Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Study on Equivalent Modeling of Honeycomb Sandwich Panels for Large

Radio Telescopes
N. G. Hu1, a, W. Wang1, b, G. J. Leng1, c
1

Research Institute on Mechatronics, Xidian University, Xian 710071, China


a

hng013@126.com, bvicent209@gmail.com, cguojun.leng@gmail.com

Keywords: honeycomb sandwich panels, equivalent modeling, large radio telescope

Abstract: Honeycomb sandwich panels are broadly used to assemble the primary reflector of large
radio telescopes to meet high precision demand. The sandwich plate theory is considered to obtain
equivalent models for numerical calculation. Two different groups of panels are analyzed to study
the validity of the equal model in terms of displacement. The computational results show that the
accuracy changes with the panel area and the ratio of length to width.
Introduction
Large radio telescopes that operate at millimeter wavelength need a reflector-surface precision of
a few tens of microns, which is critical to the accuracy and stability of the reflector panels and its
backup structures. Besides the influence of backup structures, honeycomb sandwich panels have
been chosen to assemble the primary reflectors of telescopes because of its good stiffness and
lightweight.
The sandwich panel can hardly be analyzed directly by the well-known software, such as
ANSYS or MSC/Nastran, because there is no corresponding element type to it in the software,
which can constitute a serious handicap for the use of sandwich structures. There are 3 methods to
choose from in order to solve the problem mentioned above. The first one, we can create 3D finite
element models of the real structures. But this method requires a large number of CPU time and
memory storage. The second one, we can get the stiffness matrices of the honeycomb sandwich
panels through tests, and build library of the element types, then the finite element calculation can
be carried out. This method requires lots of work on measurement and tests, also costs a lot. The
third method is the equivalent modeling, which derive an orthotropic panel model from the initial
3D model of honeycomb sandwich panel. This transformation allows us to perform calculations at a
reasonable cost. So, the method of equivalent modeling is used more widely. This paper mainly
focuses on application of the equivalent modeling method.
During the past several decades, a few researches have been made on the mechanical properties
of sandwich materials, especially honeycomb sandwich panels, and foundation of the formulas to
describe equivalent elastic parameters. The result of Gibsons formula [1] is simple and applied
easily. However, it causes indeterminacy in the elastic matrix of material of core in numerical
analyzing, because the formula neglects the stiffness corresponding with extension or contraction
deformation of honeycomb wallboard. The contribution of Fu [2] is to refine the formula of Gibson
by taking the influence of extension or contraction deformation into account. Wang [3] made a study
on the in-plane shear modulus of honeycomb cell, which is more reasonable than Gibsons. This
paper mainly discusses the accuracy of the formulas when applied in panels with different areas and

509

shapes.
Equivalent parameters and modeling

Fig.1. Unit cell of regular hexagonal honeycomb structure

The theory started from Gibson is sandwich plate theory, and only the core is equivalent when
using it, the equivalent parameters of regular hexagonal honeycomb core are as below:
3

Ex = E y =

Gxy =

3
2

4 t
2 t
Es .
Es , E z =
3l
3l

t
3 t
t
Gs , G yz =
Gs .
Es , Gxz =
l
l
2
l
3

3

(1)

2 t
1
s , = .
3
3l

in which, Es , Gs and s are the Young modulus, shear modulus and density of the panel core
material, respectively. is the Poisson ratio , is a correction factor, which depends on the
manufacture, and we set it 1.0 in this paper.
In order to study the validity of the equivalent models, we must compare the calculation results
given by these models with that of the 3D models, which are considered as reference results.
As in the fig.2, the 3D model is made up of many regular hexagonal cylinders, which are empty
inside. The left model shown above has been meshed with shell element and the right one is
unmeshed.

