Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology

, Volume 33, Issue 6, pp 2605–2616 | Cite as

Dynamic response of aluminum honeycomb sandwich panels subjected to hypervelocity impact by porous volcanic rock projectile

  • Yong Chen
  • Xi Liu
  • Chengyue Jiang
  • Gaojian LiaoEmail author
  • Bo Hu


The dynamic response and damage behavior of aluminum honeycomb sandwich panels (HC/SPs) subjected to hypervelocity impact by volcanic rock projectiles were investigated by hypervelocity impact tests and hydrocode simulations. The experiments were conducted using a two stage light gas gun and the results showed that the failure modes in HC/SPs subjected to hypervelocity impact by volcanic rock projectiles mainly took forms of front-face denting and circular perforation, honeycomb core collapsing and rapture, rear-face petal-ling and perforation etc. A 3D discrete configuration of the porous volcanic rock projectiles was set up. The hypervelocity impact behavior of the HC/SPs was investigated through hydrocode modeling, within a Lagrange-SPH coupling method in LS-DYNA solver. It was found that the dynamic response and failure modes in the HC/SPs were significantly influenced by the impact location and the impact velocity of the volcanic rock projectile.


Honeycomb sandwich panel Volcanic rock Impact Dynamic response 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This work was supported by National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51405050).


