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

net/publication/245574572

Behaviour of an Impact Attenuator for Formula SAE Car under Dynamic

Loading

Article  in  International Journal of Vehicle Structures and Systems · July 2010

DOI: 10.4273/ijvss.2.2.01

CITATIONS READS

16 5,436

1 author:

Simonetta Boria
University of Camerino
71 PUBLICATIONS   967 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Two-wheel drive electric motorcycle modelling and control View project

AI and fault detection in data of mechanical industry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Simonetta Boria on 05 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

S. Boria. 2010. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 2(2), 45-53
ISSN: 0975-3060 (Print), 0975-3540 (Online)
In tern at iona l Jou rnal o f
doi: 10.4273/ijvss.2.2.01 Vehicle Structures & Systems
© 2010. MechAero Foundation for Technical Research & Education Excellence Available online at www.ijvss.maftree.org

Behaviour of an Impact Attenuator for Formula SAE Car under Dynamic

Loading
Simonetta Boriaa
Department of Mechanical, Nuclear and Production Engineering,
University of Pisa, Pisa, Diotisalvi, 2.
Email: simonetta.boria@aliceposta.it
a
Presently - Department of Mathematics and Informatics,
University of Camerino, Camerino,Madonna delle Carceri, 9.

ABSTRACT:
A Formula SAE car must have structural devices that able to absorb most of the kinetic energy by means of progressive
crushing therefore minimizing the forces and decelerations transferred to the occupant during frontal collisions. This
paper presents the prediction of dynamic behaviour of an impact attenuator for a Formula SAE car under frontal
impact conditions by using numerical and experimental approaches. The impact attenuator construction is a
combination of sandwich panels and aluminium inner sheets. Firstly, the analysis of sandwich structures is carried out
to better understand their behaviour and model them properly in the numerical simulation using LS-DYNA. In order to
obtain the best configuration for the impact attenuator in terms of maximum absorbed energy, minimum deceleration
and weight saving, its length and the number of inner sheets are optimised. Finally, a crash-test is performed on the
impact attenuator to compare the experimental results with the numerical ones. The results obtained show that the
impact attenuator is able to absorb the total impact energy with progressive and plastic deformation to contain the
average deceleration as below 20g.

KEYWORDS:
Formula SAE car, Impact, Finite element simulation, Sandwich structure, Impact attenuator

CITATION:
S. Boria. 2010. Behaviour of an impact attenuator for formula SAE car under dynamic loading, Int. J. Vehicle
Structures & Systems, 2(2), 45-53.

of the system must be of 300kg. The impact velocity

1. Introduction against a rigid barrier must be of 7m/s. During the test,
One of the most important aspects during the design of a the average deceleration of the trolley must not exceed
racing car is to take into account of its behaviour in case 20g with peaks under 40g. The final deformation must
of an impact [1]. Therefore, it is necessary to provide the be limited to the impact attenuator only.
car with structural devices (called impact attenuators or A truncated pyramidal shape, as shown in Fig. 1, has
crash-boxes) that are able to absorb most of the kinetic been chosen for the impact attenuator. This choice is
energy and protect the driver from serious injuries during dictated by two main reasons: the first is due to the
impact. In order to meet the requirements of Formula common shape in the actual race prototypes; the second
SAE competition [2], the impact attenuator has to be is that increasing the cross sectional area prevents the
designed with acceptable dimensions and to meet Eulerian instability during deformation. The angle
specific performances such as the average deceleration between the loading axis and the plates induces the
and deformation during impact. In particular, the design bending leading to the formation of local plastic hinges
and assembly of the impact attenuator has to meet the that are effective to absorb the impact energy in a
following requirements [2]: controlled manner.
• It must be at least 200mm long (along the main
axis), 200mm wide and 100mm high;
• It must be installed at the bulkhead front either by
welding or using at least 4 bolts (M8, Grade 8.8);
• It must not penetrate the bulkhead during impact;
• It must guarantee the occupant safety during off-
axis and off-centre impacts.
The impact attenuator can be installed on the racing
car only after having passed a specific crash-test. During
this dynamic test, the impact attenuator and the front part
of the chassis are attached to a trolley. The total weight Fig. 1: The impact attenuator shape as a hollow beam
45
 S. Boria. 2010. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 2(2), 45-53

During the deformation process, the lateral panels (4 Several Finite Element (FE) models of the impact
off) are characterized by an alternation of hinges and attenuator have been developed using ANSYS [11] as
straight zones. With the increase of plastic hinges, the pre/post-processor and LS-DYNA [12] as a solver.
crushing of the straight zones come in contact with one The material characteristics are defined by combining
another. This has lead us to use aluminium sandwich the experimental tests on the sandwich structures with
structures [3] with hexagonal core for the impact simple numerical models. Afterwards, the global system
attenuator design. This material is available from E- comprising an impact attenuator, striking mass and
Team at the University of Pisa. Sandwich panels [4] barrier is analysed. In order to obtain the best
store energy in bending and in compression along the configuration, the impact attenuator geometry is
axis of cells more effectively than simple sheets. For the optimised for the required average deceleration and
required performances, the energy to absorb is set as stroke efficiency. Finally, the FE analysis results are
relatively low. Thanks to previous simulations [5-10] of compared with the crash-test data.
impact attenuators made of honeycomb materials. A
well-designed attenuator with two sandwich panels that 2. Material Characterisation
are placed on the lateral sides seems to satisfy the quoted
The sandwich panels are made of aluminium alloy
requirements.
AA5052, while the inner sheets are of aluminium alloy
Few aluminium sheets have been assembled using
AA5005. The material properties are given in Table 1.
rivets between the two panels making the sandwich
structure to work effectively in the ways mentioned as Table 1: Aluminium properties
above. These membranes create higher stiffness areas Type of aluminium AA5052 AA5005
and consequently trigger the instability and folding of Density (kg/m3) 2700 2700
the sandwich structure. After the first impact, the face Elasticity modulus (GPa) 70 70
sheets have no structural task and work as an instability- Poisson’s ratio 0.3 0.3
starter only. A general shape of the chosen impact Yield stress (MPa) 130 41
attenuator is shown in Fig. 2. To avoid the structure Ultimate stress (MPa) 210 124
under non-frontal impact and to form a hinged Elongation at break (%) 9 7
parallelogram, an additional sheet is used at the top of
the impact attenuator. The top sheet is attached directly The analysis of sandwich structures is carried out to
to the lateral sandwich panels and transfers the impact better understand their behaviour and model them
load to both the panels in case of an off-axis collision. properly in the numerical simulation. Out-of-plane
The steps for the assembly of the impact attenuator compressive tests have been performed on the sandwich
are as follows: specimen with quasi-static deformation (0.12 mm/s). The
• Folding two strips of each plate, to create the specimen geometry is described in Table 2, with
surface to apply the rivets; reference to Figs. 4 and 5.
• Drilling holes in the inner sheets and sandwich
panels and then apply rivets between them;
• Bolted joining of the attenuator with the front
bulkhead using four ribbed L-shaped angles as
shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 4: Sandwich panel geometry

Fig. 2: The impact attenuator using sandwich panels

Fig. 5: Honeycomb core geometry

Table 2: Sandwich specimen dimensions

Dimension Value
Panel geometry axbxh (mm) 70x70x13
Core thickness hc (mm) 12
Face skin thickness tf (mm) 0.5
Cell geometry Sxdxtc (mm) 6.35x3.67x0.0381
Fig. 3: Bolted joining of the attenuator and front bulkhead Cell geometry α (°) 120
46
 S. Boria. 2010. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 2(2), 45-53
The stress-strain response from the experimental
results of sandwich specimen is shown in Fig. 6. The
initial peak indicates that the sandwich panels are not
pre-crushed. After a large displacement, the cell walls
start touching each other and the core reaches its total
compaction condition. This situation causes a huge
increase in stiffness leading the core to behave nearly as
a solid aluminium block. The energy absorption
capability of the honeycomb structure [13] is determined
by the average stress in the plateau area of the stress-
strain curve.
Fig. 6: Stress vs. Strain under out-of-plane compression
The crush strength of aluminium honeycomb
increases linearly [14] with the impact velocity. This is
due to three possible causes:
• Compression and temperature increase due to
presence of air in the cells;
• Effects due to inertia;
• Strain rate effects of aluminium.
Compression of air within the cells is negligible [6]
and is not solely affect the measured response. The
inertia effects appear to be sensitive [5] to the crush
strength, but their nature is not yet completely
understood. Therefore, the variation of crush strength of
the sandwich panel due to inertia is ignored in this study.
Aluminium alloys exhibit the strain rate effects only at
extremely high impact velocity. As the impact velocity is
7 m/s, it is hard to achieve such high strain rates into a
large proportion of the sandwich panels. However, to
validate this assumption a simple FE model representing
a portion of honeycomb cell as shown in Fig. 7(a) is
analysed [6] for compression along its main axis. The
stages of crushing of honeycomb cell for various impact
velocities from the FE simulation are shown in Figs.
7(b). As expected, the crushing behaviour exhibits
multiple crushing of the cell walls along its main axis.
Fig. 8 shows the impact force response of the
honeycomb cell for the considered impact velocities. The
force is higher for 36m/s velocity. The overall response
shows a poor sensitivity with the strain rate.
Fig. 7: Honeycomb: a) Portion of the cell analysed, b) Deformation
47
Fig. 8: Force vs. Displacement of honeycomb for various velocities
3. FE Modelling of Attenuator
3.1. Materials Modelling
Material type 24 (*MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_
PLASTICITY) of the LS-DYNA library is used for the
aluminium sheets and external skins. The material
property is defined using a bilinear true stress-true strain
curve. The ultimate true stress is calculated from the
ultimate engineering stress (σri ) using:
(
σ rv = σ ri 1 + ε ri / 100 ) (1)
Where ν is the Poisson’s ratio. The ultimate true strain is
calculated from the ultimate engineering strain (εri)
using:
(
ε rv = ln 1 + ε ri / 100 ) (2)
The tangent modulus of the true stress-true strain curve
is calculated using:
( )(
ETAN = σ rv − σ y / ε rv − ε y ) (3)
Where εy is the strain at yield stress (σy) and is calculated
from the elastic modulus (E) as follows:
εy =σy /E (4)
The final failure of inner sheets and face skins during the
impact loading is characterised by a failure criterion.
Failure means a loss of stiffness and is detected when the
elongation of elements in any direction reaches the
allowable strain.
Different approaches [9] exist for the FE modelling
of honeycomb structures. They depend on the
idealisation, loading, computational cost, and accuracy
of the results. A detailed representation of the hexagonal
cells can predict the deformation of cell wall reasonably
well, but it is unsuitable for large-scale FE models. The
core can also be simplified as an orthotropic continuum
based on its effective material properties [7, 15]. The in-
plane properties of the honeycomb core are much lower
than the out-of-plane ones. Experimental tests such as
shear, three-point bending, and buckling under in-plane
compression are undertaken to characterise the in-plane
orthotropic properties. The honeycomb core behaviour
under compression is shown in Fig. 9. This
simplification is commonly used for the behaviour of a
sandwich panel, where there are neither fluctuations nor
initial peak in the stress-strain curve exist. This
simplification also reduces the calculation time and
implies that every element in the FE model deforms
simultaneously.
 S. Boria. 2010. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 2(2), 45-53
Fig. 9: Stress-Strain curve for the honeycomb under compression
When the honeycomb material model 26 (*MAT_
HONEYCOMB) of LS-DYNA material library is used, a
lack of stiffness along the cells axis is observed for the
tension loading. In order to correctly model the
honeycomb tensile rigidity, LINK type elements are used
between the core and the face skins. The present analysis
is limited for predicting the global deformation of the
sandwich structure and not to the local deformation of
honeycomb.
The car body and the barrier are idealised as rigid.
During the crash-test, the impact attenuator hits a rigid
wall. Hence, the assumption of striking mass being rigid
leads to a conservative simulation and allows the
attenuator’s main function as to absorb all the kinetic
energy by cancelling any time-delay during loading.
3.2. Geometry Idealisation
The total system consists of an impact attenuator, a
striking mass and a barrier wall. During the assembly of
the impact attenuator, care is taken to ensure that the
sandwich panels are not pre-crushed. The upper sheets
orthogonal to the inner sheets and the sandwich panels
are not idealised. Rivets are not idealised in the FE
model due to a computational overload. Also, the failure
of face skins of the sandwich panel will precede the
failure of the rivets. Therefore, the elements representing
the inner sheets are directly connected to the skin nodes
at this interface. In order to reduce computation time,
only a quarter of the total system (see Fig. 10) is
simulated using appropriate boundary conditions.
Striking mass
Attenuator
Barrier
Fig. 10: FE model of total system for dynamic analysis
The sandwich face skins, inner sheets, and the wall
are idealised using 4-noded SHELL163 type elements.
These elements have both the bending and membrane
deformation capabilities. They have been used with a
fully-integrated Belytschko-Tsay element formulation
with 5 integration points through the thickness. The
48
Gauss integration is used for the convergence. This rule
allows a faster convergence than the trapezoidal rule and
is accurate enough for this study. The striking mass and
honeycomb core are idealised using 8-noded SOLID164
type elements. These elements have been used as fully
integrated to avoid the any hourglass phenomena during
numerical solution.
As the failure of the bond between the core and the
outer face skins precedes the failure of honeycomb core
in traction, the tensile rigidity between the core and face
skins has to be correctly represented in the FE model.
Hence, the honeycomb is considered as a collection of
hexagonal prisms. Each prism is idealised using
LINK167 type elements whose area represents the
transverse section of the cell. LINK167 element is an
explicit tension-only connector that behaves like a cable
with no compressive or bending stiffness. It should be
noted that the LINK167 element is not useful to
represent a stretched honeycomb core.
In the FE model, there are as many LINK167 type
elements as the number of nodes on the face skins. An
equivalent area is assigned to the LINK167 element such
that the total stiffness of the link elements equals the
total stiffness of prisms using:
Aeq = AHEX N HEX / N N (5)
Where NN is the number of nodes on the skin, AHEX is
the area of the transverse section of the prism and is
calculated from the honeycomb core geometry S and tc
(see Table 2 and Fig. 5) using:
AHEX = 4St c / 3 (6)
NHEX is the number of hexagonal prisms filling the area
of the skin (AS) obtained from:
(
N HEX ≈ 2 AS S 2 3 ) (7)
A failure criterion for the link elements is defined such
that they break when their tensile stress reaches the
ultimate stress of the adhesive bond (15.5MPa) between
the core and face skins.
3.3. Frictional Contacts Modelling
There exist two contacts namely inner sheets to inner
sheets and inner sheets to the wall during crash. The
material used for the wall is not known as a priori.
Typical friction coefficient between two aluminium
surfaces is in the range of 1.2-1.7 [16, 17]. The explicit
code - LSDYNA does not accept a coefficient of friction
which is greater than 1. Hence, a coefficient of friction
of 0.9 is used in the FE simulation. If the wall is made of
steel, the coefficient of friction will be 0.47 and 0.6 for
the kinematic and static conditions respectively.
Simulations are carried out with these coefficients of
friction and 0.9 as the coefficient of friction for both
kinematic and static conditions. A comparison of force
vs. time response for these two analyses is shown in Fig.
11. The differences in Force vs. Time response due to
this change in the coefficient of friction is not noticeably
great (peak force is within 3%). The friction between the
wall and the attenuator increases due to the heat during
impact. Hence, all the coefficients of friction have been
assumed to be 0.9 for the worst impact conditions.
 S. Boria. 2010. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 2(2), 45-53

Fig. 11: Sensitivity of Force vs. Time to coefficient of friction

Fig. 12: Sensitivity of deceleration to length and inner sheets
3.4. Loads and Boundary Conditions
The following degrees of freedom of the nodes at the
symmetry planes have been constrained:
• The displacement along the orthogonal directions
to the symmetry plane, and
• The rotations around all the directions in the
symmetry plane.
The nodes at the interface of upper sheet to the
sandwich panels are constrained such that the onset of
plastic hinges is not allowed in bending. Stiffness and
non-failure of bolted joint conditions are plausible
during impact. Therefore, the base of attenuator (close to
the barrier) is fully constrained such that the nodes of the
sandwich panels at the base can move together with the
motion of the vehicle. The barrier is constrained in all
degrees of freedom. The displacement of striking mass
along the forward direction is permitted only with a
constant initial impact velocity of 7m/s. Fig. 13: Sensitivity of stroke efficiency to length and inner sheets
In order to run the explicit dynamic simulation using
LS-DYNA, it is necessary to fix some control
parameters such as termination time (0.08s), time-step,
and output requests.

4. FE Simulation Results
In order to obtain the best configuration for the impact
attenuator, its length and the number of inner sheets are
optimised [10]. The number of inner sheets is varied
from 4 to 7 for varied impact attenuator lengths of 300,
350 and 400mm. Figs. 12, 13, and 14 respectively show
the sensitivity of deceleration, stroke efficiency (ratio of
final shortening over initial length), and impact force to
the variations in the length and the number of inner
sheets of the attenuator. The attenuators of 300mm long
with 4 or 5 inner sheets show high peaks in the
deceleration response. The same trend is observed for
the attenuators of 350 and 400mm long with 4 inner
sheets. The impact attenuators of 350 and 400mm long
with 5 inner sheets show good performances. The impact Fig. 14: Sensitivity of impact force to length and inner sheets
attenuators with 6 inner sheets seem to be the best choice The attenuator of 300mm long with one inner sheet
based on the deceleration and force vs. displacement is analysed and the results of the configuration with 6
(measure of energy absorption capacity) responses. inner sheets is compared in Table 3. When the number of

49
 S. Boria. 2010. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 2(2), 45-53

inner sheets is increased, an increase in the absorbed

energy and a reduction in the deceleration are observed.
The impact attenuator of 300mm long with 6 inner
sheets is regarded as the optimum configuration in terms
of the required average deceleration (less than 20g) and
stroke efficiency (less than 1). This configuration has the
least volume and weighs about 3kg. The final assembly
and optimum geometry of the impact attenuator are
shown in Figs. 15 and 16 respectively. The spacing
between the inner sheets is 42mm.
Table 3: Sensitivity of the number of inner sheets on crash
parameters for 300mm length attenuator

Characteristics 1 sheet 6 sheets

Max. shortening (m) 0.296 0.25
Max. deceleration (g) 340 18.7
Max. force (N) 280968 14093
Absorbed energy (J) 1397.7 1813.1

Fig. 16: Attenuator geometry for the optimum configuration

The sequence of attenuator deformation for various

Fig. 15: Attenuator assembly with 6 inner sheets
time steps of the FE simulation under impact loading is
shown in Fig. 17. As expected, the crushing of the wall
and the contact between the inner sheets during the
stages of simulation have shown considerable crash
performance.

Fig. 17: Simulated crash performance of the impact attenuator

7m/s. A rapid unfastening system, a piston driven by

5. Crash-Test Results
The experimental setup to study the behaviour of impact
attenuator under dynamic loading is schematically
shown in Fig. 18. A striking mass of 300kg is dropped
from a height of 2.5m, to generate an impact velocity of
50
compressed air, is used to drop the striking mass. Two
steel ropes are used to guide the striking mass. The
accelerometers are positioned at the top of the striking
mass as shown in Fig. 19. The base of the impact
attenuator is fastened to a steel plate on the concrete by
using four L-angles as shown in Fig. 20.
 S. Boria. 2010. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 2(2), 45-53

Fig. 21: Impact attenuator after the crash-test

The acceleration response with a sampling

frequency of 5kHz is shown in Fig. 22. It is evident that
the impact between 2.19s and 2.26s. The deceleration
peaks greater than 40g have been filtered with the
Channel Filter Class (CFC) 60 in accordance with the B-
3.21.2 rule of the Formula SAE car competition [2]. The
filtered data, as shown in Fig. 23, has a deceleration peak
of 21.2g. The average deceleration of the raw data
during the time interval of 2.194 – 2.266s is 9.81g.
Hence, the attenuator design satisfies the required
deceleration levels (less than 40g).

Fig. 18: Experimental setup of the crash-test

Fig. 19: Location of the accelerometers on the striking mass

Fig. 22: Un-filtered acceleration response at 5kHz

Fig. 20: Impact attenuator before the crash-test

The crash-test is performed in compliance with the

Formula SAE car rules. During the impact loading, the
inner sheets and wall of the attenuator contact one
another and then lead to a final deformation as shown in Fig. 23: Comparison of raw and filtered acceleration response
Fig. 21 where the inner sheets are compacted together.
51
 S. Boria. 2010. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 2(2), 45-53

The experimental impact velocity vb can be checked

using the average acceleration a and the total impact
time using:
vb = a(t e − t b ) ≈ 6.9m/s (8)
Where tb and te are the beginning and end time of the
impact respectively. The length (lf) of the impact
attenuator after the impact can be estimated as:
l f = li − vb (t e − t b ) + 0.5a(t e − t b ) 2 ≈ 0.06m (9)
Where li is the initial length of the attenuator. From the
deceleration response, as shown in Fig. 23, is integrated
by two steps to obtain the velocity (Fig. 24) and the
displacement (Fig. 25) responses. The velocity and
displacement responses from the crash-test data have
shown good agreement with the FE simulation results.

Fig. 26: Impact force response – FE simulation vs. Crash-test

Table 4 shows a comparison of the crash parameters

from the experimental and numerical results. Despite the
simplifications adopted in the FE model, the average
deceleration from simulation is higher (~23%) than the
experimental one. The max. force and the absorbed
energy from the FE analysis correlate well with the
experimental ones. The FE analysis is able to reproduce
the progressive crushing of the impact attenuator. The
crash parameters from the FE simulation correlate
reasonably well (~17%) with the crash-test results.
Table 4: Crash characteristics – FE simulation vs. Crash-test

Fig. 24: Velocity response – FE simulation vs. Crash-test Diff.

Characteristics Simulation Test
(%)
Average deceleration (g) 12.1 9.81 23.3
Residual length (m) 0.05 0.06 16.6
Final shortening (m) 0.25 0.24 4.2
Stroke efficiency 0.83 0.8 3.7
Max. force (N) 56372* 62388 9.6
Absorbed energy (J) 7252.4* 7141.5 1.5
*As only a quarter of the total system is idealised in the FE
model, the peak force and the absorbed energy for the total
system have been factored by 4.

