Engineering Failure Analysis 158 (2024) 108041

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Bio-inspired honeycomb structures to improve the crashworthiness

of a battery-pack system
Ruoxu Li a ,1 , Zhiwei Zhao b ,1 , Huanhuan Bao b , Yongjun Pan a ,∗, Gengxiang Wang c ,
Binghe Liu a , Tianjun Liao d , Jie Li d
a
College of Mechanical and Vehicle Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing, 400044, China
b
China Automotive Engineering Research Institute Co., Ltd, Chongqing, 401122, China
c
Exeter Small-Scale Robotics Laboratory, Engineering Department, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QF, UK
d State Key Laboratory of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Technology, 401120, Chongqing, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The battery-pack system of electric vehicles is prone to collide with low obstacles on the road,
Mechanical safety causing battery short circuits and even explosions. It poses a great safety threat to passengers
Frontal impact and drivers. The honeycomb structure’s high energy absorption and lightweight properties
Honeycomb structure
have made it a popular choice in the automotive industry. This paper designs different bio-
Energy absorption
inspired honeycomb structures to a battery-pack system of electric vehicles to improve the
Battery-pack system
Electric vehicle
crashworthiness performance. The effects of different bio-inspired honeycomb structures on
the crashworthiness of a battery-pack system during frontal impact are analyzed based on a
nonlinear finite element model. First, the geometric parameters of seven different bio-inspired
honeycomb individual units are described. The overall structure of the honeycomb is applied to
a battery-pack system. Second, the nonlinear finite element model of a battery-pack system and
honeycomb structures are established and verified. Then, collision simulations are conducted.
The deformation and the maximum stress of a battery-pack’s bottom shell are computed. The
energy absorbed by the honeycomb structures during frontal impact are investigated. The results
indicate that the proposed bio-inspired honeycomb structure mimicking grass stems improves
the safety performance of battery-pack systems most. Finally, a parametric design is carried
out on the bio-inspired honeycomb structure. The effects of wall thicknesses and the number
of replacement hexagons on the crashworthiness performance are analyzed. The honeycomb
structure preforms best when thickness is 1 mm and the number of replacement hexagons
is 2 and 4. The optimized bio-inspired honeycomb structure reduces the deformation of the
battery-pack’ bottom shell by up to 30%, and maximum stress by 10%.

1. Introduction

Electric vehicles are developing quickly in response to the consumption of non-renewable energy and environmental pollution.
They have also drawn increased attention for the safety accidents associated with them [1–3]. As the core power component of
electric vehicles, the safety performance of the battery-pack system is crucial. Battery fire accidents seriously endanger the safety of
both drivers and passengers. The frontal impact of low road obstacles with the battery-pack system is one of the primary causes of

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yongjun.pan@cqu.edu.cn (Y. Pan).
1 Ruoxu Li and Zhiwei Zhao contributed equally to this work.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2024.108041
Received 14 December 2023; Received in revised form 22 January 2024; Accepted 28 January 2024
Available online 29 January 2024
1350-6307/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Li et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 158 (2024) 108041

electric vehicle fires. In order to lessen damage during collisions, energy-absorbing structures have been used extensively in battery
safety research.
An efficient method to improve the safety performance of battery-pack systems is to create collision-resistant structures with
high energy absorption and light weight [4–6]. A large number of investigations has been reported in recently years for the energy
absorbing structures. Biharta et al. studied the design and optimization of sandwich-based auxetic honeycomb structures to safeguard
the pouch battery cells [7]. Zhao et al. proposed a honeycomb sandwich battery box composed of high-strength steel outer layer,
sandwich aluminum alloy honeycomb and inner layer [8]. Wang et al. explored a novel battery-pack system made up of a non-
module battery pack (cells to pack) and two negative Poisson’s ratio tubular structures [9]. Haris et al. investigated the vibration,
shock, and impact performances of a structural honeycomb battery-pack. The pack is made up of a honeycomb core and embedded
cylindrical batteries [10]. Shuai et al. designed and optimized a new thin-walled honeycomb structure for Li-ion battery packaging
to protect the internal battery [11]. Hao et al. indicated that applying a energy-absorbing structure to battery modules has the
potential to overcome the limitations in battery-powered electric vehicles [12]. Trung et al. introduced an architectured multi-
functional battery-structure material system, namely the Cellular Battery Assembly [13]. Qu et al. constructed a protective structure
which is filled with roller arrowhead wings honeycomb to reduce damage between ship berthing and high-pressure vessels [14]. Ga
et al. investigated the collapse failure mechanism of the honeycomb sandwich composite in an aircraft radome [15]. Selivanov et al.
estimated mechanical properties and shock-absorbing characteristics of highly porous aluminum alloys and honeycomb aluminum
alloy structures applied to landing gear and other elements of spacecraft [16]. Liu et al. proposed a new type of thin-walled circular
tubes (CTs). The CTs is inspired by the highly-efficient energy absorption bamboo, and is designed for the potential application of
the energy absorber of rail vehicles [17].
One of the frequently used energy-absorbing structures is the honeycomb structure. Researchers have studied a variety of bio-
inspired honeycomb structures based on other organisms in nature [18,19]. Based on observations of the internal structure of
ladybirds and Japanese beetles forewings, Xiang and Du proposed several new honeycomb structures namely bionic honeycomb
thin-walled structure (BHTs). These structures filled the column in various ways [20,21]. Wu et al. investigated mechanical
behaviors and energy absorption characteristics of novel composite bio-inspired multi-cell metal tubes, which were inspired by
lotus root, lotus root-horsetail and lotus root-honeycomb [22]. Ha et al. investigated the energy absorption capability of a new
bio-inspired cylindrical sandwich structure. The sandwich core of the bio-inspired cylindrical sandwich structure is designed
to mimic the skeletal system of deep-sea glass sponge [23]. Shi et al. proposed two bionic lotus petiole structures: 12-wells
original structure and 13-wells original structure to improve the energy absorption properties of porous structures [24]. Wei et al.
proposed a new bionic polycellular tube protective structure based on the fractal principle and studied its energy absorption
characteristics [25]. Gao et al. clarified the stabilization mechanism and investigated quasi-static compression responses of double-
layer ordered cellular structures [26]. Qiao and Chen analyzed the crushing behavior of a second-order hierarchical honeycomb with
an equilateral triangular honeycomb wall [27]. Fang et al. conducted experimental and analytical studies on hierarchical honeycomb
to comprehend its energy absorption characteristics [28]. He and Feng added smaller hexagons at the centers of original cells in an
underlying hexagonal network and connected the adjacent vertices by straight beams. And assessed this novel form of hierarchical
honeycomb for out-of-plane crashworthiness [29]. Zhang and Yin built a novel hierarchical honeycomb and tested the pomelo peels
inspired honeycomb for crushing resistance and energy absorption [30]. Yang and Ma developed a series of brand-new, bio-inspired
aluminum honeycombs with a horseshoe mesostructure to improve energy absorption capacity [31,32]. Hu et al. numerically and
experimentally investigated a 2D honeycomb hexagon model and a 2D cuttlefish model [33]. Yin et al. presented a system of bio-
inspired hierarchical honeycomb structures based on hexagonal, Kagome, and triangular tessellations [34]. Chen et al. conducted
an analytical study on the in-plane elastic buckling of bio-inspired honeycomb materials with hierarchical architecture [35]. Shi
et al. and Sun et al. imitated leaf structures to design a sandwich panel with a bio-inspired core. A proper orthogrid was filled with
honeycomb to create the core [36]. Ha et al. created a novel beetle forewing sandwich panel by imitating the micro-structure of
a woodpecker’s beak [37]. Sharma et al. proposed novel cellular structures based on bird’s feathers. The effect of strut thickness,
shape, loading direction and functional grading on compressive behavior is studied [38]. Kueh et al. computationally explored the
impact resistance of a bio-inspired sandwich beam. The sandwich beam is inspired by the beak, skull bone, hyoid, and spongy
bone of the woodpecker head [39]. These bio-inspired honeycomb structures can improve the crashworthiness performance of the
vehicles dramatically.
Among the existing literature on the energy absorbing structures applied to battery packs, few of them investigate bio-inspired
honeycomb structures. And the working conditions targeted rarely involve frontal collisions. Meanwhile the existing literature on
bio-inspired honeycomb structures only focuses on the honeycomb structure itself, without applying energy absorbing structures
to battery packs. When installed to a battery pack, due to the structural characteristics of the battery-pack and different load
conditions, the bio-inspired honeycomb structures may not perform as expected. In this work, we aim to find a certain honeycomb
energy absorbing structure that can significantly improve the safety performance of the battery-pack system under frontal collisions.
We investigate different bio-inspired honeycomb structures used on a battery-pack system of electric vehicles. The relevant work
is seldom reported in the existing literature. The bottom shell of the battery-pack will deform if a low obstacle strikes the pack
suspended at the bottom of an electric vehicle. The battery module may be squeezed and possibly explode if the deformation is
too great. The battery pack’s safety performance can be increased by adhering the honeycomb energy-absorbing structure to the
front of the pack, which can lessen damage to the bottom shell during collisions. The purpose of this work is to analyze the effects
of different bio-inspired honeycomb structures on the crashworthiness of battery-pack systems. And select a structure with best
performance for parametric design to improve the mechanical safety performance of electric vehicles. The highlights of this work

2
R. Li et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 158 (2024) 108041

Fig. 1. Individual units of honeycomb structures.

are as follows:

– Honeycomb structures are integrated to a battery-pack system to investigate the entire crashworthiness performance.
– The effects of 7 different bio-inspired honeycomb structures on crashworthiness are analyzed.
– Parametric design for an optimal honeycomb structure mimicking grass stems is carried out to further improve the crashwor-
thiness performance.
– The deformation of the bottom shell can be reduced by up to 30% when using the proposed bio-inspired honeycomb structure.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the geometric properties of individual units and overall structures,
as well as material properties of 7 different bio-inspired honeycomb structures are described. In Section 3, finite element models of
a battery-pack system and various honeycomb structures are established, and collision simulations are conducted. In Section 4, the
effects of different bio-inspired honeycomb structures are compared. The parametric design for is carried out, and the best parameter
combinations are obtained. In Section 5, we conclude our work.

2. Geometric and material properties of honeycomb structures

2.1. Geometric properties

This work investigates a total of 7 different honeycomb structures. The selection of 7 types of honeycomb structures takes into
account both the ease of manufacturing and the structures’ suitability for use in battery-pack systems. Certain intricate structures,
like multi-level hierarchical structures and horseshoe-shaped honeycombs, are difficult to produce. Meanwhile, some structures,
like the leaf-shaped honeycombs, are too large to be installed because there is not enough space under the chassis. All 7 selected
configurations can be mounted on the battery-pack’s front end and are easy to produce. The individual units of the honeycomb
are shown in Fig. 1. The first, in Fig. 1(a), is the conventional honeycomb, named as 𝐻𝑐. The side length of the hexagon, 𝐿𝑐 is

3
R. Li et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 158 (2024) 108041

Fig. 2. Natural organisms referenced by bio-inspired honeycomb structures.

12 mm, wall thickness, 𝑡 is 0.8 mm. The conventional structure serves as the foundation for all the ensuing bio-inspired honeycomb
structures. The second, in Fig. 1(b), and third, in Fig. 1(c) are bio-inspired honeycomb structures based on beetle forewings, named
as 𝐻𝑏1 and 𝐻𝑏2 , respectively. With their hard forewings, beetles can shield their abdomen and hind wings from harm. and protect
the body from particular physical attacks. The internal structure of the elytra is filled with numerous honeycomb-like structures. In
the honeycomb-like structure, there are many hollow column structures, as shown in Fig. 2(a). In Figs. 1(b) and 1(c), circular tubes
are distributed at the corners and the midpoint of the honeycomb walls. The diameter, 𝐷1 and 𝐷2 of the circle are both 4.8 mm [21].
The fourth, in Fig. 1(d), and fifth, in Fig. 1(e), are bio-inspired honeycomb structures based on spider web, named as 𝐻𝑠1 and
𝐻𝑠2 , respectively. The approach by which the spider spins its own silk thread accounts for much of the web’s tenacity and strength.
Spiders create a very tight spiral structure out of the silk strands they spin, as shown in Fig. 2(b). The spider web can withstand
significant tensile and compressive forces and reduce the risk of breakage. In Figs. 1(d) and 1(e), the centers of original cells are
expanded into smaller hexagons, and straight beams are used to connect the adjacent vertices. 𝐿𝑠1 is 9.6 mm and 𝐿𝑠2 is 7.8 mm [29].
The sixth, in Fig. 1(f), is the bio-inspired honeycomb structure based on pomelo peel, named as 𝐻𝑝. Pomelo peel offers effective
impact defense. The pomelo will not break even if it falls from a high tree, and the majority of its internal components are unharmed.
The thickness of pomelo peel is typically 2–3 cm, consisting of flavedo (exocarp) and albedo (spongy mesocarp, main part of the
peel). Dense vascular bundle are surrounded by loose biological tissues, as shown in Fig. 2(c). In Fig. 1(f), seven smaller hexagons
are evenly distributed within the large hexagon. 𝐿𝑝 is 4 mm [30]. The last, in Fig. 1(g), is bio-inspired honeycomb structures based
on grass stems, named as 𝐻𝑔. By incorporating honeycomb-like cores into its tubular structure naturally, grass makes use of the
benefits of hierarchical structure to effectively carry out its functions, as shown in Fig. 2(d). In Fig. 1(g), the sides of a large hexagon
are replaced by small ones. Here, three tiny hexagons have taken the place of one side. 𝐿𝑔 is 6 mm [28].
The overall honeycomb structure is shown in Fig. 3. Laminated plates (skin of the sandwich panel) on both sides of the honeycomb
structure ensure that it can be glued to the front of the battery-pack. Simply attaching one side to the battery-pack when in use. The
overall length of the structure, 𝐿 is 500 mm and the height, 𝐻 is 78 mm. The sizes are designed to fit the battery-pack’s structural
dimensions, enabling the honeycomb to entirely cover the battery-pack’s front end, and to guard against collisions that happen at
various locations. Two full honeycomb units must be included in the width direction. On the one hand, the larger the width 𝑊 , the
more energy can be absorbed during collisions. On the other hand, the installation gap between the battery-pack and the chassis is
limited. The front width of the bottom shell flange of the battery-pack in this work is 56 mm. The flange serves as the installation
and sealing surface. It is possible to attach the honeycomb structure to the battery-pack if the width 𝑊 is less than 56 mm. Due
to the differences in honeycomb unit structures, the length in the width direction, 𝑊 varies from 42 mm to 48.5 mm. It should
be noted that in the honeycomb structure inspired by pomelo peel, only the units located in the middle are optimized, and the
remaining units maintain the traditional structure, as shown in Fig. 3. In other bio-inspired honeycomb structures, all units are
optimized. Wall thicknesses in all structures are 0.8 mm.

2.2. Material properties

All honeycomb structures in this work are made of Aluminum Alloy 6063. Both light weight and good energy absorption are
properties of the material. The mechanical properties of AL6063 are shown in Table 1. The density (𝜌) is 2700 kg/m3 . The Young’s

4
R. Li et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 158 (2024) 108041

Fig. 3. Overall structure of a certain bio-inspired honeycomb.

Table 1
Mechanical properties of AL6063.
𝜌 (kg/m3 ) 𝐸 (GPa) Yield stress (MPa) Ultimate stress (MPa) 𝜈
2700 68.2 162 192 0.3

Fig. 4. True stress–strain curve for AL6063.

modulus (𝐸) is 68.2 GPa. The initial yield stress is 162 MPa, and the ultimate stress is 192 MPa. Poisson’s ratio (𝜈) is 0.3 [40,41].
The true stress versus true strain curve is shown in Fig. 4 [42]. In this work, we ignore the strain rate effect because the Aluminum
Alloy 6063 has a low strain rate sensitivity [42]. In general, a honeycomb is a porous regular topological structure composed of
layers of adhesive-bonded corrugated sheets. Porous shapes include rectangles, diamonds, triangles, circles, hexagons, and hexagonal
reinforcement types. However, the energy absorbing structures in this paper are made of aluminum alloy. The skin and core of
the sandwich panel adopt an integrated extrusion molding process without adhesive. This makes the sandwich panel’s mechanical
properties stronger.

3. Numerical simulations

3.1. Finite element modeling

In this work, the deformation and maximum stress of the battery pack’s bottom shell, as well as the honeycomb structure’s
ability to absorb energy, are used to assess the effectiveness of honeycomb structures. The total energy absorbed by the honeycomb
structure is denoted as EA.
𝑑
𝐸𝐴 = 𝐹 (𝑥)𝑑𝑥 (1)
∫0
where 𝐹 (𝑥) denotes the external forces, and 𝑑 denotes the distance that the external forces applied along the corresponding axis.
The absorbed energy by a structure per unit mass is given by specific energy absorption (SEA):
𝐸𝐴
𝑆𝐸𝐴 = (2)
𝑚

5
R. Li et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 158 (2024) 108041

Fig. 5. Finite element model of a battery-pack.

Table 2
Elongation after fracture at different strain rates.
Strain rate (s−1 ) 0.001 0.01 0.1 1150 2860 3720
Elongation (%) 17.45 17.48 17.50 22.01 29.21 38.12

where 𝑚 is the mass of the energy absorber. There is a correspondence between mass and relative density. Relative density is an
indicator to describe the mechanical behaviors of honeycomb structures. The relative density is defined as the ratio of the apparent
density of the cellular structure to the density of its base material. The relative densities of honeycombs can be calculated by the
ratio of the filled material volume to total occupied volume of unit cells, as shown below:
𝑉𝑓
𝜌𝑟 = (3)
𝑉𝑡
where 𝜌𝑟 denotes the relative density, 𝑉𝑓 denotes the filled material volume and 𝑉𝑡 denotes the total occupied volume of unit cells.
The honeycomb structures in this paper are made of the same material. Thus the relative density can also be written as:
𝜌𝑉𝑓 𝑚𝑓
𝜌𝑟 = = (4)
𝜌𝑉𝑡 𝑚𝑡
where 𝑚𝑓 denotes the filled material mass and 𝑚𝑡 denotes the total occupied mass of unit cells. Due to the fact that all bio-inspired
honeycombs are evolved from conventional honeycomb, and the side length 𝐿𝑐 remains unchanged. The total occupied mass of
unit cell also remains unchanged. The change in 𝑚𝑓 can be equivalent to the change in relative density. Since each structure has
the same amount of honeycomb cells, the overall mass of the applied structure serves as a straightforward indicator of the relative
density’s effect. Therefore, we provide the mass of the honeycomb structures in Tables 4 and 6.
We conduct numerical analysis in LS-DYNA. The Belytschko–Tsay four-node shell element with five integration points through
shell thickness is utilized to create an efficient honeycomb finite element model. Belytschko–Tsay shell element is the default
shell element in LS-DYNA, with fast calculation speed, and is usually the most stable and effective formula for large deformation
problems [43]. In order to prevent penetration and intersection between the honeycomb walls, the Automatic Single-Surface contact
is applied to the honeycomb structure. The constitutive relationship of the aluminum alloy is described by the piecewise-linear
plasticity material model (MAT 24). Many literature has conducted impact experiments on aluminum alloy honeycomb structures,
but apparent cracking is not observed. Therefore, the finite element model does not take the material’s fracture properties into
account [44]. The mesh size of 1.5 mm has been adopted for the honeycomb structures according to a previous convergence
study [21]. The kinetic energy of the numerical results is negligible compared to the internal energy of the honeycomb structure,
ensuring the credibility of the finite element model.
The finite element model of the battery-pack is shown in Fig. 5. There are 22 battery modules placed in the battery-pack. The
battery module adopts the homogenization model to improve the computational efficiency. It is modeled using the hexahedral solid
element as hexahedral elements have significant advantages over tetrahedral elements in terms of computational accuracy and mesh
quantity. It adopts a mesh size of 20 mm [45]. The bottom shell is subjected to impact and undergoes deformation, which greatly
influences the safety performance of the battery-pack. It is made of DP980 steel and has a thickness of 1 mm. It should be noted that
the mechanical properties of DP980 are sensitive to strain rate. In general, an increase in strain rate will enhance the mechanical
properties of DP980. The constitutive relations of DP980 are shown in Fig. 6. Different strain rates correspond to different curves.
The relationship between elongation after fracture and strain rate is shown in Table 2 [46].
Other components such as crossbeam, long bracket range in thickness from 1 mm to 3 mm and are made of DC01. The upper
enclosure is made of SMC. Since the thickness of these components are all thin, they are also modeled via Belytschko–Tsay shell
element. And the mesh size is 6 mm according to the sensitivity analysis conducted by Pan [47]. The finite element model of the
battery-pack consists a total of 195 366 shell elements, of which 194 611 are quadrilateral elements (99.6%), and 755 are triangular
elements (0.4%). Using computer-aided check, the warpage, skew, Jacobi, and aspect ratio of the element satisfy the criteria. The
battery-pack shell and components are welded together. The upper enclosure and bottom shell are secured with bolts [48].
Collisions can deform the bottom shell and cause compression on the battery module. The honeycomb structure is glued to
the front of the battery-pack’s bottom shell in order to enhance the safety performance of the battery-pack system under collision

6
R. Li et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 158 (2024) 108041

Fig. 6. The constitutive relations of DP980.

Fig. 7. The frontal impact of the battery-pack system.

Table 3
Natural frequency obtained from commercial software.
Order Abaqus (Hz) Optistruct (Hz) Error (%) Ansys (Hz) Error (%)
1 12.45 12.44 0.08 12.58 1.04
2 23.48 23.48 0 23.61 0.55
3 24.29 24.42 0.54 25.22 3.83
4 27.62 27.61 0.04 27.93 1.12
5 30.96 31.05 0.29 31.06 0.32
6 34.49 34.48 0.03 34.52 0.09
7 38.40 38.39 0.03 38.51 0.29

conditions. The obstacle is set as a fixed rigid body. The battery-pack collides head-on with a cylindrical obstacle with a radius of
80 mm at a initial speed of 10 m/s, as shown in Fig. 7. In the numerical simulation, automatic surface-to-surface contact is utilized.
During contact, the static and dynamic friction coefficients are set to 0.2 and 0.1, respectively. A stiffness-based hourglass control
and a reduced integration are used to prevent volumetric locking and zero-energy deformation patterns [49,50].

3.2. Validation of the finite element model

We conduct constrained modal analysis on the finite element model of the battery-pack system in three different software
packages. Mode shapes of orders 1 to 7 in different software packages are consistent. The first 7 natural frequencies obtained
from three software packages are shown in Table 3. It can be seen that the error is extremely small, which verifies the effectiveness
of the finite element model of the battery-pack.
Additionally, we compare the results of numerical analysis with the results of Lee’s experiment in order to confirm the
effectiveness of the honeycomb structures’ finite element models. Lee et al. conducted experiments on thin-walled square columns
subject to axial impact load [51]. A 200 mm-long AL6063 aluminum extruded tube with a thin wall was used for the experiment.
Under the same conditions for size and axial impact load, we replicated the same type of hollow square tube with a single thin
wall. A comparison of simulation and experiment is shown in Fig. 8. As can be seen, the numerical simulation’s reproduction of the
collapse mode agrees fairly well with the experimental results. The results of the experiment and the simulation-derived variation
curve for the crushing force with displacement are also in good agreement. These results demonstrate that the finite element model
of honeycomb structures is acceptable to use in collision simulations.

7
R. Li et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 158 (2024) 108041

Table 4
Effects of bio-inspired honeycomb structures with the same wall thickness.
Structures Deformation (mm) EA (J) Stress (MPa) Mass (kg) SEA (J/kg) 𝐹𝑐𝑏 (kN)
𝐻𝑐 62.0 1393.3 1357.1 0.481 2895.5 71.6
𝐻𝑏1 58.4 1366.6 1263.9 0.666 2052.3 80.4
𝐻𝑏2 58.2 1338.5 1249.7 0.893 1498.7 84.7
𝐻𝑝 57.9 2123.5 1299.4 0.708 3001.0 86.8
𝐻𝑠1 53.1 2021.4 1249.8 1.149 1759.3 95.2
𝐻𝑠2 50.1 2108.6 1244.6 1.684 1252.1 104.6
𝐻𝑔 50.5 2424.1 1224.4 1.085 2234.2 99.3

Table 5
Effects of bio-inspired honeycomb structures with the same mass.
Structures Deformation (mm) EA (J) Stress (MPa) 𝐹𝑐𝑏 (kN)
𝐻𝑐 52.6 2163.1 1281.6 87.0
𝐻𝑏1 53.0 2117.0 1248.6 92.3
𝐻𝑏2 56.1 1899.1 1257.0 93.2
𝐻𝑝 53.7 2170.2 1257.1 97.3
𝐻𝑠1 54.3 1955.0 1271.5 92.9
𝐻𝑠2 55.2 1975.7 1258.8 94.7
𝐻𝑔 50.6 2418.0 1235.6 98.7

Table 6
Effects of wall thickness and number of replacement hexagons.
# Number Thickness (mm) Deformation (mm) EA (J) Stress (MPa) Mass (kg) SEA (J/kg) 𝐹𝑐𝑏 (kN)
1 5 1 47.9 2732.0 1289.2 1.448 1886.7 101.8
2 4 1 46.4 2864.2 1270.4 1.417 2021.3 105.7
3 3 1 47.1 2567.8 1234.0 1.356 1893.6 106.3
4 2 1 47.7 3037.2 1263.2 1.172 2591.5 93.1
5 5 0.95 48.7 2663.0 1291.6 1.376 1935.3 99.8
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
44 2 0.5 61.2 2767.0 1321.7 0.586 4720.1 71.4

Fig. 8. Comparisons of numerical and experimental results.

4. Result analysis and parametric design

4.1. Effects of different honeycomb structures

The obstacle makes initial contact with the honeycomb structure in a collision. The honeycomb structure undergoes deformation
and absorbs energy. At the end of the collision, the deformation of the honeycomb, taken 𝐻𝑔 as an example, is shown in Fig. 9.
Substantial compression occurs where the obstacle encounters the honeycomb structure. Other areas are not compressed. The overall
structure is bent. A large amount of energy is absorbed by the honeycomb structure. The deformation and stress of battery-pack’s

8
R. Li et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 158 (2024) 108041

Fig. 9. Deformation of the honeycomb structure.

Fig. 10. Deformation and stress of the bottom shell.

bottom shell are shown in Fig. 10. As a result of the collision, significant deformation and high stress occurred in the front part of
the bottom shell. When the honeycomb structure is not installed, the deformation of the battery-pack’s bottom shell is 66.6 mm,
and the maximum stress is 1402.0 MPa. The corresponding data for installing 7 different honeycomb structures are displayed in
Table 4, compared in Fig. 15.
The energy absorption curve over time for honeycomb structures is shown in Fig. 11. The energy absorption process of the
honeycomb structure, taken 𝐻𝑠1 as an example, is analyzed in detail in Fig. 12. The figure shows the curve of load variation over
time along with the deformed shape of the honeycomb structure in different times. In this case, it is evident that the primary
honeycomb deformation form is collapse from the moment of collision to 4.6 ms. In this period, the unit cell of the honeycomb is
gradually compressed and absorbs energy, while the bottom shell of the battery-pack has not yet undergone significant deformation.
At 4.6 ms, buckling takes over as the main form of deformation for the honeycomb and continues until the collision ends at 14 ms.
At this stage, the main energy absorbed by the honeycomb comes from the buckling of the structure, and further crushing of the
unit cell is difficult. The bottom shell of the battery-pack also experienced significant deformation at the same time. It should be
noted that the front crossbeam inside the battery-pack ruptures, causing the load to gradually decrease from 8.8 ms, as shown in
Fig. 13. The rupture of the front crossbeam can also absorb energy without affecting the safety performance of the battery-pack
system, which was taken into account by engineers when designing the battery-pack. The collision ends and the rebound starts at
14 ms. From now on, the honeycomb structure no longer absorbs energy.
It can also be seen in Fig. 11 that during the collapse stage, the energy absorption curve increases the fastest, and slows down
after entering the buckling stage, finally no longer increase during the rebound stage. Back to Fig. 12, we can observe a parameter
that affects the energy absorption capacity of the honeycomb, which namely 𝐹𝑐𝑏 . It can be seen that this parameter represents the
load borne by the honeycomb structure when the main deformation form changes from collapse to buckling. The larger it is, the
greater the force is required to completely crush the honeycomb cell, meaning the honeycomb has the potential to absorb more
energy. However, excessive force can cause the bottom shell of the battery-pack to deform significantly before the honeycomb cells
are fully crushed, which may prevent the honeycomb structure from sufficiently absorbing energy. Therefore, some bio-inspired
honeycomb structures may not perform as expected. This will be further discussed in the following text.
We investigate the energy absorption mechanism of different honeycomb structures. Fig. 14 shows the deformed shape of six
honeycomb structures except for 𝐻𝑠1 , (discussed in Fig. 12), during the collapse and buckling stages. The energy absorption of 𝐻𝑐
solely comes from the collapse of honeycomb cells. As for 𝐻𝑔, the collapse of the large hexagons needs to be achieved through
the distortion of the small hexagons that replace the sides. The distortion of the cell sides in 𝐻𝑐 has changed to the collapse of
small hexagons in 𝐻𝑔. The small hexagon’s collapses lead to the collapse of the large hexagons. These two deformations occur
simultaneously and absorb energy together. Both 𝐻𝑏1 and 𝐻𝑏2 are hexagonal honeycomb cells that collapse first, followed by
further crushing of the circular tube. Their features are identical. Compared to hexagons, circular tubes require greater external

9
R. Li et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 158 (2024) 108041

Fig. 11. Energy absorption of honeycomb structures.

Fig. 12. Analysis of energy absorption process.

Fig. 13. Rupture of the front crossbeam.

forces to deform. Even when entering the buckling stage, the circular tubes are not compressed sufficiently. Each circular tube’s
deformation decreases as the number of circular tubes rises. It can be seen that 𝐻𝑏1 collapses more fully than 𝐻𝑏2 . The hexagonal
unit deforms greater and the distance between the front and back skins is smaller. This indicates the use of circular tubes instead
of hexagons makes it harder for honeycomb cells to sufficiently deform when installed to a battery-pack.
The deformation mode of 𝐻𝑠2 differs little from 𝐻𝑠1 , the added smaller hexagons are crushed together with the larger hexagons.
Due to the increase in hierarchical order, it has stronger mechanical properties. Honeycomb cells far from the obstacle have almost
no distortion during the buckling stage. The conventional honeycomb cells (cells near the skin) in 𝐻𝑝 collapse first due to their low
mechanical strength. After the collapse of conventional cells, the optimized cells are compressed, further absorbing energy. These

10
R. Li et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 158 (2024) 108041

Fig. 14. Deformed shape of honeycomb structures.

two deformations occur sequentially, which is different from modes of 𝐻𝑔. We compare the effects of honeycomb structures on the
crashworthiness performance of the battery-pack.
The effects of 7 different honeycomb structures are displayed in Table 4, compared in Fig. 15. It should be noted that now the
comparison is between structures with the same wall thickness. It can be seen that all the seven honeycomb energy absorption
structures reduce the deformation and maximum stress of the bottom shell. In terms of deformation, 𝐻𝑠2 and 𝐻𝑔 have the best
performance, and 𝐻𝑠2 is slightly better. 𝐻𝑠1 is superior to 𝐻𝑝. 𝐻𝑏2 is not much different from 𝐻𝑏1 , and is better than the
conventional version 𝐻𝑐. In terms of EA, 𝐻𝑔 performs best. The second one is 𝐻𝑝. 𝐻𝑠2 and 𝐻𝑠1 follow closely behind. 𝐻𝑏1
and 𝐻𝑏2 are not significantly different from 𝐻𝑐 and have low energy absorption. In terms of maximum stress, 𝐻𝑔 performs best,
followed by 𝐻𝑠2 . The difference between 𝐻𝑠1 and 𝐻𝑏2 is very small. Next is 𝐻𝑏1 . 𝐻𝑝 performs poorly. The worst is 𝐻𝑐. In terms
of mass, the lightest one is 𝐻𝑐. The one with the highest mass is 𝐻𝑠2 , which weighs 1.684 kg.
In terms of SEA, it can be seen that 𝐻𝑝 and 𝐻𝑐 preforms good, 𝐻𝑔 follows behind, while the rest seems poorly. This is because
these structures have the same wall thickness, they differ in mass by several times, and the 𝐹𝑐𝑏 related to them also vary heavily.
So some of them, such as 𝐻𝑠2 , are far away from fully compressed, and the honeycomb cells located far from the obstacle do
not collapse during collisions. The added mass does not work. Therefore, in order to better compare the effectiveness of different
structures, we make the mass of different structures the same (their mass are 1 kg) by adjusting the wall thickness, and conduct
analysis under the same collision conditions. Now the value of SEA is equal to EA. The results are displayed in Table 5, compared in
Fig. 16. Taking the three indicators, EA, deformation, and maximum stress into account comprehensively, the performance of 𝐻𝑔
is still the best of the aforementioned structures, although 𝐹𝑐𝑏 is high and collapses insufficiently. The remaining structures differs
not much. Next, parametric design is carried out for 𝐻𝑔 for enhanced performance.

4.2. Parametric design for Hg

For 𝐻𝑔, this work investigates the effects of honeycomb wall thickness and number of replacement hexagons on the indicators:
EA, SEA, deformation, maximum stress, and 𝐹𝑐𝑏 . In terms of wall thickness, the wall thickness varies from 0.5 mm to 1 mm. The
interval is 0.05 mm. In terms of number of replacement hexagons, the number (𝑛) changes from 2 to 5, with an interval of 1. Table 6
and Fig. 17 show how the indicators change with the parameters.
It is obvious that increasing wall thickness can significantly reduce bottom shell deformation. When the thickness is small, 𝑛
equaled 3 provides the best performance. And when the thickness reaches 1 mm, 𝑛 equaled 4 provides the best performance. In
terms of EA, when 𝑛 equals 3, 4, and 5, the increase in thickness increases the energy absorbed by the honeycomb structure. When
𝑛 equals 2 and the thickness increases from 0.5 mm to 0.7 mm, the EA decreases, whereas it gradually increases when the thickness
rises from 0.7 mm to 1 mm. This is because SEA increases sharply when thickness is small. When the thickness is 1 mm, the
performance is best when 𝑛 equals 2, followed by when 𝑛 equals 4. In terms of maximum stress, changes in wall thickness have

11
R. Li et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 158 (2024) 108041

Fig. 15. Comparisons of different bio-inspired honeycomb structures with the same wall thickness.

little effect and there is no obvious pattern. When 𝑛 equals 3, the stress is lower than that of other numbers at any thickness level.
In terms of mass, the thicker the wall thickness, the more the number, the greater the mass. In terms of SEA, it is obvious that
the thinner the thickness, the greater the SEA, which is exactly the opposite of 𝐹𝑐𝑏 . The smaller the 𝐹𝑐𝑏 , the easier it is for the
honeycomb cells to fully collapse, and the larger the SEA. Thickness should not be reduced in order to improve SEA as this will
reduce the safety performance of the battery-pack system. In conclusion, EA is more crucial than SEA. The highest SEA occurs when
𝑛 equals 2, at the same time, 𝐹𝑐𝑏 is the smallest.
Hereinafter, (2, 1) denotes a parameter combination that 𝑛 equals 2 and thickness is 1 mm. (3, 0.95) denotes 𝑛 is 3 and thickness
is 0.95 mm. The optimal solutions for deformation, stress and EA are shown in Fig. 18. The optimal solution for deformation is
located at (4, 1), for EA located at (2, 1), and for stress located at (3, 0.95). Since the parameters of the optimal solutions for
deformation, EA and maximum stress differ, a weighted sum is used for quantitative comparison. The normalization is carried out
first. There are
𝑑 − 𝑑min
𝛼𝑑𝑖 = 𝑖 (5)
𝑑max − 𝑑min
𝑒min − 𝑒𝑖
𝛼𝑒𝑖 = (6)
𝑒max − 𝑒min
𝑠𝑖 − 𝑠min
𝛼𝑠𝑖 = (7)
𝑠max − 𝑠min
where 𝑑𝑖 denotes deformation of the 𝑖th parameter combination, 𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛 denotes the smallest deformation in parameter combinations,
and 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 denotes the maximum deformation. Term 𝑒𝑖 denotes EA of the 𝑖th parameter combination, 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 denotes the smallest EA in

12
R. Li et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 158 (2024) 108041

Fig. 16. Comparisons of different bio-inspired honeycomb structures with the same mass.

parameter combinations, and 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 denotes the maximum EA. Term 𝑠𝑖 denotes stress of the 𝑖th parameter combination, 𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑛 denotes
the smallest stress in parameter combinations, and 𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑥 denotes the maximum stress. The physical quantities of deformation, energy
absorption, and stress have different dimensions. Linear operations cannot be performed directly, otherwise meaningless results will
be obtained. After normalization, three dimensionless parameters, 𝛼𝑑𝑖 , 𝛼𝑒𝑖 and 𝛼𝑠𝑖 are obtained. Dimensionless parameters can be
directly used for linear operations.
The influence of deformation, stress, and energy absorption on the mechanical safety performance of battery-pack systems is
different. Therefore, different weights are set to evaluate the effects of honeycomb structures under different requirements. In the
parametric design process, we combine the above three dimensionless parameters together and define an unified objective. The
unified objective 𝐾𝑖 is expressed as:

𝐾𝑖 = 𝑘𝑑 𝛼𝑑𝑖 + 𝑘𝑒 𝛼𝑒𝑖 + 𝑘𝑠 𝛼𝑠𝑖 (8)

where, 𝑘𝑑 denotes weight of deformation, 𝑘𝑒 denotes weight of EA, and 𝑘𝑠 denotes weight of stress. The minimum 𝐾𝑖 is the optimal
solution when considering the three indicators comprehensively. Deformation determines whether the battery is being squeezed
when the battery-pack collides with obstacles, and energy absorption demonstrates how well the honeycomb structure works. The
collision has not yet caused the bottom shell to fracture in this work. Therefore, it is stipulated that the weight of deformation
must be greater than energy absorption, and the weight of energy absorption is greater than stress. The relations of the above three
weights are described as:

𝑘𝑑 + 𝑘𝑒 + 𝑘𝑠 = 1, 𝑘𝑑 ≥ 𝑘𝑒 ≥ 𝑘𝑠 (9)

The parameter combinations corresponding to the minimum 𝐾𝑖 under different weights are found. After design optimization, the
results are depicted in Table 7. As can be seen, (4, 1) performs best when the weight of deformation is high, and (2, 1) performs
best when there is little weight difference between energy absorption and deformation. From Table 8, it can be seen that, when
compared to the absence of the honeycomb structure, the bottom shell deformation at (4, 1) decreased by 30.3%. And decreased
by 28.4% at (2, 1). Both above parameter combinations achieve good results.

5. Conclusions

In this work, we investigate the effects of 7 different bio-inspired honeycomb structures on the crashworthiness of a battery-
pack system, and select the best one for parametric design. It was found that the honeycomb structure experiences collapse and
buckling during the collision process. There is a parameter called 𝐹𝑐𝑏 that affects the energy absorption of the honeycomb. Large
𝐹𝑐𝑏 makes honeycomb cells collapse insufficiently. Among the 7 structures, 𝐻𝑔 has highest absorption energy and most effectively
reduces damage to the bottom shell. Subsequently, parametric design is carried out for 𝐻𝑔. The influence of wall thickness and

13
R. Li et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 158 (2024) 108041

Fig. 17. Parametric design results.

Fig. 18. Distributions of optimal solutions.

Table 7
Optimal solutions with different weights.
Run 𝑘𝑑 𝑘𝑒 𝑘𝑠 Combination Deformation (mm) EA (J) Stress (MPa) Mass (kg)
#1 1/3 1/3 1/3 (2, 1) 47.7 3037.2 1263.2 1.172
#2 0.4 0.3 0.3 (2, 1) 47.7 3037.2 1263.2 1.172
#3 0.5 0.3 0.2 (2, 1) 47.7 3037.2 1263.2 1.172
#4 0.4 0.4 0.2 (2, 1) 47.7 3037.2 1263.2 1.172
#5 0.5 0.4 0.1 (2, 1) 47.7 3037.2 1263.2 1.172
#6 0.6 0.2 0.2 (4, 1) 46.4 2864.2 1270.4 1.417
#7 0.6 0.3 0.1 (4, 1) 46.4 2864.2 1270.4 1.417
#8 0.8 0.1 0.1 (4, 1) 46.4 2864.2 1270.4 1.417
#9 0.7 0.2 0.1 (4, 1) 46.4 2864.2 1270.4 1.417

14
R. Li et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 158 (2024) 108041

Table 8
Improvement in crashworthiness of the battery-pack system.
Combination Deformation (mm) Reduction (%) Stress (MPa) Reduction (%)
No honeycomb 66.6 – 1402.0 –
(2, 1) 47.7 28.4 1263.2 9.90
(4, 1) 46.4 30.3 1270.4 9.38

the number of replacement hexagons toward the crashworthiness performance is analyzed. The effect of wall thickness (i.e. mass
or relative density) on the energy absorption capacity of honeycomb structures and the crashworthiness of battery-pack systems is
more significant than the number of replacement hexagons. In general, an increase in wall thickness can enhance collision safety
performance.
Finally, the best two parameter combinations are obtained. The deformation of the battery-pack’s bottom shell is reduced by
30.3% when using proposed bio-inspired structure. Overall, a honeycomb energy absorption structure which can greatly improve
the mechanical safety performance of the battery-pack system in frontal impact is acquired. Although the effectiveness of the finite
element model has been verified, physical experiments still need to be completed in the future research. In the future work, the
bio-inspired honeycomb structure will be manufactured and subjected to collision experiments with an entire vehicle in order to
evaluate the effectiveness in greater detail. Furthermore we will develop a theoretical approach to reveal the influence of geometric
parameters on the crashworthiness behavior of honeycomb structures.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Ruoxu Li: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Zhiwei
Zhao: Supervision, Software, Project administration, Investigation. Huanhuan Bao: Validation, Software, Resources. Yongjun Pan:
Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Gengxiang Wang:
Software, Funding acquisition. Binghe Liu: Visualization, Validation. Tianjun Liao: Validation, Supervision, Resources. Jie Li:
Resources, Project administration.

Declaration of competing interest

We declare that we do not have any commercial or associative interest that represents a conflict of interest in connection with
the work submitted.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the key project of Chongqing technology innovation and application development (CSTB2022TIAD-
KPX0037) and the Research Project of the State Key Laboratory of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Technology (IVSTSKL-202304).

References

[1] Y. Liu, Y. Mao, H. Wang, Y. Pan, B. Liu, Internal short circuit of lithium metal batteries under mechanical abuse, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 245 (2023) 108130.
[2] Y. Pan, Y. Xiong, W. Dai, K. Diao, L. Wu, J. Wang, Crush and crash analysis of an automotive battery-pack enclosure for lightweight design, Int. J.
Crashworth. 27 (2) (2022) 500–509.
[3] R. Li, Y. Pan, X. Zhang, W. Dai, B. Liu, J. Li, Mechanical safety prediction of a battery-pack system under low speed frontal impact via machine learning,
Eng. Anal. Bound. Elem. 160 (2024) 65–75.
[4] N.S. Ha, G. Lu, A review of recent research on bio-inspired structures and materials for energy absorption applications, Composites B 181 (2020).
[5] J. Liu, B. Zheng, K. Zhang, B. Yang, X. Yu, Ballistic performance and energy absorption characteristics of thin nickel-based alloy plates at elevated
temperatures, Int. J. Impact Eng. 126 (2019) 160–171.
[6] X. Zhang, Y. Xiong, Y. Pan, H. Du, B. Liu, Crushing stress and vibration fatigue-life optimization of a battery-pack system, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 66
(2023).
[7] M.A.S. Biharta, S.P. Santosa, D. Widagdo, Design and optimization of lithium-ion battery protector with auxetic honeycomb for in-plane impact using
machine learning method, Front. Energy Res. 11 (2023) 1114263.
[8] Y. Zhao, J. Shi, K. Wang, B. Wang, C. He, X. Deng, Mechanical properties and optimization analysis on battery box with honeycomb sandwich composite
structure, Int. J. Automot. Technol. 24 (1) (2023) 1–14.
[9] W. Wang, S. Dai, W. Zhao, C. Wang, T. Ma, Design optimization of a novel negative Poisson’s ratio non-module battery pack system considering
crashworthiness and heat dissipation, Compos. Struct. 275 (2021) 114458.
[10] A. Haris, H.P. Lee, Vibration, shock and impact analyses of a structural honeycomb battery pack, Int. J. Crashworth. (2022).
[11] W. Shuai, E. Li, H. Wang, Y. Li, Space mapping-assisted optimization of a thin-walled honeycomb structure for battery packaging, Struct. Multidiscip.
Optim. 62 (2) (2020) 937–955.
[12] F. Hao, X. Lu, Y. Qiao, X. Chen, Crashworthiness analysis of electric vehicle with energy-absorbing battery modules, J. Eng. Mater. Technol.-Trans. ASME
139 (2) (2017).

15
R. Li et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 158 (2024) 108041

[13] T.N. Nguyen, T. Siegmund, W. Tsutsui, H. Liao, W. Chen, Bi-objective optimal design of a damage-tolerant multifunctional battery system, Mater. Des.
105 (2016) 51–65.
[14] Y. Qu, J. Chen, L. Jiao, T. Ye, X. Hu, Experiment and finite element analysis of protective honeycombs based on equivalent method for ocean engineering
under impact loading, Compos. Struct. 331 (2024) 117858.
[15] J. Gao, C. Zhou, N. Ding, W. Ma, L. Liu, H. Xu, N. Hou, Collapse of a honeycomb sandwich composite in an aircraft radome, Mater. Test. 65 (2023)
1389–1395.
[16] V. Selivanov, M. Silnikov, V. Markov, Y. Popov, V. Pusev, Using highly porous aluminum alloys and honeycomb structures in spacecraft landing gear,
Acta Astronaut. 180 (2021) 105–109.
[17] K. Liu, Z. Yu, K. Wang, L. Jing, Crashworthiness of bamboo-inspired circular tubes used for the energy absorber of rail vehicles, Acta Mech. Sin. 38 (2022)
122014.
[18] Y. Nian, S. Wan, X. Li, Q. Su, M. Li, How does bio-inspired graded honeycomb filler affect energy absorption characteristics? Thin-Walled Struct. 144
(2019) 106269.
[19] Y. Zhang, M. Lu, C.H. Wang, G. Sun, G. Li, Out-of-plane crashworthiness of bio-inspired self-similar regular hierarchical honeycombs, Compos. Struct. 144
(2016) 1–13.
[20] J. Xiang, J. Du, Energy absorption characteristics of bio-inspired honeycomb structure under axial impact loading, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 696 (2017) 283–289.
[21] P. Hao, J. Du, Energy absorption characteristics of bio-inspired honeycomb column thin-walled structure under impact loading, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed.
Mater. 79 (2018) 301–308.
[22] F. Wu, Y. Chen, S. Zhao, Y. Hong, Z. Zhang, S. Zheng, Mechanical properties and energy absorption of composite bio-inspired multi-cell tubes, Thin-Walled
Struct. 184 (2023) 110451.
[23] N.S. Ha, T.-U. Lee, J. Ma, J. Li, Y.M. Xie, Energy absorption of a bio-inspired cylindrical sandwich structure, Thin-Walled Struct. 195 (2024) 111378.
[24] L. Shi, F. Tu, Y. Luo, Energy absorption characteristics of the bionic lotus petiole structure under transverse load, Thin-Walled Struct. 187 (2023) 110748.
[25] T. Wei, M. Zhang, S. Lin, J. Ye, X. Yan, J. Guo, New design and energy absorption characteristic study of bionic beetle’s elytra under axial compression,
Thin-Walled Struct. 196 (2024) 111543.
[26] G. Gao, H. Lu, C. Sha, W. Ren, Y. Zhong, Z. Lei, Investigation into quasi-static compressive behaviors of several kinds of honeycomb like structures in
three axial directions, Compos. Struct. 330 (2024) 117833.
[27] J. Qiao, C. Chen, In-plane crushing of a hierarchical honeycomb, Int. J. Solids Struct. 85–86 (2016) 57–66.
[28] J. Fang, G. Sun, N. Qiu, T. Pang, S. Li, Q. Li, On hierarchical honeycombs under out-of-plane crushing, Int. J. Solids Struct. 135 (2018) 1–13.
[29] Q. He, J. Feng, Y. Chen, H. Zhou, Mechanical properties of spider-web hierarchical honeycombs subjected to out-of-plane impact loading, J. Sandw. Struct.
Mater. 22 (2020) 771–796.
[30] W. Zhang, S. Yin, T. Yu, J. Xu, Crushing resistance and energy absorption of pomelo peel inspired hierarchical honeycomb, Int. J. Impact Eng. 125 (2019)
163–172.
[31] X. Yang, Y. Sun, J. Yang, Q. Pan, Out-of-plane crashworthiness analysis of bio-inspired aluminum honeycomb patterned with horseshoe mesostructure,
Thin-Walled Struct. 125 (2018) 1–11.
[32] Q. Ma, H. Cheng, K.-I. Jang, H. Luan, K.-C. Hwang, J.A. Rogers, Y. Huang, Y. Zhang, A nonlinear mechanics model of bio-inspired hierarchical lattice
materials consisting of horseshoe microstructures, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 90 (2016) 179–202.
[33] Z. Hu, K. Thiyagarajan, A. Bhusal, T. Letcher, Q.H. Fan, Q. Liu, D. Salem, Design of ultra-lightweight and high-strength cellular structural composites
inspired by biomimetics, Composites B 121 (2017) 108–121, Bio-inspired Nano-engineered Materials.
[34] H. Yin, X. Huang, F. Scarpa, G. Wen, Y. Chen, C. Zhang, In-plane crashworthiness of bio-inspired hierarchical honeycombs, Compos. Struct. 192 (2018)
516–527.
[35] Q. Chen, N.M. Pugno, In-plane elastic properties of hierarchical nano-honeycombs: The role of the surface effect, Eur. J. Mech. A Solids 37 (2013) 248–255.
[36] Z. Sun, S. Shi, X. Guo, X. Hu, H. Chen, On compressive properties of composite sandwich structures with grid reinforced honeycomb core, Composites B
94 (2016) 245–252.
[37] N.S. Ha, Lu, X. Xiang, Energy absorption of a bio-inspired honeycomb sandwich panel, J. Mater. Sci. 54 (2019) 6286–6300.
[38] D. Sharma, S.S. Hiremath, Compressive and flexural properties of the novel lightweight tailored bio-inspired structures, Thin-Walled Struct. 174 (2022)
109169.
[39] A. Kueh, Y. Siaw, Impact resistance of bio-inspired sandwich beam with side-arched and honeycomb dual-core, Compos. Struct. 275 (2021) 114439.
[40] S. Yang, C. Qi, Multiobjective optimization for empty and foam-filled square columns under oblique impact loading, Int. J. Impact Eng. 54 (2013) 177–191.
[41] Y. Pan, W. Dai, L. Huang, Z. Li, A. Mikkola, Iterative refinement algorithm for efficient velocities and accelerations solutions in closed-loop multibody
dynamics, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 152 (2021) 107463.
[42] D. Karagiozova, G. Nurick, S. Chung Kim Yuen, Energy absorption of aluminium alloy circular and square tubes under an axial explosive load, Thin-Walled
Struct. 43 (6) (2005) 956–982.
[43] D. Xu, Y. Pan, X. Zhang, W. Dai, B. Liu, Q. Shuai, Data-driven modelling and evaluation of a battery-pack system’s mechanical safety against bottom cone
impact, Energy 290 (2024) 130145.
[44] S. Hou, T. Liu, Z. Zhang, X. Han, Q. Li, How does negative Poisson’s ratio of foam filler affect crashworthiness? Mater. Des. 82 (2015) 247–259.
[45] X. Zhang, Y. Xiong, Y. Pan, D. Xu, I. Kawsar, B. Liu, L. Hou, Deep-learning-based inverse structural design of a battery-pack system, Reliab. Eng. Syst.
Saf. 238 (2023) 109464.
[46] Y. Pan, Y. Xiong, L. Wu, K. Diao, W. Guo, Lightweight design of an automotive battery-pack enclosure via advanced high-strength steels and size
optimization, Int. J. Automot. Technol. 22 (2021) 1279–1290.
[47] Y. Pan, X. Zhang, Y. Liu, H. Wang, Y. Cao, X. Liu, B. Liu, Dynamic behavior prediction of modules in crushing via FEA-DNN technique for durable
battery-pack system design, Appl. Energy 322 (2022) 119527.
[48] L. He, Y. Pan, Y. He, Z. Li, G. Krolczyk, H. Du, Control strategy for vibration suppression of a vehicle multibody system on a bumpy road, Mech. Mach.
Theory 174 (2022) 104891.
[49] Y. Xiong, Y. Pan, L. Wu, B. Liu, Effective weight-reduction- and crashworthiness-analysis of a vehicle’s battery-pack system via orthogonal experimental
design and response surface methodology, Eng. Fail. Anal. 128 (2021) 105635.
[50] X. He, B. Sun, W. Zhang, X. Su, S. Ma, H. Li, H. Ruan, Inconsistency modeling of lithium-ion battery pack based on variational auto-encoder considering
multi-parameter correlation, Energy 277 (2023) 127409.
[51] K.-S. Lee, Y.-J. Yang, S.-K. Kim, I.-Y. Yang, Energy absorption control characteristics of AL thin-walled tubes under impact load, Acta Mech. Solida Sin.
21 (4) (2008) 383–388.

16