  1. [1]
    W. Schonberg, F. Schäfer and R. Putzar, Hypervelocity impact response of honeycomb sandwich panels, Acta Astronautica, 66 (3–4) (2010) 455–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. Hyde, E. Christiansen and D. Lear, Shuttle MMOD Impact Database, Procedia Engineering, 103 (2015) 246–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    W. P. Schonberg, Protecting Earth-orbiting spacecraft against micro-meteoroid/orbital debris impact damage using composite structural systems and materials: An overview, Advances in Space Research, 45 (6) (2010) 709–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    M. Lambert and E. Schneider, Shielding against space debris. A comparison between different shields: The effect of materials on their performances, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 17 (4–6) (1995) 477–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. Lambert, F. K. Schafer and T. Geyer, Impact damage on sandwich panels and multi-layer insulation, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 26 (1–10) (2001) 369–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Mespoulet, P. L. Hereil, H. Abdulhamid, P. Deconinck and C. Puillet, Experimental study of hypervelocity impacts on space shields above 8 km/s, Procedia Engineering, 204 (2017) 508–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. M. Sibeaud, L. Thamie and C. Puillet, Hypervelocity impact on honeycomb target structures: Experiments and modeling, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 35 (12) (2008) 1799–1807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    S. Ryan, F. Schaefer, R. Destefanis and M. Lambert, A ballistic limit equation for hypervelocity impacts on composite honeycomb sandwich panel satellite structures, Advances in Space Research, 41 (7) (2008) 1152–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    P. Deconinck, H. Abdulhamid, P. L. Hereil, J. Mespoulet and C. Puillet, Experimental and numerical study of submillimeter-sized hypervelocity impacts on honeycomb sandwich structures, Procedia Engineering, 204 (2017) 452–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. Francesconi, C. Giacomuzzo, F. Feltrin, A. Antonello and L. Savioli, An engineering model to describe fragments clouds propagating inside spacecraft in consequence of space debris impact on sandwich panel structures, Acta Astronautica, 116 (2015) 222–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    H. Chen, A. Francesconi, S. Liu and S. Lan, Effect of honeycomb core under hypervelocity impact: Numerical simulation and engineering model, Procedia Engineering, 204 (2017) 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    H. Ebrahimi, R. Ghosh, E. Mahdi, H. Nayeb-Hashemi and A. Vaziri, Honeycomb sandwich panels subjected to combined shock and projectile impact, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 95 (2016) 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    G. Sun, D. Chen, H. Wang, P. J. Hazell and Q. Li, Highvelocity impact behaviour of aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels with different structural configurations, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 122 (2018) 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    T. Topkaya and M. Y. Solmaz, Investigation of low velocity impact behaviors of honeycomb sandwich composites, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 32 (7) (2018) 3161–3167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    X. Zhang, R. Wang, J. Liu, X. Li and G. Jia, A numerical method for the ballistic performance prediction of the sandwiched open cell aluminum foam under hypervelocity impact, Aerospace Science and Technology, 75 (2018) 254–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    P. Liu, Y. Liu and X. Zhang, Internal-structure-model based simulation research of shielding properties of honeycomb sandwich panel subjected to high-velocity impact, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 77 (2015) 120–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    P. Liu, Y. Liu and X. Zhang, Simulation of hyper-velocity impact on double honeycomb sandwich panel and its staggered improvement with internal-structure model, International Journal of Mechanics and Materials in Design, 12 (2) (2016) 241–254.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    K. Nitta, M. Higashide, Y. Kitazawa, A. Takeba, M. Katayama and H. Matsumoto, Response of a aluminum honeycomb subjected to hypervelocity impacts, Procedia Engineering, 58 (2013) 709–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    E. A. Taylor, J. P. Glanville, R. A. Clegg and R. G. Turner, Hypervelocity impact on spacecraft honeycomb: Hydrocode simulation and damage laws, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 29 (1–10) (2003) 691–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    M. Wicklein, S. Ryan, D. M. White and R. A. Clegg, Hypervelocity impact on CFRP: Testing, material modelling, and numerical simulation, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 35 (12) (2008) 1861–1869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    J. Liu, J. Liu, J. Mei and W. Huang, Investigation on manufacturing and mechanical behavior of all-composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores, Composites Science and Technology, 159 (2018) 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    M. M. Xu, G. Y. Huang, Y. X. Dong and S. S. Feng, An experimental investigation into the high velocity penetration resistance of CFRP and CFRP/aluminium laminates, Composite Structures, 188 (2018) 450–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    S. Ryan, F. Schaefer and W. Riedel, Numerical simulation of hypervelocity impact on CFRP/A1 HC SP spacecraft structures causing penetration and fragment ejection, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 33 (1) (2006) 703–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    S. Ryan, F. Schafer, M. Guyot, S. Hiermaier and M. Lambert, Characterizing the transient response of CFRP/A1 HC spacecraft structures induced by space debris impact at hypervelocity, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 35 (12) (2008) 1756–1763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    J. D. Walker, From Columbia to discovery: Understanding the impact threat to the space shuttle, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 36 (2) (2009) 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    M. A. Yahaya, D. Ruan, G. Lu and M. S. Dargusch, Response of aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels subjected to foam projectile impact-An experimental study, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 75 (2015) 100–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    C. A. Belk, J. H. Robinson, M. B. Alexander, W. J. Cooke and S. D. Pavelitz, Meteoroids and Orbital Debris: Effects on Spacecraft, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA Reference Publication 1408 (1997) 1–17.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    E. L. Christiansen, Meteoroid/debris Shielding, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, TP-2003-210788 (2003) 1–100.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    M. Landgraf, R. Jehn, W. Flury and V. Dikarev, Hazards by meteoroid impacts onto operational spacecraft, Advances in Space Research, 33 (9) (2004) 1507–1510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Z. Xiao and Y. Wang, Characterastics and genesis of rich-kvolcanic rocks from erkeshan andwudalianchi, heilongjiang, Journal of Guilin Institute of Technology (1994) 387–394.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    G. R. Johnson and W. H. Cook, A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high temperature, Proc. 7th int. Symp. on Ballistics, Hague, Netherlands (1983) 541–547.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    J. O. Hallquist, LS-DYNA Theory Manual, Livermore Software Technology Corporation (2006) ISBN0-9778540-0-0.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    T. J. Holmquist and G. R. Johnson, A computational constitutive model for glass subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high pressures, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 78 (5) (2011) 051003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    Q. Fang, X. Kong, H. Wu and G. Ziming, Determination of holmquist-johnson-cook consitiutive model parameters of rock, Engineering Mechanics, 31 (3) (2014) 197–204.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    M. B. Liu and G. R. Liu, Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH): An overview and recent developments, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 17 (1) (2010) 25–76.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© KSME & Springer 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yong Chen
    • 1
  • Xi Liu
    • 1
  • Chengyue Jiang
    • 1
  • Gaojian Liao
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bo Hu
    • 1
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Advanced Manufacturing Technology for Automobile Parts, Ministry of Education, College of Vehicle EngineeringChongqing University of TechnologyChongqingChina

Personalised recommendations