applied

sciences
Article
Experimental Study on Dynamic Compression
Mechanical Properties of Aluminum
Honeycomb Structures
Sheng Zhang 1 , Wei Chen 1, * , Deping Gao 1 , Liping Xiao 2 and Longbao Han 3
1 Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory of Aerospace Power System, College of Energy and Power Engineering,
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, China; zsnuaa@nuaa.edu.cn (S.Z.);
gdp202@nuaa.edu.cn (D.G.)
2 UAV Research Institute, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, China;
xiaolp@nuaa.edu.cn
3 China International Engineering Consulting Corporation, Beijing 100048, China; hanlongbaonuaa@163.com
* Correspondence: chenwei@nuaa.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-025-8489-2220




Received: 27 December 2019; Accepted: 7 February 2020; Published: 10 February 2020


Featured Application: The SHPB test method with special measures is developed to study the
dynamic compression mechanical properties of the aluminum honeycomb structures at a high
strain rate. The stress hardening and softening effects are found, respectively.

Abstract: In this paper, dynamic compression tests are developed to investigate the dynamic
compression mechanical properties of the aluminum honeycomb structures at different strain rates,
especially at the high strain rates. The difficulties at the high strain rates exist due to the large
deformation, the low wave resistance and the size effect of the honeycomb structures. The Split
Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SPHB) test method is carried out and special measures such as the adoption
of waveform shaper, the size optimization of the impact bar and the specimen, and employment
of the semiconductor strain gauge, etc. are taken to overcome the difficulties. It is discovered that
the dynamic compression mechanical properties possess a stress hardening effect at a high strain
rate from 1.3 × 103 s−1 to 2.0 × 103 s−1 , but then a stress softening effect at a high strain rate of
4.6 × 103 s−1 . It is also discovered that the yield strength and the average plateau stress at the strain
rate of 2.0 × 103 s−1 is higher than that at the strain rate of 1.3 × 103 s−1 . However, the yield strength
and the average plateau stress at the strain rate of 4.6 × 103 s−1 is lower than that at the strain rate
of 2.0 × 103 s−1 and 1.3 × 103 s−1 , but higher than that at a quasi-static state. This indicates that the
aluminum honeycomb structure is sensitive to the strain rate. Additionally, the damage mode of the
aluminum honeycomb structure is plastic buckling, collapse and folding of the cell wall, which is
carried out using dynamic compression tests. The folding length of the cell wall at a higher strain
rate is found to be longer than that at a lower strain rate. The test results can also be used as the
stress–strain curves of the honeycomb constitutive model at the high strain rates to carry out the
numerical simulation of high-speed impact.

Keywords: aluminum honeycomb structure; dynamic compression mechanical properties; high

strain rate; damage mode

1. Introduction
With advantages of low weight, large specific stiffness, and high specific strength, the metal
honeycomb sandwich structure is extensively applied in the field of aerospace engineering. For example,
the high-bypass turbofan engine casing is made from the honeycomb sandwich structure in order to

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1188; doi:10.3390/app10031188 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1188 2 of 15

improve the impact resistance since the impact on the casing is a typical nonlinear physical process
with the high strain rate up to 104 s−1 during the fan blade out events. The high strain rate has a
great influence on the mechanical properties of the structure. The different honeycomb structures
also possess different cell structure characteristics and mechanical properties, therefore, it is crucial to
understand the dynamic compression mechanical properties of the aluminum honeycomb structures
at a high strain rate.
The dynamic compression test is an effective way to obtain the dynamic mechanical properties of
honeycomb materials. Equipment of dynamic compression tests mainly include dynamic material
testing machine, the drop hammer impact table, Hopkinson bar, Taylor impact table and the high-speed
impact test system, etc. Hopkinson bar is widely used at the medium and high strain rates due to the
fewer restrictions. As early as 1914, Hopkinson [1] developed the Hopkinson compression bar test
device. Kolsky [2] proposed a separated Hopkinson pressure bar setup on the basis of Hopkinson
compression bar. Wu and Jiang [3] studied out-of-plane crushing properties of the honeycomb
structures with a similar experimental device and obtained an increase of 74% of the crush strength
under dynamical conditions compared to those under the quasi-static condition. The Split Hopkinson
Pressure Bar (SHPB) method is widely used in dynamic compression tests of metal materials to obtain
the dynamic mechanical properties. However, there are still many difficulties when it is applied to
the honeycomb structure, especially at high strain rates due to several reasons. For example, the
honeycomb specimen possesses the size effect [4] because of the diameter limit. The wave impedance
of the honeycomb structure is lower than that of a conventional material bar which makes it difficult to
form a strong signal in the transmission bar. On the other hand, the deformation of the honeycomb
structure is large, and the nonuniform stresses may occur inside the specimen and undergo the multiple
loading-unloading process [5]. The assumption of stress uniformity in the SHPB test for the honeycomb
structure also needs to be further verified.
Due to the difficulties mentioned above, the SHPB test method cannot always provide satisfactory
precision of the honeycomb structures under the impact loading. In recent years, viscoelastic bar has
been used as a solution in the SHPB test method [6]. Zhao et al. [7,8] conducted viscoelastic bars and a
two-strain measurement method on the SHPB test to improve the signal/noise ratio and to host larger
samples containing a sufficient number of cells. They investigated the out-plane impact dynamic
response of aluminum honeycomb materials at the medium (600 s−1 ) and the low strain rates (10−4 s−1 ).
The results indicated that the enhancement of the crushing strength occurred at the medium strain rate.
Elnasri et al. [9] adopted the Nylon Hopkinson bar with a large diameter to investigate the existence of
a shock front of the honeycomb and the Cymat foam at the low impact loading. It was found that no
significant shock enhancement was observed for aluminum honeycomb structures and the sensitivity
of the corresponding rate was not responsible for the strength enhancement.
On the basis of viscoelastic bar, the combined shear-compression impact test was presented [10].
Tounsi et al. [11] and Hou et al. [12] introduced the large diameter Nylon Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar
system (NSHPB) with beveled ends of different angles to study the behavior of honeycomb structures
under the multiaxial impact loadings. It was found that the impact strength of the honeycomb structure
decreases with the increasing loading angle, while the shear strength changes in the opposite direction.
In addition, Xu et al. [13,14] conducted an out-plane compression test of aluminum honeycomb
structures with various dimensions, relative density, and honeycomb cell sizes, at the strain rate range
of 5 × 10−5 s−1 –2 × 102 s−1 . The results indicate that the plateau stress generally increases with the strain
rate and cellular structure of the honeycomb also affected the order of magnitude for the rate correlation.
Wang et al. [15] adopted the dynamic impact test of Hopkinson bar to analyze the correlation between
the strength and energy absorption capacity of the aluminum honeycomb materials under dynamic
impact conditions. Generally speaking, previous studies have mainly focused on the improvements of
traditional measurement. For example, viscoelastic bars with large diameters for SHPB are adopted to
investigate the dynamic mechanical properties of honeycomb structure at the medium and the low
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1188 3 of 15

strain rates (0–103 s−1 ). However, when a viscoelastic bar is applied to improve the measurement
accuracy, there are more difficulties to obtain the stress, strain and strain rate accurately [16].
In this paper, the SHPB test method with several special measures such as optimization of the
impact bar and the size of the specimen, adding the waveform shaper, and applying the semiconductor
strain gauge firstly, etc. are explored to acquire the dynamic mechanical properties of the honeycomb
structure at high strain rates. They are verified by two impact tests both on the impacted end and the
supported end. The dynamic mechanical properties of the hexagonal aluminum honeycomb structures
at high strain rates (higher than 103 s−1 ) are revealed for the first time. Afterwards, the compression
damage mode of the aluminum honeycomb structure at high strain rates is studied.

2. Dynamic Compression Test at the High Strain Rate

2.1. Test Specimen

The regular hexagon aluminum honeycomb structure is adopted. The hexagonal aluminum
honeycomb structure is commonly made of 0.02–0.1 mm thick aluminum foil through bonding.
There are two manufacturing methods, forming and stretching. Stretch method is suitable for industrial
production due to the high efficiency, so it is widely used. The process flow of the stretch method to
manufacture aluminum honeycomb structure include aluminum foil cleaning, node glue, solidification,
slitting, stretch. The cleaning process mainly contain alkali wash, rinsing, phosphoric anodization,
spray and drying. Then J-70 adhesive based on the epoxy resin is applied, which can inhibit corrosion.
The gluing process is completed by a special gluing machine. After that, the coated aluminum foil
needs to be folded to form a panel and then curing. The curing parameters are related to the selected
adhesive, generally speaking, the pressure is 0.5 Mpa, the time is 3–5 min. After slitting and stretching
forming, the honeycomb panel is formed.
The basis material of the aluminum honeycomb structure is 5052 aluminum alloy. The chemical
composition is shown in Table 1. The cell characteristics are as follows: the cell wall thickness t is
0.06 mm with the length l of 1.732 mm; cell structure characteristic size d is 3 mm, as shown in Figure 1.
The wall thickness of the opposite cells in each cell structure is 0.12 mm due to the manufacturing
method. The thickness of the aluminum honeycomb structure sample is 5 mm, and 3 samples were
prepared for each test. The coordinate system of the aluminum honeycomb structure is shown in
Figure 2. The direction x3 is the direction of the out-of-plane loading, and x1 and x2 are the directions
of the in-plane loading.

Table 1. The chemical composition of 5052 aluminum alloy.

Alloying Element Fe Cu Mn Mg Cr Zn Si Impurity

Appl.Percentage (%)x
Sci. 2020, 10, ≤0.40 ≤0.10 ≤0.10 2.2~2.8 0.15~0.35 ≤0.10 ≤0.25 ≤0.15
4 of 16

Figure1.1.Cell
Figure Cellcharacteristics
characteristicsof
ofthe
thealuminum
aluminumhoneycomb.
honeycomb.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1188 4 of 15
Figure 1. Cell characteristics of the aluminum honeycomb.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Coordinate
Coordinate system
system of
of aluminum
aluminum honeycomb
honeycomb structure.
structure.

2.2. The
2.2. The Special
Special Measures
Measures of
of Split
Split Hopkinson
Hopkinson Pressure
Pressure Bar
Bar (SHPB)
(SHPB) Test
Test Method
Method and
and Verification
Verification
The SHPB
The SHPB method
method is is widely
widely used used inin dynamic
dynamic compression
compression tests tests for
for metal
metal materials
materials to to obtain
obtain the
the
dynamic mechanical properties. However, there are still many difficulties
dynamic mechanical properties. However, there are still many difficulties when it is applied to the when it is applied to the
honeycomb structure,
honeycomb structure, especially
especially at at the
the high
high strain
strain rate,
rate, which
which are are mentioned
mentioned before. before. The
The following
following
special measures are taken to overcome
special measures are taken to overcome the difficulties. the difficulties.
The actual
The actual impact
impact area
areaof ofthethehoneycomb
honeycombstructure structureisissmallsmallcompared
compared toto
metallic
metallic materials
materialsduedueto
thethe
to thinthin
cellcell
wallwall
during the impact,
during the impact, which may cause
which the stress
may cause the nonuniformity
stress nonuniformity of the specimen and the
of the specimen
divergence of the stress wave. The specimen of Φ32 is applied
and the divergence of the stress wave. The specimen of Φ32 is applied to reduce the stress to reduce the stress nonuniformity and
the divergence and
nonuniformity of the stress
the wave asofwell
divergence the as the wave
stress diameter of the
as well as incident
the diameterbar isof37the mm. The specimen
incident bar is 37
contains nine complete cells in the direction of diameter. Try
mm. The specimen contains nine complete cells in the direction of diameter. Try to maintainto maintain the integrity of cells at the
the
edge of the specimen during the processing.
integrity of cells at the edge of the specimen during the processing.
The wave
The wave impedance
impedance of the honeycomb
of the honeycomb structurestructure is is lower
lower thanthan that
that of
of aluminum
aluminum alloy alloy bar
bar which
which
makes the weak signal in the transmission bar. The semiconductor
makes the weak signal in the transmission bar. The semiconductor strain gauge is applied on the strain gauge is applied on the
transmission bar to acquire the nice waveform of the weak signal,
transmission bar to acquire the nice waveform of the weak signal, which cannot be measured by the which cannot be measured by the
conventional resistance
conventional resistance strain
strain gauge.
gauge. It It is
is also
also more
more convenient
convenient than than the
the adoption
adoption of of the
the viscoelastic
viscoelastic
bar. The contact surface between the bar and the specimen is lubricated
bar. The contact surface between the bar and the specimen is lubricated to reduce the friction between to reduce the friction between
the end
the end face
face of
of the
the specimen,
specimen, the the incident
incident bar bar asas well
well as as the
the transmission
transmission bar. bar.
The loads between the impact end and the support
The loads between the impact end and the support end of the specimen may end of the specimen may bebe different
different duedueto
to the divergent oscillation of incident wave, resulting in poor stress
the divergent oscillation of incident wave, resulting in poor stress uniformity inside the specimen. uniformity inside the specimen.
Therefore,
Therefore, the thebrass
brasswafer
wafer is pasted
is pastedat theatimpacted end of the
the impacted endincident
of the bar to eliminate
incident bar tothe unbalanced
eliminate the
stress caused by the divergence of the stress
unbalanced stress caused by the divergence of the stress wave. wave.
The short
The short specimen
specimen and and long
long impact
impact bar bar are
are employed
employed to to make
make thethe stress
stress wave
wave passing
passing through
through
at least
at least 3–4
3–4 reflections
reflections in in the
the specimen,
specimen, realizing
realizing the the homogenization
homogenization of of the
the stress
stress in
in the
the specimen.
specimen.
The
Appl. The measurements
measurements
Sci. 2020, 10, x based on the SHPB method are
based on the SHPB method are shown in Figure 3.shown in Figure 3. 5 of 16

V0 Strain gauge Specmen Strain gauge

Impact bar,0.6m 0.85m

incident bar,2m transmission bar,2m

Figure3.3.Split
Figure SplitHopkinson
HopkinsonPressure
PressureBar
Bar(SHPB)
(SHPB)test
testsystem
systemwith
withmeasurements.
measurements.

The
The length
length of
of the
the impact
impact bar
bar is
is 0.6
0.6 m,
m, and
and those
those of
of the
the incident
incident andand transmission bars are
transmission bars are 22 m.
m.
The
The strain
strain gauges
gauges are
are pasted
pasted at
at 0.85
0.85 mm from
from the
the impact
impact end
end of
of the
the incident
incident bar
bar and
and the
the middle
middle ofof
transmission bar respectively, to obtain the strain curves of the incident and transmission bars
transmission bar respectively, to obtain the strain curves of the incident and transmission bars in the in the
loading process, and then the stress–strain relationship of the specimens can be obtained. The size of
the specimen of Φ32 × 5 mm is adopted in the dynamic compression tests.
The measurements based on the SHPB method are verified by the direct impact tests of impact
end and support end which are modified from the SHPB test. The stress responses of the impact end
and the support end of the aluminum honeycomb structure are obtained, respectively, by the twice
impact method, so as to verify the effectiveness of the measurements of SHPB test method.
 incident bar,2m
incident bar,2m transmission bar,2m
transmission bar,2m
incident bar,2m transmission bar,2m
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Split
Split Hopkinson
Hopkinson Pressure
Pressure Bar
Bar (SHPB)
(SHPB) test
test system
system with
with measurements.
measurements.
Figure 3. Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) test system with measurements.

The length of the impact bar is 0.6 m, and those of the incident and transmission bars are 2 m.
The length of the impact bar is 0.6 m, and those of the incident and transmission bars are 2 m.
Appl. strain
The Sci. 2020, 10, 1188 are
gauges pasted at 0.85 m from the impact end of the incident bar and the middle 5 of of
15
The strain gauges are pasted at 0.85 m from the impact end of the incident bar and the middle of
transmission bar respectively, to obtain the strain curves of the incident and transmission bars in the
transmission bar respectively, to obtain the strain curves of the incident and transmission bars in the
loading process, and then the stress–strain relationship of the specimens can be obtained. The size of
loading process,
loading process, and
and then
then the
the stress–strain
stress–strain relationship
relationshipof ofthe
thespecimens
specimenscan canbebeobtained.
obtained. TheThe size
size of
of
the specimen of Φ32 × 5 mm is adopted in the dynamic compression tests.
the specimen
the specimen of of Φ32
Φ32 ×× 5 mm is adopted in the dynamic compression tests.
The measurements based on the SHPB method are verified by the direct impact tests of impact
The measurements
The measurements based based on thethe SHPB
SHPB method
method are verified
verified by by the
the direct
direct impact
impact tests
tests of
of impact
impact
end and support end which are modified from the SHPB test. The stress responses of the impact end
end and
end and support
support endend which
which areare modified
modified fromfrom the
the SHPB
SHPB test.
test. The stress
stress responses
responses of of the
the impact
impact endend
and the support end of the aluminum honeycomb structure are obtained, respectively, by the twice
and the
and the support
support endend ofof the
the aluminum
aluminum honeycomb
honeycomb structure are obtained, obtained, respectively,
respectively, by by the
the twice
twice
impact method, so as to verify the effectiveness of the measurements of SHPB test method.
impact method,
impact method, so so as
as to
to verify
verify the
the effectiveness
effectivenessof ofthe
themeasurements
measurementsof ofSHPB
SHPBtest testmethod.
method.
The direct impact tests of the support end are shown in Figure 4. The aluminum honeycomb
The direct
The direct impact
impact tests
tests ofof the
the support
support endend are
are shown
shown in inFigure
Figure4.4. The
The aluminum
aluminum honeycomb
honeycomb
structure specimen is contacted with the transmission bar in the SHPB test system, and the
structure specimen
structure specimen is is contacted
contacted with with thethe transmission
transmission bar bar inin the
the SHPB
SHPB test test system,
system, and and thethe
semiconductor strain gauge is pasted on the transmission bar. The distance between strain gauge and
semiconductor strain gauge
semiconductor gaugeisispasted
pastedon onthe
thetransmission
transmission bar. TheThe
bar. distance between
distance betweenstrain gauge
strain and
gauge
the impact end of the bar is 0.85 m. The incident bar is removed, and a long elastic impact bar is
the impact
and the impactendend
of the barbar
of the is 0.85 m.m.
is 0.85 TheTheincident
incident bar
barisisremoved,
removed,and andaalong
long elastic
elastic impact bar is is
adopted to impact the specimen at a certain velocity directly. It is called test 1.
adopted to
adopted to impact
impact the
the specimen
specimen at at aa certain
certain velocity
velocitydirectly.
directly.ItItisiscalled
calledtest
test1.1.

V00
V Specimen Strain gauge
V0 Specimen Strain gauge

Impact bar transmission bar

Impact bar transmission bar
Figure 4.
Figure 4. Stress
Stress test
test scheme
scheme of
of specimen
specimen support
support end
end (test
(test 1).
1).
Figure4.4.Stress
Figure Stresstest
testscheme
schemeof
ofspecimen
specimensupport
supportend
end(test
(test1).
1).

Figure 5. The specimen is contacted with

The direct impact tests of the impact end are shown in Figure
The direct impact tests of the impact end are shown in Figure 5. 5. The specimen is contacted with
the end of the impact bar, then the specimen with the impact bar hit the transmission bar at a certain
the end of the impact bar, then the specimen with the impact bar hit the transmission bar at a certain
velocity.
velocity. The strain is measured by the semiconductor strain gauge on the transmission bar, and then
velocity. The strain is measured by the semiconductor strain gauge on the the transmission
transmission bar,
bar, and then
we can obtain the stress response through
through calculation.
calculation. It is called test 2.
we can obtain the stress response through calculation. It is called test 2.

VV00 Specimen Strain gauge

V0 Specimen Strain gauge

Impact bar transmission bar

Impact bar transmission bar
Figure
Figure5.
Figure 5. Stress
5. Stress test
Stress test scheme
test schemeof
scheme ofspecimen
of specimenimpact
specimen impactend
impact end(test
end (test2).
(test 2).
2).
Figure 5. Stress test scheme of specimen impact end (test 2).
The pictures
The pictures of
of the
the direct
direct impact
impact tests
tests are
are shown
shown in
in Figures
Figure 66and
andFigure
7 respectively.
7 respectively.
The pictures of the direct impact tests are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7 respectively.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x Figure

Figure 6. 6.
6.
Figure The
The picture
picture
The of of
of
picture support
support end
end
support test.
test.
end test. 6 of 16
Figure 6. The picture of support end test.

Figure 7. The
The picture
picture of impact end test.

strain-time curve
The strain-time curve of the transmission
transmission bar is obtained by the strain gauge measurement in
the direct impact tests of both impact end and support end. TheThe transmission
transmission bar
bar is
is made
made of hard
aluminum alloy, which causes elastic deformation during the impact. The stress of the transmission
bar can be calculated as

( )= ( ) (1)
The force on the contact surface between the honeycomb structure and the transmission bar can
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1188 6 of 15

aluminum alloy, which causes elastic deformation during the impact. The stress of the transmission
bar can be calculated as
σbar (t) = Ebar εbar (t) (1)

The force on the contact surface between the honeycomb structure and the transmission bar can
be calculated as
F = sbar Ebar εbar (t) (2)

The stress of the honeycomb structure can be calculated as

sbar
σh ( t ) = E ε (t) (3)
sh bar bar

where σh (t) is the stress of the honeycomb structure, sbar is the sectional area of the transmission bar, sh
is the initial macroscopic sectional area of the honeycomb structure, Ebar is the elasticity modulus of
the transmission bar, and εbar (t) is the strain-time curve of the transmission bar. It is noticed that the
sectional area of the honeycomb structure sh varies during the impact, so the stress of the honeycomb
structure σh (t) is the nominal stress.
The SHPB test with measurements is conducted in order to compare the stress response of the
direct impact test and SHPB test. It’s called test 3.
The impact velocity at high strain rate is adopted in the tests. The impact velocities of three tests
are 13.83 m/s, 14.41 m/s and 13.85 m/s respectively. The results of the tests are shown in Table 2, and
the stress curve is shown in Figure 8.

Table 2. Impact test results of three tests.

Parameter Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

Impact velocity (m/s) 13.83 14.41 13.85
Yield strength (MPa) 2.62 2.73 2.61
Yield time (ms) 0.046 0.026 0.048
Mean nominal plateau stress (MPa) 1.616 1.682 1.615
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x 7 of 16

Figure8.8. Stress–time
Figure Stress–timecurve
curveof
ofdirect
directimpact
impacttests
testsand
andSHPB
SHPBtest.
test.

There
There isis aa time
time delay
delay about
about the
the stresses
stresses compared
compared to to each
each test,
test, as
as shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 8.
8. The
The time
time
delay is caused by the distance between the impact end and the support end of the
delay is caused by the distance between the impact end and the support end of the specimen. The specimen. The time
delay between
time delay the impact
between end and
the impact endtheandsupport end isend
the support 0.02isms.
0.02 ms.
There is not only a time delay between each test,
There is not only a time delay between each test, but but also a stress
alsovalue difference.
a stress value The equilibrium
difference. The
stress factor R(σ) of the specimen is defined as the ratio of the difference of the maximum
equilibrium stress factor R(σ) of the specimen is defined as the ratio of the difference of the maximumand minimum
and minimum mean nominal plateau stress to the average value. The equilibrium stress factor can
measure the stress uniformity. The calculation formula is as follows

σ max − σ min
R(σ ) = ×100% (4)
σ
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1188 7 of 15

mean nominal plateau stress to the average value. The equilibrium stress factor can measure the stress
uniformity. The calculation formula is as follows

σmax − σmin
R(σ) = × 100% (4)
σ

where σmax is the maximum mean nominal plateau stress of the three tests, σmin is the minimum mean
nominal plateau stress of the three tests, σ is the average value of σmax and σmin . In general, when R(σ)
< 5%, it is considered the stress is uniform [17]. The test results show that the stress factor R(σ) of three
tests is 4.06%, which meets the requirement of stress uniformity in the specimen. It is verified that
the special measures of SHPB method can be used in the dynamic compression test of the aluminum
honeycomb structures at the high strain rate.
The dynamic compression tests of aluminum honeycomb structures at a strain rate of 1 × 103 s−1 ,
2 × 103 s−1 and 5 × 103 s−1 are carried out by adjusting the impact velocity of the impact bar to obtain
the different strain rates. Three repetitions are performed at each strain rate.

2.3. Test Results and Analysis

2.3.1. Test Results at Strain Rate 1 × 103 s−1

The results of the dynamic compression tests under the strain rate at 1 × 103 s−1 are shown in
Table 3. The average strain rate at the stable stage is approximately 1.3 × 103 s−1 . The strain rate curves
Appl. Sci. 2020,
and the 10, x
stress–strain curves are shown in Figures 9 and 10 respectively. The test results show that 8 ofthe
16
3 −1
maximum strain is only 32% at the strain rate 1.3 × 10 s , and the average compression rate is 93.78%.
Table stage,
After the elastic 3. The results of the dynamic
the specimen enters compression
into the plateautests stage
under and
the strain
appearsratein 1 × 10
of the 3 s−1.
stress oscillation
once. However, Thickness
the specimen does not
of Thickness of reach the densification. Strain Rate Initial
Impact Initial
Test Specimen Specimen Compression Average at Collapse
Velocity
Table 3. The results of the dynamic compression tests under the strain rate of 1 × 10 s 3 −1. Collapse
No before Test After Test Ratio (%) Plateau Stage Stress
(m/s) Strain
Impact Velocity(mm) Thickness of (mm) Thickness of
Compression (s
Strain −1 )
Rate (MPa)
Initial Collapse Initial Collapse
Test No Specimen before Specimen After Average at Plateau
1 4.63 (m/s) 4.99 Test (mm) 0.31Test (mm) Ratio (%)
93.76 1.26
Stage ×(s−110) 3
Stress (MPa)
2.87 Strain
0.057
3
21 4.81 4.63 4.97 4.99 0.30 0.31 93.96
93.76 1.34
1.26 ××10103 2.91
2.87 0.059
0.057
2 4.81 4.97 0.30 93.96 1.34 × 103 2.91 0.059
33 4.67 4.67 5.02 5.02 0.32 0.32 93.62
93.62 1.29
1.29 ××10103 3
2.892.89 0.060
0.060

Figure9.9.Strain
Figure Strainrate
ratecurve
curveatatstrain
strainrate
rate1.3 103 3ss−1.
1.3××10 −1.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1188 8 of 15
Figure 9. Strain rate curve at strain rate 1.3 × 103 s−1.

3 −1
Figure 10.10.Stress–strain
Figure Stress–straincurve
curveatatstrain
strainrate 1.3× ×10103ss–1.
rate1.3
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x 9 of 16
To
To obtain
obtain the the macroscopic
macroscopic mechanical
mechanical property
property of of aluminum
aluminum honeycomb
honeycomb structuresstructures at at aa strain
strain
2.3.2. Test Results3 −1
at Strain Rate 2 × 10 3 s−1
rate
rate of 1.3 ×× 10
of 1.3 103 ss–1, ,the
theaverage
averagevaluevalueof of the
the strain
strain rate
rate curve
curve and
and stress–strain
stress–strain curve curve fromfrom the the three
three
tests are
tests The obtained
are obtained after interpolation.
results of after interpolation.
the dynamic compression tests under the strain rate of 2 × 103 s−1 are shown in Table
4. The average strain rate at the stable stage is approximately 2 × 103 s−1. The strain rate curves are
2.3.2. Test Results at Strain Rate 2 × 103 s−1
shown in Figure 11, and the stress–strain curves are shown in Figure 12. The test results show that
The results of the dynamic compression tests under of 2 × 10 3 s−1 are shown in
the maximum strain can reach 48% at the strain rate of 2 ×the
10strain
3 s−1. The rate average compression ratio of
Table × 3 −1
specimens reaches 94.73%, and it is 0.95% higher than that at the strain rate of 1.3 × 10 s .Duecurves
4. The average strain rate at the stable stage is approximately 2 10 s . The strain
3 −1 rate to the
are shown
strain rate in Figure 11,the
increasing, andspecimen
the stress–strain
enters intocurves
the are shown
plateau in Figure
stage after the 12. elastic
The test results
stage, and show
appearsthat
the maximum strain can reach 48% at the strain rate of 2 × 10 3 s−1 . The average compression ratio of
in the stress oscillation twice, however, the specimen does not still reach the densification.
specimens reaches 94.73%, and it is 0.95% higher than that at the strain rate of 1.3 × 103 s−1 . Due to the
strain rate increasing,
Table 4. The the specimen
results of theenters
dynamic into the plateau
compression stage
tests after
under thethe elastic
strain ratestage, s−1. appears in
2 × 103 and
the stress oscillation twice, however, the specimen does not still reach the densification.
Thickness of Thickness of Strain Rate Initial
Impact Initial
Test Specimen Specimen Compression Average at
Table 4. The results of the dynamic compression tests under the strain rate 2 × 103 s−1 . Collapse Collapse
Velocity
No before Test after Test Ratio (%) Plateau Stage Stress
(m/s) Thickness of Thickness of Strain −1
Rate Strain
Test No
Impact (mm)
Specimen before (mm)
Specimen after
Compression (s )
Average at Plateau
Initial(MPa)
Collapse Initial Collapse
Velocity(m/s) Ratio (%) Stress (MPa) Strain
Test (mm) Test (mm) Stage (s−1 ) 3
1 6.62 5.01 0.28 94.41 1.96 × 10 2.96 0.047
1 6.62 5.01 0.28 94.41 3
1.96 × 10 3 2.96 0.047
22 6.646.64 4.97 4.97 0.250.25 94.97
94.97 2.08
2.08 ××1010
3 2.99
2.99 0.046
0.046
3
33 6.656.65 5.02 5.02 0.260.26 94.82
94.82 1.96
1.96 ××10103 3.03.0 0.047
0.047

Figure11.
Figure 11.Strain
Strainrate
ratecurve
curveatatstrain
strainrate
rate2.0
2.0××10
103 3ss−1.
−1.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1188 9 of 15
Figure 11. Strain rate curve at strain rate 2.0 × 103 s−1.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x 10 of 16

To obtain the macroscopic mechanical property of the aluminum honeycomb structure at strain
rate of 2.0 × 103 s−1, the average Figure
Figure value
12. of the strain
12.Stress–strain
Stress–strain curve rate
curve curve
atatstrain
strainrateand
rate 2.0stress–strain
2.0 × ×1010 3 3s-−1
s-−1. curve from the three
tests are obtained after interpolation.
To obtain the macroscopic mechanical property of the aluminum honeycomb structure at strain
2.3.3.ofTest
rate 2.0 × 103 s−1at, the
Results Strain Rate 5value
average × 103 ofs−1the strain rate curve and stress–strain curve from the three
tests are obtained after interpolation.
The results of the dynamic compression tests under the strain rate 5 × 103 s−1 are shown in Table
5. The average strain rate at the stable stage is approximately 4.6 × 103 s−1. The strain rate curves are
2.3.3. Test Results at Strain Rate 5 × 103 s−1
shown in Figure 13, and the stress–strain curves are shown in Figure 14. The test results show that
−1 are shown in Table 5.
5 × 10is3 sattributed
thereThe is aresults
slightofoscillation
the dynamic in compression tests under
the stress obtained from thethe
strain rate
test, which to the weak
The average strain rate at the stable stage is approximately 4.6 × 10 3 s −1 . The strain rate curves
divergence of the stress wave under the high strain rate. The time history of the strain rate and are
the
shown in Figure 13, and the stress–strain
stress–strain still present in a good repeatability. curves are shown in Figure 14. The test results show that there
is a slight oscillation in the stress obtained from the test, which is attributed to the weak divergence of
the stress waveTable under the high
5. The results strain
of the rate. The
dynamic time history
compression tests of the the
under strain
strain rate and
rate of the
4.6 ×stress–strain
103 s−1. still
present in a good repeatability.
Thickness of Thickness of Strain Rate Initial
Impact Initial
Test Table 5. The Specimen
results of theSpecimen Compression
dynamic compression tests underAverage
the strainatrate of Collapse
4.6 × 103 s−1Collapse
.
Velocity
No before Test after Test Ratio (%) Plateau Stage Stress
(m/s) Thickness of Thickness of Strain Rate Strain
Test No
Impact (mm)
Specimen before (mm)
Specimen after
Compression (s −1)
Average at Plateau (MPa)
Initial Collapse Initial Collapse
Velocity(m/s) Ratio (%) Stress (MPa) Strain
Test (mm) Test (mm) Stage (s−1 )
1 13.85 4.97 0.16 96.78 4.59 × 103 2.61 0.051
1 13.85 4.97 0.16 96.78 4.59 × 103 2.61 0.051
2 2 13.9513.95 4.984.98 0.160.16 96.79
96.79 4.61 ×
4.61 × 103 10 3
2.582.58 0.053
0.053
3 13.82 5.03 0.17 96.63 3 2.62 0.064
3 13.82 5.03 0.17 96.63 4.58 × 10
4.58 × 10 3 2.62 0.064

Figure
Figure 13.13.Strain
strainrate
ratecurve
curveatatstrain
strainrate
rate4.6 103 3ss−1
4.6××10 −1.

It can be seen that the maximum strain reaches 79% at strain rate4.6 × 103 s−1, and the average
compression rate of the specimen reaches 96.73%, which is 2.95% higher than that at the strain rate
of 1.3 × 103 s−1, and 2% higher than that of the strain rate of 2.0 × 103 s−1. It can be seen that the impact
velocity increases, the strain rate is significantly enhanced. The specimen reaches the densification
after the plateau stage.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1188 10 of 15

It can be seen that the maximum strain reaches 79% at strain rate4.6 × 103 s−1 , and the average
compression rate of the specimen reaches 96.73%, which is 2.95% higher than that at the strain rate of
1.3 × 103 s−1 , and 2% higher than that of the strain rate of 2.0 × 103 s−1 . It can be seen that the impact
velocity increases, the strain rate is significantly enhanced. The specimen reaches the densification
after the plateau stage.
To obtain the macroscopic mechanical property of aluminum honeycomb structure at strain rate
of 4.6 × 103 s−1 , the average value of the strain rate curve and stress–strain curve from the two tests are
obtained after interpolation.
There are slight deviations of each test result at the same strain rate. The reason is because the
thickness of 10,
Appl. Sci. 2020, aluminum
x foil varies during processing, and the boundary difference of the specimen
11 of 16
when fabricated
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x by wire-cutting. 11 of 16

Figure 14. Stress–strain curve at strain rate 4.6 × 103 s−1.

Figure 14. Stress–strain curve at strain rate 4.6 × 103 3s−1 .
Figure 14. Stress–strain curve at strain rate 4.6 × 10 s−1.
2.3.4. Test
2.3.4. Test Results
Results ofofQuasi-Static
Quasi-Static
2.3.4. Test Results of Quasi-Static
The quasi-static
The quasi-static compression
compression tests tests are
are carried
carried out
out by
by the
the electronic
electronic universal
universal testing
testing machine
machine at at
roomThe
room quasi-static
temperature
temperature compression
viavia displacement
displacement tests are method.
carried
loading
loading out
Theby
method. the electronic
The
loadingloading universal
rate
rate is 0.2 is 0.2 testing
mm/min, mm/min,
and themachine
and the
sampling at
room
sampling
time temperature
interval viathe
timeisinterval
0.2 s, displacement
is 0.2
tests,will testloading
the not will not
stop method.
untilstop
theuntilThe
the loading
specimen specimen rate is compacted.
0.2 mm/min,
is obviously
is obviously and
compacted.
The the
The
three
sampling time
three quasi-static
quasi-static interval is
compression
compression 0.2 s,
tests arethe
teststest will not
are conducted
conducted stop
by the byuntil the specimen
the universal
universal is obviously
electronic
electronic testingtesting compacted.
machine machine The
at the
at the strain
three
rate ofquasi-static
strain rate
6.67 ×of 10 −4compression
6.67 s×−110 −4 s−1
.The .Thetests
average are conducted
average stress–strain
stress–strain by the
curve universal
curve
of the electronic
of the aluminum
aluminum testing
honeycomb machine
honeycomb at the
structure
structure under
strain
under rate of 6.67 ×compression
quasi-static
quasi-static compression 10−4 sis−1obtained,
.The isaverage stress–strain
obtained,
as shown as in
shown curve
in 15.
Figure of the
Figure 15. aluminum honeycomb structure
under quasi-static compression is obtained, as shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15.Stress–strain
Figure15. Stress–straincurve
curveofofQuasi-static
Quasi-staticcompression
compressiontest.
test.
Figure 15. Stress–strain curve of Quasi-static compression test.
As is shown in Figure 15, the yield strength (initial collapse stress) σc0 = 2.33 MPa, and the
As is shown
corresponding in Figure
initial collapse15, the yield
strain is εc0 =strength
1.33 × 10(initial collapse
−2. During stress)stage,
the plateau σc0 = the
2.33strain
MPa,increases
and the
corresponding initial collapse strain is ε = 1.33 × 10 −2. During the plateau stage, the strain increases
from 0.188 to 0.792. The stress oscillates slightly, but it remains with the constant of 1.43 MPa. When
c0

from 0.188 increases

the strain to 0.792. The stress
to the oscillates
initial strain slightly, but it remains
of densification at εd0 =with thethe
0.792, constant
slope of 1.43 MPa. When
the stress–strain
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1188 11 of 15

As is shown in Figure 15, the yield strength (initial collapse stress) σc0 = 2.33 MPa, and the
corresponding initial collapse strain is εc0 = 1.33 × 10−2 . During the plateau stage, the strain increases
from 0.188 to 0.792. The stress oscillates slightly, but it remains with the constant of 1.43 MPa. When the
strain increases to the initial strain of densification at εd0 = 0.792, the slope of the stress–strain curve
changes significantly,
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x and the specimen is gradually compacted. 12 of 16

2.4.
2.4. Comparison
Comparison atat Different
Different Strain
Strain Rates
Rates
The mean values of the dynamic compression test results (the strain rate of 1.3 × 103 s−13,
3 −1
The mean values of the dynamic compression test results (the strain rate of 1.3 × 10 s , 2.0 × 10
3 −1 4.6 × 103 s−1 , 6.67 × 10−4 ) are fitted into the strain rate curves and the stress–strain curves
−1 × 10 s 3 , −1
2.0 −4
s , 4.6 × 10 s , 6.67 × 10 ) are fitted into the strain rate curves and the stress–strain curves at different
at different strain rates, as shown in Figures 16 and 17, respectively.
strain rates, as shown in Figure 16 and Figure 17, respectively.

Figure16.
Figure 16.Mean
Meanstress
stressrate
ratecurve
curveat
atvarious
variousstrain
strainrate.
rate.

Figure 17.Mean
Figure17. Meanstress–strain
stress–straincurve
curveat
atvarious
variousstrain
strainrate.
rate.

3 −1 both experience the elastic

The
The compression
compressionof ofthe
thequasi-static
quasi-staticand andthethestrain
strainrate 4.6××10103ss−1 both
rateofof4.6 experience the elastic
stage, ×3 10 3 s−1 and
stage, the plateau stage
the plateau stage and
andthe thedensification
densificationstage.
stage.However,
However, thethe strain
strain rates
rates of of
1.31.3
× 10 s−1 and 2.0 ×
2.0 × 10 3 s −1 only experience the elastic stage and the plateau stage, as shown in Figure 17. It can be
10 s only experience the elastic stage and the plateau stage, as shown in Figure 17. It can be seen
3 −1
3
seen that there
that there is noisfluctuation
no fluctuation at Quasi-static
at Quasi-static state,
state, only
only onefluctuation
one fluctuationatatstrain
strain rate
rate of 1.3 ×× 10
of 1.3 103,, two
two
fluctuations at a strain rate of 2.0 × 10 3 , and3 three fluctuations at a strain rate of 4.6 × 103 . The fluctuation
fluctuations at a strain rate of 2.0 × 10 , and three fluctuations at a strain rate of 4.6 × 10 . The 3

appears
fluctuation in the plateau
appears stage,
in the whichstage,
plateau is because
whichthe cellular the
is because wallcellular
instability
walland buckling
instability andduring
bucklingthe
compression. It can be seen
during the compression. thatbe
It can the fluctuations
seen increase with
that the fluctuations the strain
increase withrate
theincreases.
strain rate increases.
The yield strength, the average plateau stress and the initial densification strain of the aluminum
honeycomb structure at different strain rates are shown in Table 6. The yield strength ratio at the
strain rate of 2.0 × 103 s−1 to the strain rate of 1.3 × 103 s−1 is 1.03:1, while the average plateau stress ratio
of them is 1.02:1. Additionally, the yield strength and the average plateau stress at the strain rate of
2.0×103 s−1 and 1.3 × 103 s−1 are both higher than that at the strain rate 6.67 × 10−4. It is indicated that the
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1188 12 of 15

The yield strength, the average plateau stress and the initial densification strain of the aluminum
honeycomb structure at different strain rates are shown in Table 6. The yield strength ratio at the strain
rate of 2.0 × 103 s−1 to the strain rate of 1.3 × 103 s−1 is 1.03:1, while the average plateau stress ratio
of them is 1.02:1. Additionally, the yield strength and the average plateau stress at the strain rate of
2.0×103 s−1 and 1.3 × 103 s−1 are both higher than that at the strain rate 6.67 × 10−4 . It is indicated that
the aluminum honeycomb structure processes the stress hardening effect.
The yield strength ratios at the strain rate 4.6 × 103 s−1 to the strain rate 1.3 × 103 s−1 and
2.0 × 103 s−1 are 0.91:1 and 0.88:1, respectively, while the average plateau stress ratios of them are 0.95:1
and 0.93:1. It is indicated that the dynamic compression mechanical properties at the high strain rate of
4.6 × 103 s−1 process the stress softening effect.

Table 6. Yield strength, average plateau stress and initial densification strain at different strain rates.

Strain rates (s−1 ) 6.67 × 10−4 1.3 × 103 2.0 × 103 4.6 × 103
Yield strength σ c0 (MPa) 2.33 2.88 2.97 2.61
Average plateau stress (MPa) 1.44 1.58 1.61 1.50
Initial densification strain (εd0 ) 0.792 — — 0.68

The stress hardening effect and softening effect are both the combination of the characteristic of
the honeycomb structure itself and the sealed gas effect. The characteristic of the honeycomb structure
makes it exhibit higher stress in the dynamic compression tests at the high strain rate, however, the
sealed gas effect plays the dominant role.
As the loading time is short in the dynamic compression tests at the high strain rate, the cell walls
are not damaged, and the gas in the honeycomb cells can be approximately sealed, leading to the
higher gas pressure. As the impact bar velocity increases, the yield strength and the plateau stress at
the strain rate of 2.0 × 103 s−1 are higher than those at the strain rate of 1.3 × 103 s−1 . However, as the
impact bar velocity increases further, the cell walls seems partly damaged in the dynamic compression
tests at the strain rate of 4.6 × 103 s−1 and the gas in the honeycomb cells can be partly sealed, leading
to the lower gas pressure, so the yield strength and the plateau stress at the strain rate of 4.6 × 103 s−1
are lower than those at the strain rate of 1.3 × 103 s−1 and 2.0 × 103 s−1 . Additionally, the gas flow out
fully and the sealed gas effect is negligible in the process of the quasi-static compression, leading to the
ambient gas pressure in the honeycomb cells, therefore the yield strength and the plateau stress at
quasi-static are the lowest.
The initial densification strain is adopted as a material characteristic parameter to describe the
crushability of the aluminum honeycomb structure in the maximum deformation of the plateau
stage under the quasi-static and dynamic conditions. The dynamic compression at the strain rates of
1.3 × 103 s−1 and 2.0 × 103 s−1 does not reach the densification. The initial densification strain at the
strain rate of 4.6 × 103 s−1 is smaller than that of the quasi-static stage, it is shown that the strain of the
maximum deformation at a high strain rate is smaller than that at the quasi-static state.

3. The Damage Mode

The scanning electron microscopy of the cell structure after impact is show in Figure 18. The damage
mode of the honeycomb structure is observed during the test. The damage mode mainly includes cell
wall plastic buckling, collapse, and compaction. The elastic buckling primarily emerges in the cell
wall at the elastic stage. Both ends of the cell wall are neither completely free nor fixedly clamped,
as shown in Figure 19. When loading to the yield strength, the plastic buckling occurs at the cell
wall. The collapse mode is periodically gradual folding with the length of λ along the honeycomb
thickness. The folding of cell walls is hardly compression, which is primarily achieved by bending.
With the spread of the stress wave, the adjacent cell walls experience plastic buckling and collapse,
and gradually spread out, leading to the compaction of the whole structure. The scanning electron
microscopy of the cell wall folding is show in Figure 20.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1188 13 of 15
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x 14 of 16
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x 14 of 16

Figure 18. Electron

Electron micrograph of
of the cell
cell structureafter
after impact.
Figure 18. Electron micrograph
Figure 18. micrograph of the
the cell structure
structure after impact.
impact.

Figure19.
Figure 19. Elastic
Elastic buckling
buckling of
of the
the hexagonal
hexagonalcell
cellwall.
wall.
Figure 19. Elastic buckling of the hexagonal cell wall.

Figure 20. Electron

Figure20. Electron micrograph
micrographof
ofthe
thecell
cellwall
wallfolding.
folding.
Figure 20. Electron micrograph of the cell wall folding.
3 −1
The specimenafter
The specimen after dynamic
dynamic compression
compression test
test of of quasi-static,
quasi-static, atstrain
at the the strain
ratesrates
of 1.3 10×
of×1.3 10, 2.0
33 s–1
–1 s ×,
The3 specimen
2.033 ×−1
−110 s
−1 and 4.6 after dynamic
–1× 10 s
33 –1
compression
3 −1 are shown intest of quasi-static,
Figure at thefolding
21. The average strain rates
lengthofof1.3
the× specimen
103 s–1, 2.0 at×
103 ss−1 and
10 and 4.6
4.6 ×× 10
103 ss–1 are
are shown
shown iinn Figure
Figure 21. The average folding length of the specimen at each strain
21. The average folding length of the specimen at each strain
3 −1
each strain rate has been measured, as shown in Table 7. The specimen at high strain rate (4.6 × 10 s )
rate has been measured, as shown in Table 7. The specimen at high strain rate (4.6 × 10333 s–1 –1) has the
–1
rate haslongest
has the been measured, as shown
folding length in Table
of 1.49 mm, and 7. The
thatspecimen at high
at quasi-static strain
has rate (4.6folding
the shortest × 10 s length
) has the
of
longest folding
longest folding length
length of
of 1.49
1.49 mm,
mm, and
and that
that at
at quasi-static
quasi-static has
has the
the shortest
shortest folding
folding length
length of
of 0.59
0.59 mm,
mm,
0.59 mm, which also indicates the sensitivity of the strain rate. It can be seen that the folding length of
which also
which also indicates
indicates the
the sensitivity
sensitivity of
of the
the strain
strain rate. It can be seen that the folding length of the
the specimen
specimen increases
increases as the
as the strain
strain raterate increases.rate. It can be seen that the folding length of the
increases.
specimen increases as the strain rate increases.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1188 14 of 15
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x 15 of 16

Figure 21.
Figure 21. The specimen
specimen after
after dynamic
dynamic compression
compression test
test at
at various
various strain
strainrates.
rates.

Table 7. The folding length of the specimen at various strain rates.

Table 7. The folding length of the specimen at various strain rates.
−1 −4 3 3 3
Strain rate(s ) × 10 6.67 × 10−41.3 × 101.3 × 103
Strain )rate(s–16.67 × 10
2.02.0 × 103 4.64.6 × 10
× 10 3

foldingfolding
length(mm)
length(mm)0.59 0.59 0.89 0.89 0.96
0.96 1.491.49

4. Conclusions
Conclusions
The dynamic compression mechanical
mechanical properties
properties of aluminum honeycomb
honeycomb structures at high
strain rates, together with a comparison among the quasi-static state are investigated in this paper by
the dynamic
dynamiccompression
compression tests
tests of aluminum
of the the aluminum honeycomb
honeycomb structures.
structures. The followings
The followings are
are discovered
discovered in the research:
in the research:
(1) The
(1) The stress
stress hardening
hardening andand softening
softening effects
effects of
of the aluminum honeycomb
the aluminum honeycomb structure
structure are both
are both
observed,
observed, which indicates that the aluminum honeycomb structure is sensitive to the strain rate.
which indicates that the aluminum honeycomb structure is sensitive to the strain rate.
(2) The damage modes of the aluminum honeycomb structures under dynamic
(2) The damage modes of the aluminum honeycomb structures under dynamic compression include compression
include
cell wallcell wall plastic
plastic buckling,buckling, collapse,
collapse, and compaction.
and compaction. The folding
The folding lengthlength
of theofcell
the wall
cell wall
at a
at a high strain rate is longer than that at a low strain rate, which also indicates the sensitivity
high strain rate is longer than that at a low strain rate, which also indicates the sensitivity of the of
the strain
strain rate.
rate.
(3) The SHPB test method with special measures can be used to acquire the dynamic mechanical
(3) The SHPB test method with special measures can be used to acquire the dynamic mechanical
properties of the metal honeycomb structures at high strain rates.
properties of the metal honeycomb structures at high strain rates.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.Z. and W.C.; methodology, S.Z.; validation, S.Z., and L.H.; formal
Author
analysis,Contributions:
S.Z., and L.H.; Conceptualization, S.Z.resources,
investigation, S.Z.; and W.C.; methodology, S.Z.; validation,
W.C.; data curation, S.Z., and L.H.; formal
D.G.; writing—original draft
analysis, S.Z., and L.H.; investigation, S.Z.; resources, W.C.; data curation, D.G.; writing—original
preparation, S.Z.; writing—review and editing, W.C., D.G. and S.Z.; project administration, L.X.; fundingdraft preparation,
S.Z.; writing—review and editing, W.C., D.G. and S.Z.; project administration, L.X.; funding acquisition, L.X.
acquisition, L.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
Funding: This
Thisresearch
researchwaswassupported
supported byby thethe
Fundamental
Fundamental Research
ResearchFunds for the
Funds for Central Universities,
the Central NO.
Universities,
NS2019060.
NO. NS2019060.
Acknowledgments: IIwouldwouldlike to show
like my deepest
to show gratitude
my deepest to another
gratitude supervisor,
to another Chaoping Chaoping
supervisor, Zang, a respectable,
Zang, a
respectable, responsible and resourceful scholar. Without his enlightening instruction, impressiveand
responsible and resourceful scholar. Without his enlightening instruction, impressive kindness patience,
kindness andI
could not have completed my article.
patience, I could not have completed my article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
References
1. Hopkinson, B. A method of measuring the pressure produced in the detonation of high explosives or by the
1. Hopkinson, B. A method of measuring the pressure produced in the detonation of high explosives or by
impact of bullets. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 1914, 89, 411–413.
the impact of bullets. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 1914, 89, 411–413.
2. Kolsky, H. An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials at very high rates of loading. Proc.
2. Kolsky, H. An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials at very high rates of loading. Proc.
Phys. Soc. Sect. B 1949, 62, 676. [CrossRef]
Phys. Soc. Sect. B 1949, 62, 676.
3. Wu, E.; Jiang, W.S. Axial crush of metallic honeycombs. Int. J. Impact Eng. 1997, 19, 439–456.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1188 15 of 15

3. Wu, E.; Jiang, W.S. Axial crush of metallic honeycombs. Int. J. Impact Eng. 1997, 19, 439–456. [CrossRef]
4. Tekoğlu, C.; Gibson, L.J.; Pardoen, T.; Onck, P.R. Size effects in foams: Experiments and modeling. Prog.
Mater. Sci. 2011, 56, 109–138. [CrossRef]
5. Peroni, M.; Solomos, G.; Pizzinato, V. Impact behaviour testing of aluminium foam. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2013,
53, 74–83. [CrossRef]
6. Zhao, H.; Gary, G.; Klepaczko, J.R. On the Use of a Viscoelastic Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar. Int. J. Impact
Eng. 1997, 19, 319–330. [CrossRef]
7. Zhao, H.; Elnasri, I.; Abdennadher, S. An experimental study on the behaviour under impact loading of
metallic cellular materials. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2005, 47, 757–774. [CrossRef]
8. Zhao, H.; Gary, G. Crushing behaviour of aluminium honeycombs under impact loading. Int. J. Impact Eng.
1998, 21, 827–836. [CrossRef]
9. Elnasri, I.; Pattofatto, S.; Zhao, H.; Tsitsiris, H.; Hild, F.; Girard, Y. Shock enhancement of cellular structures
under impact loading: Part I Experiments. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 2007, 12, 2652–2671. [CrossRef]
10. Hou, B.; Ono, A.; Abdennadher, S.; Pattofatto, S.; Li, Y.L.; Zhao, H. Impact behavior of honeycombs under
combined shear-compression. Part I: Experiments. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2011, 5, 687–697. [CrossRef]
11. Tounsi, R.; Zouari, B.; Chaari, F.; Haugou, G.; Markiewicz, E.; Dammak, F. Experimental study of aluminium
honeycomb behaviour under dynamic multiaxial loading. EPJ Web Conf.. 2012, 26, 01050. [CrossRef]
12. Hou, B.; Wang, Y.; Sun, T.F.; Liu, J.G.; Zhao, H. On the quasi-static and impact responses of aluminum
honeycomb under combined shear-compression. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2019, 131, 190–199. [CrossRef]
13. Xu, S.; Beynon, J.H.; Ruan, D.; Lu, G. Experimental study of the out-of-plane dynamic compression of
hexagonal honeycombs. Compos. Struct. 2012, 94, 2326–2336. [CrossRef]
14. Xu, S.; Beynon, J.H.; Ruan, D.; Yu, T.X. Strength enhancement of aluminium honeycombs caused by entrapped
air under dynamic out-of-plane compression. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2012, 47, 1–13. [CrossRef]
15. Wang, Z.; Lu, Z. Experimental assessment on energy absorption property of aluminum honeycomb under
out-of-plane compression. J. Cent. South Univ. (Sci. Technol.) 2013, 44, 1246–1251.
16. Fang, D.-N.; Li, Y.-L.; Zhao, H. On the behaviour characterization of metallic cellularmaterials under impact
loading. Acta Mech. Sin. 2010, 26, 837–846. [CrossRef]
17. Song, L.; Hu, S. Uniformity problems and constant strain rate during SHPB test. Explos. Shock Waves 2005,
25, 207–216.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).