Advertisement

Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 51, Issue 7, pp 3318–3328 | Cite as

Post-peak collapse and energy absorption in stochastic honeycombs

  • Megan Hostetter
  • Glenn D. Hibbard
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Ashby MF (2000) Metal foams. Butterworth-Heinemann, BostonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gibson LJ, Ashby MF (1997) Cellular solids: structures and properties. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heckele M, Schomburg WK (2004) Review on micro molding of thermoplastic polymers. J Micromech Microeng 14:R1–R14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wadley HNG (2006) Multifunctional periodic cellular metals. Philos Trans A 364:31–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ziebig A, Brigasky H, Lewand W (1987) Extrusion device for the production of honeycomb structures. Google Patents: http://www.google.com/patents/US4710123. Accessed 13 February 2015
  6. 6.
    Hostetter M, Cordner B, Hibbard GD (2012) Stochastic honeycomb sandwich cores. Composites B 43:1024–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hamerton I, Azapagic A, Emsley A (2003) Polymers: the environment and sustainable development. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hostetter M, Hibbard GD (2014) Architectural characteristics of stochastic honeycombs fabricated from varying melt strength polypropylenes. J Appl Polym Sci 131:40074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ASTM C 365 (2005) Standard test for flatwise compressive properties of sandwich cores. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ASTM D 1238 (2004) Standard test method for melt flow rates of thermoplastics by extrusion plastometer. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hostetter M, Hibbard GD (2014) Modeling the buckling strength of polypropylene stochastic honeycombs. J Mater Sci 49:8365–8372. doi: 10.1007/s10853-014-8546-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chaudhary BI, Barry RP, Tusim MH (2000) Foams made from blends of ethylene styrene interpolymers with polyethylene, polypropylene and polystyrene. J Cell Plast 36:397–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Russell BP, Deshpande VS, Wadley HNG (2008) Quasistatic deformation and failure modes of composite square honeycombs. J Mech Mater Struct 3:1315–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olurin OB, Fleck NA, Ashby MF (2000) Deformation and fracture of aluminium foams. Mater Sci Eng A 291:136–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li QM, Magkiriadis I, Harrigan JJ (2006) Compressive strain at the onset of densification of cellular solids. J Cell Plast 42:371–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ashby MF (2006) The properties of foams and lattices. Philos Trans A 364:15–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    Rabinowitz S, Beardmore P (1974) Cyclic deformation and fracture of polymers. J Mater Sci 9:81–99. doi: 10.1007/BF00554758 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ariyama T (1993) Cyclic deformation and relaxation characteristics in polypropylene. Polym Eng Sci 33:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ariyama T (1993) Stress relaxation behavior after cyclic preloading in polypropylene. Polym Eng Sci 33:1494–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wool RP, Statton WO (1974) Dynamic polarized infrared studies of stress relaxation and creep in polypropylene. J Polym Sci B 12:1575–1586Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    von Karman T (1941) The buckling of thin cylindrical shells under axial compression. J Aeronaut Sci 8:303–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Horton W, Bailey S, Edwards A (1966) Nonsymmetric buckle patterns in progressive plastic buckling. Exp Mech 6:433–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rhodes J (2002) Buckling of thin plates and members—and early work on rectangular tubes. Thin Wall Struct 40:87–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liang S, Chen HL (2006) Investigation on the square cell honeycomb structures under axial loading. Compos Struct 72:446–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang J, Ashby MF (1992) The out-of-plane properties of honeycombs. Int J Mech Sci 34:475–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miller W, Smith CW, Evans KE (2011) Honeycomb cores with enhanced buckling strength. Compos Struct 93:1072–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wilbert A, Jang W-Y, Kyriakides S, Floccari JF (2011) Buckling and progressive crushing of laterally loaded honeycomb. Int J Sol Struct 48:803–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scarpa F, Blain S, Perrott D, Ruzzene M, Yates JR (2007) Elastic buckling of hexagonal chiral cell honeycombs. Composites A 38:280–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wierzbicki T (1983) Crushing analysis of metal honeycombs. Int J Impact Eng 1:157–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Santosa S, Wierzbicki T (1998) On the modeling of crush behavior of a closed-cell aluminum foam structure. J Mech Phys Solids 46:645–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Xu S, Beynon JH, Ruan D, Lu G (2012) Experimental study of the out-of-plane dynamic compression of hexagonal honeycombs. Compos Struct 94:2326–2336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wu E, Jiang W-S (1997) Axial crush of metallic honeycombs. Int J Impact Eng 19:439–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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
  36. 36.
    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
  37. 37.
    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
  38. 38.
    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
  39. 39.
    Heimbs S (2009) Virtual testing of sandwich core structures using dynamic finite element simulations. Comput Mater Sci 45:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Giglio M, Manes A, Gilioli A (2012) Investigations on sandwich core properties through an experimental–numerical approach. Composites B 43:361–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Materials Science and EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations