4.6 Article

Impact behaviour of hexagonal hierarchical honeycombs

Journal

JOURNAL OF SANDWICH STRUCTURES & MATERIALS
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 1597-1610

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/10996362211041647

Keywords

Hierarchical honeycomb; relative density; collapse stress; kinetic energy; absorption energy

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11702070]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, hexagonal hierarchical honeycombs with regular triangular substructures were analyzed. The expressions of relative density and collapse stress were derived based on an analytical model. The results showed that the number of substructures, aspect ratio, and wall angle have different effects on the relative density. It was also found that hierarchical honeycombs exhibit better energy absorption performance compared to conventional honeycombs due to the introduction of triangular substructures.
Honeycomb materials have been widely used in architecture, aerospace, and civil engineering in recent years. In this work, hexagonal hierarchical honeycombs with regular triangular substructures are studied. Based on the analytical model, expressions of the relative density and collapse stress are derived. Numerical results show that the substructure number, aspect ratio, and wall angle have different influences on the relative density. The collapse stress of hexagonal hierarchical honeycombs is sensitive to the relative density. Deformation modes of honeycomb structures depend on impact velocities, and secondary deformation is observed due to the introduction of triangular substructures. The kinetic energy and absorption energy of hexagonal hierarchical honeycombs are also provided to investigate the energy transformation and absorption. Because of the secondary deformation, hierarchical honeycombs have better energy absorption performance than conventional ones.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available