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

net/publication/345247240

Static Structural Analysis of Hybrid Honeycomb Structures Using FEA

Conference Paper · November 2020

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-7557-0_32

CITATION READS

1 1,081

4 authors:

M.L. Pavan Kishore Himam Saheb Shaik

Faculty of Science and Technology,IFHE, ICFAI University IFHE
35 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS    41 PUBLICATIONS   59 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Chandrashekhar A S Ranjan Mishra

IFHE University of Toronto
33 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Research work View project

Parallel robot View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Himam Saheb Shaik on 04 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Static Structural Analysis of Hybrid
Honeycomb Structures Using FEA

A. Chandrashekhar, Himam Saheb Shaik, S. Ranjan Mishra,

Tushar Srivastava, and M. L. Pavan Kishore

Abstract The following paper describes the behavior of hybrid honeycomb struc-
tures over solid-profiled structures. Sandwich panels being a major application of
honeycomb structures exhibit very high stiffness-to-weight ratio, low mass–volume
ratio, and high energy absorption capacity. The various hybrid hollow structures with
finite boundaries (finite width and height), subjected to a uniaxial compressive load,
are observed using the finite element method. The stress and deformation character-
istics of these structures are calculated using ANSYS® 18.1. Subjected to cantilever
conditions, the structures are processed in static structural simulations to obtain
the corresponding data. In this paper, a comparison of various hybrid structures is
conducted based on the obtained data to conclude their adaptability.

Keywords Hybrid honeycomb · Sandwich panels · Finite element method ·

Static-structural

1 Introduction

Material being a key factor for designing a product, the structure of the product plays
a substantial role to determine the amount of material to be used. Structures used
in the present-day scenario overcompensate for the load-bearing requisites of the
products in question. Therefore, to obtain substantial results, many unconventional
structures are adopted to optimize material consumption. Numerous applications of
such utilize hollowed structures over solid-profiled structures in the purview of the
required parameters. The selection of these hollowed structures is based on multiple
factors such as stress distribution, deformation, manufacturability, etc. Over the years,
honeycomb structures are opted due to their very high stiffness-to-weight ratio, low
mass–volume ratio, and high energy absorption capacity.

A. Chandrashekhar · H. S. Shaik (B) · S. Ranjan Mishra · T. Srivastava · M. L. Pavan Kishore

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, ICFAI Foundation
for Higher Education, Hyderabad, India
e-mail: himam.mech@gmail.com

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 363

G. S. V. L. Narasimham et al. (eds.), Recent Trends in Mechanical Engineering,
Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7557-0_32
364 A. Chandrashekhar et al.

The aforementioned properties exhibited by the honeycomb structures are proven

to be most desirable among most of the structures. The evolution of these structures
has resulted in various hybrids that compensate for the requirements of the product
sustaining more material during the production of such structures. The selection of
these structures varies greatly with applications.
Along the years, many researchers have conducted various experiments to deter-
mine the usability of these hollowed structures in numerous applications. These
structures are used as cores in sandwich panels extensively, which are thereby used
in the aerospace, packaging industry, etc.
Mohmmed et al. [1] described honeycomb sandwich structure under three condi-
tions, namely, tension, compression, and bending, and studied its fracturing criteria in
each of the given tests. The tests followed standard methods, the result of which was
presented as post-test images. The paper physically describes the fractures formed
due to the loading conditions.
Paik et al. [2] performed three types of experiments, namely, three-point bending
tests, buckling/collapse tests under (in plane) axial compression and crushing tests
under lateral pressure on an aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel specimen. The
study also numerically described the behavior of the structure during these tests.
Tantikom et al. [3] investigated the intrinsic compressive stress–strain response
of regularly cell structured materials. This intrinsic stress–strain response was
characterized by the equivalent elastic stiffness and the collapsing deformation
behavior.
Chen et al. [4] elaborated on the crushing behavior of honeycomb structures with
finite width and height by considering the work-hardening of the constituent material
[5]. Based on numerical results from FE analysis, it was found that stress–strain
response for a finite honeycomb under uniaxial compression could be classified as
Type I or Type II based on the deformation behavior. Type I was generated in the
case of large relative thickness t/l or a large work-hardening coefficient, while Type
II was observed for small relative thickness or a small work-hardening coefficient.
Farhadi et al. [6] studied the dynamic mechanical response of sandwich panels
with square honeycomb core, which is carried out using ABAQUS software, made
of an alloy of stainless steel austenitic. From the series of results obtained in this
study [7], the advantage of using a sandwich structure with a cellular metal core had
been demonstrated as a suitable candidate for deflection-limited designs capable of
withstanding air blast loads.
Ashab et al. [8] studied the impact behavior of sandwich panels made of aluminum
face sheets and aluminum corrugated core with different geometries, which is inves-
tigated using drop hammer apparatus. Pavan et al. [9] it was concluded from the
absorbed energy that increasing panel height will cause an increase in absorbed
energy.
Wang et al. [10, 11] studied five reinforced honeycomb structure that contributes
to great improvement not only in the load-carrying capacity but also in energy
absorption ability.
This paper focuses on simulating a few of the said reinforced honeycomb struc-
tures to better analyze their characteristics and usability. The finite element method
Static Structural Analysis of Hybrid Honeycomb Structures … 365

is adopted for the study of these models. The FEA software used in this paper is
ANSYS® 18.1. The models used in this paper were self-developed with the aid of
renowned CAD software like CATIA® V5R20 and SolidWorks® 2016. The results
were further graphically compared to distinguish the uniqueness of each structure.

2 Hybrid Honeycomb Structures

A honeycomb is a cluster of hexagonal wax cells developed by honey bees in their

nests to accommodate their honey, pollen, and brood. These wax structures are found
to be light in weight and tenacious under the most drastic natural conditions. The
manmade resemblance of these structures is known as honeycomb structures.
There are various parameters of a honeycomb structure, such as:
• Panel width
• Panel length
• Cell height
• Cell size
• Wall thickness
• Cell pitch.
A single unit of the honeycomb structure is called a node. The distance between
two parallel faces of the node is called cell size. The distance between two vertices
of a node is known as cell pitch. These parameters are illustrated in Fig. 1.
A honeycomb structure when reinforced with internal structures is termed as
hybrid honeycomb structures. Various hybrid structures have been developed over
the decade to further improve the adoption of these structures. In this paper, the

Fig. 1 Conventional
honeycomb structure
366 A. Chandrashekhar et al.

Fig. 2 Hybrid honeycomb profiles

analysis of conventional honeycomb structures in contrast to that of hybrid structures

is carried out to determine the usability of such structures under desired preconditions.
The following are the profiles discussed in the current work (Fig. 2):
(a) Honeycomb structure (Hex 1)
(b) Cross-ribbed honeycomb structure (Hex 2)
(c) Round-supported honeycomb structure (Hex 3)
(d) Hexagonal supported honeycomb structure (Hex 4).

3 Methodology

3.1 Modeling

The geometry of the profile plays a major role in analyzing the structure’s behavior
toward the applied conditions. The dimensions of the profile are identical to the other,
to ensure a uniform reference for the comparison of various structures in terms of
their generated stress and deformation during simulation. The dimensions of each
profile are as shown in Fig. 3 and the developed models are illustrated in Fig. 4.
The surface areas of each hybrid structure are analyzed using CAD-oriented tools
present in SolidWorks® . These surface areas are compared graphically (Graph 1)
pertaining to Table 1 as shown in Fig. 5.

3.2 Finite Element Analysis

The finite element method, being the most efficient method to simulate the behavior
of structures to predetermined conditions, is adapted to study the characteristics of
the said models. The method involves dividing a body into several uniform elements
to observe the effects of the set boundary conditions on each element and aggregating
the effect to justify the behavior of the said object as a whole. The accuracy of this
method has been widely renowned and thus adopted throughout the world.
Static Structural Analysis of Hybrid Honeycomb Structures … 367

Fig. 3 Dimensions of hybrid honeycomb structures

Fig. 4 Profiles of hybrid honeycomb structures

Table 1 Surface area

Structure Surface area (mm2 )
comparison of hybrid
honeycomb structures Hex 1 130.36
Hex 2 218.99
Hex 3 281
Hex 4 256.77
Solid block 421.35

The software environment used to study the said structures in this paper is
ANSYS® 18.1, with the aid of that the structures are subjected to various boundary
conditions under the static structural analysis. The material properties are imparted
in the software environment, thereby making it more convenient to arrive at closer
numerical results when considering the said material. Geometry of each structure is
imported, meshed (divided into distinct uniform elements), and boundary conditions
368 A. Chandrashekhar et al.

Fig. 5 Surface area of hybrid honeycomb structures

are applied. The desired results pertaining to appropriate boundary conditions are
then obtained using the solver.

3.3 Preprocessing

In this paper, each model is exported in the Step format (.stp), from SolidWorks® then
imported into ANSYS® Workbench under static structural analysis. Structural steel
is then imported using the material database into the analysis environment (Table 2).
The model is then subjected to a fine mesh that is auto generated by the software.

Table 2 Adapted material

Material name Structural steel
properties
Density 7.85e-009 tonne/mm3
Specific heat 4.34e + 008 mj/tonne/C
Young’s modulus 2.00E + 05 MPa
Poisson’s ratio 0.3
Bulk modulus 1.67E + 05 MPa
Shear modulus 76,923 MPa
Static Structural Analysis of Hybrid Honeycomb Structures … 369

Table 3 Mesh specifications of hybrid honeycomb structures

Structure Solid Hex 1 Hex 2 Hex 3 Hex 4
Number of nodes 123,421 59,202 110,755 140,251 135,272
Number of elements 28,520 10,560 19,160 26,040 23,660

Fig. 6 Meshed hybrid honeycomb structures in ANSYS® 18.1

The elements in the mesh largely consist of quad elements, the number of elements
and nodes vary with each structure are listed in Table 3. The generated mesh is
illustrated in Fig. 6.

3.4 Boundary Conditions

The model is subjected to cantilever conditions, i.e., one face of the linear structure
is fixed and a uniform pressure is applied to the opposite face. A pressure of 10 MPa
is applied to the present model to study the deformation and stress generated. The
bounded dimensions of each structure are listed in Table 4.
370 A. Chandrashekhar et al.

Table 4 Bounded
Bounding box
dimensions of each model
Length X 10.000 mm
Length Y 24.784 mm
Length Z 23.463 mm

4 Results and Discussion

4.1 Von Mises Stress

The models when subjected to the aforementioned boundary conditions exhibit stress
under uniaxial compressive load. The results thus obtained are compared graphically
(Graph 2) pertaining to data tabulated in Table 5 as illustrated in Fig. 7. The stress
distribution of the models is illustrated in Fig. 8.

Table 5 Von Mises stress

Structure Von Mises stress (Pa)
generated in hybrid
honeycomb structures Hex 1 18.641
Hex 2 22.002
Hex 3 22.886
Hex 4 23.222
Solid block 24.627

Fig. 7 Von Mises analysis Result

Static Structural Analysis of Hybrid Honeycomb Structures … 371

Fig. 8 Von Mises stress generated in hybrid honeycomb structures

4.2 Deformation

The deformation experienced by each model under the aforementioned conditions

is described graphically (Graph 3) in accordance to the data mentioned in Table 6
(Shown in Fig. 9). The generated deformation is illustrated in Fig. 10.

Table 6 Deformation of
Structure Deformation
hybrid honeycomb structures
Hex 1 5.42E-04
Hex 2 5.49E-04
Hex 3 5.51E-04
Hex 4 5.50E-04
Solid block 5.52E-04
372 A. Chandrashekhar et al.

Fig. 9 Deformation analysis Result

Fig. 10 Deformation of hybrid honeycomb structures

Static Structural Analysis of Hybrid Honeycomb Structures … 373

4.3 Mass and Volume

In order to compare the weight and volume of these structures, the data obtained from
ANSYS® 18.1 simulation reports are compared graphically. The comparison of mass
and volume of hybrid honeycomb structures is shown in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively.
Since the dimensions of each model are identical, the masses and volumes are compa-
rable in the purview of the structure’s application. The mass and volume of hybrid
honeycomb structures are as shown in Tables 7 and 8.

Fig. 11 Mass of hybrid honeycomb structures

Fig. 12 Volume of hybrid honeycomb structures

374 A. Chandrashekhar et al.

Table 7 Mass of hybrid

Structure Mass (N)
honeycomb structures
Hex 1 0.10036
Hex 2 0.16859
Hex 3 0.21708
Hex 4 0.19767
Solid block 0.32436

Table 8 Volume of hybrid

Structure Volume (mm3 )
honeycomb structures
Hex 1 1303.6
Hex 2 2189.9
Hex 3 2189.9
Hex 4 2567.7
Solid block 4213.5

5 Conclusion

With identical dimensions and boundary conditions, the comparison of various

honeycomb structures suggests that, with a negligible difference in deformation,
the stress generated in each honeycomb structure is drastically less as compared
with a solid profiled structure. It is also observed that with the change in shape,
the mechanical behavior of structures with similar dimension varies. The mass of
these structures was also found to be around 40% less as compared with that of solid
profile, thereby making it more conservative to adapt. With the hollow profile of
these structures, they are bound to save a lot of material upon usage.

References

1. R. Mohmmed et al., Damage behaviors of glass fabric honeycomb sandwich composite

materials under static loading. Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. ISSN: 2320-2092
2. J.K. Paik et al., The strength characteristics of aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels. Thin-
Walled Struct. 35(3), 205–231 (1999)
3. K. Tantikom et al., In-plane compression response of regularly cell-structured materials. Mater.
Trans. 45(2), 509–515 (2004)
4. D.-H. Chen et al., in Deformation of Honeycomb with Finite Boundary Subjected to Uniaxial
Compression. ISSN 2075-4701
5. Q. Chen et al., In-plane elastic buckling of hierarchial honeycomb structures. Eur. J. Mech.
A/Solid
6. K. Farhadi et al., Numerical simulation of metallic honeycomb sandwich panel structures under
dynamic loads
7. S. Heimbs et al., Honeycomb sandwich material modeling for dynamic simulation for aircraft
interior, in 9th International LS—Dyna User Conference
 Static Structural Analysis of Hybrid Honeycomb Structures … 375

8. A.S.M. Ayman Ashab et al., Finite element analysis of aluminum honeycombs subjected to
dynamic indentation and compression loads
9. P.K. Mamaduri, H.S. Shaik, A. Chandrashekhar, Comparative study for material effect on stress
behaviourial characteristics of rectangular plate. Vibroengineering PROCEDIA (2019). https://
doi.org/10.21595/vp.2019.21100
10. Z. Wang et al., Comparison between five typical reinforced honeycomb structures. in 5th
International Conference on Advanced Engineering Materials and Technology (AEMT 2015)
11. S.P.S. Arora et al., Study the effect of core design on mechanical behaviour of honeycomb
sandwich structures under three point bending. Int. J. Innovative Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 5(6)
(2016) (An ISO 3297: 2007 Certified Organization)

View publication stats