Fig.2. 3D model of a honeycomb sandwich panel

510

Fig.3. Equivalent layered plate model [4]

From Eq.1, we can get the parameters for the sandwich core, i.e. plate 1 in fig.3. Plate 2 is as
same as that in 3D model.
In the study of structural of panels on radio telescopes, we mainly focus on the displacement
situation, which can lead to changes of the electrical performance of telescopes, such as gains and
efficiencies. Through the comparison, we have defined two relative errors in % given by the Eq.2;
the first one is in the term of maximal displacement while the second is in terms of RMS (root of
mean square) value of displacement.

U e U3D
RMSe RMS3 D
100%, =
100%.
U 3D
RMS3 D

(2)

in which, U e ,U 3 D are respectively the maximal displacements of equal model and 3D model in Z
direction. RMSe , RMS3 D are the RMS value of displacement of nodes within the uppermost layer,
the meaning of subscript is similar to the former.
Examples and analysis

1) Example 1
These calculations are performed with square panels, whose areas range from 0.002 0.9m 2 , but
the thickness of panels is kept to 0.02m . The original sandwich panel is made of aluminum with the
density of 2.73 103 kg / cm3 and elastic modulus of 0.71107 MPa .10 times of self-weigh is
considered to make the displacements more obvious. Also, four angle nodes of the panels in the
lowest layer are constrained with all 6 DOFs, as is shown in fig.2.
As shown in fig.4, the both errors decrease with the area increases. The values of these errors
when the area reaches 0.9m 2 is less than 5.5% .
2) Example 2
We fix the areas of panels to 0.81m 2 , but the = L1 L2 ratio varies from 0.05 9 , where the
L1 , L2 respectively stand for the length in the x, y directions. The thickness, loads, constraint and
material are the same as example 1.
From fig.5, the values of error reach the worst when is near 1; whether the increases or
decreases from 1.0, the errors both are better.

511

60

50

, (%)

40

30

20

10

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

area of panel (m2)

Fig.4. relative errors (%) vs area of panel

6
5
4

, (%)

3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-2
10

-1

10

10

10

the ratio of length to width

10

Fig.5. relative errors (%) vs the ratio of length to width

The regular hexagonal is not central symmtry figure, i.e., the figure doesnt coincide with the
original one after rotating about the geometric center for 90 . So, the calculation results are
unequal with the same loads and constraints even when L1 L2 = L2 L1 , which can explain why the
curves in the fig. 5 are asymmetric.
Summary

Two groups of panels are calculated to study the validity of the equal model, which are created
with the formula listed in Eq.1, in terms of maximal displacement and RMS of displacement.
It is found that the equivalent layered model can produce a rather good accuracy in general. But

512

when the area of panel gets too small, such as below 0.1m2 , the errors could be too big to be
accepted. The relative errors reach the worst when the panel is almost square with the different ratio
of length to width and equal area, surprisingly.
The paper provides a reference for engineers, especially large radio telescope designers, who can
take the changed accuracy into account when dealing with different shapes of panels.
Acknowledgement

The work described in this paper is carried out at the Research Institute on Mechatronics, Xidian
University. This work is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities (No. K50510040008).
References

[1] Gibson L J, Ashby M F, Schajer G S: The mechanics of two-dimension cellular materials. Proc.
R. Soc. A382(1982), p25-42.
[2] FU Ming-hui YIN Jiu-ren: Equivalent elastic parameters of the honeycomb core. Acta
Mechanic Sinica. Vol. 31(1999), p113-118(in Chinese)
[3] Wang Ying-jian: Deformation models of honeycomb cell under in-plane shear. Acta
Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, Vol. 27(1991), p301-307(in Chinese).
[4] Saidi A, Coorevits P, Guessasma M: Homogenization of a sandwich structure and validity of
the corresponding two-dimensional equivalent model. Journal of Sandwich Structures and
Material, Vol. 7(2005), p7-30.
[5] Xia Li-juan, Jin Xian-ding, Wang Yang-bao: Equivalent Analysis of Honeycomb Sandwich
Plates for Satellite Structure. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University. Vol. 37(2003),
p999-1001(in Chinese).

513

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi