body and Johnson cook material
model along with its equation of state was provided
to honeycomb panels. Initial velocity was given to
projectile towards direction of honeycomb core and a
specific location was maintained for projectile above
honeycomb sandwich panel [58,63,70,96–98]. Nitta
et al. [58] scrutinized normal impacts of spherical
projectile on aluminium honeycomb sandwich panel
with velocity ranging from 2 to 15 km/s. Increase in
impact velocity progressively reduces ballistic limit of
aluminium honeycomb. Hole of rear facesheet was
more than diameter of projectile and hole of rear
facesheet was also larger than front facesheet.
Diameter of rear facesheet hole increases with
increase in mass of projectile and impact velocity
while node length (thickness of honeycomb core) also
influences the shape of hole on core [59]. Further,
double honeycomb layered sandwich has better
energy absorption capability than single layered
honeycomb and staggered double layer honeycomb
core has even better impact resistance than double
layered honeycomb [96]. Kang et al. [63] suggested
mesh free method using smooth particles hydro-
dynamics for analyzing hyper velocity impact of
spherical projectile on honeycomb sandwich panel. It
can be developed as a very efficient modeling tech-
nique as it provides a greater visibility of particles but
high computational time and cost required.
3.2.4. Blast loading
High pressure impulsive loading was confronted to
honeycomb sandwich core to contemplate its per-
formance under such conditions. Numerical modeling
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 11

(a)

Honeycomb

Spherical air blast

(b)
Top Face sheet Edges of both sides
fixed or symmetric

Honeycomb core

Bottom Face sheet

Figure 8 a) Schematic of Blast against honeycomb core, b) Boundary conditions for blast analysis.

of honeycomb core was done either in symmetrical Table 4. Different honeycomb cores.
boundary condition or full model based upon mesh S No. Core Shape References
elements and computational time, see Figure 8. 1. Hexagonal [16, 18, 19, 21, 29, 42, 48, 51, 71, 77, 78, 103–107]
Numerical modeling of blast waves can be generated 2. Circular [39, 40, 76, 108, 109]
3. Square [85, 91, 92, 110]
as pressure waves based on CONWEP equation. 4. Triangular [96]
Another way was to create a cylindrical or spherical 5. Kagome [53, 72, 80, 82, 102]
(Auxetic)
solid meshed part and imparting blast properties to 6. Reinforced [61, 111]
part like mass of blast particle, detonation velocity,
detonation time and equation of state and represent blast loads and observations similar to double layered
blast wave using multi-model arbitrary Langarangian honeycomb were noted [101]. Deformation of honey-
Eulerian (MMALE) model [64–68]. Smooth particle comb sandwich panel depends on impulse loading to
hydrodynamics was another method used for simulat- a large extent. High deformation occurs due to local-
ing blast wave particles impact. Karagiozova et al. ized impulse while lesser deformation happens as a
modeled honeycomb as a solid plate with equivalent consequence of global impulse. Special structures like
honeycomb properties directed to blast waves gener- Auxetic honeycomb were also subjected to blast loads.
ated as a consequence of explosion of PE4 explosive. Auxetic panels on combination with steel plates
Core thickness and intensity of blast loads directly (hybrid structure) perform much better than combin-
effects the deflection of back plate [99]. Moreover, ation of steel plate with conventional honeycomb,
Zhu et al. [100] perceived deformation pattern of face such auxetic structure were used for the application
sheet and core by modeling one-quarter arrangement of protective building [53]. Moreover, graded auxetic
of honeycomb sandwich panel. Asymmetric square honeycombs has better blast resistance than auxetic
honeycomb sandwich plate was also modeled using honeycomb while cross arranged graded auxetic core
same technique but instead of quarter plate full sand- has even better blast resistance [102].
wich model was prepared. Deformation pattern was
of asymmetric sandwich panel was different from
symmetric panel as local deformation was more evi-
4. Experimental analysis
dent in asymmetric panel [55]. Layered graded panels Honeycomb core (see Table 4) practically was used in
has better blast resistance than ungraded panels and different applications, so it was subjected various con-
graded panels with decreasing relative density core ditions. In order to experimentally investigate the per-
offers better resistance than ungraded panels as it has formance of honeycomb under different loading
better core plastic energy dissipation [54]. Triple lay- conditions distinct machines and arrangements were
ered graded honeycomb panel was also subjected to developed by researchers. Compression testing
12 T. THOMAS AND G. TIWARI

Table 5. Damage and deformation mechanisms.

Loading condition
Out-of-plane quasi-static
In-plane quasi-static
Out-of-plane quasi-static
Low velocity in-plane
Bending of beam
High velocity projectile impact
High velocity projectile impact
Blast loading
Material
Aluminium honeycomb core
Aluminium honeycomb core
Composite honeycomb core
Aluminium honeycomb core
Aluminium honeycomb core
Al honeycomb core & Al facesheet
Al honeycomb core & compos-
ite facesheet
Al honeycomb core & Al facesheet
Deformation or damage References
Progressive folding and densification [51, 60, 61, 69, 115–117]
Progressive folding and densification [89, 93, 106, 109, 118, 119]
(initiation from bottom cell)
Fiber breakage, axial splitting [13, 120, 121]
Progressive folding and densification [122]
(initiation from top cell)
Mode I, II, Face wrinkling, Core shear [104, 123]
Plugging, core shear, perforation [57, 97]
Plugging, core shear, perforation, [104, 123]
Fiber breakage and tear
Local deformation, deflection of sand- [66–68, 124]
wich, core crushing

machine was used for quasi-static analysis while Drop 8

hammer impact testing machine was used for low and Linear Region Densification
7
medium velocity impacts. Moreover, Pressure gun
was used extensively for high velocity impacts and 6

four cable pendulum system for blast analysis. Such 5

Force (kN)
conditions were discussed in detail in follow- Plateau Region
4
ing section.
3

4.1. Quasi-static compression 2

A quasi-static test was performed on compression
testing machine accompanying computer control and
data acquisition system. During testing, honeycomb
specimen was placed in between two platens attached
to machine where bottom platen was fixed and top
platen displaced towards bottom platen using pneu-
matic or hydraulic power. The velocity of the top
platen was kept infinitely small [112–114].
4.1.1. Out-of-plane compression
It was observed that experiments were performed on
honeycombs made of various materials like alumin-
ium, Nomex, paper, composites (carbon fibre) and
natural fibre. Paper honeycomb was used for demon-
stration of proper modes of deformation (see Table 5)
as it was compressed under transparent glass walls
[48]. Force-displacement curve was considered as the
major plots to determine the performance of structure
under the action of compressive or tensile load.
Force-displacement curve was divided into three
regions: (1) Linear region, where force increases lin-
early with displacement, (2) plateau region where
force was almost constant with change in displace-
ment (stress was almost constant with change in
strain); and (3) densification region, where honey-
comb is densified and force increases rapidly with
increase in displacement [51,60,61,69,115], see Figure
9. In out-of-plane compression honeycomb deformed
progressively fold by fold in a regular manner.
Mechanism of deformation was initiated with a single
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm)
Figure 9. Force versus displacement curve for honeycomb.
fold which appeared as local buckling in single free
face of honeycomb, see Figure 10. This occurred due
to formation of plastic hinges and leads to local rota-
tion of free faces. On further increase of load, folding
also increased gradually leading to flattening of fold
and beginning of second fold. This process was con-
tinued further and progressive fold formation hap-
pened till densification region. It was found that de-
bonding failure and localised tear along the vertical
edge also happened during deform-
ation [61,69,115–117].
It was observed that honeycomb made from com-
posite materials has good performance under quasi-
static loads. Although fabrication of composite honey-
combs was costly as well as tedious process but due
to its high crushing strength a lot of studies has been
done to evaluate performance of composite honey-
comb core. Jordan [13] fabricated carbon fibre rein-
forced honeycomb using hot embossing technique.
Polycarbonate sheets were pressed between trapez-
oidal dies under controlled temperature to obtain cor-
rugated combined to hexagonal shape core. Carbon
fibre laminates with different orientation were
adhered to hexagonal piles to fabricate composite
honeycomb. Strength and stiffness of composite
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 13

SINGLE FOLD

MULTIPLE PROGRESSIVE FOLDS

DENSIFICATION
Figure 10. Modes of deformation of honeycomb in out of plane direction.

honeycomb increase significantly with addition of
small percentage of fibres. Square composite (carbon
fibre with epoxy prepeg) honeycomb was coated with
highly oriented graphite film to enhance out-of-plane
mechanical properties [125] while Stocchi et al. [120]
fabricated a composite honeycomb with jute fabric
(natural fibre) using compression moulding (hex-
agonal mould and fixed insert). Jute fabric composite
depicted continuous deformation pattern with failure
mechanisms like yarn pull out failure, axial splitting
of fibres and matrix plastic deformation. Jute vinyl-
ester cores have high compression strength than com-
mercially available aluminium and Nomex
honeycomb. Nature of curve like force-displacement
diagram or stress–strain diagram was same as that of
conventional honeycombs [120,126].
4.1.2 In-plane compression
Force versus displacement curve of the in-plane direc-
tion loading also has the same nature as that of the
curve in out-of-plane direction. Initially stress was
approximately linear with positive slope on increase
of strain. The only difference was that the mean load
and maximum load of honeycomb in in-plane direc-
tion was drastically less as compared to that of in-
plane direction. In this, honeycomb deformation
remains symmetric of all cells about loading axis and
remains similar from ends, see Figure 11(a). Then the
response progressively became nonlinear due to
decrease in stiffness of honeycomb and reaches max-
imum load beyond which stress decreases with further
deformation. At this position, deformation starts to
localise at the centre of honeycomb specimen.
Deformation of some cells at centre starts to be
unsymmetrical while rest of cells still remains sym-
metrical. With gradual reduction in stress more cells
becomes affected by deformation and centre row col-
lapses totally by shear mode of failure, see Figure
11(b). Slowly collapse rows increases in number and
rows start overlapping over each other which increase
load. This phenomenon is continued until collapse
reaches outer rows which deform in continuous sym-
metric manner and almost all cells come into contact
leading into phenomena of densification and conse-
quently increase in load, see Figure 11(c). Collapse of
honeycomb in in-plane direction was initiated with
14 T. THOMAS AND G. TIWARI
Figure 11. Modes of deformation of honeycomb in in-plane direction.
stable response symmetric mode. Further leading to
unsymmetrical mode followed by shear type of col-
lapse. Further deformation leads to densification as
cells comes in contact with each other, see Figure
11(d). Experiments were performed with different
materials like aluminium, polycarbonate and also with
both hexagonal and circular configuration. It was
observed that deformation modes and force versus
displacement curve pattern remains same irrespective
of changes in material and configuration of core
[89,93,106,109,118,119]. Experiments were also per-
formed on paper honeycomb with wood composite
skins for obtaining the mechanical properties of speci-
men and found that core density doesn’t affect modu-
lus of elasticity and shear modulus [127]. Moreover,
Zhou et al. [128] performed experimental analysis of
auxetic and square honeycomb and deformation
mode was observed to be similar to regular honey-
comb. Re-entrant topology benefits energy absorption
characteristics with decrease in initial peak and
increase in mean crushing force.
4.1.3 Bending and fracture analysis
Honeycomb core was mostly used as honeycomb core
sandwich beam subjected to loads along the length of
beam constituting major failure to be bending.
Bending tests were performed on honeycomb sand-
wich beam by fixing the beam at ends and applying
load at different span distances, see Figure 12. It was
found that collapse modes depend on span length of
the specimen. When loads were placed at distance
equal to half or more than half Mode I failure (the
rotation of the two halves of the sample around the
mid-plane and by the formation of a plastic hinge
also in the tensioned face) occurs and when length
was less than half then mode II failure (core shear
failure mode similar to asymmetric failure mode)
occurs, see Figure 13. Maximum peak force was evi-
dent in minimum span length of honeycomb beam
[84]. Honeycomb sandwich beams made of carbon
fibre and innovative shape of cores like pyramidal
and egg shaped core were subjected to three point
bending test. It was observed that egg shaped core
performed better than pyramidal cores [129].
Honeycombs sandwich panel made from carbon fibre
with square shaped core were fabricated using an
innovative new technique and was subjected to bend-
ing test. Collapse of structure was characterised into
four major collapse mechanisms namely face micro
buckling, core shear, core indentation and face wrin-
kling [85]. Core shear happened due to excessive

Figure 12. Three point bending of honeycomb sand-
wich beam.
shear forces acting on structure. Face buckling and
Face wrinkling occurred due to tension and compres-
sion acting on lower and upper face sheet respect-
ively. Core indentation also occurred when excessive
load was applied on specific point while bending.
Wang et al. [130] carried out a very interesting
study in which the sandwich beam was subjected to
combined loading conditions. Honeycomb sandwich
beam was subjected to bending and torsion to find
out the parameters affecting the performance of
sandwich structure. It was observed that configura-
tions of cell-wall play a significant role in the per-
formance of honeycombs. Chen [105] investigated
flexural rigidity of hexagonal honeycomb sandwich
beam subjected to bending loads. Theoretical tech-
nique was developed based on assumption that
inclined wall was twisted when rotation angle was
zero between both connection edges. Galerkin
method was used to find displacement and stresses
of rectangular beam filled with honeycomb under
bending [131,132]. Ural et al. [133] demonstrated
the fracture mechanics approach of failure of honey-
comb structure using honeycomb sandwich panels
with artificially embedded pre cracks in core.
Tension test and cantilever beam test were per-
formed to test the strength of the bond between face
sheet and core and fracture toughness of bond line
respectively. Although the initial crack was in the
core, the crack propagation always occurred in the
facesheet/core interface. Energy release rate was
dependent on applied load and crack length. A new
fracture mode IKP (initiation of interlaminar delam-
ination, kinking into facesheet and propagation of
interlaminar delamination) was obtained [134].
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 15
Energy release rate in DCB specimen for honey-
comb structure,
 
P 2 a2 1 1
G¼ þ (19)
2b Ef If Ec Ic
The relation for fracture toughness of regular
honeycomb and auxetic honeycomb was same, the
only difference would be in the included angle of
both honeycombs. Fracture toughness was in propor-
tion with cell wall thickness and inverse proportion
with cell length, cell height and cell angle [107,135].
Embedded crack in a diamond celled honeycomb was
studied to investigate the damage tolerance of struc-
ture. Fracture strength of such honeycomb was
dependent on relative density, crack size and geomet-
ric dimensions [62]. Fatigue life of honeycomb sam-
ples was affected by artificial cracks and failure starts
from crack propagating through the core [136].
4.2. Dynamic impact tests
Dynamic impact test was done on drop hammer
impact test machine attached with computer data
acquisition system for low-velocity and medium-vel-
ocity impacts while pneumatic pressure gas gun
accompanied with differently shaped projectiles
(namely blunt, ogive, spherical and conical) and dif-
ferent velocity measurement set up were used for
medium and high impact tests. In addition, blast tests
were performed with four cable ballistic pendulum
system attached with data acquisition system. In this
set up explosive material (TNT) detonated at the face
of pendulum which in turn exerts impulse on front
face of honeycomb sandwich panel.
4.2.1. Low-velocity impact
Honeycomb core was positioned between a fixed jaw
(rigid body) and a movable jaw in drop hammer test-
ing machine. Deformation behavior of low-velocity
impact on both aluminium and nomex honeycomb
core was equivalent to that of quasi-static condition.
Although impacts occurring in some local positions
generated local deformation but it doesn’t affect glo-
bal deformation behaviour which remained same as
that of the quasi-static condition. Deformation behav-
ior generally initiates with single fold formation fol-
lowed by multiple progressive folding and
consequently densification. Nature of force versus dis-
placement graph also remained same as it was divided
into three regions elastic or linear region, stable plas-
tic region and densification region [17,50,137]. It was
16 T. THOMAS AND G. TIWARI
MODE I
Figure 13. Modes of deformation in bending loads.
observed that damage modes changes with a change
in location of impact and inclined honeycomb cell
increased the energy absorption capability. 45
inclined cell was defined to best as it shows 25%
improvement in energy absorption [138]. A higher
peak stress was obtained in dynamic analysis on com-
parison with peak stress value of quasi-static loading.
This happened due to inertia effects and material
property changes due to strain rate. Mean plateau
stress enhanced by 43.8% or 30% with increase in
strain rate [19]. Plateau stress and energy absorption
were greatly influenced by the increase in velocity
[56,139]. Continuous fibre and short fibre (natural
fibre) composites were used for fabricating honey-
comb core and continuous fibre reinforced composite
honeycomb outperforms short fibre reinforced com-
posite honeycomb [140]. Delamination and cata-
strophic fibre breakage were major failure
mechanisms of Glass fibre reinforced facesheets alu-
minium honeycomb [141]. Yong et al. [122] analysed
polyurethane filled honeycomb subjected to low-vel-
ocity impact loads. Increase in core thickness reduces
energy absorption capacity of core. Low-velocity
impact tests were also carried out in in-plane direc-
tion to evaluate deformation modes and mechanical
properties. It was observed that in this direction also
deformation modes remain unaffected.
4.4.2. Medium velocity impact
Researchers emphasized on two different variants of
medium velocity impacts namely rigid wall (flat plate
impacts) and projectile impacts. Drop hammer testing
machine was mostly used for both the purposes when
fitted with interchangeable head while sometimes
pressure gun was also employed for medium velocity
impacts. Square celled stainless steel honeycomb was
subjected to dynamic impact to investigate the
MODE II
material rate sensitivity effect. It was evident that
stress on front facesheet increased while back face-
sheet stress remained unaffected with increase in vel-
ocity [110]. Furthermore, honeycomb was investigated
against bi-axial loads and in this case also honey-
combs were observed that strain localization effects
tends to happen [108]. Parameters like cell wall thick-
ness and thickness (node length) greatly influence
cushioning capacity of honeycomb while relative
density enhancement leads to improvement in energy
absorption [142].
Fatt et al. studied the impact of blunt and spherical
projectile on aluminium honeycomb sandwich panel.
Major damage mode was perforation of sandwich
panel which was divided into three regions namely
perforation of top facesheet, perforation of core and
perforation of bottom sheet. 63–85% and 55% of ini-
tial kinetic energy were dissipated during perforation
of bottom facesheet by spherical and blunt projectile
respectively [57]. Further, aluminium honeycomb
sandwich panel with dry fabric (aramid fibre) face-
sheet has better ballistic resistance in comparison with
aluminium honeycomb sandwich panel with alumin-
ium facesheets [123]. Honeycomb sandwich panels
outperform air sandwich panels and monolithic plates
in medium impulse ranges [15].
4.4.3. High-velocity impact
High-velocity impact leading ballistic penetration of
honeycomb sandwich panel was performed on pres-
sure gun consisting of a compressor, pressure cham-
ber, actuator valve, a smooth barrel and projectile
catcher, see Figure 14. Aluminium honeycomb sand-
wich panel when subjected to high-velocity impact of
projectiles undergo perforation of top and bottom
facesheet and core [143]. Major failure occurs due to
compression and shear failure. Plug formation occurs

Pressurized chamber
Actuator valve
Reciprocating compressor
Figure 14. Schematic of Ballistic pressure gun set up.
in case of spherical and blunt projectiles. Sibeaud
et al. [97,98] studied normal and oblique impact on
aluminium honeycomb and found that outlet diame-
ters were about 10 times of projectile diameter in
front facesheet while ballistic limit reduces progres-
sively as impact velocity increases [58]. Moreover, Xie
et al. [121] made impact to aluminium honeycomb
sandwich panels at elevated temperature to design
high performance thermal shields. Failure mechanism
was perforation of core and front sheet with shaped
plug formation and compression and shear failure.
Uth et al. [144] compared honeycomb sandwich and
monolithic plates of same areal mass subjected to
impact of water and dry sand slugs. Water sand slug
cause more deflection than that of impact of dry sand
slug. It was addressed that skins (facesheets) were
more effective than honeycomb sandwich core for
absorbing energy. Skin damage due to fibre breakage
in case of composite facesheets while core was mainly
effected by plastic deformation and shear failure
[104]. The thickness of facesheet was most important
factor in energy absorption of honeycomb sandwich
panel while core geometric parameters limitedly effect
energy absorption [145]. Whereas, An et al. [146]
inserted ceramic rods into honeycomb core and eval-
uated its performance characteristics against impact of
long conical tungsten rod.
4.4.4. Blast loading
Blast loading was duplicated in the laboratory by four
cable ballistic pendulum system. Explosive (TNT) was
blasted in front of face of pendulum leading it to
translate. Impulse was calculated based on pendulum
oscillations. A laser displacement transducer was
employed for measuring pendulum oscillations while
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 17
Projectile catcher
Barrel
Mounting Plate
Velocity measurement
system
a sensor (Polyvinylidene Flouride PVDF) was used
for exploring pressure-time history. Front facesheet
exhibits large global deformation or local deformation
depending on intensity of impulse of blast and local
tearing can also occur. The core was basically divided
into three regions namely fully folded region (central
portion of large deformation), partially folded region
(same folding pattern with less effect) and folding
absent region (no deformation) [68,124]. Nurick et al.
[66] provided uniform loading on sandwich panels
and observed partial tearing of boundary and tensile
tearing around full boundary as a part of failure while
composite facesheets exhibits more of shearing and
debonding failures [65]. Honeycomb sandwich panels
have greater resistance to blast loads in comparison
with alporas foam sandwich panels [111]. Wang et al.
[67] done analysis of asymmetric honeycomb sand-
wich plate subjected to blast loads and perceived that
asymmetric honeycomb plates outperform symmetric
honeycomb plates. Front facesheet erodes for small
distance explosion. A honeycomb sandwich panel has
high blast resistance than monolithic plates. Backsheet
deflection for honeycomb panels was much lesser
than monolithic plates. Denser cores tend to perform
better on subjected to underwater impulsive loading
of same intensity [64,147].
5. Discussion
Performance of honeycomb under all loading condi-
tions was affected by various parameters. Knowledge
of all such parameters is very useful for improving
the performance of honeycomb structure. Relative
density was one of the major parameters affecting the
performance of cellular solid structure like honey-
comb. Relative density was defined as the ratio of
18 T. THOMAS AND G. TIWARI
density of honeycomb to the density of base material.
Relative density was similar to volume fraction of sol-
ids. Increase in relative density increases the strength
of honeycomb [70]. Relative density was a function of
cell wall thickness and cell size, see Figure 15.
Hexagonal honeycomb has 73% less relative density
than square honeycomb and 50% less than kagome
cores, see Table 6.
The honeycomb with shorter height and smaller
size performs better in terms of energy absorption
capacity than the honeycomb with larger cell size
with more height. Moreover its performance
increases significantly with strength of material [24].
Further its strength can be increased by using multi-
layered panel. It was observed that Pyramidal honey-
comb panels perform much better than uniform type
multi layered honeycomb panels. Optimum surface
area for second panel of two built up panels was
60–70% of area of base panel as energy absorbed
increase to 18.5 from 16 KJ/Kg area of second panel
was same that of base panel [131,148,149]. Strain
rate has a significant effect on performance of
honeycomb core. Aluminium and stainless steel thick
cell wall (1.9 mm) honeycombs having sine wave
shaped core configuration were tested under differ-
ent conditions and found to show significant effect
against the strain rate. Dynamic plateau stress was
approximately 50% above quasi-static plateau stress
[103]. Strain rate and Nominal density of honey-
comb also has a significant effect on tearing energy
of structure. Tearing energy is difference between
Table 6. Relative density and Yield Stress of different
core shapes.
S. No. Core shape Relative density In-plane yield stress
p2ffiffi t
1. Hexagonal 3t l
0:22ðtlÞ3 ry
2. Square 2p l ffiffiffi 0:824ðtlÞ3 ry
3. Triangle 2 ffiffiffi3 tl
p 3:794ðtlÞ3 ry
4. Kagome (Auxetic) 3 tl 1:904ðtlÞ3 ry
5. Diamond p5ffiffi t
3 l 1:898ðtlÞ3 ry
Figure 15. Variation of relative density with (a) cell wall thickness and (b) cell size.
energy dissipation in indentation and compression.
Tearing energy increased about 17% with increase in
strain rate and tearing energy was dependent on cell
wall thickness [16]. Paper honeycomb were found to
change significantly its load carrying behaviour
under different moisture content conditions. There
is no significant change in energy absorption curve
for 30% RH to 75% RH, but above 75% RH energy
absorption decreased with increase in relative
humidity [150]. Moisture content increase on nomex
honeycomb with VK-67 adhesive had an appreciable
effect on mode of failure and tensile strength. On
increase of humidity from 0 to 6% honeycomb
started failure of bonding adhesive used in honey-
comb and an increase of test temperature to 80  C
from 20  C adhesive failed drastically leading to
decrease in tensile strength from 3.7 to 1.5 MPa
[151]. Cell size plays vital role in improving the per-
formance of structure. Strength and mean crushing
load of honeycomb was found inversely proportional
to cell size. Cell walls were inclined at different
angles and established that inclination of honeycomb
cells also plays a vital role in strength of honeycomb.
It was found that mean plateau stress of such honey-
combs were dependent on both out-of-plane and in-
plane crush strength [117,152]. Cell wall thickness of
honeycomb core directly effects the performance of
structure but with increase in cell wall thickness
force versus displacement curve becomes very dis-
continuous as well as weight of structure also
increases, so an optimised cell wall thickness has to
be used. Increase in node length or core height
reduces strength of honeycomb as buckling takes
place instead of progressive fold deformation.
Likewise increase in node length reduces the ballistic
limit and blast resistance of honeycomb sandwich
panel. Cell configuration (shape of core), see Figure
16 also decides the strength and performance of
honeycomb. Circular honeycomb core has maximum

Auxetic
Square
Figure 16. Types of honeycomb structural cores.
Figure 17. Cost of Fabrication vs Performance curve for differ-
ent honeycomb materials.
strength but occupies a lot of space in comparing
with other shapes due to presence of voids between
cells. Square and triangular core shape has compact
fully fit structure but load carrying capacity and
strength was less. Hexagonal honeycomb core shape
has compact structure with high strength and load
carrying capacity along with minimum material and
space requirement. Hexagonal core has more ballistic
and blast resistance than any other conventional
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 19
Hexagonal circular
Triangle Chiral
cores. Honeycomb core was manufactured using dif-
ferent materials like Nomex, Paper, Aluminium,
Stainless Steel, Carbon fibre and Jute fibre etc. It was
found that Composite honeycomb performs much
better than metallic honeycombs under both quasi-
static and dynamic conditions however cost of com-
posite honeycomb was higher than metallic honey-
combs, see Figure 17. Aluminium honeycomb were
widely used due to its low cost as well as high
strength while composite honeycombs were used
where strength requirement was very high like aero-
space applications. Deformation behavior of honey-
comb core under dynamic impacts remains similar
to that of quasi-static analysis but mean stress and
peak stress values were different. So, quasi-static
compression plays a significant role in simplification
of tedious and complex dynamic analysis of honey-
comb core. Penetration of honeycomb occurs under
impact with medium and high velocity projectiles.
Shape of projectile directly effects damage (failure)
modes of honeycomb core. Mostly honeycomb sand-
wich panel was subjected to blunt and spherical pro-
jectiles; therefore plugging failure was most
dominant failure mechanism. Blast resistance of
honeycomb core was judged on basis of back face-
sheet deformation. A localised deformation initiated
at the point of contact of blast wave and then global
20 T. THOMAS AND G. TIWARI
deformation was observed. Facesheet thickness and
material affects both ballistic and blast response of
the structure.
6. Conclusion
Honeycomb core was used prominently as an energy
absorbing light weight structure due to its capability to
deform drastically in progressive fold manner and high
load carrying ability. Honeycomb core performance on
subject to static loads on different direction (out-of-
plane, in-plane and bending) was dependant on geo-
metrical parameters like cell size, node length, cell wall
thickness and cell configuration. Relative density was
one of the most influential parameters in deciding the
performance of honeycomb core under both quasi-
static and dynamic loading. Moreover, performance
honeycomb sandwich panel under impact and impulse
loads was largely influenced by material and thickness
of facesheet. Geometrical parameters like core thick-
ness, plugging failure occurred mostly in sandwich
panel impacted by spherical, blunt and cylindrical pro-
jectiles. Local deformation occurs mostly under impulse
loading while particles may erode only in case of very
close impacts. Honeycomb cell configuration (hexagon,
kagome, triangle, square and circular) was decided on
the basis of maximum strength and minimum material
criteria. Hexagonal honeycomb was best suited with
optimum strength and minimal material. But different
innovative core structures can be used to challenge the
supremacy of hexagonal honeycomb. In future such
innovative core structures can replace hexagonal core
and find applications in different sectors of mobile
vehicles industry. Hybrid structures like Reinforced
honeycomb, Chiral honeycomb, Multi layered pyram-
idal (tandem) honeycomb was found to be very effect-
ive for crashworthiness in literature and in depth
investigations are required to explore the behaviour of
these structure in terms of their mechanics of failure,
peak and mean crushing load, energy absorption etc. So
a greater emphasis has to be given on such structures to
improve the crashworthiness of core structure.
ORCID
Tiju Thomas http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0469-4567
Gaurav Tiwari http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5076-5165
References
1. Gaitanaros S, Kyriakides S. On the effect of relative
density on the crushing and energy absorption of
open-cell foams under impact. Int J Impact Eng.
2015;82:3–13.
2. Gupta N, Sekhon G, Gupta P. A study of lateral col-
lapse of square and rectangular metallic tubes. Thin-
Walled Struct. 2001;39:745–772.
3. Mozafari H, Khatami S, Molatefi H, et al. Finite
element analysis of foam-filled honeycomb struc-
tures under impact loading and crashworthiness
design. Int J Crashworthiness. 2016;21:148–160.
4. Rajaneesh A, Sridhar I, Rajendran S. Relative per-
formance of metal and polymeric foam sandwich
plates under low velocity impact. Int J Impact Eng.
2014;65:126–136.
5. Siromani D, Awerbuch J, Tan T-M. Finite element
modeling of the crushing behavior of thin-walled
CFRP tubes under axial compression. Compos Part
B Eng. 2014;64:50–58.
6. Velea MN, Lache S. Numerical simulations of the
mechanical behavior of various periodic cellular
cores for sandwich panels. Procedia Eng.
2011;10:287–292.
7. Wadley HNG, Dharmasena KP, O’Masta MR, et al.
Impact response of aluminum corrugated core sand-
wich panels. Int J Impact Eng. 2013;62:114–128.
8. Crupi V, Epasto G, Guglielmino E. Comparison of
aluminium sandwiches for lightweight ship struc-
tures: honeycomb vs. foam. Mar Struct.
2013;30:74–96.
9. Zhang Z, Liu S, Tang Z. Comparisons of honeycomb
sandwich and foam-filled cylindrical columns under
axial crushing loads. Thin-Walled Struct.
2011;49:1071–1079.
10. Galehdari S, Khodarahmi H. Design and analysis of
a graded honeycomb shock absorber for a helicopter
seat during a crash condition. Int J Crashworthiness.
2016;21:231–241.
11. Li M, Deng Z, Liu R, et al. Crashworthiness design
optimisation of metal honeycomb energy absorber
used in lunar lander. Int J Crashworthiness.
2011;16:411–419.
12. Kindinger J. Lightweight structural cores. ASM
Handb. 2001;21:180–183.
13. Jordan W. Using embossing to create a fiber rein-
forced honeycomb composite. J Eng Mater Technol.
2005;127:257–262.
14. C^ote F, Russell BP, Deshpande VS, et al. The
through-thickness compressive strength of a com-
posite sandwich panel with a hierarchical square
honeycomb sandwich core. J Appl Mech.
2009;76:061004.
15. Yahaya MA, Ruan D, Lu G, et al. Response of alu-
minium honeycomb sandwich panels subjected to
foam projectile impact–An experimental study. Int J
Impact Eng. 2015;75:100–109.
16. Ashab ASM, Ruan D, Lu G, et al. Quasi-static and
dynamic experiments of aluminum honeycombs
under combined compression-shear loading. Mater
Des. 2016;97:183–194.
17. Liu R, Luo C, Deng Z et al. Experimental and
numerical studies on aluminum honeycomb with
various cell specifications under impact loading.
ASME 2008 International Mechanical Engineering

