Stochastic honeycombs are a random, open cell honeycomb produced through a novel melt-stretching operation. While they have been shown to have excellent mechanical properties under out-of-plane compression, the energy absorption capacity of this cellular material has not yet been examined. The energy absorbed was determined over several of the integration intervals proposed in the literature as a function of density. For two intervals, the relationship between energy and density was linear, and for the other two, the rate of change in volumetric energy absorption capacity with density began to decrease at higher densities. This change happened at a core relative density of 11 %. Additionally, the post-peak collapse mechanisms of four sample sets of varying density were compressed and scanned sequentially through X-ray tomography after preloading to various characteristic strain values. Webs were classified on the basis of their connectivity (bound on both sides or bound on one and free on the other). Unlike conventional honeycombs where all webs undergo the same failure mechanism, the range in geometry of the webs within a given sample led to a range of collapse mechanisms: elastic buckling, plastic buckling, and plastic buckling with fracture. At lower density, all three failure modes could be present in the same sample. At higher density, plastic buckling accompanied by web fracture was the main mode of failure.
Peak Strength Core Density Sandwich Panel Strength Ratio Collapse Mechanism
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access
Ashby MF (2000) Metal foams. Butterworth-Heinemann, BostonGoogle Scholar
Gibson LJ, Ashby MF (1997) Cellular solids: structures and properties. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckele M, Schomburg WK (2004) Review on micro molding of thermoplastic polymers. J Micromech Microeng 14:R1–R14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avalle M, Belingardi G, Montanini R (2001) Characterization of polymeric structural foams under compressive impact loading by means of energy-absorption diagram. Int J Impact Eng 25:455–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan PJ, Harrigan JJ, Reid SR (2013) Inertia effects in uniaxial dynamic compression of a closed cell aluminium alloy foam. J Mater Sci Technol 18:480–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deqiang S, Weihong Z, Yanbin W (2010) Mean out-of-plane dynamic plateau stresses of hexagonal honeycomb cores under impact loadings. Compos Struct 92:2609–2621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Côté F, Deshpande VS, Fleck NA, Evans AG (2004) The out-of-plane compressive behavior of metallic honeycombs. Mater Sci Eng A 380:272–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stocchi A, Colabella L, Cisilino A, Álvarez V (2014) Manufacturing and testing of a sandwich panel honeycomb core reinforced with natural-fiber fabrics. Mater Des 55:394–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asprone D, Auricchio F, Menna C, Morganti S, Prota A, Reali A (2013) Statistical finite element analysis of the buckling behavior of honeycomb structures. Compos Struct 105:240–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heimbs S (2009) Virtual testing of sandwich core structures using dynamic finite element simulations. Comput Mater Sci 45:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giglio M, Manes A, Gilioli A (2012) Investigations on sandwich core properties through an experimental–numerical approach. Composites B 43:361–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sezgin FE, Tanoğlu M et al (2010) Mechanical behavior of polypropylene-based honeycomb-core composite sandwich structures. J Reinf Plast Compos 29:1569–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar