Vacuum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Vacuum
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/vacuum

Energy absorption and in-plane crushing behavior of aluminium reinforced

honeycomb
T. Thomas∗, G. Tiwari
Department of Mechanical Engineering, VNIT, Nagpur, MH, 4400010, India

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Aluminium honeycomb is a lightweight load carrying structure widely used in aerospace and automotive in-
Honeycomb core dustries. In this study, In-plane compression analysis of AA 8011 reinforced honeycomb was performed nu-
Reinforced honeycomb merically and experimentally. Geometrical parameters like cell size, cell wall thickness and node length were
In-plane crushing varied for attaining different models. Cell size was varied as 7 mm and 10 mm while node length as 25 mm,
LS-DYNA
30 mm and 35 mm respectively. Cell wall thickness of reinforced honeycomb was kept as 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 mm
Energy absorber
respectively. Finite element simulations were performed on various combination of reinforced honeycomb
configuration using LS DYNA. Numerical model was validated with experimental results performed on re-
inforced core. Cell-wall thickness has major influence on energy absorption and peak crushing force of honey-
comb. Enhancement in cell wall thickness increased crushing strength and energy absorption capacity of the
structure whereas reverse effect was observed with increase in cell size. Node length has less impact on per-
formance characteristics of honeycomb core.

1. Introduction
Aerospace and automobile structures in present era strive for
lightweight structures with high energy absorption. In the quest of at-
taining highly efficient energy absorbing structure hollow tubes,
sandwich foams, lattice cores and honeycomb cores [1–6] were studied.
Honeycomb core was found to perform exceedingly proficiently in
crushing conditions. In-plane crushing analysis of honeycomb core was
executed to assess the mechanical properties and failure mechanisms in
this direction [7]. Different energy absorbing and stress criterion were
applied for estimating mechanical properties and crush strength of
honeycombs in in-plane direction. All such theoretical models were
validated with experimental results [8–11]. Finite element models were
proficiently employed for exhibiting deformation mechanism in in-
plane impact. Failure behavior like crush band initiation and wave
trapping were acclaimed. Hu et al. [10,12] augmented finite element
model of in-plane analysis of honeycomb and acquired the impact of
cell topology on performance of honeycomb in in-plane direction. Cell
shape and cell arrangement significantly plays an important role in
crushing analysis of honeycomb in in-plane direction [11]. Cell failure
mechanism majorly effects In-plane crushing strength of honeycomb
core as Plateau stress was significantly influenced by cell failure. Energy
absorption capacity of honeycomb core was predominantly described
using plateau stress and densification strain. Plateau stress was derived
considering behavior of vertical cell walls equivalent to columns under
compressive loading to develop the elastic buckling of cell walls
[13,14]. Furthermore, Becker et al. postulated elastic core strain energy
on specified displacement for establishing effect of core thickness on in-
plane stiffness [15]. Hexagonal core have more in-plane stiffness than
square, triangular, kagome and diamond core configuration [7].
Honeycomb being an anisotropic material was observed to be
comparatively weak in in-plane impact than out-of-plane impact. In-
plane application of honeycomb was very limited as in-plane properties
were two times lesser than out-of-plane properties. But in reality impact
doesn't always happen in out-of-plane direction therefore crushing
analysis in in-plane direction becomes significant to understand de-
formation mechanism. Although in recent times lower in-plane stiffness
was utilized for designing highly flexible meso-structure for functional
material applications like actuators, sensors, shape memory aerospace
antenna using auxetic honeycombs and shape control devices.
Honeycomb structure behaves as a low density cellular structure with
controllable shape in in-plane direction. Low shear stiffness honeycomb
has ability of shape control applicable in actuators and smart structures
[16–19]. Various novel structures were studied by various researchers
to improve the performance of core structure in in-plane crushing. Zero
poisson's ratio novel honeycomb core was analysed with the aid of

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tiju.thomas30@gmail.com (T. Thomas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2018.10.057
Received 31 July 2018; Received in revised form 8 October 2018; Accepted 20 October 2018
0042-207X/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: Thomas, T., Vacuum, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2018.10.057

T. Thomas, G. Tiwari
Fig. 1. a) Conventional hexagonal honeycomb, b) Reinforced honeycomb.
Finite element method. Reduction in cell wall angle reduces poisson's
ratio, it approaches zero when cell wall angle becomes less than 10°
[20]. A new honeycomb core configuration was developed combining
rhombic and auxetic honeycomb core, resulting in significant en-
hancement in-plane stiffness while auxetic effect was reduced. Novel
honeycomb became transversely isotropic at 30° cell wall angle [18].
Energy absorption efficiency of auxetic structure was better than reg-
ular honeycomb while energy loss was dependent on honeycomb cell
geometric parameters [21–24].
It was clearly evident from literature that various novel structural
cores perform better than conventional honeycomb core (Fig. 1 (a))
under in-plane loading condition. In this paper, a novel core named
reinforced honeycomb core (Fig. 1 (b)) was analysed in in-plane com-
pression (Fig. 2 (a)) both experimentally and numerically. Performance
of reinforced honeycomb core (RHC) was compared with conventional
honeycomb core (CHC) with same geometrical parameters. Modes of
deformation of reinforced honeycomb core under in-plane compression
were also studied. Effect of different geometrical parameters on the
crushing performance of reinforced honeycomb core was evaluated.
2. Experimental analysis
2.1. Reinforced honeycomb fabrication and testing
Conventionally, hexagonal honeycomb cores were manufactured
with various techniques like corrugation and adhesion, expansion and
embossing [25,26]. In the present work, reinforced honeycomb core
were developed using corrugation and adhesion technique. High
Carbon high chromium steel corrugated male and female dies were
developed using cutting techniques for fabricating reinforced honey-
comb core. Aluminium sheets were pressed between both dies to attain
corrugated desired shapes which were further adhered together using
Fig. 2. a) In-plane load condition, b) Reinforced honeycomb core.
2
Vacuum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
epoxy adhesive to attain required reinforced honeycomb core [25], see
Fig. 2 (b). Developed reinforced honeycomb core has cell wall angle
45°. Both reinforced and conventional honeycomb core were manu-
factured by AA8011. Reinforced honeycomb samples were prepared
with varying cell size as 7 mm and 10 mm, node length as 35 mm and
cell wall thickness as 0.3 mm respectively.
Quasi-static tests were carried out on 60 Tonne capacity INSTRON
compression testing machine accompanying computer control and data
acquisition system. The velocity of the moveable jaw was kept as 2 mm/
min and compresses the sample placed in between the two platens
where the bottom platen was fixed and top platen was moving down-
wards in in-plane direction.
2.2. Material characterization
Aluminium 8011 material was used for fabrication of aluminium
reinforced honeycomb. Accuracy of numerical model in non-linear
analysis was dependent on material properties of model, therefore at-
taining exact material properties was a primary objective. Herewith
1 mm thick sheet of AA 8011 was cut in desired shape and size (of
ASTM standard E345) using Electrode discharge machining. Further,
cut sheet samples were loaded in INSTRON Universal testing machine
with computerized data acquisition system and mechanical parameters
(Table 1) were obtained, see Fig. 3.
3. Numerical modeling
In-plane crush response of aluminium reinforced honeycomb was
executed in commercial explicit non-linear finite element code LS-
DYNA. Three dimensional reinforced honeycomb cores were modeled
with varying cell size as 7 mm, 10 mm and 15 mm, node length as
25 mm, 30 mm and 35 mm and cell wall thickness as 0.1 mm, 0.2 mm
T. Thomas, G. Tiwari Vacuum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1 element with higher accuracy to minimize the hourglass effect, see
Nomenclature of reinforced honeycomb core samples. Fig. 4. Different mesh size 0.2, 0.25, 0.35 and 0.5 mm were considered
Nomenclature Cell size Cell wall Node Reinforced wall for meshing reinforced honeycomb core. It was evident that peak force
thickness Length thickness obtained from mesh size 0.25 mm numerical model was close to peak
force attained from experimental study. Peak force of 0.25 mm mesh
R_10_25_0.1 10 0.1 25 0.1
size was 11501 N while peak force obtained experimentally was
R_10_25_0.2 10 0.2 25 0.2
R_10_25_0.3 10 0.3 25 0.3
11620 N. There was an error of 1.01% and 1.013% for 0.25 and 0.2 mm
R_10_30_0.1 10 0.1 30 0.1 mesh size respectively while error rises to 5.16% and 10.17% for 0.35
R_10_30_0.2 10 0.2 30 0.2 and 0.5 mm respectively. Although 0.2 mm also almost gave approxi-
R_10_30_0.3 10 0.3 30 0.3 mately same results to that of 0.25 mm mesh size but computational
R_10_35_0.1 10 0.1 35 0.1
time for 0.2 mm mesh size was considerably higher. Therefore, after
R_10_35_0.2 10 0.2 35 0.2
R_10_35_0.3 10 0.3 35 0.3 convergence study 0.25 mm was considered as optimum mesh size, see
R_7_25_0.1 7 0.1 25 0.1 Fig. 5 (b). Material behavior of AA 8011 honeycomb was depicted using
R_7_25_0.2 7 0.2 25 0.2 Mat 024 (Piecewise_Linear_Plasticity) (Table 2). Yield criterion (Peice-
R_7_25_0.3 7 0.3 25 0.3
wise_Linear_Plasticty) was selected because AA 8011 was a non-linear
R_7_30_0.1 7 0.1 30 0.1
R_7_30_0.2 7 0.2 30 0.2
material and in order to incorporate effects of non-linearity above
R_7_30_0.3 7 0.3 30 0.3 mentioned yield criterion was used. With the aid of this material model,
R_7_35_0.1 7 0.1 35 0.1 non-linear behavior was converted to combination of approximately
R_7_35_0.2 7 0.2 35 0.2 infinitesimal small linear behaviors. In LS-DYNA, non linear material
R_7_35_0.3 7 0.3 35 0.3
property was mostly incorporated with aid of material model
(MAT_24). Reinforced honeycomb core was pressed in between two
rigid plates (shell surfaces), see Fig. 4. Top rigid plate allocated to move
in downward direction with rate of 2 mm/min while bottom rigid plate
was fixed. Automatic surface to surface contact was provided between
the rigid plate surface and reinforced honeycomb surface. Coefficient of
friction between the surfaces in contact was assumed as 0.3 [25]. The
yielding function criterion for MAT 024 was expounded as [30]:
1
ϕ= ∗Sab ∗Sab − r y2 ≤ 0
2 (1)

ry = β ∗ [σ0 + fh (εeffp )] (2)

Φ = Yielding functionSab = Deviotric stressry = Current radius of Yield
Surfaceσo = Flow stress fh (εeffp ) = Hardening function

4. Results and discussion

Reinforced honeycomb core [25,31] with 7 mm and 10 mm cell,

Fig. 3. True stress vs True strain curve for AA 8011.
30 mm node length and 0.3 mm cell wall thickness were compressed in
in-plane direction. Numerical model developed was validated with the
above results and further models were developed for accomplishing
parametric study, see Fig. 5 (a). Further, Reinforced honeycomb models
were developed with varying cell size as 7 mm, 10 mm, node length as
25 mm, 30 mm and 35 mm and cell wall thickness as 0.1 mm, 0.2 mm
and 0.3 mm respectively in order to analyze the effect of various
parameters.

4.1. Performance comparison between honeycomb and reinforced

honeycomb

Honeycomb core and Reinforced honeycomb core with same para-

Fig. 4. Meshed Reinforced honeycomb core with rigid walls.
and 0.3 mm respectively. Three dimensional surface models were fur-
ther used for numerical analysis. Principles developed by Santosa et al.
[27] were used for performing quasi-static analysis. Total kinetic en-
ergy of the structure was considered negligible on comparison with
Total internal energy throughout the loading scenario and the crushing
force-displacement curve was not dependant on loading rate when it
was enhanced to reduce computational time [25,28,29]. Meshing of
reinforced honeycomb core was done by fully integrated BT-shell
meters were subjected to same rate of loading in in-plane direction to
compare the crush performance of both cores. It was observed that
modes of deformation of both reinforced core and honeycomb core
were different, further leading to variation in mean and peak force of
cores. It was also evident that the nature of force displacement curve
was similar for both structural cellular cores. Performance of a cellular
core in in-plane direction was mainly established with aid of force vs
displacement curve [8]. Force-displacement curve of both reinforced
and conventional honeycomb was prescribed in three regions.
(1) Linear region: Initially force varies linearly with displacement
(deformation). This area under the curve (force-displacement) was
termed linear region. Such type of behavior was found due to initial
elastic deformation of honeycomb which causes symmetric cell
deformation about their centers. Peak force was attained while first

3
T. Thomas, G. Tiwari Vacuum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 5. a) Validation of experimental with numerical force vs displacement curve for reinforced core, b) Mesh size vs Peak force.

Table 2
Mechanical properties of AA 8011.
Property Value

Modulus of Elasticity 69 GPa

Poisson's ratio 0.3
Density 2.72 kg/m3
Ultimate tensile strength 145.28 MPa
Yield Strength 98.147 MPa

cell collapses, further progressive collapse occurs leading to weak-

ening of reinforced honeycombs consequently reduction of force
with displacement
(2) Plateau region: A region under force v/s displacement curve where
force showed infinitesimal small variation with change of dis- Fig. 7. Force vs displacement curve comparison between reinforced and con-
placement. The reason behind such behavior of the curve was due ventional honeycomb core.
to asymmetric shear mode deformation of the cell which lead to
weakening of the cells and destabilizing neighbor cell. During Table 3
progressive collapse there was very less resistance from reinforced Comparison between Reinforced honeycomb and conventional honeycomb
honeycomb core so force variation almost becomes constant. core.
(3) Densification region: The main reason for nature of curve in this Nomenclature Mean Force Maximum Force Maximum Energy
region was densification of cellular core. After densification, core (N) (N) absorbed (J)
attains high strength therefore there is a steep rise in force with
respect to increase in displacement, see Fig. 6 R_10_25_0.3 2919.45 10148.96 107.15
R_10_30_0.3 2914.89 10142.92 106.65
R_10_35_0.3 2905.9 10137.38 105.58
Comparison between force displacement curve of conventional H_10_25_0.3 1012.74 3557.17 20.1
honeycomb and reinforced honeycomb shows that nature of curve was H_10_30_0.3 1015.84 3561.86 20.83
similar but the load carrying capacity of reinforced honeycomb core H_10_35_0.3 1020.773 3568.972 21.412
was higher than conventional honeycomb, see Fig. 7. It was manifested
that mean force (MF) and energy absorbing capacity of reinforced
honeycomb with cell size 10 mm, cell wall thickness 0.3 mm and node
length 30 mm was 18.55% and 39.81% more than that of conventional
honeycomb with same geometrical parameters. Similar observation was
made for all respective samples, see Table 3.

4.2. Modes of deformation of reinforced honeycomb core

Modes of deformation of Reinforced honeycomb core were different

Fig. 6. Load vs displacement curve regions for Reinforced honeycomb core.
from that of honeycomb core. Layer between the honeycomb cells has
great influence on the modes of deformation. Deformation behavior of
honeycomb core was illustrated as honeycomb core deforms initially in
an elastic manner and cells deforms symmetrically along their centers
along the vertical axis. Further cells of first row changes their original
shape and localizes into narrower zone. Other row cells further col-
lapses in diagonal wave form from top to bottom and rows further
collapses along horizontal line until densification [8,9], see Fig. 8 (a).