Fig. 25: Displacement response – FE simulation vs. Crash-test
The response of the force transmitted from the
striking mass to the impact attenuator during impact is
obtained by multiplying the acceleration response with
the striking mass. Fig. 26 shows force-displacement
response from the FE simulation experimental results.
The energy absorption capacity is characterised by the
area under the force vs. displacement curve. The
variation in the FE simulation data is due to the simple
idealisation of the impact attenuator and the maturity of
the contact characteristics. The first peak in the
experimental data is dominated by the buckling of the
top plate. This peak is not observed in the numerical
results as the top plate is not idealised in the FE model.
52
6. Conclusions
The behaviour of an impact attenuator for Formula SAE
car has been described using detailed FE simulation and
a crash-test. The number of inner sheets and the
attenuator length are optimised for good containment
and higher energy absorption during the impact. The
crush behaviour and the predicted crash parameters from
the FE simulation have shown a reasonable agreement
with the crash-test results. Based on these results, it is
demonstrated that the proposed impact attenuator design
has satisfied the requirements of Formula SAE rules.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
The author would like to thank the Prof. Ing. Giuseppe
Forasassi, Technicians at the Scalbatraio Laboratory, and
the E-Team Squadra Corse at the University of Pisa for
their collaboration in this work.
 S. Boria. 2010. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 2(2), 45-53
REFERENCES:
[1] A.N. Mellor. 2002. Impact testing in formula one, Int. J.
Crashworthiness, 7(4), 475-486.
[2] Formula SAE Rules. 2009. SAE International.
[3] D. Zenkert. 1997. The Handbook of Sandwich
Construction, EMAS Publishing.
[4] W. Goldsmith and J. Sackman. 1991. Energy absorption
by sandwich plates: A topic in crashworthiness, ASME-
Crashworthiness and Occupant Protection in
Transportation Systems, AMD-126/BED-19.
[5] H. Zhao and G. Gary. 1998. Crushing behaviour of
aluminium honeycomb under impact loading, Int. J.
Impact Engg., 21, 827-836.
[6] M. Yamashita and M. Gotoh. 2005. Impact behavior of
honeycomb structures with various cell specifications –
numerical simulation and experiment, Int. J. Impact
Engg., 32, 618-630
[7] S. Heimbs, P. Middendorf, and M. Maier. 2006.
Honeycomb sandwich material modelling for dynamic
simulations of aircraft interior components, Proc. 9th Int.
LS-DYNA Users’ Conf., Dearborn, USA.
[8] S.T. Hong, J. Pan, T. Tyan, and P. Prasad. 2008. Dynamic
crush behaviours of aluminium honeycomb under
compression dominant inclined loads, Int. J. Plasticity, 24,
89-117.
53
View publication stats
[9] L. Aktay, A.F. Johnson, and B.-H. Kröplin. 2008.
Numerical modelling of honeycomb core crush behaviour,
Engg. Fracture Mechanics, 75, 2616-2630.
[10] S. Boria and G. Forasassi. 2009. Numerical simulation of
crash-test for a Formula SAE car, Proc. 21st Int. Tech.
Conf. Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Stuttgart, Germany.
[11] LS-DYNA Keyword Users Manual. 2007. Version 9.71.
[12] ANSYS Users Manual. 2007. Version 10.
[13] L.J. Gibson and K. Ashby. 1999. Cellular Solids:
Structure and Properties, Cambridge University Press.
[14] E. Wu and W-S. Jiang. 1997. Axial crush of metallic
honeycombs, Int. J. Impact Engg., 19, 439-456.
[15] S. Heimbs, T. Mehrens, P. Middendorf, M. Maier, and A.
Schumacher. 2007. Numerical determination of the
nonlinear effective mechanical properties of folded core
structures for aircraft sandwich panels, Proc. 6th European
LS-DYNA Users’ Conf., Gothenburg, Sweden.
[16] R.T. Barrett. 1990. Fastener Design Manual. NASA
Reference Publication, 1228.
[17] L.S. Lerner. 1996. Physics for Scientists and Engineers,
Jones and Bartlett Publishers.