Congress and Exposition. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers; 2008. p. 121–126.
18. Mahmoudabadi MZ, Sadighi M. A theoretical and
experimental study on metal hexagonal honeycomb
crushing under quasi-static and low velocity impact
loading. Mater Sci Eng A. 2011;528:4958–4966.
19. Xu S, Beynon JH, Ruan D, et al. Experimental study
of the out-of-plane dynamic compression of hex-
agonal honeycombs. Compos Struct. 2012;94:
2326–2336.
20. Xu S, Beynon JH, Ruan D, et al. Strength enhance-
ment of aluminium honeycombs caused by
entrapped air under dynamic out-of-plane compres-
sion. Int J Impact Eng. 2012;47:1–13.
21. Mc Farland R. Hexagonal cell structures under post-
buckling axial load. AIAA J. 1963;1:1380–1385.
22. Wierzbicki T. Crushing analysis of metal honey-
combs. Int J Impact Eng. 1983;1:157–174.
23. Liaghat G, Alavinia A. A comment on the axial
crush of metallic honeycombs by Wu and Jiang. Int
J Impact Eng. 2003;28:1143–1146.
24. Wu E, Jiang W-S. Axial crush of metallic honey-
combs. Int J Impact Eng. 1997;19:439–456.
25. Yin H, Wen G. Theoretical prediction and numer-
ical simulation of honeycomb structures with vari-
ous cell specifications under axial loading. Int J
Mech Mater Des. 2011;7:253.
26. Andrews E, Gibson L, Ashby M. The creep of cellu-
lar solids. Acta Mater. 1999;47:2853–2863.
27. Gibson L. Modelling the mechanical behavior of cel-
lular materials. Mater Sci Eng A. 1989;110:1–36.
28. Gibson LJ, Ashby MF. Cellular solids: structure and
properties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
1999.
29. Becker W. The in-plane stiffnesses of a honeycomb
core including the thickness effect. Arch Appl Mech.
1998;68:334–341.
30. Wang A-J, McDowell D. In-plane stiffness and yield
strength of periodic metal honeycombs. J Eng Mater
Technol. 2004;126:137–156.
31. Balawi S, Abot J. The Effect of Honeycomb Relative
Density on its Effective Elastic Properties: A
Theoretical and Experimental Study. ASME
International Mechanical Engineering Congress &
Exposition (IMECE); 2006.
32. Balawi S, Abot J. The effect of honeycomb relative
density on its effective in-plane elastic moduli:
an experimental study. Compos Struct. 2008;84:
293–299.
33. Wang R, Wang J. Analysis of in-plane compression
and bending of honeycombs with laminated cell
walls. ASME 2015 International Mechanical
Engineering Congress and Exposition. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2015.
p. V009T12A043–V009T12A043.
34. Liu Y, Zhang X-C. The influence of cell micro-top-
ology on the in-plane dynamic crushing of honey-
combs. Int J Impact Eng. 2009;36:98–109.
35. El-Sayed FA, Jones R, Burgess I. A theoretical
approach to the deformation of honeycomb based
composite materials. Composites 1979;10:209–214.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 21
36. Masters I, Evans K. Models for the elastic deform-
ation of honeycombs. Compos Struct. 1996;35:
403–422.
37. Clark J, Jenson S., Schultz J., et al. Study of impact
properties of a fluid-filled honeycomb structure.
ASME 2013 International Mechanical Engineering
Congress and Exposition. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers; 2013. p.
V009T10A044–V009T10A044.
38. Jenson S, Ali M, Alam K, et al. Experimental study
of energy absorption of fluid-filled honeycomb
structure. ASME 2014 International Mechanical
Engineering Congress and Exposition. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2014. p.
V009T12A046–V009T12A046.
39. Nakamoto H, Adachi T, Araki W. In-plane impact
behavior of honeycomb structures filled with linearly
arranged inclusions. Int J Impact Eng.
2009;36:1019–1026.
40. Nakamoto H, Adachi T, Araki W. In-plane impact
behavior of honeycomb structures randomly filled
with rigid inclusions. Int J Impact Eng.
2009;36:73–80.
41. Prall D, Lakes R. Properties of a chiral honeycomb
with a Poisson’s ratio of—1. Int J Mech Sci.
1997;39:305–314.
42. Aktay L, Johnson AF, Kr€ oplin B-H. Numerical mod-
elling of honeycomb core crush behaviour. Eng
Fract Mech. 2008;75:2616–2630.
43. Gonella S, Ruzzene M. Homogenization and equiva-
lent in-plane properties of hexagonal and re-entrant
honeycombs. ASME 2007 International Mechanical
Engineering Congress and Exposition. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2007. p.
1117–1127.
44. Combescure C, Henry P, Elliott RS. Post-bifurcation
and stability of a finitely strained hexagonal honey-
comb subjected to equi-biaxial in-plane loading. Int
J Solids Struct. 2016;88–89:296–318.
45. Sorohan Ş, Sandu M, Sandu A, et al. Finite element
models used to determine the equivalent in-plane
properties of honeycombs. Mater. Today Proc.
2016;3:1161–1166.
46. Li Y, Abbes F, Hoang MP, et al. Analytical hom-
ogenization for in-plane shear, torsion and trans-
verse shear of honeycomb core with skin and
thickness effects. Compos Struct. 2016;140:453–462.
47. Guj L, Sestieri A. Dynamic modeling of honeycomb
sandwich panel. Arch Appl Mech. 2007;77:779–793.
48. Aminanda Y, Castanie B, Barrau J-J, et al.
Experimental analysis and modeling of the crushing
of honeycomb cores. Appl Compos Mater.
2005;12:213–227.
49. Castanie B, Bouvet C., Barrau J.-J. et al. Multi-level
modeling of low velocity, low energy impact on
metal-skinned sandwich structure. ASME 8th
Biennial Conference on Engineering Systems Design
and Analysis. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers; 2006, p. 705–714.
50. Castanie B, Bouvet C, Aminanda Y, et al. Modelling
of low-energy/low-velocity impact on Nomex
22 T. THOMAS AND G. TIWARI
honeycomb sandwich structures with metallic skins.
Int J Impact Eng. 2008;35:620–634.
51. Jang W-Y, Kyriakides S. On the buckling and crush-
ing of expanded honeycomb. Int J Mech Sci.
2015;91:81–90.
52. Seemann R, Krause D. Numerical modelling of
Nomex honeycomb sandwich cores at meso-scale
level. Compos Struct. 2017;159:702–718.
53. Qi C, Remennikov A, Pei L-Z, et al. Impact and
close-in blast response of auxetic honeycomb-cored
sandwich panels: Experimental tests and numerical
simulations. Compos Struct. 2017;180:161–178.
54. Li S, Li X, Wang Z, et al. Finite element analysis of
sandwich panels with stepwise graded aluminum
honeycomb cores under blast loading. Compos Part
A Appl Sci Manuf. 2016;80:1–12.
55. Wang T, Ma M, Yu W, et al. Mechanical response
of square honeycomb sandwich plate with asymmet-
ric face sheet subjected to blast loading. Procedia
Eng. 2011;23:457–463.
56. Tao Y, Chen M, Pei Y, et al. Strain rate effect on
mechanical behavior of metallic honeycombs under
out-of-plane dynamic compression. J Appl Mech.
2015;82:021007.
57. Fatt MH, Park K. Perforation of honeycomb sand-
wich plates by projectiles. Compos Part A Appl Sci
Manuf. 2000;31:889–899.
58. Nitta K, Higashide M, Kitazawa Y, et al. Response
of a aluminum honeycomb subjected to hyperveloc-
ity impacts. Procedia Eng. 2013;58:709–714.
59. Liu P, Liu Y, Zhang X. Internal-structure-model
based simulation research of shielding properties of
honeycomb sandwich panel subjected to high-vel-
ocity impact. Int J Impact Eng. 2015;77:120–133.
60. Zhang X, Zhang H, Wen Z. Experimental and
numerical studies on the crush resistance of alumi-
num honeycombs with various cell configurations.
Int J Impact Eng. 2014;66:48–59.
61. He Q, Ma DW. Parametric study and multi-object-
ive crashworthiness optimisation of reinforced hex-
agonal honeycomb under dynamic loadings. Int J
Crashworthiness. 2015;20:495–509.
62. Alonso IQ, Fleck N. The damage tolerance of a
sandwich panel containing a cracked honeycomb
core. J Appl Mech. 2009;76:061003.
63. Kang P, Youn S-K, Lim JH. Modification of the crit-
ical projectile diameter of honeycomb sandwich
panel considering the channeling effect in hyperve-
locity impact. Aerosp Sci Technol. 2013;29:413–425.
64. Fan Z, Liu Y, Xu P. Blast resistance of metallic sand-
wich panels subjected to proximity underwater
explosion. Int J Impact Eng. 2016;93:128–135.
65. Langdon GS, Nurick GN, Yahya MY, et al. The
response of honeycomb core sandwich panels, with
aluminum and composite face sheets, to blast load-
ing. J Sandw Struct Mater. 2010;12:733–754.
66. Nurick GN, Langdon GS, Chi Y, et al. Behaviour of
sandwich panels subjected to intense air blast–Part
1: experiments. Compos Struct. 2009;91:433–441.
67. Wang T, Qin Q, Wang M, et al. Blast response of
geometrically asymmetric metal honeycomb
sandwich plate: experimental and theoretical investi-
gations. Int J Impact Eng. 2017;105:24–38.
68. Zhu F, Zhao L, Lu G, et al. Deformation and failure
of blast-loaded metallic sandwich panels—experi-
mental investigations. Int J Impact Eng.
2008;35:937–951.
69. Khoshravan M, Pour MN. Numerical and experi-
mental analyses of the effect of different geometrical
modelings on predicting compressive strength of
honeycomb core. Thin-Walled Struct.
2014;84:423–431.
70. Tiwari G, Thomas T, Khandelwal R. Influence of
reinforcement in the honeycomb structures under
axial compressive load. Thin-Walled Struct.
2017;126:238–245.
71. Chawla A, Mukherjee S, Kumar D, et al. Prediction
of crushing behaviour of honeycomb structures. Int
J Crashworthiness. 2003;8:229–235.
72. Huang J, Gong X, Zhang Q, et al. In-plane mechan-
ics of a novel zero Poisson’s ratio honeycomb core.
Compos Part B Eng. 2016;89:67–76.
73. Huang J, Zhang Q, Scarpa F, et al. In-plane elasticity
of a novel auxetic honeycomb design. Compos Part
B Eng. 2017;110:72–82.
74. Fu M-H, Chen Y, Hu L-L. A novel auxetic honey-
comb with enhanced in-plane stiffness and buckling
strength. Compos Struct 2017;160:574–585.
75. Niu B, Wang B. Directional mechanical properties
and wave propagation directionality of Kagome
honeycomb structures. Eur J Mech A Solids.
2016;57:45–58.
76. Gotkhindi TP, Simha K. In-plane effective shear
modulus of generalized circular honeycomb struc-
tures and bundled tubes in a diamond array struc-
ture. Int J Mech Sci. 2015;101–102:292–308.
77. Ju J, Summers JD. Hyperelastic constitutive model-
ing of hexagonal honeycombs subjected to in-plane
shear loading. J Eng Mater Technol.
2011;133:011005.
78. Bianchi G, Aglietti GS, Richardson G. Static and
fatigue behaviour of hexagonal honeycomb cores
under in-plane shear loads. Appl Compos Mater.
2012;19:97–115.
79. Ju J, Summers J, Ziegert J, et al. Cyclic energy loss
of honeycombs under in-plane shear loading. ASME
2009 International Mechanical Engineering Congress
and Exposition. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers; 2009. p. 283–289.
80. Ju J, Summers J, Ziegert J, et al. Nonlinear elastic
constitutive relations on auxetic honeycombs.
Proceedings of the ASME International Mechanical
Engineering Congress and Exposition; 2009. p.
29634–20921.
81. Taylor CM, Smith CW, Miller W, et al. The effects
of hierarchy on the in-plane elastic properties of
honeycombs. J Solids Struct. 2011;48:1330–1339.
82. Qiao J, Chen C. In-plane crushing of a hierarchical
honeycomb. J Solids Struct. 2016;85–86:57–66.
83. Sun Z, Shi S, Guo X, et al. On compressive proper-
ties of composite sandwich structures with grid rein-
forced honeycomb core. Compos Part B Eng.
2016;94:245–252.

84. Crupi V, Epasto G, Guglielmino E. Collapse modes
in aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels under
bending and impact loading. Int J Impact Eng.
2012;43:6–15.
85. Russell BP, Liu T, Fleck NA, et al. Quasi-static
three-point bending of carbon fiber sandwich beams
with square honeycomb cores. J Appl Mech.
2011;78:031008.
86. Meo M, Vignjevic R, Marengo G. The response of
honeycomb sandwich panels under low-velocity
impact loading. Int J Mech Sci. 2005;47:1301–1325.
87. Foo C, Seah L, Chai G. Low-velocity impact failure
of aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels. Compos
Struct. 2008;85:20–28.
88. H€onig A, Stronge W. In-plane dynamic crushing of
honeycomb. Part II: application to impact. Int J
Mech Sci. 2002;44:1697–1714.
89. H€onig A, Stronge W. In-plane dynamic crushing of
honeycomb. Part I: crush band initiation and wave
trapping. Int J Mech Sci. 2002;44:1665–1696.
90. Ali M. Energy absorbing characteristics of a graded
honeycomb structure under impact. ASME 2008
International Mechanical Engineering Congress and
Exposition; 2008. p. 215–221.
91. Li M, Deng Z-q, Guo H-w, et al. Optimizing crash-
worthiness design of square honeycomb structure. J
Cent South Univ. 2014;21:912–919.
92. Li M, Deng Z, Guo H, et al. Crashworthiness ana-
lysis on alternative square honeycomb structure
under axial loading. Chin J Mech Eng.
2013;26:784–792.
93. Papka SD, Kyriakides S. Experiments and full-scale
numerical simulations of in-plane crushing of a
honeycomb. Acta Mater. 1998;46:2765–2776.
94. Schultz J, Griese D, Ju J, et al. Design of honeycomb
mesostructures for crushing energy absorption. J
Mech Des. 2012;134:071004.
95. Zhang D, Jiang D, Fei Q, et al. Experimental and
numerical investigation on indentation and energy
absorption of a honeycomb sandwich panel under
low-velocity impact. Finite Elem Anal Des. 2016;117-
118:21–30.
96. Liu P, Liu Y, Zhang X. Simulation of hyper-
velocity impact on double honeycomb sandwich
panel and its staggered improvement with internal-
structure model. Int J Mech Mater Des. 2016;12:
241–254.
97. Sibeaud J-M, Prieur C, Puillet C. Hypervelocity
impact on honeycomb target structures: experimen-
tal part. 4th European Conference on Space Debris;
2005. p. 401.
98. Sibeaud J-M, Thamie L, Puillet C. Hypervelocity
impact on honeycomb target structures: Experiments
and modeling. Int J Impact Eng. 2008;35:1799–1807.
99. Karagiozova D, Nurick G, Langdon G. Behaviour of
sandwich panels subject to intense air blasts–Part 2:
Numerical simulation. Compos Struct. 2009;91:
442–450.
100. Zhu F, Zhao L, Lu G, et al. A numerical simulation
of the blast impact of square metallic sandwich pan-
els. Int J Impact Eng. 2009;36:687–699.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 23
101. Li S, Li X, Wang Z, et al. Sandwich panels with lay-
ered graded aluminum honeycomb cores under blast
loading. Compos Struct. 2017;173:242–254.
102. Jin X, Wang Z, Ning J, et al. Dynamic response of
sandwich structures with graded auxetic honeycomb
cores under blast loading. Compos Part B Eng.
2016;106:206–217.
103. Baker W, Togami T, Weydert J. Static and dynamic
properties of high-density metal honeycombs. Int J
Impact Eng. 1998;21:149–163.
104. Buitrago BL, Santiuste C, Sanchez-Saez S, et al.
Modelling of composite sandwich structures with
honeycomb core subjected to high-velocity impact.
Compos Struct. 2010;92:2090–2096.
105. Chen D-H. Flexural rigidity of honeycomb consist-
ing of hexagonal cells. Acta Mech Sin.
2011;27:840–844.
106. Hu L, Yu T. Dynamic crushing strength of hex-
agonal honeycombs. Int J Impact Eng.
2010;37:467–474.
107. Uddin MS, Ju J, D’Souza N. An experimental study
on the mode i fracture behavior of hexagonal honey-
combs. ASME 2013 International Mechanical
Engineering Congress and Exposition. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2013. p.
V009T10A047–V009T10A047.
108. Karagiozova D, Yu T. Strain localization in circular
honeycombs under in-plane biaxial quasi-static and
low-velocity impact loading. Int J Impact Eng.
2008;35:753–770.
109. Papka SD, Kyriakides S. In-plane crushing of a poly-
carbonate honeycomb. J Solids Struct.
1998;35:239–267.
110. Radford DD, McShane GJ, Deshpande VS, et al.
Dynamic compressive response of stainless-steel
square honeycombs. J Appl Mech. 2007;74:658–667.
111. Theobald MD, Langdon GS, Nurick GN, et al. Large
inelastic response of unbonded metallic foam and
honeycomb core sandwich panels to blast loading.
Compos Struct. 2010;92:2465–2475.
112. Takeichi M, Okuno S, Okazaki M, et al. Static
strength properties of an aluminum alloy honey-
comb sandwich panel and strength reliability evalu-
ation of an actual car body structure. In ASME 2002
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2002. p. 239–245.
113. Zhang J, Ashby M. The out-of-plane properties of
honeycombs. Int J Mech Sci. 1992;34:475–489.
114. Zhou Q, Mayer RR. Characterization of aluminum
honeycomb material failure in large deformation
compression, shear, and tearing. J Eng Mater
Technol. 2002;124:412–420.
115. Fang J, Sun G, Qiu N, et al. On hierarchical honey-
combs under out-of-plane crushing. Int J Solids
Struct. 2018;135:1–13.
116. Gozluklu B. Interaction mechanism of crushing of
tubes and honeycomb under axial loading. Int J
Crashworthiness. 2016;21:566–586.
117. Wang Z, Liu J, Hui D. Mechanical behaviors of
inclined cell honeycomb structure subjected to com-
pression. Compos Part B Eng. 2017;110:307–314.
24 T. THOMAS AND G. TIWARI
118. Galehdari SA, Kadkhodayan M, Hadidi-Moud S.
Analytical, experimental and numerical study of a
graded honeycomb structure under in-plane impact
load with low velocity. Int J Crashworthiness.
2015;20:387–400.
119. Papka S, Kyriakides S. Biaxial crushing of honey-
combs:—Part 1: experiments. J Solids Struct.
1999;36:4397–4396.
120. Stocchi A, Colabella L, Cisilino A, et al.
Manufacturing and testing of a sandwich panel
honeycomb core reinforced with natural-fiber fab-
rics. Mater Des. 2014;55:394–403.
121. Xie W, et al. High-temperature high-velocity impact
on honeycomb sandwich panels. Compos Part B
Eng. 2018;138:1–11.
122. Zhang Y, Xie W, Chen L. Dynamic buffering per-
formance of the honeycomb paperboard filled with
polyurethane. J Wuhan Univ Technol-Mat Sci Edit.
2014;29:561–566.
123. Kolopp A, Rivallant S, Bouvet C. Experimental study
of sandwich structures as armour against medium-
velocity impacts. Int J Impact Eng. 2013;61:24–35.
124. Li X, Zhang P, Wang Z, et al. Dynamic behavior of
aluminum honeycomb sandwich panels under air
blast: Experiment and numerical analysis. Compos
Struct. 2014;108:1001–1008.
125. Yu G-C, Feng L-J, Wu L-Z. Thermal and mechan-
ical properties of a multifunctional composite square
honeycomb sandwich structure. Mater Des.
2016;102:238–246.
126. Zuhri M, Guan Z, Cantwell W. The mechanical
properties of natural fibre based honeycomb core
materials. Compos Part B Eng. 2014;58:1–9.
127. Chen Z, Yan N, Sam-Brew S, et al. Investigation of
mechanical properties of sandwich panels made of
paper honeycomb core and wood composite skins
by experimental testing and finite element (FE)
modelling methods. Eur J Wood Prod.
2014;72:311–319.
128. Zhou Z, Zhou J, Fan H. Plastic analyses of thin-
walled steel honeycombs with re-entrant deform-
ation style. Mater Sci Eng A. 2017;688:123–133.
129. Xiong J, Ma L, Stocchi A, et al. Bending response of
carbon fiber composite sandwich beams with three
dimensional honeycomb cores. Compos Struct.
2014;108:234–242.
130. Wang A-J, McDowell D. Optimization of a metal
honeycomb sandwich beam-bar subjected to torsion
and bending. J Solids Struct. 2003;40:2085–2099.
131. Wang Z, Liu J, Lu Z, et al. Mechanical behavior of
composited structure filled with tandem honey-
combs. Compos Part B Eng. 2017;114:128–138.
132. Ying-shi Z, Xing Z. Stress analysis of restrained
bending for box beam with rectangular cross-section
filled by honeycomb core. Appl Math Mech.
2004;25:1249–1256.
133. Ural A, Zehnder AT, Ingraffea AR. Fracture
mechanics approach to facesheet delamination in
honeycomb: measurement of energy release rate
of the adhesive bond. Eng Fract Mech. 2003;70:
93–103.
134. Pan S-D, Wu L-Z, Sun Y-G, et al. Fracture test for
double cantilever beam of honeycomb sandwich
panels. Mater Lett. 2008;62:523–526.
135. Pickett A, Lamb A, Chaudoye F. Materials character-
isation and crash modelling of composite-aluminium
honeycomb sandwich material. Int J
Crashworthiness. 2009;14:1–15.
136. Abbadi A, Tixier C, Gilgert J, et al. Experimental
study on the fatigue behaviour of honeycomb sand-
wich panels with artificial defects. Compos Struct.
2015;120:394–405.
137. Yamashita M, Gotoh M. Impact behavior of honey-
comb structures with various cell specifications—
numerical simulation and experiment. Int J Impact
Eng. 2005;32:618–630.
138. Jeon K-W, Shin K-B. An experimental investigation
on low-velocity impact responses of sandwich panels
with the changes of impact location and the wall
partition angle of honeycomb core. Int J Precis Eng
Manuf. 2012;13:1789–1796.
139. Tao Y, Chen M, Chen H, et al. Strain rate effect on
the out-of-plane dynamic compressive behavior of
metallic honeycombs: Experiment and theory.
Compos Struct. 2015;132:644–651.
140. Petrone G, Rao S, De Rosa S, et al. Behaviour
of fibre-reinforced honeycomb core under low vel-
ocity impact loading. Compos Struct. 2013;100:
356–362.
141. Akatay A, Bora MO, € Çoban O, et al. The influence
of low velocity repeated impacts on residual com-
pressive properties of honeycomb sandwich struc-
tures. Compos Struct. 2015;125:425–433.
142. Wang D. Impact behavior and energy absorption of
paper honeycomb sandwich panels. Int J Impact
Eng. 2009;36:110–114.
143. Feli S, Pour MN. An analytical model for composite
sandwich panels with honeycomb core subjected to
high-velocity impact. Compos Part B Eng.
2012;43:2439–2447.
144. Uth T, Deshpande V. Response of clamped sand-
wich beams subjected to high-velocity impact by
sand slugs. Int J Impact Eng. 2014;69:165–181.
145. Sun G, Chen D, Huo X, et al. Experimental and
numerical studies on indentation and perforation
characteristics of honeycomb sandwich panels.
Compos Struct. 2018;184:110–124.
146. An X, Yang J, Tian C, et al. Penetration resistance
of hybrid metallic honeycomb structures with cer-
amic insertions against long-rod tungsten projectiles.
Compos Struct. 2018;189:488–497.
147. Huang W, Zhang W, Li D, et al. Dynamic failure of
honeycomb-core sandwich structures subjected to
underwater impulsive loads. Eur J Mech A Solids.
2016;60:39–51.
148. Wang Z, Gao G, Tian H, et al. A stability mainten-
ance method and experiments for multi-player tan-
dem aluminium honeycomb array. Int J
Crashworthiness. 2013;18:483–491.
149. Yasui Y. Dynamic axial crushing of multi-layer honey-
comb panels and impact tensile behavior of the com-
ponent members. Int J Impact Eng. 2000;24:659–671.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 25

150. Wang Z-W, E YP. Mathematical modelling of honeycomb structures bonded with VK-67 adhesive.
energy absorption property for paper honeycomb in Polym Sci Ser D. 2008;1:253–256.
various ambient humidities. Mater Des. 2010;31: 152. Keshavanarayana S, Thotakuri MV. Off-axis
4321–4328. compression behaviour of honeycomb core in
151. Kulikov V, Suvorov B, Petrova A. Effect of the WT-plane. Int J Crashworthiness. 2009;14:
humidity of honeycomb core on the strength of 173–181.

View publication stats