4
T. Thomas, G. Tiwari Vacuum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 4
Properties of Reinforced honeycomb core.
Nomenclature Mean Force Maximum Force Maximum Energy
(N) (N) absorbed (J)

R_10_25_0.1 2779.64 9842.89 93.11

R_10_25_0.2 2839.27 9943.85 97.24
R_10_25_0.3 2919.45 10148.96 107.15
R_10_30_0.1 2778.86 9849.39 92.41
R_10_30_0.2 2836.27 9947.35 96.49
R_10_30_0.3 2914.89 10142.92 106.65
R_10_35_0.1 2769.47 9839.18 93.92
R_10_35_0.2 2831.53 9939.62 95.73
R_10_35_0.3 2905.9 10137.38 105.58
R_7_25_0.1 3571.49 11962.85 302.47
R_7_25_0.2 3629.37 12285.72 309.56
R_7_25_0.3 3798.39 12509.14 317.35
R_7_30_0.1 3567.9 11954.58 298.74
R_7_30_0.2 3622.4 12280.92 303.59
R_7_30_0.3 3793.632 12499.69 312.065
R_7_35_0.1 3559.13 11954.79 293.41
R_7_35_0.2 3614.79 12273.59 299.68
R_7_35_0.3 3787.32 12492.9 308.84

in-plane stiffness of reinforced honeycomb core.

4.4. Effect of cell size

Cell size plays a very significant role in defining the performance of

honeycomb core under out-of-plane and in-plane loads [12]. Perfor-
mance of Reinforced honeycomb core under in-plane crushing was ef-
fected by cell size. Increase in cell size reduces the mean force, peak
force and energy absorbing capacity of the core, see Fig. 9 (a). Cell size
reduction causes increase in relative density or core density. Higher
relative density core has higher strength resulting in better performance
of core under crushing loads [32]. Relative density of reinforced hon-
eycomb core with cell size 7 mm was more than that with cell size

Fig. 8. a) Modes of deformation of Conventional honeycomb, b) Modes of de-

formation of Reinforced honeycomb core.

Reinforced honeycomb core have different deformation behavior as

compared to conventional honeycomb. X mode of deformation was not
evident in reinforced core deformation. Reinforced honeycomb core
initially deforms in an elastic manner and further cells deforms sym-
metrically along their centers along vertical axis. First row of cells
changes its original shapes into narrower zones and further all rows
simultaneously starts deforming in similar manner and finally the core
densification occurs (Fig. 8 (b)).

4.3. Effect of node length

Node length (core thickness) influences the performance of re-

inforced honeycomb core under out-of-plane compression [25], while it
was observed that in in-plane compression node length has minimal
effect on the performance of reinforced core. Mean force (MF), Peak
force (PF), in-plane stiffness and maximum energy absorbed remains
almost same with change in node length, see Table 4. Modes of de-
formation of the reinforced core remain same on variation of node
length. As plates were placed parallel to node length in in-plane com-
pression so increase in node length was not effecting the strength and Fig. 9. a) Effect of cell size, b) Effect of cell-wall thickness.

5
T. Thomas, G. Tiwari
10 mm. Therefore 7 mm core has more energy absorption capacity.
Similarly 7 mm reinforced core has more stiffness than 10 mm core, so
increase in cell size reduces in-plane stiffness. Reinforced honeycombs
having cell size 7 mm, cell wall thickness 0.1 mm and node length
25 mm has 28.48% and 21.513% higher mean (MF) and peak force (PF)
than reinforced honeycomb core with 10 mm cell wall thickness 0.1 mm
and node length 25 mm. Energy absorbed by 7 mm cell size reinforced
honeycomb was 302.47 J while that of 10 mm cell size core was
93.11 J. Similarly reinforced honeycomb with cell size 7 mm, cell wall
thickness 0.2 mm and node length 25 mm has 27.8% and 23.553%
higher mean and peak force than reinforced honeycomb core with
10 mm cell wall thickness 0.2 mm and node length 25 mm.
4.5. Effect of cell-wall thickness
Cell-wall thickness also plays a defining role in establishing crush
strength for honeycomb core in out-of-plane and in-plane direction. Cell
wall thickness also influences the performance of reinforced honey-
comb core under out-of-plane loads [25]. Increment in cell wall
thickness of reinforced honeycomb core enhances the In-plane crushing
strength and energy absorbing capacity of the core. Cell-wall thickness
increment attributes to increase in relative density or core density of
reinforced honeycomb, consequently crushing strength, in-plane stiff-
ness and energy absorbing capacity of core was enhanced. Reinforced
honeycomb core with cell size 10 mm, 25 mm node length and cell
thickness 0.3 mm absorbs 107.15 J energy while 0.2 mm and 0.1 mm
cell wall thickness cores absorbs 97.24 and 93.11 J energy. Similarly
Reinforced honeycomb core with cell size 7 mm, 25 mm node length
and cell thickness 0.3 mm absorbs 317.35 J energy while 0.2 mm and
0.1 mm cell wall thickness cores absorbs 309.56 and 302.47 J energy
respectively, see Fig. 9 (b).
5. Conclusions
In-plane crushing analysis of reinforced and conventional honey-
comb structure was performed both experimentally and numerically
with varying cell size, wall thickness and node length. Reinforce hon-
eycomb structure showed 18.55%, 121% and 39.81% higher mean
force, peak force and energy absorption capacity as compared to con-
ventional honeycomb structure. Moreover for reinforced honeycomb
structure, 7 mm cell size structure showed 28.48%, 21.513% and 225%
higher mean force, peak force and energy absorption as compared to
10 mm cell size structure. Similarly, 0.3 mm wall thickness structure
provided 10.23%, 8.32% and 15.08% higher mean force, peak force
and energy absorption as compared to 0.1 mm wall thickness structure.
The influence of nodal length was not found significant on the perfor-
mance of the structure. Reinforced honeycomb core offered higher in-
plane stiffness which enhanced crashworthiness property as well as
showed stable deformation which is desirable for functional material.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2018.10.057.
References
[1] N. Gupta, G. Sekhon, P. Gupta, A study of lateral collapse of square and rectangular
Vacuum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
metallic tubes, Thin-Walled Struct. 39 (9) (2001) 745–772.
[2] D. Siromani, J. Awerbuch, T.-M. Tan, Finite element modeling of the crushing be-
havior of thin-walled CFRP tubes under axial compression, Compos. B Eng. 64
(2014) 50–58.
[3] W.-Y. Jang, S. Kyriakides, On the buckling and crushing of expanded honeycomb,
Int. J. Mech. Sci. 91 (2015) 81–90.
[4] X. Zhang, H. Zhang, Z. Wen, Experimental and numerical studies on the crush re-
sistance of aluminum honeycombs with various cell configurations, Int. J. Impact
Eng. 66 (2014) 48–59.
[5] S. Gaitanaros, S. Kyriakides, On the effect of relative density on the crushing and
energy absorption of open-cell foams under impact, Int. J. Impact Eng. 82 (2015)
3–13.
[6] A. Rajaneesh, I. Sridhar, S. Rajendran, Relative performance of metal and polymeric
foam sandwich plates under low velocity impact, Int. J. Impact Eng. 65 (2014)
126–136.
[7] A.-J. Wang, D. McDowell, In-plane stiffness and yield strength of periodic metal
honeycombs, J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 126 (2) (2004) 137–156.
[8] S.D. Papka, S. Kyriakides, In-plane compressive response and crushing of honey-
comb, J. Mech. Phys. Solid. 42 (10) (1994) 1499–1532.
[9] S.D. Papka, S. Kyriakides, In-plane crushing of a polycarbonate honeycomb, Int. J.
Solid Struct. 35 (3–4) (1998) 239–267.
[10] L. Hu, T. Yu, Dynamic crushing strength of hexagonal honeycombs, Int. J. Impact
Eng. 37 (5) (2010) 467–474.
[11] A. Hönig, W. Stronge, In-plane dynamic crushing of honeycomb. Part I: crush band
initiation and wave trapping, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 44 (8) (2002) 1665–1696.
[12] L. Hu, F. You, T. Yu, Analyses on the dynamic strength of honeycombs under the y-
directional crushing, Mater. Des. 53 (2014) 293–301.
[13] F.A. El-Sayed, R. Jones, I. Burgess, A theoretical approach to the deformation of
honeycomb based composite materials, Composites 10 (4) (1979) 209–214.
[14] L. Gibson, Modelling the mechanical behavior of cellular materials, Mater. Sci. Eng.
110 (1989) 1–36.
[15] W. Becker, The in-plane stiffnesses of a honeycomb core including the thickness
effect, Arch. Appl. Mech. 68 (5) (1998) 334–341.
[16] K.E. Evans, A. Alderson, Auxetic materials: functional materials and structures from
lateral thinking!, Adv. Mater. 12 (9) (2000) 617–628.
[17] C. Lira, F. Scarpa, Transverse shear stiffness of thickness gradient honeycombs,
Compos. Sci. Technol. 70 (6) (2010) 930–936.
[18] H.N. Wadley, Multifunctional periodic cellular metals, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond.:
Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 364 (1838) (2006) 31–68.
[19] J. HE, Y. TOI, Enhanced computational modeling of shape memory alloys and its
applications to honeycomb analysis, J. Solid Mech. Mater. Eng. 7 (1) (2013) 27–42.
[20] J. Huang, X. Gong, Q. Zhang, F. Scarpa, Y. Liu, J. Leng, In-plane mechanics of a
novel zero Poisson's ratio honeycomb core, Compos. B Eng. 89 (2016) 67–76.
[21] J. Huang, Q. Zhang, F. Scarpa, Y. Liu, J. Leng, In-plane elasticity of a novel auxetic
honeycomb design, Compos. B Eng. 110 (2017) 72–82.
[22] Z. Zhou, J. Zhou, H. Fan, Plastic analyses of thin-walled steel honeycombs with re-
entrant deformation style, Mater. Sci. Eng. 688 (2017) 123–133.
[23] J. Qiao, C. Chen, In-plane crushing of a hierarchical honeycomb, Int. J. Solid Struct.
85 (2016) 57–66.
[24] M.-H. Fu, Y. Chen, L.-L. Hu, A novel auxetic honeycomb with enhanced in-plane
stiffness and buckling strength, Compos. Struct. 160 (2017) 574–585.
[25] G. Tiwari, T. Thomas, R. Khandelwal, Influence of reinforcement in the honeycomb
structures under axial compressive load, Thin-Walled Struct. 126 (2018) 238–245.
[26] V. Crupi, G. Epasto, E. Guglielmino, Collapse modes in aluminium honeycomb
sandwich panels under bending and impact loading, Int. J. Impact Eng. 43 (2012)
6–15.
[27] S.P. Santosa, T. Wierzbicki, A.G. Hanssen, M. Langseth, Experimental and numerical
studies of foam-filled sections, Int. J. Impact Eng. 24 (5) (2000) 509–534.
[28] H. Yin, G. Wen, Theoretical prediction and numerical simulation of honeycomb
structures with various cell specifications under axial loading, Int. J. Mech. Mater.
Des. 7 (4) (2011) 253.
[29] Y. Aminanda, B. Castanie, J.-J. Barrau, P. Thevenet, Experimental analysis and
modeling of the crushing of honeycomb cores, Appl. Compos. Mater. 12 (3–4)
(2005) 213–227.
[30] S. Tabacu, C. Ducu, Experimental testing and numerical analysis of FDM multi-cell
inserts and hybrid structures, Thin-Walled Struct. 129 (2018) 197–212.
[31] Q. He, D. Ma, Z. Zhang, L. Yao, Mean compressive stress constitutive equation and
crashworthiness optimization design of three novel honeycombs under axial com-
pression, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 99 (2015) 274–287.
[32] S. Balawi, J. Abot, The effect of honeycomb relative density on its effective in-plane
elastic moduli: an experimental study, Compos. Struct. 84 (4) (2008) 293–299.