Hamza Report

The Institute of Space Technology
An Analytical Modeling and Damage Analysis of Honeycomb Sandwich Structure

under Low Velocity Impact Load
By
Syed Hamza Ali Tirmizi
Muhammad Umer Khurshid
A PROJECT SUBMITTED
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF SCIENECE
IN AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
Project Supervisors Name: Dr. Asif Israr

Project Supervisors Signature:
Islamabad, Pakistan
1
Senior Design Project
September, 2013
September, 2013
Certificate
This is to certify that the research work described in this thesis is the original work of
author(s) and has been carried out under my direct supervision. I have personally gone
through all the data/results/materials reported in the manuscript and certify their
correctness/authenticity. I further certify that the material included in this thesis is not
plagiarized and has not been used in part or full in a manuscript already submitted or in
the process of submission in partial/complete fulfillment of the award of any other degree
from any institution. I also certify that the thesis has been prepared under my supervision
according to the prescribed format and I endorse its evaluation for the award of Bachelor
of Science in Aerospace Engineering degree through the official procedures of the
Institute.
(Dr. Asif Israr)
2
September, 2013
Copyright 2013
This document is jointly copyrighted by the author(s) and the Institute of Space
Technology (IST). Both IST and author(s) can use, publish or reproduce this document in
any form. Under the copyright law no copyright of this document can be reproduced by
anyone, except copyright holders, without the permission of author(s).
3
September, 2013
ABSTRACT
An Analytical Modeling and Damage Analysis of Honeycomb Sandwich Structure under
Low Velocity Impact Load
By
B.Sc. Aerospace Engineering
Institute of Space Technology
Sep 2013
Honeycomb sandwich structure is of great importance now-a-days and a lot of research
work has been carried out in the field of aerospace and allied disciplines. Honeycomb
sandwich structure provides high strength and high resistance by being low in weight in
air and space vehicles. Practically, honeycomb structures face different types of forces,
stresses, fatigue and damages due to the collision of any space debris that causes
permanent indentation or failure and reduces the working life and strength of structures.
The most common mode of partial and complete failure is impact on the structure. Up till
now, more practical and less theoretical work has been carried out on the low velocity
impact damages because of the complexity of analytical as well as dynamic modeling of
honeycomb structures under given initial and boundary conditions. The energy-balance
and spring-mass are two different mathematical approaches that are employed in this
study for analyzing the structural response analytically. ANSYS and LSDYNA is the FE
analysis tool in which the impact damages are simulated. Experimentally, three points
bend and drop weight impact test of the structure is also performed on different
4
September, 2013
standardized specimens. Non-linear high order couple homogeneous ordinary differential

equation is obtained which is then solved by using the approximate method of
perturbation under given boundary and initial conditions. Finally, the results obtained
from analytical, numerical and experimental tests are compared with each other to check
the usefulness of analytical model. The obtained result is in the form of different plots.
Dedication
We pay our humble dedication of this research work to our parents!
5
September, 2013
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all we would like to thank ALLAH Almighty who blessed us the courage to do our
work with sincerity and determination by which we had completed our project. Then, we
would like to thank our parents, who are the most respectful in our eyes and made us able
today so that we are able to make their name high up in the sky. We would like to pay a
special thanks to our supervisor Dr. Asif Israr who helped us a lot in our project and stay
with us through every thick and thin. Then we would like to thank each and every faculty
member especially Dr. Zubair Khan, Mr. Adnan Munir for providing us the necessary
guidelines in our project. We would also like to thank our senior Ms. Wajeeha Siddiqui in
guiding us about the project and the AWC and NESCOM organizations for using their
experimental testing facilities and also to Institute of Space Technology!
6
September, 2013
Table of Contents
CERTIFICATE
ABSTRACT
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
10
LIST OF TABLES
13
1.
14
INTRODUCTION
1.1. MOTIVATION
1.2. PREVIOUS WORK DONE BY THE EARLIER COLLEAGUES
1.3. INTRODUCTION ABOUT OUR PROJECT
1.4. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1.5. OUTCOMES OF THE STUDY
1.6. SANDWICH THEORY
1.6.1.
Honeycomb Sandwich Structure
1.6.1.1.
1.6.1.2.
1.6.1.3.
1.6.2.
16
17
18
Modes of Deformation of Sandwich Structure
1.6.2.1.
1.1.1.
Core
Face sheets
Adhesive Material
Strength
20
Panel Buckling
Shear Crimpling
Skin Wrinkling
Intra-cell Buckling
20
20
21
21
7
September, 2013
19
20
Stiffness
1.6.2.2.
1.6.2.3.
1.6.2.4.
1.6.2.5.
14
14
14
14
15
15
16
1.6.2.6.
1.6.2.7.
1.6.3.
Local Compression
Delamination
21
21
Applications of Honeycomb Sandwich Structures
1.6.3.1.
1.6.3.2.
1.6.3.3.
Aircraft
Spacecraft
Others
22
22
22
23
1.7. OUTLINE OF MAIN CHAPTERS

1.7.1.
Introduction
1.7.2.
Literature Review
1.7.3.
Analytical Modeling
1.7.4.
Impact Analysis using LS-DYNA
1.7.5.
Preparation of working samples
1.7.6.
Experimentation
1.7.7.
Results and Discussions
23
23
24
24
25
26
26
26
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
27
3.
ANALYTICAL MODELING
34
3.1. BASIC PROPERTIES OF HONEYCOMB SANDWICH STRUCTURES

3.1.1.
Selection of E1
3.1.2.
Selection of E2
3.1.3.
Selection of E3
3.1.4.
Selection of G12
3.1.5.
Selection of G13
3.1.6.
Selection of G23
3.1.7.
Selection of 12
3.1.8.
Selection of 13
3.1.9.
Selection of 23
3.1.10. Optimum Model for the selection of Elastic Constants
3.2. MODELING USING SPRING-MASS SYSTEM
3.2.1.
Linear Modeling
3.2.2.
Solution of Non-linear impact using Newtons Forward Difference
Method 51
3.2.2.1.
3.2.2.2.
51
53
Mathematical Formulation
Iteration Procedure
3.2.3.
Solution of Non-linear Oblique Impact on Honeycomb Sandwich
Structures
3.2.4.
Solution for Oblique Impact
3.2.5.
Free Response of Honeycomb Sandwich Structure
3.2.5.1.
3.2.5.2.
3.2.6.
4.
Qualitative Analysis
Appropriate Numerical Technique-Perturbation Method
Damage Inclusion in Honeycomb
MODELING OF HONEYCOMB SANDWICH STRUCTURE

IMPACT MODEL IN LS-DYNA
FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF STRUCTURE
8
September, 2013
55
60
60
60
64
88
IMPACT ANALYSIS USING LS-DYNA

4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
34
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
48
49
90
IN
ANSYS
90
96
105
4.4.
4.5.
5.
MESH INDEPENDENCE, NUMBER

FINAL MODEL
OF
EQUATIONS
AND
TIME
PREPARATION OF WORKING SAMPLES

5.1. FABRICATION OF THE SPECIMENS
5.1.1.
Construction of the core
5.1.2.
Cutting of Metal Face sheets
5.1.3.
Choice of Adhesive
5.1.4.
Gluing the face sheets with the core
5.1.5.
Polishing of the Honeycomb Sandwich Structures
5.2. ASTM STANDARD USED
5.2.1.
Significance and Use
5.2.2.
Scope
6.
EXPERIMENTATION
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
PROVES FOR DEVELOPED THEORIES

8.1. PROVE OF DEVELOPED ITERATION METHOD
8.1.1.
Results
8.1.2.
Conclusion of developed iteration technique
8.2. PROVE OF DEVELOPED OBLIQUE MODEL
8.3. PROVE OF NATURAL FREQUENCY
8.3.1.
Formulation
8.3.2.
Results
8.3.3.
Conclusion
9.
10.
CONCLUSION OF IMPACT ANALYSIS

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
121
122
122
123
123
124
125
125
126
127
127
128
129
129
129
132
135
135
136
138
138
140
140
141
141
142
144
9
September, 2013
117
117
117
118
118
118
119
119
120
125
7.1. RESULTS OF OPTIMIZATION OF ELASTIC CONSTANTS

7.2. RESULTS THROUGH LINEAR MODEL
7.3. RESULTS THROUGH NON-LINEAR IMPACT MODEL
7.4. RESULTS OF QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS/UV-PLANE
7.5. RESULTS OF PERTURBATION THEORY
7.6. RESULTS OF IMPACT ANALYSIS USING LS-DYNA
7.7. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
7.7.1.
Testing Parameters
7.7.2.
Three point bend test results
7.8. FAILURE ANALYSIS APPROACH
8.
117
121
6.1. FLEXURAL BENDING TEST

6.1.1.
Placing of sheet on the supports
6.1.2.
Adjustment of weight
6.1.3.
Removal of errors
6.1.4.
Calculation of Flexural Modulus
6.2. THREE POINTS BEND TEST
7.
115
116
REFERENCES
145
APPENDIX A-MATLAB PROGRAM
150
AMPLITUDE VS. FREQUENCY

FAILURE ANALYSIS (ADJUSTING
PHASE PLANE
VALUES OF ELASTIC CONSTANTS)
150
151
155
List of Figures
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
1.2 SANDWICH STRUCTURE

1.3 CORE
1.4 FACE SHEET-CORE COMBINATION
1.5 ADHESIVE MATERIAL LAYER SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
1.6 EXCESSIVE DEFLECTION
1.7 STRENGTH
1.8 PANEL BUCKLING
1.9 SHEAR CRIMPLING
1.10 LOAD COMPRESSION
1.11 DELAMINATION
1.12 AIRCRAFT
1.13 SPACECRAFT
1.14 2-DOF GENERALIZED SPRING-MASS SYSTEM
3.1 CONTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT RESEARCHERS
3.2 NUMBER OF OPTIONS AVAILABLE
3.3 TREE DIAGRAM
3.4 MEASUREMENT OF ELASTIC PROPERTY (E1)
3.7 MEASUREMENT OF ELASTIC PROPERTY (G12)
3.10 MEASUREMENT OF ELASTIC PROPERTY (12)
3.13 OPTIMUM MODEL FOR THE SELECTION OF ELASTIC CONSTANTS
10
September, 2013
16
17
18
19
20
20
20
20
21
22
22
22
25
35
35
36
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
3.14 2-DOF MODEL OF HONEYCOMB SANDWICH STRUCTURE

49
3.15 FREE BODY DIAGRAM
49
3.16 OBLIQUE IMPACT DIAGRAM
55
3.17 4-DOF MODEL FOR OBLIQUE IMPACT ON HONEYCOMB SANDWICH
STRUCTURE
55
FIG. 3.18 FREE BODY DIAGRAM OF INDIVIDUAL MASSES
56
FIG. 3.19 REPRESENTATION OF VERTICAL FORCES
56
FIG. 3.20 COMBINATION OF FIG. 3.16 AND FIG. 3.19
56
FIG. 3.21 RESOLVING X1
FIG. 3.22 RESOLVING X2
57
FIG. 3.22 RESULTANT DIAGRAM FOR FRICTIONAL AND NORMAL FORCES
57
FIG. 3.23 FAILURE CRITERIA USED
88
FIG. 3.24 STRESS-STRAIN GRAPH FOR FACE SHEET
89
FIG. 4.1 ANSYS MECHANICAL APDL PRODUCT LAUNCHER
90
FIG. 4.2 ANSYS MAIN MENU
91
FIG. 4.3 CREATING COORDINATES IN ONE FACE OF HONEYCOMB
91
FIG. 4.4 STEPS TO MAKE STRAIGHT LINES
92
FIG. 4.5 CREATING STRAIGHT LINE BETWEEN THE KEYPOINTS
92
FIG. 4.6 JOINING THE INNER KEYPOINTS
93
FIG. 4.7 JOINING THE OUTER KEYPOINTS
93
FIG. 4.8 STEPS TO CREATE AREA BETWEEN THE LINES
94
FIG. 4.9 AREA FORMATION
94
FIG. 4.10 CORE FORMATION
FIG. 4.11 STEPS TO ADD
ALL THE AREAS
95
FIG. 4.12 ADD AREAS MENU
FIG. 4.13 EXTRUDE AREA ALONG NORMAL
95
FIG. 4.14 SELECTION OF MATERIAL MODEL
97
FIG. 4.15 MATERIAL PROPERTY CARD
97
FIG. 4.16 DEFINING THE SECTIONS-SOLID
98
FIG. 4.17 DEFINING THE SECTIONS-SHELLS
98
FIG. 4.18 ASSIGNING PROPERTIES TO PARTS
99
FIG. 4.19 CONTACT AUTOMATIC GENERAL
99
FIG. 4.20 CONTACT AUTOMATIC SURFACE TO SURFACE
100
FIG. 4.21CONTACT TIED SURFACE TO SURFACE FAILURE
100
FIG. 4.22 CONTACT INTERIOR
101
FIG. 4.23 CONTACT FORCE TRANSDUCER PENALTY
101
FIG. 4.24 SELECTION OF NODES
102
FIG. 4.25 SELECTION OF BOUNDARY AND NODES
102
FIG. 4.26 INITIAL VELOCITY GENERATION
103
FIG. 4.27 CONTROL CARD_SHELL CARD
103
FIG. 4.28 CONTROL CARD_SOLID CARD
104
FIG. 4.29 TERMINATION CARD
104
FIG. 4.30 ELASTIC MODEL_001
105
FIG. 4.31 ORTHOTROPIC ELASTIC_002
106
FIG. 4.32 SECTION_SOLID
106
FIG. 4.33 SECTION_SHELL
107
11
September, 2013
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
FIG.
4.34 ASSIGNING PROPERTIES TO THE CREATED PARTS

107
4.35 CONTACT_GENERAL
108
4.36 CONTACT_SURFACE TO SURFACE
108
4.37 CONTACT_TIED_SURFACE TO SURFACE_FAILURE
109
4.38 CONTACT_INTERIOR
109
4.39 CONTACT FORCE TRANDUCER PENALTY
110
4.40 SELECTING THE NODES
110
4.41 ENTERING OPTIONS AFTER SELECTING NODES IN THE BOUNDARY
111
4.42IMPLICID DYNAMICS
111
4.43 IMPLICIT EIGENVALUE
112
4.44 IMPLICIT GENERAL
112
4.45 IMPLICIT SOLUTIONS
113
4.46 IMPLICIT SOLVER
113
4.47 CONTROL_SHELL
114
4.48 CONTROL_SOLID
114
4.49 CONTROL_TERMINATOR
115
5.1 CUTTING OF FACE SHEETS AND REMOVAL OF DENTS
117
5.3 LARGE HONEYCOMB STRUCTURE
118
5.4 POLISHED HONEYCOMB SANDWICHED STRUCTURE
119
5.5 HONEYCOMB SANDWICH SPECIMEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM
119
6.1 PLACING THE ALUMINIUM SHEET ON THE SUPPORTS
122
6.2 PLACING THE WEIGHT
122
6.3 REMOVING ERRORS FROM DIAL
123
6.4 CALCULATING FLEXURAL MODULUS
123
7.1 DEFLECTION VS. TIME
125
7.2 FORCE VS. DEFLECTION
126
7.3 VELOCITY VS. DEFLECTION
127
7.4 VARIATION OF AMPLITUDE VS. FREQUENCY
127
7.5 LOAD VS. POSITION PLOT FOR SPECIMEN (S1)
130
131
131
131
132
7.10 DAMAGED MODEL AT 150 M/S
133
7.11 PLOT BETWEEN THE DAMAGED, LS-DYNA NATURAL AND PERTURBATION
METHOD
134
FIG. 8.1 PLOT FOR DISTANCE OF INDENTER VS. TIME
137
FIG. 8.2 PLOT FOR DISTANCE VS. TIME FOR SANDWICH PLATE
137
FIG. 8.3 PLOT FOR CONTACT FORCE VS. TIME
138
FIG. 8.4 PLOT BETWEEN X AND T BY USING PERTURBATION METHOD
141
12
September, 2013
List of Tabl
TABLE 3.1 DIFFERENT INPUT PROPERTIES FOR HONEYCOMB SANDWICH STRUCTURES
36
TABLE 3.2 DIFFERENT PROPERTIES ILLUSTRATED BY DIFFERENT RESEARCHERS
37
TABLE 4.1MEST STRUCTURE AND ITS RESULTS
115
TABLE 4.2 FINAL MODEL
116
TABLE 7.1 DIMENSION USED FOR THE SPECIMEN
125
TABLE 7.2 ELASTIC MODULUS RESULTED
125
TABLE 7.3 REFERENCE VALUES
126
TABLE 7.4 RESULTS THROUGH NON-LINEAR IMPACT MODEL
126
TABLE 7.5 SECTIONAL VIEW OF THE DAMAGED MODEL
128
TABLE 7.6 TESTING PARAMETERS
129
TABLE 7.7 TESTING RESULTS
130
TABLE 7.8 YOUNG MODULUS CALCULATED FROM FLEXURAL TEST
132
TABLE 7.9 FREQUENCIES THROUGH PERTURBATION, DAMAGED AND UNDAMAGED LSDYNA MODEL
133
TABLE 8.1 PROPERTIES AND THEIR VALUES USED IN THE PROCESS
136
TABLE 8.2 RESULTS SHOWING THE PROVE OF DEVELOPED OBLIQUE MODEL
139
TABLE 8.3 INPUT PROPERTIES
140
TABLE 9.1 EQUIPMENT PRICE
143
Y
13
September, 2013
1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation
Following are the major factors in selecting this project:
i.
ii.
Interest in the structures and design of the aircrafts

Honeycomb sandwich structures are largely being used in the aerospace and other
iii.
allied disciplines
Many of the accidents occur due to the collision of the bird on wings of the
iv.
aircrafts, so we want to transform this practical study in the theoretical one

Our sound background in mathematics motivated us to choose this project
1.2. Previous work done by the earlier colleagues

Our colleague of Aero-06 Tanzeel did static analysis on honeycomb sandwich structure
by computing the result in terms of stresses and verified the buckling phenomena through
ANSYS. Similarly, our colleague of Aero-07 Wajeeha did damage analysis on
honeycomb sandwich structure due to low velocity impact by comparing the results of
already developed impact analysis theory with the results in ABAQUS. Both of these
works are unable to work out the damage occurring in the honeycomb sandwich
structures due to impact. Therefore, a new theory along with its verification is required.
14
September, 2013
1.3. Introduction about our project

A new theory for impact analysis is put forth which is easier, more reliable and can be
used widely i.e. it could be applicable to all ranges of velocity. So a theory was developed
using perturbation method and forward difference method which is independent of
velocity division used until now i.e. low velocity and a high velocity impact.
1.4. Objectives of the study

Following are the main objectives of our study:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
To perform an impact analysis on honeycomb sandwich structure

To develop a new analytical model and integrating failure criteria in this model
To use the ANSYS/LSDYNA for the dynamic simulation of the impact
To help the researchers in their research in analytical modeling by improving the
v.
vi.
numerical integration technique.

To develop oblique impact model for a honeycomb sandwich structure.
To perform low velocity impact analysis on honeycomb sandwich structures.
1.5. Outcomes of the study

i.
Analytical and numerical techniques are improved, so that if any researcher

wishes to carry previous approach (time domain) then he can do it more
ii.
easily.
4-DoF model is developed which includes the affect of friction and assumes
iii.
that no rotation occurs during the collision.

Also the normal 2-DoF impact was extended to the 4-DoF oblique impact
iv.
model.
Perturbation technique is applied to convert free response differential
equations to frequency domain since Laplace and Fourier transform were not
applicable and are unable to convert the equations to frequency domain. The
whole study is shifted in time domain.
15

September, 2013
v.
vi.
Damages are included through the use of improved numerical technique to

calculate the stiffness of honeycomb sandwich structures.
Finally formula for natural frequency was used to the damage the model.
1.6. Sandwich Theory

Sandwich construction has been well recognized in the industry for well over 40 years.
Engineers take sandwich construction for the reason as they use I-beam or trusses, i.e., to
increase stiffness, strength and low weight.
A typical sandwich structure consists of three layers; two face sheets and a core
sandwiched between them. Sandwich theory is said to describe the behavior of a beam,
plate or shell. The commonly used sandwich theory is linear sandwich theory which is an
extension of first order beam theory. Linear sandwich theory is important in designing
and analysis of sandwich panels. These sandwich panels are used in air vehicles, space
vehicles and building construction. Sandwich structure is shown in Fig. 1.1.
Fig. 1.1 Sandwich Structure
The advantages of sandwich construction are discussed in the proceeding sections:

1.6.1.Honeycomb Sandwich Structure
Sandwich structure is made up of two face sheets; the top and the bottom one and the
core is made up of hexagonal honeycomb cells, sandwiched between them with the layer
of adhesive material to keep core tied in bond with the face sheets. Thickness of the face
sheet is kept very small relative to their span length to maintain weight constraint. The
adhesive or the bonding material (usually an epoxy) between the core and the skin or face
sheet is used to avoid sliding, delamination and the relative motion, thus avoiding local
damages. The core is made up of regular and repeated pattern of the cells and the cells are
16
September, 2013
generally hexagonal in structure. The core can be available in different types, forms,
shapes, sizes, dimensions, physical and mechanical properties depending upon the
requirements and the usage. The material selection of the core as well as the face sheets is
dependent on the structural requirements of the application. Constituents of the
honeycomb sandwich structures are discussed below:
1.6.1.1. Core
The core is the most significant part of the honeycomb structure on which whole of the
subject matter is based. The honeycomb core in a sandwich laminate plays the same role
as the web does in I-beam by connecting the load bearing skins i.e. the stiffness directly
increases by increasing the height of web and in case of honeycomb, the thickness of
core.
The sandwich construction is often un-debatable; it is due to the fact of the past incidents
occurred by using either inadequate building methods or the wrong core material for the
engineered load.
Fig. 1.2 Core
The fundamental properties are typically:

Density, i.e. the material must be light in weight.
Shear modulus and shear strength for the core to carry the bulk of shear loads
hence high strength and stiffness values are very important to structural
performance.
Compression stiffness and strength; the core materials must be capable to carry
the perpendicular loads on laminate face sheets.
17
September, 2013
Thermal properties: as often the core has to act as an insulator and heat transfer
must be kept to a minimum.
Although, honeycomb sandwich structure is light in weight, but still, they need local
reinforcement in areas which are load bending and in fixation spots. The open ends of
sandwich panels need reinforcement and protection in order to prevent from impact
damages and moisture access.
1.6.1.2. Face sheets
The sandwich structure consists of thin and stiff face-sheets made from either metal or
composite separated by light weight core. These face sheets are adhesively bonded to the
core (honeycomb) through a secondary bonding process, where the components of the
core do not flow. The metals used for the facesheets are mostly the alloys of aluminum
and the composites usually used are carbon-epoxy and glass-epoxy.
Face
Sheets
Cor
e
Fig. 1.3 Face Sheet-Core Combination
1.6.1.3. Adhesive Material
In sandwich structure, facesheets and the honeycombs are bonded as two distinct solidphases through a secondary bond. Generally, the honeycomb core is bonded to the facesheet by either of the two methods explained as under:
An adhesive layer is placed on to the top and bottom of the surfaces of the core,
upon which the prepregs are placed. The adhesive is usually a resin in this case.
The complete assembly is placed in an autoclave to cure the resin. During this
18
September, 2013
process of curing, the resin from the film plasticizes and thus creates a bond
between the prepregs and the honeycomb wall.
The prepregs that are uncured are then cured by placing them on to the top and
bottom surface of the honeycomb and the resulting assembly is placed in
autoclave for curing. During this process of curing, the resin from the prepregs
gradually flows and a bond is created between the prepregs and the honeycomb
walls.
For the existence of a reliable bond at the interface, the resin should flow from the
adhesive sheet and should create a symmetric fillet on the honeycomb surface
surrounding the interface. In addition to that, the edges of the cell-wall of the honeycomb
should be straight and sharp. The load bearing capacity is massively dependent on the
quality of the adhesive material used between the core and the face sheet. Delamination
of the facesheets of the honeycomb may result in catastrophic failure of the structure.
Thus, it concludes that type, nature and the quality of the bonding between the core and
the face-sheet is important design criterion for sandwich construction.
Face Sheets
Core
Adhesive
Material
Fig. 1.4 Adhesive Material Layer Schematic Diagram
Also, due to change in modulus between the core and the face-sheets i.e. honeycomb wall
material, a large amount of shear stress is generated at interface, where the structure is
subjected to bending load. Whenever, a flaw is introduced at the interface, shear stress
may peel off the face-sheets from the honeycomb surface. This flaw is usually initiated
by an impacted force, especially on the exterior structure.
19
September, 2013
1.6.2.Modes of Deformation of Sandwich Structure
The initiation of the various failure modes depends on the material properties of the
constituents; the facings and core, geometric dimensions and type of loading. The type of
loading condition determines the state of stress throughout the sandwich structure, which
controls the location and modes of failure. For sandwich specimens loaded under bending
moment, shear and axial loading, the failure modes investigated are face sheets
compressive failure, adhesive bond failure, indentation failure, core failure and face
wrinkling. The sandwich beams under quasi static punching loads can fail in several
modes; face yield, face wrinkling, core shear, the bottom face fracture, and interfacial
facture between the core and the faces. Moreover, the parameters like face thickness, cell
size of foam material on the failure and deformation modes can also effect the failure
modes.
During the construction of the sandwich panels, designers must ensure that all the
potential failure modes must be considered in their analysis. Summarized form of the key
failure modes are as follows:
1.6.2.1. Strength
The skin and the core material should be able to withstand the tensile, shear and
compressive stresses induced by the load.
The adhesive material used between the core and the face sheets must be capable of
transferring the compressive stresses between core and the face sheet (Fig. 1.5).
Fig. 1.6 Strength

September, 2013
Fig. 1.5 Excessive Deflection
20
1.1.1. Stiffness
The sandwich panel should have sufficient bending and shear stiffness, so that it can
prevent excessive deflection (Fig. 1.6).
1.6.2.2. Panel Buckling
There should be sufficient core thickness and shear modulus to avoid the buckling of the
panel under end compression load (Fig. 1.7).
1.6.2.3.
1.6.2.3.
1.6.2.3. Fig. 1.8 Shear Crimpling
Fig. 1.7 Panel Buckling
Shear Crimpling
The core thickness and shear modulus must be adequate to prevent the core from
permanently failing in shear under end compression load (Fig. 1.8).
1.6.2.4. Skin Wrinkling
The compression modulus of the facing skins and the compression strength of the core
must both be high enough to prevent a skin wrinkling failure (Fig. 1.9).
Fig. 1.9 Skin Wrinkling

Fig. 1.10 Intra-cell Buckling
21
September, 2013
1.6.2.5. Intra-cell Buckling
For a given face sheet material, the core cell size must be small enough to prevent intracell buckling (Fig. 1.10).
1.6.2.6. Local Compression
The core compressive strength must be adequate enough to resist local loads on the panel
surface Fig. 1.11).
Fig. 1.9 Load Compression
1.6.2.7. Delamination
The delamination of the face-sheet as shown in the fig. 1.12 can occur by propagation of
the crack in one or more of the following spaces:
Interface between the resin and fiber in the facesheet i.e. prepregs
Resin layers (between the prepregs and the honeycomb wall) formed during
bonding.
Interface between the resin (from the prepregs/film) and the honeycomb cell-wall
Cell wall (failure in the core)
Fig. 1.10 Delamination
22
September, 2013
1.6.3.Applications of Honeycomb Sandwich Structures

1.6.3.1. Aircraft
In aircraft, honeycomb structures are used as high static and dynamic load bearing
members. Their major benefit is the light weight and they show good dynamic properties
as well. These are used typically in the areas like vertical and tail, leading and trailing
edges, fuselage sections. In addition to the mechanical properties, these components also
provide good thermal properties, and are used in aircraft as thermal resistant component
as well.
Fig. 1.12 Spacecraft
1.6.3.2. Spacecraft
Fig. 1.11 Aircraft
During space flight, the satellite or the object faces many dynamic, static and thermal
loads of high power. These can damage the structure and its components such as
propulsion, navigation and control units. The solid rocket booster launch vehicle has
several metal based components that require a thermal protective system be applied to the
exterior surface to ensure its structural integrity and to protect the interior from
aerodynamic heating effects. The sandwich structures are being qualified for this
application with a high strength and low thermal conductivity. Major concerns in this
application are:
Dynamic structure for shipping, launch and operation
Detailed component stress and margin calculations
Mechanism analysis for deployment of solar panels and reflector
23
September, 2013
The spacecraft application is shown in the fig. 1.12.

1.6.3.3. Others
Other applications of honeycomb sandwich structure are listed below:
Automobile structures
Gliders
Rocket Sub-structure
Submarines
Wind tunnels
Trains
Snowboards and furniture
Heating, ventilation, air conditioning equipment and devices
Energy absorption protective structures
Electric shielding enclosures
Acoustic attenuation
Wind turbine blades
1.7. Outline of main chapters

1.7.1.Introduction
A brief introduction about the sandwich theory and different modes of failures is
presented in this chapter. Our motivation in choosing this project is also presented with
the addition of the work done by the past colleagues in this field. The chief objectives of
our study and their possible outcomes have also been outlined in this chapter. Also a brief
introduction of every chapter has also been put forward in this report to make the reader
aware of the study presented in every chapter.
1.7.2.Literature Review
A detailed literature study has been provided in this chapter regarding impact analysis of
honeycomb sandwich structure. A number of researchers used spring-mass and energybalance model to get the analytical equations but no one has ever solved those equations
because the resulting equations are non-linear and their analytical solution is impossible.
Thus, many of the researchers either made assumptions to linearize the system of
equations or have moved to the numerical methods to solve the system of equations.
24
September, 2013
Finite Element Model has been developed by a number of researchers particularly for this
problem using commercially available dynamic software and many of the researchers
have compared the FE results with the experimental ones. Since, less theoretical and
more experimental work has been carried out in this field. So we have tried to describe
the contribution of different researchers in this particular field.
1.7.3.Analytical Modeling
Different analytical approaches are used to model honeycomb sandwich structures

according to the level of complexity and the given conditions. Analytical modeling for
honeycomb core is a complex job as it is done discretely for every case as per the specific
conditions and the end requirements. There is no way to generalize any of the present
models. The degree of complexity, proportional with degree of accuracy required, is also
a highly variable parameter while getting started with the analytical modeling.
Spring-mass systems are simple to work on and provide accurate solutions for the
impacts which are often encountered during the tests on small specimens. The most
complete model consists of one spring representing the linear stiffness of the structure,
another spring for the nonlinear membrane stiffness, a mass representing the effective
mass of the structure, the nonlinear contact stiffness and the mass of the projectile. If the
effect of shear deformation is negligible, the spring constant taken is the combined spring
constant of bending and shear stiffness. It can be one, 2or 3-DoF (degree of freedom)
depending upon the level of accuracy to be achieved and level of complexity of the
problem increases with the accuracy. A simplified 2-DoFs is shown in Fig. 1.15.
25
September, 2013
Fig. 1.13 2-DOF Generalized spring-Mass System
A damper can also be included in it, if the energy dissipation is to be modeled as well.
1.7.4.Impact Analysis using LS-DYNA
Numerical simulation is usually done to visualize the problem practically with the help of
using Dynamic Finite Element modeling software such as ABACUS and LSDYNA
which are used commercially these days and are user friendly. However, CODAC,
LUSAS, NASTRAN and other software are also in a use for the simulation of the
problem but their uses vary from problem to problem and from the type of analysis.
First of all the problem is visualized how to occur. Then on the basis of that imagination a
model is developed by using different element types and the material properties. Different
element types are used such as shell and solid, and their use is also dependent on the type
of structure. After careful selection of the element type, the material which can be
isotropic, orthotropic or anisotropic is selected according to the type of analysis to be
done. Finite element model is then developed using the inherent properties of the
software.
Thus a dynamic analysis is carried out to analyze the structure for damage analysis
through frequency or stress response. The results obtained from the numerical simulation
are then compared with the analytical or experimental studies to check the validity of the
Finite Element Model.
26
September, 2013
1.7.5.Preparation of working samples
The sandwich was fabricated according to the ASTM C393 standards. Each aluminium
sheet and the Nomex core were sized according to these standards. The core was first
glued with the face skins by using a suitable epoxy. The specimens were then firmly
pressed so that the face skins make a strong bond with the honeycomb core. The samples
were then polished up to remove the scratches present on the surface of the sheets. The
prepared samples were then used in our subsequent analyses.
1.7.6.Experimentation
Experimental investigation was done in order to compare the theoretical and numerical
results with the experimental ones. And thus the compared results helped us to verify our
analysis. Two different types of experimental tests were conducted such as flexure
bending test and three point bend test. Flexural bend test was conducted on the aluminum
sheet to find out its Youngs modulus so that the measured value of modulus can be used
in our analysis. Compression test was carried out on the honeycomb sandwich structure
to have a plot of force vs. displacement.
1.7.7.Results and Discussions
The results of every method and study done in this project have been compiled in this
chapter resulting into a number of graphs. The perturbation method, forward difference
method, linear and non-linear modeling, LS-DYNA and experimentation results are listed
as well as the comparison of analytical, numerical and experimental study has also been
presented in the form of a graph.
2.
Literature Review
Honeycomb sandwich panels and laminated composite structures are being used at a
large scale in aerospace industry. Because of their high stiffness, strength and lightweight
27
September, 2013
they are of prime importance in aerospace and aircraft industry. Impacts can be occurred
due to a variety of causes. e.g., debris may be propelled at high velocities from runway at
aircrafts landing and takeoffs. Other examples include dropping of the tool on the
structure during maintenance collisions and even by striking of a bird during the flight.
Visually it seems little damage is occurs on the structure but in reality the structure breaks
to a large extent due to the failure of face-sheets and core crushing. This destroys the
structure completely. Reduction of structural strength and stiffness likely to occur and
thus behavior of these structures from strength and failure point of view is of major
importance these days.
Composite structures under impact load are of primary importance these days in aviation
and aerospace industry. A lot of literature review has been done by the researchers in this
field. A thorough literature study has been done by Abrate et. al [1-3]. Honeycomb
sandwich structures are being made of different materials depending upon the
application. Nomex and Aluminum are being used on large scale in aerospace industry.
According to Aberate et. al [3], a first step towards understanding the effect of impacts
is to develop a model for predicting the contact force history and the overall response of
the structure and thus it involves the modeling of the motion of projectile, the dynamics
of the structure and the local indentation of the structure of the projectile.
An energy-balance model proposed by Abrate et. al [3] assumes that the quasi-static
behavior of the structure. i.e., when the structure reaches its maximum point of
deflection, the projectile velocity reaches zero and all the initial kinetic energy is used to
deform the structure. A numerical investigation using ABACUS was presented by C. C.
foo et. al [4], in which the impact force and the deflection-time histories were determined
by incorporating an impulse-momentum equation into the energy-balance model and the
results showed that the energy absorbed during impact is independent of the core density.
The strength characteristics of aluminum honeycomb sandwich panels were studied by
Jeom Kee Paika et. al [5] both theoretically and experimentally. From three-point
bending test it was observed that starting point of the plasticity can be delayed by using
28
September, 2013
thick honeycomb core cell, results in increase of ultimate strength and also the instability
effects in the structure can be reduced. Also delaminating could occur when the height of
the core become large but core height is not an influential factor on the crushing behavior
of honeycomb core. A low-velocity impact response was investigated by Md. Akil
Hazizan et. al [6] by drop-weight impact tests using an instrumented falling-weight
impactor on two different glass fiber/epoxy aluminum honeycomb structures. It was
found that indentation characteristics can be analyzed using Meyers indentation law. The
energy-balance model was used which accounts for energy absorption in bending, shear
and contact effects and was found to have fair agreement between the analytical
experimental study particularly at low energies. Energy breakdown was also identified
during impact by using energy-balance model and it was shown that incident energy
partition strongly depends on the geometry of the impacting projectile. Ins Ivaez et. al
[7] developed a 3-D FE model and Hou failure criteria were used to predict the failure of
facesheets for the low velocity impact. The comparison between the numerical and
experimental results was satisfactory and thus damage evolution study revealed that the
collapse of the foam core under the impact region favored the failure of the upper face
sheet because of its high deflection and the resulting great curvature. A similar study was
done by T. Besant et. al [8], finite element procedure of sandwich panels for predicting
the behavior under low velocity impact consisting of brittle composite skins supported by
a ductile core. In elastic-plastic portion of analysis of metal cores, a non-standard
approach
was
used
and
the
strategy
for
modeling
was
presented.
Analysis revealed that honeycomb is a good absorber of energy and absorbs energy by
the combination of local crush under the impactor and through thickness shear yielding.
For the prediction of the crushing behavior of the honeycomb sandwich structures, a
finite element methodology was developed by Chawla et. al [9]. The crushing strength of
the honeycomb depends on the geometry and the material property. The FE mesh in the
simulations also affects the results substantially so an optimum mesh should be
established until the convergence is obtained. The adhesive bonding between cell faces
were simulated by two different approaches, using glued nodes and using merged nodes.
29
September, 2013
Dynamic analysis was carried out using PAM-CRASH, an explicit FE code and the
results were verified against the data obtained from the experiments. The methodology
presented here can also be used to study the effect of other parameters like overall size,
cell size, foil thickness, thickness of honeycomb, number of cells and the material
properties. Meo et. al [10] carried out the study and discussed the results from the
experimental and numerical simulations of low-velocity impact and penetration damage
on an aircraft sandwich panel by a solid, round-shaped impactor. The work was focused
on the recent progress on the material modeling and numerical simulation of low-velocity
impact response onto a composite aircraft sandwich panel. FE analysis was carried out
using LS-DYNA3D finite element code. Numerical and experimental results were in
good agreement with each other; particularly numerical simulation was able to predict the
damage and impact energy absorbed by the structure.
The analysis of static and low-velocity impact response of two topologies of aluminum
honeycomb sandwich structures with different cell sizes has been studied by V. Crupi et.
al [11]. Various collapse modes produced by the static bending tests were performed
using servo-hydraulic load machine for panels with the same nominal size, depending on
the support span distance and on the honeycomb cell size. Low-velocity impact tests were
also carried out by means of drop test machine on the structures and energy-balance
model was applied in order to investigate their impact behavior. He assumed a perfect
bond between the faces and the core and eliminated the possibility of delamination for the
development of a theoretical model.
Effect of the amount of adhesive on the bending fatigue strength of adhesively bonded
aluminum honeycomb sandwich beams was analyzed by Yi-Ming Jen et. al [12]. He
experimentally proved that fatigue strength increases as the amount of adhesive increases.
It was also observed from fatigue test that de-bonding at the interface between the
honeycomb core and the face sheet is the main cause of fatigue failure. The predicted
failure locations using the three interfacial parameters were also examined by comparing
the results from fatigue tests. Among the three, the combined interfacial peeling and shear
30
September, 2013
stress parameter was recommended in fatigue design as it provides good fatigue life
correlations and predicts the correct locations of failure initiation simultaneously.
A low-velocity impact response was predicted using a displacement-based, plate bending,
FE algorithm [13]. They predicted out that fifth-order Hermatian interpolation allows 3-D
equilibrium integration for measuring the transverse stress to be carried out symbolically
through interpolating functions and by using elasto-plastic foundation. Nomex
honeycomb core was modeled and contact load was simulated using Hertzian pressure
distribution. Damage prediction by failure criteria and damage progression via stiffness
reduction were also analyzed. It was demonstrated by [14] the possibility of representing
the Nomex honeycomb core by a grid of nonlinear springs and pointed out both the
structural behavior of the honeycomb and the influence of core-skin boundary conditions.
This discrete approach accurately predicted the static indentation on honeycomb core
alone and the indentation on sandwich structure with metal skins supported on rigid flat
support. They also pointed out that this approach is not valid for sharp projectiles on thin
skins.
Nettles et. al [15] analyzed that a static test method for modeling low-velocity foreign
object impact events to composites would prove to be very beneficial to researchers since
much more data can be obtained from a static test than from an impact test. A series of
static indentation and low-velocity impact tests were carried out and compared to check
whether static tests are better or not than impact tests. Results indicate that static
indentation can be used to represent a low-velocity impact event.
The quasi-static indentation and impact response of very thick sandwich panels is
described in [27] and studied drop weight impact, quasi-static indentation, and quasistatic core-crushing characteristics of the different core panel configurations. Damages
were evaluated using conventional methods including cross-sectioning and visual
inspection, and dent depth was measured by means of an automated high-precision depth
gage. The indentation profile was monitored by means of the digital image correlation
technique during the quasi-static tests to gain insight in the response of these complex
31
September, 2013
structures. Paolo Feraboli et. al [28] studied the structural properties for impact energy
values below and above the damage threshold. A modified approach to the classic springmass model, which employs the notions of damaged stiffness and dissipated energy, leads
to the derivation of approximate formulas that describe the peak force-energy curve. A
novel method to assess the residual performance of the damaged plate was also
developed, using nondestructive impact testing, the results from which bear a striking
resemblance with the curves obtained by compression after impact.
J. Gustin et. al [29] investigated impact and compression after impact properties of plain
weave carbon fibers and sandwich composites. Impact tests were conducted on different
sample to obtain information about absorbed energy and maximum impact force. The
impact and compression after impact data provided valuable information to allow for
comparisons between different samples. In conclusion, a two-degrees-of-freedom springmass model was compared with the experimental results.
Finite element modeling is one of the most popular and cost-effective approach involved
in the study of sandwich structures. To attain efficiency in numerical analysis, the core in
sandwich structures, which has a large number of cells, is usually replaced with an
equivalent continuum model. The sandwich panels are analyzed in terms of their effective
properties and stiffnesss. Numerous numbers of experimental and analytical techniques
have been proposed to predict the effective continuum properties of the core and the face
sheets in terms of its geometric and material characteristics. However, theoretical
formulation of the effective elastic constants for the core could be tedious or almost
impossible if the sandwich construction is too complicated. Even if it is possible, the
mathematical derivations for one type of sandwich core might not be applicable to other
types. An equivalent continuum model may seem a convenient way to represent the real
core geometrically, but errors have also been attributed to the continuum model when it is
used to model damage in impact problems. One possible reason is that it may be very
difficult to simulate exact damage or crack propagation since the honeycomb core is
made up of discrete cells. The onset of damage progression and failure in honeycomb
core may be sensitive to detailed local damage distribution along the cells. This limitation
32
September, 2013
can be overcome by adopting discrete element modeling approaches, so that more

realistic distributions of stresses and strains can be obtained in the detailed core structure.
A great deal of research work from the past many years has been carried out in
experimental and numerical studies, but relatively fewer analytical solutions have been
proposed for sandwich structures because of the complex interaction between the
composite face sheet and core during deformation and failure whenever an impact occurs
on the honeycomb sandwich panel. Such solutions highlight important impact
parameters, and provide benchmark solutions for more refined finite element analysis.
The spring-mass and energy-balance models are two popular mathematical models used
to study the impact dynamics of foreign objects on composite structures.
In the spring-mass model, there is a combination of bending, shear, membrane and
contact springs to represent the transverse load-deformation behavior. The complete force
history is then predicted by solving the equations of motion. Most analytical models
assume elastic behavior and they are unable to model damage growth. In addition, they
neglect core crushing and large face sheet deflection. Some researchers also used
homogeneous and isotropic properties to make their work easy. In addition many
researchers have neglect the membrane and core stiffnesss by simply assuming the mass
of honeycomb to be small as compared to the impactor or indenter mass. Using such
assumptions make the analysis very easy because the resulting non-linear equations are
transformed to the simple linear equations.
Thus, for analytical models to be successful in predicting the impact response of
sandwich panels, large face sheet deflections and core crushing have to be considered as
well, researchers have derived approximate solutions for the dashpot and spring
resistances from the static load-indentation response using the principle of minimum
potential energy, and then adjusted these properties with the dynamic material properties
of the facesheet and core. They incorporated a constant force dashpot in the spring-mass
model to represent the dynamic crushing resistance of the core. A single DOF model
including a damper can also be used as a mechanism to account for material damage on
sandwich structures subjected to low-velocity impact. Also many researchers have used
33
September, 2013
the quasi-static analysis for the study of low velocity impact on aluminum or Nomex
honeycomb sandwich structure to simplify their problem however impact is a dynamic
analysis.
The nonlinear approaches have also been studied in [15-25] in detail by the researchers.
The two approaches described above are being used today and in the past for the impact
or damage analysis of aluminum or Nomex honeycomb sandwich structure. Another
technique may be used to carry out the research may be as follows. It starts with the
derivation of equations of motions of SDOF system which will form a characteristic
equation in the form of natural frequencies. The frequencies can be calculated of an
undisturbed system and then the natural frequencies of the system can be calculated after
the impact. The comparison can be made between tge initial and final frequencies of the
system to predict the damages caused by the impact.
34
September, 2013
3.
Analytical Modeling
Majority of researchers have used different models for the analytical modeling of
damages caused due to low/high velocity impact on honeycomb sandwich structure. The
two different types of models are energy-balance model and the spring-mass model.
Energy-balance model is used to find the equations in terms of energy by using the
principle of conservation of energy or the principle of conservation of momentum on the
collision of two different objects. The spring-mass apparently being simple but the
resultant equations are tough from the computation point of view. Also two types of
boundary conditions exist for honeycomb sandwiched structures one is fully backed
system and other is simply supported system. General model is developed where both of
these boundary conditions could be used.
The analytical modeling of impact problem is carried iteratively. But before starting the
analytical modeling, some basic properties of honeycomb structure need to be explored.
3.1. Basic Properties of Honeycomb Sandwich

structures
Following are the properties of honeycomb sandwich structures:
Young modulus in x, y and z direction.

Shear modulus in x, y and z direction.
Poisson ratio in x, y and z direction.
Figure 3.1 shows the contribution of different researchers. Lorna J Gibson and Michael F.
Ashby worked on all of the 9 important constants. Total 33 formulas are available; since
E3 is same for some authors so total 29 formulas are analyzed in this study.
35
September, 2013
Abd al
Sayed
Master
and
Evans
E1
E1
E2
E2
E3
E3
12
G12
12
E nast
Shi
Qunli
E1
G13
E3
E2
G23
G13
E3
Gibson
and Ashby
E1
Ashby
E3
E2
G23
E3
G12
G12
G13
G13
G23
G23
12
12
23
23
13
13
Fig. 3.14 Contribution of different researchers
Now to select a particular model, the number of options available is:
select E1 from
four available
formulas
select E2 from
four available
formulas
select E3 from
two available
formulas
Select G12 from

three available
formulas
Select G13 from

four available
formulas
Select G23 from

four available
formulas
Select 12 from
four available
formulas
Select 13 from
two available
formulas
Select 23 from
two available
formulas
Fig. 3.15 Number of options available
The more suitable results are selected among above using following approach. Select one
block for each one of the elastic constant. Inside each block different numbers referring
36
September, 2013
the available options and finally possible combinations are selected. This method is same
as making tree diagram:
4
for
E1
4
for
E2
2
for
E3
3
for
G1
4
for
G1
4
for
G2
4
for
12
2
for
13
2
for
23
Fig. 3.16 Tree diagram
Thus multiplying all these values we have 24576 possible combinations. Therefore, study
was performed for the selection of best possible elastic constants. Here cell size, height,
thickness of core wall is varied and the results are compared with the experimental results
taken from excel data sheet and other researchers experiments. Seven different
compatibility tests were performed, each one with different input properties. The input
properties table is shown below:
Table 3.1 Different input properties for honeycomb sandwich structures
These values are substituted into the formulas, we get

37
September, 2013
Table 3.2 Different Properties illustrated by different Researchers

Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
38
September, 2013
Test 4
Test 5
Test 6
Test 7
39
September, 2013
This is very crude form. To analyze data Microsoft Excel is used. 56 graphs are plotted.
Then for optimum results theoretical formula closest to experimental formula is selected:
3.1.1.Selection of E1
Test
1
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Test
2
250000
200000
150000
50000
as
hb
y
as
hb
y
an
d
an
d
gi
bs
on
e
an
d
M
Test
7
40
September, 2013
Test
6
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
an
d
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
as
hb
y
Test
5
Test
4
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
as
hb
y
ab
d
e
M
an
d
as
hb
y
Test
3
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
as
hb
y
an
d
gi
bs
on
an
d
as
hb
y
as
hb
y
ab
d
an
d
100000
gi
bs
on
an
d
as
hb
y
as
hb
y
ab
d
an
d
1500000
1000000
500000
0
Fig. 3.17 Measurement of Elastic Property (E1)
From these graphs E.nast formula for E1 is closest to experimental.

as
hb
y
qu
nl
i
an
d
an
d
as
hb
y
an
d
gi
bs
on
gi
bs
on
e
an
d
M
gi
bs
on
41
as
hb
y
as
hb
y
an
d
qu
nl
i
e
an
d
M
Test
6
2500000
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
0
Test
7

September, 2013
as
hb
y
e
an
d
an
d
gi
bs
on
as
hb
y
e
an
d
Test
5
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
Test
4
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
ab
d
Test
3
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
Test
2
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
as
hb
y
ab
d
an
d
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
as
hb
y
Test
1
gi
bs
on
an
d
as
hb
y
as
hb
y
ab
d
an
d
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
Fig. 3.18 Measurement of elastic Property (E2)
E. Nast formula for E2 is more accurate than the rest.

an
d
gi
bs
on
gi
bs
on
Test
5
42
September, 2013
as
hb
y
an
d
M
Test
7
qu
nl
i
an
d
as
hb
y
gi
bs
on
an
d
qu
nl
i
2000000000
1500000000
1000000000
500000000
0
an
d
M
Test
6
gi
bs
on
2000000000
1500000000
1000000000
500000000
0
as
hb
y
an
d
gi
bs
on
gi
bs
on
an
d
an
d
as
hb
y
2000000000
1500000000
1000000000
500000000
0
qu
nl
i
e
an
d
M
Test
4
qu
nl
i
Test
3
2000000000
1500000000
1000000000
500000000
0
as
hb
y
e
an
d
an
d
qu
nl
i
as
hb
y
1500000000
1000000000
500000000
0
an
d
800000000
600000000
400000000
200000000
0
Test
2
qu
nl
i
Test
1
gi
bs
on
an
d
as
hb
y
as
hb
y
ab
d
an
d
140000000
120000000
100000000
80000000
60000000
40000000
20000000
0
Fig. 3.19 Measurement of Elastic Property (E3)
Gibson and Ashby give same result. Lets select E. Nast formula for E3.
3.1.4.Selection of G12
an
d
an
d
as
hb
y
gi
bs
on
e
an
d
43
September, 2013
as
hb
y
an
d
gi
bs
on
e
M
an
d
as
hb
y
an
d
qu
nl
i
gi
bs
on
Test
7
as
hb
y
250000000
200000000
150000000
100000000
50000000
0
250000000
200000000
150000000
100000000
50000000
0
an
d
Test
6
an
d
gi
bs
on
Test
5
Test
4
300000000
200000000
100000000
0
as
hb
y
qu
nl
i
an
d
250000000
200000000
150000000
100000000
50000000
0
as
hb
y
Test
3
ab
d
an
d
qu
nl
i
200000000
150000000
100000000
50000000
0
80000000
60000000
40000000
20000000
0
as
hb
y
Test
2
Test
as
hb
y
an
d
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Fig. 3.20 Measurement of Elastic Property (G12)
All formulas give extremely poor results so experimental value is preferred.

Test
Test
300000000
200000000
100000000
0
an
d
gi
bs
on
gi
bs
on
Test
an
d
gi
bs
on
gi
bs
on
an
d
an
d
as
hb
y
qu
nl
i
Test
44
September, 2013
as
hb
y
qu
nl
i
an
d
an
d
as
hb
y
gi
bs
on
an
d
qu
nl
i
e
an
d
Test
600000000
500000000
400000000
300000000
200000000
100000000
0
gi
bs
on
e
an
d
M
Test
as
hb
y
Test
600000000
400000000
200000000
0
qu
nl
i
600000000
400000000
200000000
0
800000000
600000000
400000000
200000000
0
as
hb
y
qu
nl
i
an
d
an
d
as
hb
y
qu
nl
i
an
d
500000000
400000000
300000000
200000000
100000000
0
as
hb
y
qu
nl
i
gi
bs
on
an
d
an
d
25000000
20000000
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
Shi formula for G13 gives more prcised value as compare to experimental result.
Test
Test
Test
as
hb
y
Test
Test
500000000
400000000
300000000
200000000
100000000
0
as
hb
y
qu
nl
i
an
d
gi
bs
on
gi
bs
on
an
d
an
d
as
hb
y
qu
nl
i
e
an
d
M
500000000
400000000
300000000
200000000
100000000
0
500000000
400000000
300000000
200000000
100000000
0
Test
45
September, 2013
as
hb
y
qu
nl
i
an
d
M
Test
gi
bs
on
an
d
as
hb
y
gi
bs
on
an
d
qu
nl
i
600000000
400000000
200000000
0
an
d
M
qu
nl
i
an
d
gi
bs
on
gi
bs
on
an
d
an
d
as
hb
y
qu
nl
i
e
an
d
M
400000000
300000000
200000000
100000000
0
200000000
150000000
100000000
50000000
0
an
d
as
hb
y
20000000
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
Shi formula for G23 gives more precise value as compared to experimental result.
3.1.7.Selection of 12
Test
1.5
1
0.5
0
Test
as
hb
y
an
d
as
hb
y
an
d
gi
bs
on
gi
bs
on
an
d
gi
bs
on
46
September, 2013
qu
nl
i
an
d
as
hb
y
an
d
qu
nl
i
gi
bs
on
Test
as
hb
y
Test
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
e
as
hb
y
an
d
an
d
as
hb
y
qu
nl
i
e
an
d
M
Test
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
an
d
gi
bs
on
Test
1.5
1
0.5
0
qu
nl
i
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
ab
d
gi
bs
on
Test
an
d
an
d
as
hb
y
qu
nl
i
an
d
1.5
1
0.5
0
gi
bs
on
an
d
an
d
qu
nl
i
as
hb
y
1.5
1
0.5
0
Fig. 3.23 Measurement of Elastic Property (12)
Here Gibson and Ashby, Abd Al Sayed and Masters and Evans give the same results.
While only E. Nast differs. E. Nast is preferred since it gives the value less than 1.
Test
0
0
0
0
0
Test
as
hb
y
qu
nl
i
gi
bs
on
gi
bs
on
an
d
an
d
an
d
as
hb
y
qu
nl
i
an
d
0
0
0
0
0
Test
Test
Test
47
September, 2013
gi
bs
on
as
hb
y
an
d
qu
nl
i
gi
bs
on
gi
bs
on
an
d
an
d
as
hb
y
0
0
0
0
0
qu
nl
i
e
an
d
an
d
sh
i
Test
Test
0
0
0
0
qu
nl
i
e.
na
st
an
d
as
hb
y
0
0
0
0
qu
nl
i
gi
bs
on
an
d
as
hb
y
as
hb
y
ab
d
an
d
0
0
0
0
Gibson, Ashby and E. Nast are the possible solution in this case. However E. Nast is
preferred since it gives the value less than 1.
Test
Test
as
hb
y
qu
nl
i
e
an
d
an
d
gi
bs
on
gi
bs
on
an
d
qu
nl
i
an
d
as
hb
y
0
0
0
0
0
e
0
0
0
0
0
Test
Test
gi
bs
on
an
d
sh
i
qu
nl
i
e.
na
st
an
d
Test
Test
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
September, 2013
as
hb
y
an
d
gi
bs
on
gi
bs
on
Test
qu
nl
i
an
d
as
hb
y
an
d
qu
nl
i
0
0
0
0
0
an
d
M
as
hb
y
0
0
0
0
qu
nl
i
as
hb
y
gi
bs
on
an
d
sh
i
as
hb
y
qu
nl
i
ab
d
e.
na
st
an
d
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gibson and Ashby and E. Nast are the available models. However, in this case E. Nast is
preferred since it gives the value less than 1.
49
September, 2013
3.1.10.
Optimum Model for the selection of Elastic
Constants
E1 by E.
Nast
E2 by
E.nast
E3 by
E.nast
G12
experiment
al
G13 by shi
G23 by shi
v12 by E.
Nast
v13 by E.
Nast
v23 by E.
Nast
Fig. 3.26 Optimum Model for the selection of Elastic constant
An optimization has been done and also an optimized model has been developed on the
basis of the study done by different researchers to select the 9 different elastic constants,
which are necessary to be calculated and plugged in the simulation and analytical
modeling.
50
September, 2013
3.2. Modeling using Spring-Mass system

Many researchers use spring-mass system for analyzing the honeycomb sandwich
structures. An effort has been made in the study to analyze the impact behavior of
honeycomb sandwich structures by the use of same approach. Now consider a 2-Dof
system consists of impact mass and contact stiffness and mass of the sandwich structure
along with their stiff nesses which is shown as follows:
Fig. 3.27 2-DOF Model of Honeycomb Sandwich Structure
The free body diagram of the system is shown below:
b. Honeycomb structure
c.
a. Impactor
Fig. 3.28 Free Body diagram
3
2
Equation (3.2.1.1)
m1 x 1+ K c ( x 1x 2 ) =0
3
m2 x 2 +k bs x2 + K m x 32K c ( x 1x 2) 2 =0
Putting value of k bs =K bs + K core in above equation
51
September, 2013
Equation (3.2.1.2)
m2 x 2 +( K bs + K core ) x2 + K m x 32K c ( x 1x2 ) 2 =0

3.2.1.Linear Modeling
As a first approximation linearize the above system of equation reduces to:

Equation (3.2.1.3)
m1 x 1+ K c ( x 1x 2 )=0
m2 x 2 ++( K bs + K core ) x 2 + K m x 2K c ( x1 x2 ) =0
Equation (3.2.1.4)
The above system of equations is coupled and exact solution can only be obtained if this
system could be decoupled.
Equation (3.2.1.5)
K c =0
Now to decouple such a system either

According to literature, if
or
m2 x 2 0
or
m1 x 1 0 .
m1 3 m2 , then m2 x 2 0 . So now substitute this condition
in equation (3.2.1.4) and obtain value of
x2
In terms of x 1 ,
Equation (3.2.1.6)
Now substitute equation (3.2.1.6) into equation (3.2.1.3)

Equation (3.2.1.7)
The solution for this equation is

Equation (3.2.1.8)
Where
52
September, 2013
Equation (3.2.1.9)
To calculate the values of constants (
AB
), the initial conditions are:
x 1 ( 0 ) =0, x1 ( 0 )=V 0
Using
x 1 ( 0 ) =0 in (3.2.1.8) we get B=0
V0
Substitute these initial conditions in Equation (3.2.1.8):

Using
x 1 ( 0 ) =V 0 in derivative of (3.2.1.8) we get
A=
Equation (3.2.1.10)
V0
sin ( t )
( )
x 1(t )=
Substitute Equation (3.2.1.10) in Equation (3.2.1.6)

Equation (3.2.1.11)
The contact force could be calculated as shown below:

Equation (3.2.1.12)
Substitute Equation (3.2.1.10) & Equation (3.2.1.11) in Equation (3.2.1.12), we get the
final form of contact form as:
Equation (3.2.1.13)
The contact duration can be calculated as:

Equation (3.2.1.14)
( )
T=
3.2.2.Solution of Non-linear impact using Newtons Forward

Difference Method
The analytical solution of differential Equations (3.2.1.1) and (3.2.1.2) do not exist.
Therefore, numerical integration technique is used to solve for the two displacements.
53
September, 2013
Newton forward difference formula and hence rectangular integration method is used
here. For time being lets call
3.2.2.1.
y 1p=
x 1= y 1 & x 2= y 2 .
Mathematical Formulation
y 1p+1 y 1p
t
Equation (3.2.3.a.1)
Now this equation can be simplified to usable form:

y 1p t+ y 1p = y 1p+1
Equation (3.2.2.a.1.a)
Forward difference formula for second derivative would be:

p+2
y 1 =
p +1
Equation (3.2.2.a.1.b)
y 1 2 y 1 + y 1
( t )
Substituting, Eqn. (3.2.2.a.1.b) in Eqn. (3.2.1.1) and simplifying:

3
m1 y 1 + K c ( y 1 y 2 ) 2 =0
m1
p +2
p+1
y 1 2 y 1 + y 1
( t )2
y 1p +22 y 1p+1 + y 1p
+ K c ( y 1 y 2 ) 2 =0
Kc
3 /2
y 1p y 2p )
(
m1
( t)
2 K c
p+2
p +1
p
p 3 /2
p
y 1 2 y 1 =( t )
y 1 y 2 ) y1
(
m1
3/ 2
2 K c
y 1p+2 =2 y 1p +1+ ( t )
y 1p y 2p ) y 1p
(
m1
Now substitute (3.2.2.a.1.a)
2
( )
( )
( )
y 1p+2 =2 { y 1p t+ y 1p }+ ( t )
( )
K c
3/ 2
y 1p y 2p ) y 1p
(
m1
Lets do the same procedure for y 2 .

y 2p+1 y 2p
y =
t
p
y 2 t+ y 2p = y 2p+1
p
2
Equation (3.2.2.a.3.a)
54

September, 2013
p+2
y 2 =
p +1
Equation (3.2.2.a.3.b)
y 2 2 y 2 + y2
( t )
Simplify Eqn. (3.2.1.2)

3
2
3
2
m2 y 2 + K bs y 2+ K m y K c ( y 1 y 2 ) =0
3
m2 y 2=K bs y 2K m y 32 + K c ( y1 y 2 ) 2 =0
K
K
K
3 /2
y 2 p= c ( y 1p y 2p ) b y 2p m y 2p3
m2
m2
m2
Now substitute Eqn. (3.2.2.a.3.b) in above Equations, we get
y 2p +22 y 2p+1 + y 2p
( t)
y 2p+2 2 y 2p +1=
Kc
K
K
3 /2
y 1p y 2p ) b y 2p m y 2p3
(
m1
m2
m2
( )
[( ) (
=
3
Kc
K
K
y 1p y 2p ) 2 b y 2p m y 2p3 ( t )2+ y 2p
m1
m2
m2
Substituting Eqn. (3.2.2.a.3.a) in above equation leads to the following form of equations:
y 2p+2 2( y 2p t+ y 2p )=
[( )
[( )
y 2p+2 =
Kc
K
K
y 1p y 2p ) 2 b y 2p m y 2p3 ( t )2 + y 2p
(
m1
m2
m2
3
Kc
K b p K m p3
p
p 2
y
y
y
y ( t )2 + y 2p +2( y 2p t + y 2p )
(
1
2)
m1
m2 2 m2 2
3.2.2.2.
Iteration Procedure
The following procedure is used:

1) Initial conditions before impact at p=1 are y 11 (0)=V 0 , y 12 (0)=0 ,
y 11 (0)=0 , y 12 (0)=0
2) Decide t as per computation power
3) Substituting initial conditions into Eqn. (3.2.2.a.1.a), we get
p+1
p
p
y 1 = y 1 t+ y 1
y 21= y 11 t+ y11
y 21=V 0 t
Result (3.2.2.b.i)
55
September, 2013
4) Substituting initial conditions into Equation (3.2.2.a.2):
( )
( )
K c
3/ 2
y 1p y 2p ) y 1p
(
m1
2 K c
3
1
1
1
1 3/ 2
0
y 1=2 { y 1 t+ y 1} + ( t )
y 1 y 2 ) y 1
(
m1
2
y 1p+2 =2 { y 1p t+ y 1p }+ ( t )
y 31=2 { V 0 t }
Result (3.2.2.b.ii)
5) Similarly for Equation (3.2.2.a.3.a):

y 2p+1= y 2p t+ y 2p
y 22= y 12 t + y12
2
y 2=( 0)t +( 0)
y 22=0
Result (3.2.2.b.iii)
6) And for Equation (3.2.2.a.4):

y
p+2
2
[( )
3
Kc
K
K
p
p 2
=
y 1 y 2 ) b y 2p m y 2p3 ( t )2 + y 2p +2( y 2p t + y 2p )
(
m1
m2
m2
[( )
[( )
K c 1 1 32 K b 1 K m 13
y=
y 1 y 2 )
y 2
y 2 ( t )2 + y 12 +2( y 12 t+ y12)
(
m1
m2
m2
3
2
y 32=
Kc
K
K
( 00 )2 b (0) m (0)3 ( t )2+ 0+2{(0) t +0 }
m1
m2
m2
Result (3.2.2.b.iv)
y 2=0
7) Substitute these new values obtained in step 3 for p=2, we get
y 1p+1 y 1p
y =
t
3
y 1 y 21
2
y 1=
t
2
{V 0 t } V 0 t
y 21=
t
y 21=V 0
p
1
Result (3.2.2.b.v)
8) Substitute initial conditions & result (3.2.2.b.v) in (3.2.2.a.2)
56
September, 2013
( )(
}
( )( )
}
( )(
( )( )
K c
p
p 3/ 2
p
y1 y2 ) y1
m1
3 /2
2 K c
y 41 =2 { y 21 t + y 21 + ( t )
y 21 y 22 y 21
m1
2 K c
4
3/ 2
y 1 =2 {(V 0 ) t+V 0 t + ( t )
V 0 t0 ) V 0 t
m1
2 K c
y 41 =3V 0 t + ( t )
V 0 t 3 /2
m1
2
y 1 =2 { y 1 t+ y 1 }+ ( t )
p+2
Result (3.2.2.b.vi)
9) Substitute initial conditions in (3.2.2.a.3)

p+1
y2 y2
t
3
y
y 22
2
2
y 2=
t
00
2
y 2=
t
y 22=0
y 2p=
Result (3.2.2.b.vii)
10) Substitute initial conditions & result (3.2.2.b.vii) in equation (3.2.2.a.4)

y
p+2
2
[( )
3
Kc
K
K
p
p 2
=
y 1 y 2 ) b y 2p m y 2p3 ( t )2 + y 2p +2( y 2p t + y 2p )
(
m1
m2
m2
[(
[(
[(
[(
y 42 =
]
]
3
Kc 2
K b 2 K m 23
2 2
y
y
y
y ( t )2+ y 22+2( y 22 t + y 22 )
(
1
2)
m1
m2 2 m2 2
)
)(
)(
)(
3
Kc 2
K
K
y =
y 10 ) 2 b (0) m (0)3 ( t )2 +0+ 2{(0) t+ 0 }
m1
m2
m2
4
2
Kc 2 2
y =
y 1 ) ( t )2
m1
4
2
y 42 =
Result (3.2.2.b.viii)
3
Kc
V 0 t ) 2 ( t )2
m1
11) Now repeat the steps from 6 to 10 by changing the value of p.

12) Stop the process when total time becomes equal to contact time, given in Equation
(3.2.1.14)
57
September, 2013
3.2.3.Solution of Non-linear Oblique Impact on Honeycomb

Sandwich Structures
Now include the effect of friction and impact is at an angle. The 2-DOF system of
equations described earlier is converted to 4-DOF system and ignoring the rotational
effects. It is assumed that neither the ball rotates after impact nor the plate rotates after
impact. It is concluded from figure 3.17
side i.e.
K bsK core
K bs=K bs + K core . In calculations Left hand
is used.
Fig. 3.29 Oblique Impact Diagram
The spring-mass model redefined for this case is:
Fig. 3.30 4-DoF Model for Oblique Impact on Honeycomb Sandwich Structure
The friction effect is introduced by the use of damper. The FBD for vertical forces as
defined in Fig. 3.17.
58
September, 2013
a. Impactor including friction
b. Honeycomb structure including friction
Fig. 3.31 free body diagram of individual masses
Now lets draw another useful figure 3.19, Combining figure 3.16 and figure 3.19, we get
Fig. 3.32 Representation of Vertical forces
Fig. 3.33 Combination of Fig. 3.16 and

Fig. 3.19
Also Hertz contact law is modified by considering that A1 and A2 are distances along
reaction direction, therefore, Fc is in reaction direction.
So Fc = reaction
Fc = K c ( A 1A 2 )3 /2
Now resolve X1,
59
September, 2013
Fig. 3.34 Resolving X1
Fig. 3.22 Resolving X2
A 1= X 1 cos ( 1 + 900 )
Now resolve X2, we get (figure 3.22)
A 2= X 2 cos ( 2 + 90 0 )
Substituting equation (3.2.3.a.2) and (3.2.3.a.3) in (3.2.3.a.1)
( 2+ 900 )
X 1 cos ( 1+ 900 ) X 2 cos 3 /2
F c =K c
Since cos90 = 0 and sin 90 = 1
2 +
( )
X 1 sin ( 1 + )X 2 sin
Fc =K c
Consider Figure 3.23
60
September, 2013
Fig. 3.35 Resultant Diagram for Frictional and Normal Forces
Consider Fig. 3.23 and applying Pythagoras theorem:

2
2
2
( F c ) =( N ) + ( N )
Since N is the normal force determined from Hertz contact law with displacement y1 and
y2 as shown in fig. 3.18.
3 /2
N=K c ( y 1 y 2 )
Substitute equation (3.2.3.a.7) into equation (3.2.3.a.6), we get
2
3 2
2
2
( F c ) = K c ( y1 y 2 ) ( 1+ )
c
From fig. 3.21
N=F c sin
Fr =N=F c cos
Dividing Eqns. (3.2.3.a.9) and (3.2.3.a.10), following form of

equation is obtained:
F sin
N
= c
N F c cos
1
tan =
Lets solve vertical spring mass system s from fig. 3.17:
m1 y 1=F c sin
3
m2 y 2 + K m y 2 + K bs y 2 + K core y 2F c sin =0
Substitute equation (3.2.3.a.8) in (3.2.3.a.12) and (3.2.3.a.12), we get
61
September, 2013
2 +
( )
X 1 sin ( 1 + )X 2 sin
m1 y 1=K c
2 +
()
X 1 sin ( 1+ ) X 2 sin
m 2 y 2 + K m y 2 + K bs y 2 + K core y 2K c
For horizontal component of displacement, we get

m1 x 1=Fc cos
m2 x 2 + K plate x 2+ K bending x 2F c cos =0
Substitute equation (3.2.3.a.8) in (3.2.3.a.16) and (3.2.3.a.17), we get

2 +
( )
X 1 sin ( 1 + )X 2 sin
m1 x 1=K c
2 +
()
X 1 sin ( 1 + )X 2 sin
m2 x 2 + K plate x 2+ K bending x 2K c
Now there are 5 variables, x1, x2, y1, y2 and . Equation (3.2.3.a.11), (3.2.3.a.14),
(3.2.3.a.15), (3.2.3.a.18) and (3.2.3.a.19) could be solved to get the desired values.
62
September, 2013
These equations are very complex and processor would take much time and memory to
solve. In practice if these equations are not used for the simulation purposes, simplified
normal impact without angle is preferred by researchers.
Now to avoid solving Eqn. (3.2.3.a.18) and Eqn. (3.2.3.a.19) for getting the values of y1,
y2, we developed a simple methodology. Lets substitute Equations (3.2.3.a.8) in
(3.2.3.a.12) and (3.2.3.a.13).
3
Equation (3.2.3.b.1)
m1 y 1=K c ( y 1 y 2 ) 2 ( sin 1+ 2 )
3
m2 y 2 + K m y 32 + K bs y 2 + K core y 2K c ( y 1 y 2 ) 2 ( sin 1+ 2 ) =0
Now from Equation (3.2.3.a.11), we obtain
tan =
=tan1
Insert Equation (3.2.3.b.3) into (3.2.3.b.1) and (3.2.3.b.2),

3
2
( ( ( )) )
(
) ( (
( )) )
m1 y 1=K c ( y 1 y 2 ) sin tan 1
1+ 2
m2 y 2 + K m y 32 + K bs y 2 + K core y 2K c y 1 y 2
3
2
sin tan1
1+ 2 =0
Summary of oblique Impact Model

Variables
x1,
x2,
Equations to solve for variables
2 +
( )
X 1 sin ( 1 + )X 2 sin
m1 x 1=K c
=tan1
63
September, 2013
2 +
()
X 1 sin ( 1 + )X 2 sin
y1, y2
3
2
1+ 2
m2 y 2 + K m y 32 + K bs y 2 + K core y 2K c y 1 y 2
Fc
( ( ( )) )
(
) ( (
( )) )
m1 y 1=K c ( y 1 y 2 ) sin tan 1
3
2
sin tan1
1 Equation2 (3.2.3.b.5)
1+ =0
Fc = K c ( y 1 y 2) 2 1+ 2
The first three equations could be used to get values of x1, x2 and . The next two
equations give values of y1 and y2.The last equation gives contact force Fc.
3.2.4.Solution for Oblique Impact
To obtain solution for y1, y2 repeat the same procedure as done in iteration method for
normal impact. But in this case there is an additional step called zero step, where
value is found using Equation (3.2.3.a.11). To obtain the solution of x1, x2, simple method
is used. The matrix used for this purpose is:
][ ] [
][ ] [
m1 0 x1 0
0
x 1 F c cos
+
=
0 m 2 x 2 0 kplate+kbending x 2
F c cos
3.2.5.Free Response of Honeycomb Sandwich Structure
Till date most of the researchers have done experimental analysis for getting the natural
frequency of honeycomb structures and used the data obtained from experimental
analysis for their analysis. Therefore, an appropriate analytical solution is proposed in
this study for finding the natural frequency of honeycomb sandwich structures before and
after the impact for comparison.
3.2.5.1. Qualitative Analysis
The general equation for the free response of the honeycomb sandwich panel is:
64
September, 2013
Integrate the equation w.r.t time.
Since x2(t) is not known and above integral could not be solved. To solve use the
procedure described as follows:
Multiply Equation (3.2.4.a.1) by
x 2 on both sides.
Integrate the above equation
Now cancel dt term in second integral in Equation, we get
Now the first integral term is reduced as:
65
September, 2013
Cancel dt term in first integral in Equation, we get
Put
x 2=v 2 in above equation
Integrating equation, we obtained

Further integration is not possible using the same technique. Lets analyze what we have
found:
1) Since this is a mechanical system, the first term is essentially the kinetic energy
2) The second and third term is potential energy
3) h represents energy level
So Equation (3.2.4.a.2) represents the conservation of energy. For a given value of h, the
Equation (3.2.4.a.2) in uv-plane (phase plane) is called level curve, or a curve of constant
energy, or integral curve; the branches of these level curves are called trajectories. Here u
represents x2.The Equation (3.2.4.a.2) can be expressed as:
For real solution of this system to exist, following condition must be satisfied
66
September, 2013
Equation (3.2.4.a.1) can be expressed as:
It shows that singular and equilibrium points exist at point where left hand side of the
above equation is zero or infinity i.e. gradient of level curve defined by Equation
(3.2.4.a.2) is zero or infinity.
A specific potential energy vs. displacement curve is also essential. It is useful to know
that whether equilibrium points obtained from level curves are stable or not.
Lets derive a formula for time period.
67
September, 2013
the upper and lower limits are found out using level curves in phase plane. These values
correspond to x-intercepts in phase plane.Here
3.2.5.2. Appropriate Numerical Technique-Perturbation
Method
Numerical methods were used by many investigators to solve for these types of nonlinear equations. Einaudi (1975) used an iterative method: Argyris, Dunne, and
Angelopoulos (1973) used a finite element technique; and Susemihl and Laura (1975)
used a collocation technique. Here using a new technique, perturbation method is used
for analyzing the system response.
Initially, differential equation is expressed as follows:
The free response equation for honeycomb structure is written below. The subscripts are
not used here; also x is vertical displacement.
m x +( k bs +k core ) x+ K m x 3=0
(k +k )
K
x + bs core x + m x 3=0
m
m
Equation (3.2.4.b.1) can be further simplified as

Compare Equation (3.2.4.b.2) and Equation (3.2.4.b.3), we get
68
September, 2013
Now introducing a new variable,

Taking derivative on both sides

Substitute equation (3.2.4.b.8) into Equation (3.2.4.b.3)

Now we can express x as,

Substitute Equation (3.2.4.b.10) & (3.2.4.b.11) in Equation (3.2.4.b.9)

69
September, 2013
Expand the terms and taking the co-efficient of , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 . The table below gives
the values of co-efficient:
Term
Co-efficient
70
September, 2013
In this case we only have 3 terms as per in Equation (3.2.4.b.4)

71
September, 2013
Now from the above values the coefficients are equated to zero, Equation (3.2.4.b.13) is
used and the differential equations formed are shown below:
Terms
Differential Equations
72
September, 2013
Before proceeding further, useful cosine identities are listed below:

73
September, 2013
3.2.5.2.i
Solution for x1
Assume Equation (3.2.4.b.22)

Differentiating Equation (3.2.4.b.25)

The general solution of Equation (3.2.4.b.14) becomes,

Substitute Equation (3.2.4.b.25) in Equation (3.2.4.b.28), we get

3.2.5.2.ii
Solution for x2 and w1
Substituting Equation (3.2.4.b.28) in (3.2.4.b.15)
Substitute Equations (3.2.4.b.25), (3.2.4.b.26), and (3.2.4.b.27) in Eqn. (3.2.4.b.30)
74
September, 2013
Removing secular term in Equation (3.2.4.b.31) and equating coefficient of cosine term
against zero
Since neither a or
(3.2.4.b.32) for 1
{} rsub {0}
are non-zero, so then solving Equation
1 =0
Substitute Equation (2.2.4.b.33) in Equation (2.2.4.b.31)

Now use equation (3.2.4.b.24) in (3.2.4.b.34)

Solve the differential equation; we are only interested in particular solution

3.2.5.2.iii
Substitute equation (3.2.4.b.29), (3.2.4.b.36) in Equation (3.2.4.b.16), we get
75
September, 2013
Substitute Equation (3.2.4.b.35) in Eqn. (3.2.4.b.37)
76
September, 2013
Substitute equation (3.2.4.b.23) in Equation (3.2.4.b.38), we get

Substitute Equation (3.2.4.b.24) in Equation (3.2.4.b.39), we get

77
September, 2013
Removing secular term and equating co-efficient of cos ( ) against zero i.e.
Substitute Equation (3.2.4.b.33) in (3.2.4.b.41)

Substitute Equation (3.2.4.b.33), Equation (3.2.4.b.42) in Eqn. (3.2.4.b.40)

Solve the above differential equation for a particular solution only.

Equation (2.2.4.b.44*)
78
September, 2013
3.2.5.2.iv
x4 and w3 are found using the same procedure as described above. Equation (3.2.4.b.17) is
written below for further simplification:
Substitute Equations (3.2.4.b.29), (3.2.4.b.36) and (3.2.4.b.44) in Equation (3.2.4.b.17),

we get
79
September, 2013
Substitute Equation (3.2.4.b.25) in (3.2.4.b.45), we get
80
September, 2013
Substituting Equation (3.2.4.b.22) in Equation (3.2.4.b.46) and then substituting Eqn.

(3.2.4.b.23) in the result of first substitution and finally substituting Equation (3.2.4.b.24)
into the result of second substitution. Forms the following Equation:
Simplifying the above Equation (3.2.4.b.47)
81
September, 2013
Now equate the coefficient of cos ( ) from Equation (3.2.4.b.48) against zero
Substitute Equation (3.2.4.b.33) in Equation (3.2.4.b.49)

Now solve the differential Equation (3.2.4.b.48), the particular solution is

3.2.5.2.v
The same procedure is carried out. Note that by increasing the terms the calculations
become more complex. The Equation (3.2.4.b.18) is repeated below for further
simplification:
82
September, 2013
Substituting Equations (3.2.4.b.29), (3.2.4.b.36), (3.2.4.b.44) and (3.2.4.b.51) in Equation

(3.2.4.b.18) also replace
using Equation (3.2.4.b.25), we get
83
September, 2013
Equation (3.2.4.b.25) into above equation to convert the terms of
84
September, 2013
85
September, 2013
Substituting Equation (3.2.4.b.21) in Equation (3.2.4.b.52), then substitute Equation

(3.2.4.b.22) in result and after that substitute Equation (3.2.4.b.23) in the new result
obtained. Finally substitute equation (3.2.4.b.24) in the result from previous substitutions,
we get
Equate the co-efficient of secular terms against zero, the Equations become
86
September, 2013
Substitute Equations (3.2.4.b.33), (3.2.4.b.42) and (3.2.4.b.50) in Equation (3.2.4.b.54)

Now solve the differential Equation (3.2.4.b.53) taking only the particular solution of the
equation:
87
September, 2013
88
September, 2013
Substitute Equations (3.2.4.b.33), (3.2.4.b.42), (3.2.4.b.50) and (3.2.4.b.55) into Equation

(3.2.4.b.56), we get
3.2.5.2.vi
Solution of x6 and w5
The same procedure is repeated for finding the solution of x6 and w5.The differential
equation is solved after substituting values of x1, x2, x3, x4, and x5 in equation (3.2.4.b.19).
The secular term is equated against zero:
Substitute Equations (3.2.4.b.33), (3.2.4.b.42), (3.2.4.b.50) and (3.2.4.b.55) into Equation

(3.2.4.b.58)
After substituting the Equations (3.2.4.b.33), (3.2.4.b.42), (3.2.4.b.50), (3.2.4.b.55) and

Equation (3.2.4.b.58) particular solution of Equation (3.2.4.b.19) obtained is:
89
September, 2013
3.2.5.2.vii Using initial conditions
The appropriate solution is of the form:

Substitute values found in Equations (3.2.4.b.29), (3.2.4.b.36) and (3.2.4.b.44) in

Equation (3.2.4.b.61). The result is:
This expression can be shown in terms of time using equation (3.2.4.b.5) as

Substitute t = 0 here
90
September, 2013
Differentiate Equation (3.2.4.b.63), substitute t = 0 and initial velocity v (0):

There are two options either substitute first Equation (3.2.4.b.4) in Equations (3.2.4.b.66)
and (3.2.4.b.64) or vice versa. To solve for the solution it would require expanding a
and in terms of and equating like powers of .
To solve this first approach is used.
91
September, 2013
3.2.5.2.viii Application on Honeycomb Structures
Substituting Equation (3.2.4.b.4) in Eqns. (3.2.4.67) & (3.2.4.68), we get

Substitute Equation (3.2.4.b.4) in Equation (3.2.4.b.63):

92
September, 2013
Substitute Equations (3.2.4.b.33), (3.2.4.b.42), and (3.2.4.b.50) in Equation (3.2.4.b.10)

Substitute equation (3.2.4.b.13) & (3.2.4.b.4) into equation (3.2.4.b.72)

Equation (3.2.4.b.73) is the required form which shows that frequency is a function of
amplitude.
3.2.6.Damage Inclusion in Honeycomb
The damage was included by modifying the constants. Experimental results of stress
strain graph of face sheet and whole Sample is used for finding new parameters. Failure
criteria given throughout literature are used.
Fig. 3.36 Failure criteria used
The graph shown in Fig. 3.24 represents stress-strain graph for face sheet used in the
honeycomb sandwich structure and is plotted using MATLAB. While stress-strain graph
for the whole honeycomb sandwich structure including the face sheets and the
honeycomb core can be obtained from section 3.5.
93
September, 2013
Fig. 3.37 Stress-strain graph for face sheet
94
September, 2013
4.
Impact Analysis using LS-DYNA
Finite element analysis is carried in ANSYS/LS-DYNA ANSYS APDL is used for

modeling of the honeycomb sandwich structure while impact analysis is performed in
LSDYNA.
4.1. Modeling OF Honeycomb sandwich Structure in

ANSYS
A core and face sheets are modeled through a step by step procedure defined below:
95
September, 2013
Step 1: First open Mechanical APDL launcher and click to High performance
computation setup:
Fig. 4.38 ANSYS Mechanical APDL Product Launcher
Step 2: Select Shared Memory Parallel (SMP) and enter Number of processors. In our
case, there are four processors. Click on Run.
Step 3: Now to create key points, go to pre-processor Modeling Create
Keypoints In active CS
96
September, 2013
Fig. 4.39 ANSYS Main Menu
Step 4: Now enter 12 coordinates for one face of honeycomb and click ok.
Fig. 4.40 Creating Coordinates in one face of Honeycomb
Step 5: Now join the inner keypoints with line. Go to pre-processor Modeling
Create lines lines Straight lines
97
September, 2013
Fig. 4.41 Steps to make Straight Lines
Step 6: Now select any two keypoints, ANSYS will create a line between these keypoints.
Fig. 4.42 Creating Straight Line Between the Keypoints
Step 7: Now join other inner keypoints, we get the following shape as shown in Fig. 4.6
98
September, 2013
Fig. 4.43 Joining the inner Keypoints
Step 8: Now join outer keypoints to get the complete layout of honeycomb core.
Fig. 4.44 Joining the Outer Keypoints
99
September, 2013
Step 9: Now make area between these lines. Go to pre-processor Modeling Create
Area Arbitrary Through KPs
Fig. 4.45 Steps to create Area between the Lines
The area formed in step 9 is shown in Fig. 4.9
Fig. 4.46 Area Formation
Step 10: Now make rest of the core by following the same steps
100
September, 2013
Fig. 4.47 Core Formation
Fig. 4.48 Steps to add all the Areas
Step 11: Add all areas. Go to pre-processor Modeling Operate Booleans Add
Areas (Fig. 4.11).
After following step 11, additional window appears. Click Pick all Ok
101
September, 2013
Fig. 4.49 Add Areas Menu
Fig. 4.50 Extrude Area along Normal
Step 12: Go to pre-processor Modeling Extrude Areas Along Normal

Areas.
Step 13: After following step 12, additional window appears. Click Pick all Ok. If Pick
all option does not appears, then select the Area and click ok.
Step 14: Following window appears as shown in above Fig. 4.13.
In Length of extrusion, enter the depth thickness of core.
Step 15: After doing all these steps described above the honeycomb core is formed. In the
same way two plates at faces and spherical can be formed.
4.2. Impact Model in LS-DYNA

Import the model into LS-DYNA as iges format. LS- DYNA performs dynamic impact
analysis of the model created in the previous section. To define the problem in LSDYNA, it uses cards. The cards used in the process are:
102
September, 2013
Material Cards, Section Card, Part Card, Contact card, Initial Card, Control card, SetD,
Boundary, Dbase Card.
Following steps are followed to define the problem in LS-DYNA:
Step 1:
Go to File Import iges. Here import iges file made in ANSYS. Any other
modeling software like solid works, Pro Engineering could be used.

Step 2:
Go to page 3, Select Material card and material model. Mat 001-Elastic
and Mat 002-orthotroppic elastic is used. The following two figures (4.14 and
4.15) shows the properties used:
Fig. 4.51 Selection of Material Model
103
September, 2013
Fig. 4.52 Material Property Card
Step 3:
Two different types of sections are defined: Solid and Shell
Fig. 4.53 Defining the sections-Solid
104
September, 2013
Fig. 4.54 Defining the sections-shells
Step 4:
Now assign these properties to part, as an example:
Fig. 4.55 Assigning properties to parts
105
September, 2013
Step 5:
Now go to page 5, select SetD, select create, select set part then select
core. Click Apply and then done.

Step 6:
Automatic General, Automatic Surface to Surface, Tied Surface to
Surface, Interior, and force transducer penalty.
Fig. 4.56 Contact Automatic General
106
September, 2013
Fig. 4.57 Contact Automatic Surface to Surface
Fig. 4.58Contact Tied Surface to Surface Failure
107
September, 2013
Fig. 4.59 Contact Interior
Fig. 4.60 Contact Force Transducer Penalty
Step 7:
Again go to Page 5, select SetD, and then select set node. Now select
those boundaries where simply supported condition is required. In our case the
108
September, 2013
outer boundary of the structure is selected. The Fig. 4.24 depicts the nodes
selected:
Fig. 4.61 Selection of nodes
Step 8:
Go to page 3, select Boundary. In Boundary select nodes and enter the
following options:
109
September, 2013
Fig. 4.62 Selection of Boundary and Nodes
Step 9:
On page 3, in initial card select velocity generation and enter following
options in the card:
Fig. 4.63 Initial Velocity Generation
Now enter the value of Vz velocity.

110
September, 2013
Step 10:
In control card, select three different cards; Shell card, solid card and
termination card. The following figure appears for entering the required values:
Fig. 4.64 Control card_shell card
Fig. 4.65 Control card_solid card
111
September, 2013
Fig. 4.66 Termination card
Step 11:
Step 12:
Step 13:
Now in Dbase card select Binary D3plot and ASCII option.

Save .k file and run the input file from Mechanical APDL launcher.
After normal termination, open Binary D3plot from LS prepost.
4.3. Frequency Response of Structure

Step by step procedure is defined as follows:
Step 1:
Go to File Import iges and import the required iges file. Any other
modeling software like solid works, Pro Engineering could be used.

Step 2:
Go to page 3, Select Material card and the material model. Mat 001Elastic and Mat 002-orthotroppic elastic is used. The following two figures (4.30
and 4.31) shows the properties used:
112
September, 2013
Fig. 4.67 Elastic Model_001
Fig. 4.68 Orthotropic Elastic_002
Step 3:
Two different types of sections are defined: Solid and Shell
113
September, 2013
Fig. 4.69 Section_Solid
Fig. 4.70 Section_shell
Step 4:
Now assign these properties to part, as an example:

114

September, 2013
Fig. 4.71 Assigning properties to the created parts
Step 5:
Now go to page 5, select SetD, select create, select set part then select
core. Click Apply and then done.

Step 6:
Automatic General, Automatic Surface to Surface, Tied Surface to
Surface, Interior, and force transducer penalty.
115
September, 2013
Fig. 4.72 Contact_general
Fig. 4.73 Contact_surface to surface
116
September, 2013
Fig. 4.74 Contact_tied_surface to surface_failure
Fig. 4.75 Contact_Interior
117
September, 2013
Fig. 4.76 Contact force tranducer penalty
Step 7:
Again go to Page 5, select SetD, and then select set node. Now select
those boundaries where simply supported condition is required. In my case the

outer boundary of the structure is selected. The figure below shows the nodes
selected:
118
September, 2013
Fig. 4.77 Selecting the nodes
Step 8:
Now go to page 3, select Boundary. In Boundary select nodes and enter
the following options:
Fig. 4.78 Entering options after selecting nodes in the boundary
Step 9:
Now in control card, select three different cards; Shell card, solid card,
implicit Dynamics, Implicit Eigen Value, Implicit General, Implicit Solution,
119
September, 2013
Implicit Solver and termination card. The following figure shows the values
entered:
Fig. 4.79Implicid Dynamics
Fig. 4.80 Implicit Eigen-value
120
September, 2013
Fig. 4.81 Implicit General
Fig. 4.82 Implicit Solutions
121
September, 2013
Fig. 4.83 Implicit Solver
Fig. 4.84 Control_Shell
122
September, 2013
Fig. 4.85 Control_Solid
Fig. 4.86 Control_Terminator
Step 10:
Step 11:
Step 12:
Step 13:
Now in Dbase card select Binary D3plot and ASCII option.

Save .k file and run the input file from Mechanical APDL launcher.
After normal termination, open Binary D3 plot from LS-prepost.
Open Eigen plot, and view the Eigen values.
123

September, 2013
4.4. Mesh Independence, Number of Equations and

Time
The mesh of the structure was refined and the results are shown below:
Table 4.3Mest Structure and its results
Element
Number of
Equations
Time Required
for w
Time Required for

Impact
2.8
859.9
58665
3 minutes
1 hour 14 minutes
1.4
827.5
306276
5 minutes
3 hours 56 minutes
0.7
826.2
1512204
13 minutes
7 hours 03 minutes
4.5. Final Model

The table below shows the corresponding experimental model and software model.
Table 4.4 Final Model
Top
Left
124
September, 2013
Front
5.
Preparation of Working Samples
5.1. Fabrication of the Specimens

Fabrication of the honeycomb sandwich panel is not an easy task that requires a lot of
accuracy and perfection. The construction of the honeycomb sandwich panel includes the
following main steps:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
Construction of the core

Cutting of the metal face sheets
Choice of the adhesive
Gluing the face sheets with the core
Polishing of the panel
5.1.1. Construction of the core
Since the fabrication of the Nomex core is itself a very had and tedious work and was not
the requirement of our project. In this study, the first step is omitted by utilizing the
Nomex core got from the open market.
5.1.2.Cutting of Metal Face sheets
We choose the Aluminium 5052 grade for the face sheets. The Aluminium face sheets
were then cut according with the ASTM standards from the large sheet with the suitable
equipment available in IST workshop.
125
September, 2013
Fig. 5.87 Cutting of face sheets and removal of dents
The sheets were then hammered by a wooden hammer to remove any dents
present on it.
126
September, 2013
5.1.3.Choice of Adhesive
A suitable adhesive was chosen which should be compatible with the aluminium and the
Nomex core, because Nomex is and Aramid fibrous material whereas aluminium is a
metal.
5.1.4.Gluing the face sheets with the core
Since it is hard for both of these materials to be in contact with one another, so, in that
case, an epoxy was used as a gluing material between the aluminium sheet and the
Nomex core. After applying adhesive on one of the sides of the face sheets, the side on
which epoxy was layered was then glued with the core and was set to be wetted for a
suitable amount of time so that both the face sheets and the core should make a strong
bond with one another. The large honeycomb prepared until this step is shown in the Fig.
5.3
Fig. 5.88 Large Honeycomb Structure
5.1.5.Polishing of the Honeycomb Sandwich Structures
Since, the sheets were bought from the metal shop; they were not in the suitable form to
be used for the testing, because impact analysis is sensitive to even a small scratch on the
sheet as well. Thus just to nullify that, the prepared honeycomb sandwich panels were
polished to remove the scratches from the surface of the aluminium face sheets. This was
an important step to be done and was performed in a firmly manner. The polished
honeycomb sandwich structure is shown in the Fig. 5.4.
127
September, 2013
Fig. 5.89 Polished Honeycomb Sandwiched Structure

Fig. 4.4.
The final product is shown in the Fig. 5.5.
Fig. 5.90 Honeycomb Sandwich Specimen in accordance with ASTM
5.2. ASTM standard used

From the fabrication and experimentation point of view of the honeycomb sandwich
structures, the ASTM C393 standard was used.
5.2.1.Significance and Use
Flexure tests on flat sandwich construction may be conducted to determine the sandwich
flexural stiffness, the core shear strength and shear modulus, or the facings compressive
and tensile strengths. Tests to evaluate core shear strength may also be used to evaluate
core-to-facing bonds.
This test method is limited to obtaining the core shear strength or core-to-facing shear
strength. This test method can be used to produce core shear strength and core-to-facing
shear strength data for structural design allowable, material specifications, and research
128
September, 2013
and development applications; it may also be used as a quality control test for bonded
sandwich panels.
Factors that influence the shear strength and shall therefore be reported include the
following: facing material, core material, adhesive material, methods of material
fabrication, core geometry (cell size), core density, adhesive thickness, specimen
geometry, specimen preparation, specimen conditioning, environment of testing,
specimen alignment, loading procedure, speed of testing, and adhesive void content.
Further, core-to-facing strength may be different between precured/bonded and co-cured
facings in sandwich panels with the same core and facing material.
5.2.2. Scope
This test method covers determination of the core shear properties of flat sandwich
constructions subjected to flexure in such a manner that the applied moments produce
curvature of the sandwich facing planes. Permissible core material forms include those
with continuous bonding surfaces (such as balsa wood and foams) as well as those with
discontinuous bonding surfaces (such as honeycomb).
129
September, 2013
6.
Experimentation
An experimental investigation on honeycomb sandwich plates subjected to quasi-static

indentation or compression test is presented in this section. The test specimens consist of
Nomex paper (Aramid fiber) for the honeycomb core with aluminium alloy 5052 for the
face sheets. Each of the specimens is measured to be 14 cm x 5 cm with a core thickness
of 5 mm and a thickness of 1.4 mm for both the top and bottom face sheets. All tests are
conducted at a temperature of 25.5 0C and humidity of 47%. The static indentation test
results are shown in the Figs (7.5-7.9), respectively.
The static indentation was performed using the Load frame system, shown in the Fig.
operating under displacement control at a constant cross-head speed of 1mm/min. The
specimen was positioned between the top and bottom clamp plates, with the mid-point of
the plate directly located underneath the indenter. The two clamped plates were then
bolted in place manually.
The analytical solution presented in the previous chapters is validated with the results of
indentation test performed on 0041L-HC-FLEX samples. A total of five structural
configurations (summarized in the Table 7.7) were tested by varying the laminate
thickness. The reference configuration S1 is a honeycomb sandwich panel with a nominal
thickness of 7.8 mm, supported over a flat support.
The instrumented machine consists of a Load Frame model 8502, and the software used
for data recording/analysis is the X version. To accomplish this task, two different types
of test are performed. The tests are:
1. Flexural bending test
2. Three point bend test
130
September, 2013
6.1. Flexural Bending Test

The flexural bending test was performed on the aluminium sheet to measure the Youngs
Modulus. The measured value was then used for further investigation of other properties.
This test is performed by using different weights and as per ASTM standards under
normal environmental conditions and are shown in the Figs. (6.1-6.4)
6.1.1.Placing of sheet on the supports
The first step in flexural bed test is to place the aluminium sheet properly on the two
sports of the apparatus. Only properly adjusted and justified placement of the testing
material gives the correct value of the young modulus.
Fig. 6.91 Placing the Aluminium sheet on the supports
6.1.2.Adjustment of weight
The second step in bend test is to adjust the weight at the centre of aluminium sheet is of
prior importance. Properly adjusted weight will give us the proper value of the Youngs
Modulus.
131
September, 2013
Fig. 6.92 Placing the weight
6.1.3.Removal of errors
The third step is to have a slight contact of the reading dial with the sheet to be test and is
placed at the center. The reading shown on the dial presently is set to zero just to remove
any error. This removal of error is necessary and will then not affect our subsequent
calculations.
Fig. 6.93 Removing errors from dial
6.1.4.Calculation of Flexural Modulus
The weight on the sheet produced bending in it. As the bending begins, the dial begins to
move with it. The dial stops at the maximum point of bending showing the amount of
bend produced in the sheet in SI units.
132
September, 2013
Fig. 6.94 Calculating Flexural Modulus
Same procedure is repeated for a series of tests at different weights. And at each value of
weight, corresponding value of youngs modulus is generated. The average value gives us
the required youngs modulus. Te results are shown in the table 6.9 of chapter 6.
6.2. Three Points Bend Test

Here a compression (three point bend test) test is performed using a load Frame (8502)
under room temperature and as per ASTM standards. In three points bend test the
specimen is place horizontally on the supports. The supports are at an equal distance from
the center of the specimen. The indenter applies indentation or compression on the
specimen at an equal strain rate. The purpose of the testing is to find out the Youngs
Modulus of the overall sample. The results are shown in chapter 6.
133
September, 2013
7.
Results & Discussion
The dimension of the specimen used is as under:

Table 7.5 Dimension used for the Specimen
Length of
specimen/mm
Width of
specimen/mm
140
50
Thickness of
each face
sheet/mm
1.4
Thickness of
core/mm
Thickness of cell
wall/mm
5.0
0.08
7.1. Results of optimization of Elastic constants

Following are the result of elastic modulus that is found using the study presented in
section 3.1.
Table 7.6 Elastic Modulus resulted
Ex
0.024585
Ey
0.024585
Ez
4.2791
G12
0.006093
G13
0.80571
G23
0.80571
v21
0.33
v13
0.001896
v23
0.001896
7.2. Results through linear model

For a velocity of 30m/s, x1, x2 shown in Fig 7.1 are the displacements and Fc shown in
Fig. 7.2 shows the contact force.
134
September, 2013
Fig. 7.95 Deflection vs. Time
Fig. 7.96 Force vs. Deflection
The table 7.3 shows reference values:

Table 7.7 Reference values
V0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
X1 (max)
1.1891e-005
2.3781e-005
3.5672e-005
4.7562e-005
5.9453e-005
7.1343e-005
8.3234e-005
X2 (max)
3.0686e-006
6.1371e-006
9.2057e-006
1.2274e-005
1.5343e-005
1.8411e-005
2.1480e-005
Fc (max)
6.7024e+004
1.3405e+005
2.0107e+005
2.6809e+005
3.3512e+005
4.0214e+005
4.6917e+005
135

September, 2013
4.2050e+005
4.2050e+005
4.2050e+005
4.2050e+005
4.2050e+005
4.2050e+005
4.2050e+005
Tc
7.4711e-006
7.4711e-006
7.4711e-006
7.4711e-006
7.4711e-006
7.4711e-006
7.4711e-006
40.0
50.0
9.5124e-005
1.0701e-004
2.4549e-005
2.7617e-005
5.3619e+005
6.0321e+005
4.2050e+005
4.2050e+005
7.4711e-006
7.4711e-006
7.3. Results through non-linear impact model

Table 7.8 Results through non-linear impact model
V0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
50.0
X1 (max)
1.1203e-004
1.9527e-004
2.7029e-004
3.4044e-004
4.0718e-004
4.7131e-004
5.3338e-004
5.9371e-004
7.1018e-004
X2 (max)
4.3672e-007
9.7344e-007
1.5898e-006
2.3101e-006
3.0742e-006
3.8712e-006
4.6935e-006
5.5361e-006
7.2654e-006
Fc (max)
8.9564e+003
2.0586e+004
3.3483e+004
4.7261e+004
6.1734e+004
7.6790e+004
9.2356e+004
1.0837e+005
1.4161e+005
9.5634e+004
1.0965e+005
1.1900e+005
1.2592e+005
1.3172e+005
1.3659e+005
1.4088e+005
1.4444e+005
1.5104e+005
Tc
3.2850e-005
2.8650e-005
2.6400e-005
2.4950e-005
2.3850e-005
2.3000e-005
2.2300e-005
2.1750e-005
2.0800e-005
7.4. Results of Qualitative Analysis/uv-plane
Fig. 7.97 Velocity vs. Deflection
7.5. Results of Perturbation Theory

Equation (3.2.4.b.73) and properties given in Table 7.3 and 7.4 are used to calculate
natural frequency of honeycomb sandwich structure. Frequency of honeycomb sandwich
structure changes with amplitude. But it changes at very large amplitude. This shift is
significant where amplitude of vibration is very large e.g. in BOEING 737.
136
September, 2013
Fig. 7.98 Variation of Amplitude vs. Frequency
It can be observed that at very large amplitude, frequency up to 2 decimal places remains
the same.
7.6. Results of impact analysis using LS-DYNA

After the impact is simulated and damages are observed as shown in Table 7.5.
Table 7.9 Sectional view of the damaged model
Velocity (m/s)
Failure type
Section view
10
20
30
40
50
60
Skin Core
Delamination
137
September, 2013
70
80
Core Crush+ Core

Buckling
Top face sheet

yielding
90
100
Core
crush+plastic
buckling
110
Bottom face yield
120
Core crush
130
140
Core Crush+
138

September, 2013
plates peel
150
7.7. Experimental Results

Youngs modulus of the aluminium face sheet is obtained by flexural bending of the
Efacesheet =64 GPa . The results of 3 point bend test are given below:
specimen,
7.7.1.Testing Parameters
Following are the main parameters needed to perform the testing of the specimen.
Table 7.10 Testing Parameters
Testing Machine
Rate of Loading
Test Type
Temperature 0C
Humidity %
Load Frame
1mm/min
Compression (3
25.5
47
(8502)
Point Bend Test)
7.7.2.
Three point bend test results
The results obtained from the three point bend test performed on the given plate of
honeycomb sandwich structure are summarized in Table 7.7:
Table 7.11 Testing Results
Sample
Sandwich
Core
Sandwich
Facing
Span
Break
Core
Facing
Average
Average
Average
Thickness
Length
Load P
Shear
Bending
Thicknes
Thickness
Width b
t (mm)
L (mm)
(N)
Stress
Stress
s d (mm)
c (mm)
(mm)
(MPa)
(MPa)
P/
PL/2t(d+
(d+c)b
c)b
S1
7.80
5.00
50.37
2.8
94
319.73
0.50
8.32
S2
7.82
5.00
50.12
2.8
94
952.87
1.448
24.89
S3
7.80
5.00
50.98
2.8
94
407.02
0.62
10.47
S4
7.83
5.00
50.43
2.8
94
1066.21
1.65
27.66
S5
7.80
5.00
51.12
2.8
94
366.63
0.56
9.41
139
September, 2013
It is observed from the test results that the samples S1, S3 and S5 having same thickness
(d) and have very close values of the core shear stress and facing bending stress.
However, the results of the samples S2 and S4 deviate largely from the other specimens.
Following are the plots obtained from the three point bend test performed on the
Universal Test Machine.
Fig. 7.99 Load vs. Position plot for Specimen (S1)
140
September, 2013
141
September, 2013
Table 7.12 Young Modulus calculated from Flexural Test
S1
20.92 GPa
S3
17.82 GPa
S5
19.37 GPa
Average
19.37 GPa
Table 7.8 shows the Young modulus of honeycomb sandwich structure obtained from the
tests obtained above. Young modulus of face sheet is measured from flexural testing.
While the core elastic modulus is extracted using Table 7.7.
7.8. Failure Analysis Approach
Different impacts are made on the specimen and the results are saved as .k file. Then
frequency analysis on the damaged model is performed to get the natural frequency.
These are compared with the results obtained previously.
Damaged model at 150 m/s is shown below:
Fig. 7.104 Damaged Model at 150 m/s
142
September, 2013
Table 7.13 Frequencies through Perturbation, damaged and undamaged LS-DYNA model
Velocit
y
(m/s)
Frequency
through
Perturbatio
n
Frequency of
undamaged
through LSDYNA Model
Frequency of
damaged
through
perturbation
Frequency of
damaged through
LS-DYNA Model
10
839.2
826.2
839.2
828.7
20
839.2
826.2
839.2
830.3
30
839.2
826.2
839.2
832.2
40
839.2
826.2
839.2
833.9
50
839.2
826.2
839.2
835.1
60
839.2
826.2
839.2
836.3
70
839.2
826.2
845.2
847.3
80
839.2
826.2
845.2
849.7
100
839.2
826.2
845.2
865.2
110
839.2
826.2
872.2
875.5
120
839.2
826.2
872.2
881.5
130
839.2
826.2
892.1
903.5
150
839.2
826.2
892.1
904.1
The graph of the result is plotted below:
143
September, 2013
920
900
880
Damaged
Ls Dyna Natural
Perturbation Natural
Damged Perturbation
860
840
820
800
15
0
13
0
11
0
90
70
50
30
780
10
f
(H
Velocity (m/s)
Fig. 7.105 Plot between the Damaged, Ls-DYNA natural and Perturbation Method
In Fig. 7.11 a comparison is shown between the frequencies obtained from the damaged,
LS-DYNA natural and Perturbation natural. This graph shows that the results of the
natural frequencies obtained from the LS-DYNA and Perturbation method are parallel to
each other. However, the frequency of the damaged model varies with the increase of
velocity.
8.
Proves for Developed Theories
8.1. Prove of developed iteration method

A detailed literature is available on the experimental investigation of the honeycomb
sandwich structures in comparison with analytical techniques. Finite Element (FE)
144
September, 2013
analyses of the honeycomb structures using different commercial software have also been
performed by many researchers to predict the usefulness of the structures for future
applications. Analytical modeling of honeycomb sandwich structure is still needed to be
explored more for better understanding of these structures. Exact solutions for impact on
honeycomb sandwich structure are usually obtained using Jacobbian elliptical integral.
Since, for less computation and complexity, different numerical techniques have been
employed instead of Jacobbian elliptical integral. Keeping in view the present work
proposes a simple numerical technique which could be employed to solve the impact
phenomenon on honeycomb sandwich structure both efficiently and accurately in terms
of computation and time respectively. A number of researchers have used spring-mass
model on a large scale to study the failure, dynamic and impact response of honeycomb
sandwich structure. Different numerical studies were performed by Serge Abrate et.al
[29-33] on spring-mass model. For quick accurate results Yang Mijia et. al [34] used the
linearization technique. Akil Hazizan and Cantwell et. al [35] uses spread sheet to solve
for force and displacement time response of sandwich structure. Although it is a simple
technique but to obtain one value, iterations were carried until both left and right hand
side of energy-balance equation becomes equal. G.B. Chai et. al [36] first solved energybalance equations for load and velocity histories, and then they integrated the velocitytime response to calculate deflection. This was indirect technique and requires heavy
computation power. Daiva Zeleniakiene did experimental investigation and the results
were obtained using equations of laminate theory and the modified beam theory
equations were compared with experimental ones, this methodology was used for the
strength analysis of the investigated structure.
Unlike other numerical methods, here using an entirely different methodology is
introduced Newton Forward Difference technique containing velocity term. Classical
techniques are also applied to convert the obtained equations into equations that are
independent of differentiation. By introducing the velocity term, the method gains an
advantage that only four initial conditions and no assumption of higher terms are
required.
145
September, 2013
After employing initial conditions into the Runge-Kutta-Fulberg 4-5th order , the results
were obtained in the form of graphs of distance of indenter vs. Time, distance vs. Time
for sandwich plate and contact force vs. Time. The proposed technique is then compared
with more complex numerical techniques and the results are verified using past literature
and shows that the proposed technique produces accurate results. This technique requires
less computation using simple code and could be used as an alternative of finite element
method. A MATLAB and MAPLE code is presented at appendix to give the results.
8.1.1.Results
Table 8.1 shows the values used in the developed model:

Table 8.14 Properties and their values used in the process
Properties
Values
Km
1000
Kc
1.54 1010
K core
1.0 1008
K bs
3.84 10
06
08
k bs ( K bs + K core )
1.0384 10
V0
30
m1
0.5
m2
0.1
Below are the graphs of x 1 , x 2 , F c vs .time , the values are compared with two
numerical methods:
146
September, 2013
Fig. 8.106 Plot for Distance of indenter vs. time
Figure 8.1 shows a plot against displacement of indenter vs. time.
Fig. 8.107 Plot for Distance vs. time for Sandwich plate
147
September, 2013
The difference between x1 and x2 gives the indentation produced during the impact.
Figure 8.2 shows a plot against distance vs. time for honeycomb sandwich plate. Thus it
explains the motion of the honeycomb sandwich plate during impact.
Fig. 8.108 Plot for Contact Force vs. Time
Plot of contact force vs. time is shown in the Figure 8.3. The area under the graph
represents the total change in momentum and can also be used to calculate the impact
energy absorbed by the sandwich structure.
8.1.2.Conclusion of developed iteration technique
The precision of other methods is almost the same as that of the Newton forward
difference method developed in this study. So this method can be used instead of other
complex methods. It is computationally less tedious. Once implemented, it does not
requires emergency exits, like other numerical techniques; since it is defined even at
those points where Runge-Kutta 4-5th order, Cash-Karp 4-5th order; Dverk 7-8th order are
undefined.
148
September, 2013
8.2. Prove of Developed Oblique Model

Oblique impact model is not developed till date therefore; it is very difficult to verify the
model with the previous studies (which is not available). To validate whether the theory
developed is correct or not, just put friction (coefficient of friction) as zero. Check
whether it reduces to 2-DOF spring-mass system already presented in this thesis.
Without friction oblique impact would be same as normal impact, therefore, transfer of
force could not be carried out. The results are shown in tabular form below:
Table 8.15 Results showing the prove of Developed Oblique Model
Original Equations
=tan1
At Zero Friction
n
2
2 +
( )
X 1 sin ( 1 + )X 2 sin
m1 x 1=K c
m1 x 1=0
2 +
()
X 1 sin ( 1 + )X 2 sin
m2 x 2=0
3
2
( ( ( )) )
m1 y 1=K c ( y 1 y 2 ) sin tan
1+
( ( ( )) )
m2 y 2 + K m y 32 + K bs y 2 + K co y 2 K c ( y 1 y 2 ) 2 sin tan1
149
September, 2013
m1 y 1=K c ( y 1 y 2 )
3
2
1 m y +2 K y 3 + K y + K y K ( y y
2 2 =0
m 2
bs 2
core 2
c
1
2
1+
F c = K c ( y 1 y 2)
3
2
1+
F c = K c ( y 1 y 2)
3
2
It can be seen that the last three equations of the second column reduces to normal
impact equations. Thus it is proved that the oblique impact model is correct.
8.3. Prove of natural frequency

No such formulation is available for finding the natural frequency of the system
presented earlier. So indirect method of verification is made, here instead of natural
frequency, displacement vs. time is compared. If the wavelengths are same, then
frequencies are same. So for that matter, Jacobbian elliptical integral is used.
8.3.1.
Formulation
The input properties used tabulate is Table 8.3:

Table 8.16 Input Properties
Properties
Values
Km
1000
Kc
1.54 10
K core
1.0 10
K bs
3.84 10
10
08
k bs ( K bs + K core )
30
m2
150
September, 2013
1.0384 1008
V0
The free response equation becomes:
06
The Jacobbian of the equation is:
Substituting same initial conditions as used in iteration procedure to get values of

constants, these are:
The Jacobbian integral of the free response of equation is:
x ( t )=0.05000000003 Jacobbian (9.999975983 1038405t +1.570761681,2.407544268 107 I 207681i

8.3.2.
Results
Equation (3.2.4.b.71) and (7.3.a.) are plotted on the same graph, as shown here is:
Fig. 8.109 Plot between x and t by using Perturbation Method
The wavelength of our free response equation and that of Jacobbian elliptical integral
exactly overlaps. This shows that our perturbation study is correct.
151
September, 2013
9.
The
Conclusion of Impact Analysis
analysis, first provide platform where the analysis of damage become easier.
Traditionally following approach is used to complete the project:
The procedure we adopted in this project is:
152
September, 2013
Through this procedure, there are numerous advantages. First and most important, the
experimental cost has been reduced. Table below shows the equipment price:
Table 9.17 Equipment Price
Equipment
Instron Dynatup
Integerated Frequency
Velocity range (m/s)

08
0
Price (GBP)
120,000
< 500
measuring equipments
Secondly, frequency analysis is less complex. It requires few computations. Also the
number of equations, time and properties required are less in frequency analysis, as
shown in section 4.4. Damage in model can be predicted through frequency analysis.
From section 7.8 it can be seen that as damage is introduced in the structure, there is shift
in natural frequency of the sample. By using 3 point bend test and flexural tests, even the
effect of adhesives were considered in the project.
153
September, 2013
Presently, only three failure criteria are available: First core is crushed, then upper face
sheet is broken and finally the bottom face sheet is broken. These failures are shown as
three times rising of frequency. From during impact analysis, to pre and post impact
analysis is performed.
10. Future Recommendations
The present theories only shows three complete failure modes, core crushing
followed by upper plate breaking and lastly bottom plate breaking. But actually, in
these modes there is shifting of failure criteria i.e. the above mentioned modes
occur in 7 stages instead of three as shown by LS-DYNA results in section 6.8.
Thus theories regarding improved model should be present
Then the study of natural frequency should be extended to cambered and tapered
honeycombs. These honeycombs are used in the wing of airplane and thus
154
September, 2013
calculating there natural frequencies has many advantages like avoiding

resonance
Optimizing the design of wing could be another study which could be performed
REFERENCES
[1] Abrate S. Impact of composite laminates. Appl Mech Rev1991; 44(4):15590
[2] Abrate S. Impact of laminated composites: recent advances. Appl Mech Rev
1994;47(11):51744
[3] Abrate S. Impact on composite structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
1998
[4] C.C. Foo *, L.K. Seah, G.B. Chai. Low-velocity impact failure of aluminium
honeycomb sandwich panels, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
155
September, 2013
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Available online 17 October 2007,

Composite Structures 85 (2008) 2028
[5] Jeom Kee Paika,*, Anil K. Thayamballib, Gyu Sung Kima, The strength
characteristics of aluminum honeycomb sandwich panels, Department of Naval
Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Pusan National University, Pusan 609-735, South
Koreab Chevron Shipping Co., San Francisco, CA 94105, USA, Thin-Walled Structures
35 (1999) 20523
[6] Md. Akil Hazizan, W.J. Cantwell*, the low velocity impact response of an aluminium
honeycombSandwich structure, Materials Science and Engineering, University of
Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GH, UK, Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 679687
[7] Ins Ivaez, Carlos Santiuste, Sonia Sanchez-Saez *, FEM analysis of dynamic
flexural behaviour of composite sandwich beams with foam core, Department of
Continuum Mechanics and Structural Analysis, Carlos III University of Madrid, Avda.
Universidad, 30, 28911 Leganes, Spain
[8] T. Besant*, G.A.O. Davies, D. Hitchings, finite element modelling of low velocity
impact of composite sandwich panels, department of aeronautics, Imperial college of
science, technology and medicine, prince consort road, London SW7 2BY, UK,
Composites: Part A32 (2001) 1189-1196
[9] A Chawla, S Mukherjee, Dileep Kumar, T. Nakatani and M. Ueno, PREDICTION OF
CRUSHING BEHAVIOUR OF HONEYCOMB STRUCTURES
156
September, 2013
[10] M. Meo a,*, A.J. Morris a, R. Vignjevic a, G. Marengo b, Numerical simulations of

low-velocity impact on an aircraft sandwich panel, Composite Structures 62 (2003) 353
360
[11] V. Crupi*, G. Epasto, E. Guglielmino, COLLAPSE MODES IN ALUMINIUM
HONEYCOMB SANDWICH PANELS UNDER BENDING AND IMPACT LOADING,
DCIIM, University of Messina, Contrada Di Dio, SantAgata (ME), 98166 Messina, Italy
[12] Yi-Ming Jen *, Chih-Wei Ko, Hong-Bin Lin, Effect of the amount of adhesive on the
bending fatigue strength of adhesively bonded aluminum honeycomb sandwich beams,
International Journal of Fatigue 31 (2009) 455462
[13] A.N. Palazotto *, E.J. Herup, L.N.B. Gummadi, Finite element analysis of lowvelocity impact on composite sandwich Plates, Composite Structures 49 (2000) 209-227
[14] B. Castanie a,_, C. Bouveta, Y. Aminandab, J.-J. Barrauc, P. Thevenet, Modelling of
low-energy/low-velocity impact on Nomex honeycomb sandwich structures with metallic
skins, International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 620634.
[15] Nettles, A.T. and Douglas, M.J. (2000) A Comparison of Quasi-static Indentation to
Low-velocity Impact, NASA TP 210481, August 2000
[17] Feraboli P., Kedward K.T., Enhanced evaluation of the low velocity impact
response of composite plates AIAA Journal 42/10, 2004, pp. 2143-2152
[18] Feraboli P., Kedward K.T., A new Composite Structures Impact Performance
Assessment Program Composites Science and Technology 66/10, 2006, pp. 13361347
157
September, 2013
[19] Feraboli, P., Some Recommendations for the characterization of the impact
performance of composite panels by means of drop tower impact testing Journal of
Aircraft, in press Winter 2006
[20] Feraboli, P., Modified SDOF models for improved representation of the impact
response of composite plates Journal of Composite Materials, in press Fall 2006
[21] Feraboli P.J., Ireland, D.R., Kedward, K.T., On the role of Force, Energy and
Stiffness in Low Velocity Impact events 18th ASC Technical Conference, Gainesville,
FL 2003
[22] Feraboli P., Kedward K., A multi-parameter approach to impact performance
characterization 19th ASC/ ASTM D30 Joint Technical Conference, Atlanta, GA
2004
[23] Feraboli P.J., Ireland, D.R., Kedward, K.T., The role of Peak Force and Impact
Energy in Low Velocity Impact events 45thAIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Dynamics and Materials Conference, No. 2004-1841, Palm Springs, CA
2004
[24] Ambur, D.R., Prasad, C.B., Rose, C.A., Feraboli, P., Jackson, W.C., Scaling the
nonlinear impact response of flat and curved anisotropic composite plates 46th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Dynamics and Materials Conference, No.
2005-2224, Austin, TX 2005
[25] Feraboli, P., Damage resistance characteristics of thick-core honeycomb composite
panels 47th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Dynamics and Materials
Conference, No. 2006-2169, Newport, RI 2006
158
September, 2013
[26] Damage Resistance Characteristics of Thick-Core Honeycomb Composite Panels

Paolo Feraboli1, 47th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics,
and Materials Conference 1 - 4 May 2006, Newport, Rhode Island
[27] Enhanced Evaluation of the Low-Velocity Impact Response of Composite Plates,
Paolo Feraboli and Keith T. Kedward University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa
Barbara, California 93106, AIAA JOURNAL Vol. 42, No. 10, October 2004
[28] Low-velocity Impact of Sandwich Composite Plates, by J. Gustin, M. Mahinfalah,
G. Nakhaie Jazar and M.R. Aagaah
[29] Abrate S. Impact of composite laminates. Appl Mech Rev 1991;44:155-90
[30] Abrate S. Impact of laminated composite: recent advances. Appl Mech Rev
1994;47(11):517-44
[31] Abrate S. Localized Impact on sandwich structures with laminated facings. Appl
Mech Rev 50(2):69-82
[32] Abrate S. Impact on composite structure. Cambridge University Press; 1998.
[33] Abrate S. Modelling of impacts on composite structures
[34] Mijia Yang, Impact mechanics of elastic and elastic plastic sandwich structures, May
2006
[35] A. Hazizan, J. Cantwell, The low velocity response of an Aluminium honeycomb
sandwich structure
[36] C.C. Foo, L.K. Seah, G.B. Chai, A modified energy-balance model to predict low
velocity impact response for sandwich composites
159
September, 2013
Appendix A-MATLAB Program

Amplitude vs. frequency
close all;
clear all;
clc;
%------ calculation of stifness parameters----%
160
September, 2013
Ra= 10*10^(-3);%input (' what is the value of radius of indentor

= ');
Ezz_plate= 69*10^9;%input (' what is the young modulus of
face plate contacting the impactor in thickness direction = ');
Ez_steel=200*10^9;
val=0.33;
vst=0.27;
E_star=((1-val^2)/(Ezz_plate)+(1-vst^2)/(Ez_steel))^(-1);
Ef=0.024585*10^9;
kc = 4/3 * E_star * (Ra)^(1/2);
b=50*10^(-3);%input(' what is width of sandwich beam = ');
L=140*10^(-3);%input( ' what is length of the sandwich beam
= ');
t_top_plate=1.4E-3; %input (' what is the thickness of the
top plate = ');
t_bottom_plate=1.4E-3;%input(' what is the thickness of the
bottom plate = ');
t_core=5E-3;%input(' what is the thickness of the core = ');
Ic=1/12*(b)*(t_core)^3;
Iplate=1/12*(b)*(t_top_plate)^3+(b*(t_top_plate)*((t_core/2)+
(t_top_plate/2))^2);
I=2*Iplate*Ic;
Ecore_in_plane=69*10^9;
Ezz_core=69*10^9;%input(' enter the young modulus of core in
impact direction = ');
D=0*Ezz_plate*(2*Iplate)+Ecore_in_plane*(Ic);
kbs=48*D/(L)^3;
Volume_of_core=7913.55*10^(-9);
Area=Volume_of_core/t_core;
kcore = Ezz_core*Area/t_core;
%
% calculate km %
km=010;%supposed%
%------Function to plot amplitude vs frequency-------------%
%kbs=3.84E6;%(1/kb+1/ks)^(-1);
%kcore=1E8;%input(' Enter the value of core stiffness = ');
%km =10^3;%input ('enter the value of membrane stiffness = ');
m2=0.0759846*10336; %input('mass of plate');
w0=((kbs+kcore)/m2)^(1/2);
x2_at_min_p.e=0;
%kc=1.54*10^10;
m1=0.031878;
for i=1:1:2000
161
September, 2013
s0(i)=0.005+i*0.01;
v0(i)=0;
a0(i)=((s0(i))^2+(v0(i)/w0)^2)^(1/2);
beta0(i)=acos(s0(i)/a0(i));
R(i)=1/2*w0*m2*(a0(i))^2*(1/(kbs+kcore))*((48*km*(sin(beta0(i)))^2*(19)^(1/2))/m2+(136*km*m2*(sin(beta0(i)))
^4)/m2+(32*km*(sin(beta0(i)))^4*(19)^(1/2))/m2(204*km*(sin(beta0(i)))^2)/m2+51*km/m2+(12*km*(19)^(1/2))/m2)^(1/
2);
R1(i)=1/4*(km)*((64*(cos(beta0(i)))^4-8-(19)^(1/2)32*(cos(beta0(i)))^(2)-4*(19)^(1/2)*((cos(beta0(i)))^(2))
+8*(19)^(1/2)*(cos(beta0(i)))^(4))*(a0(i))^3)/(kbs+kcore);
A(i)=a0(i)-(R(i))-R1(i);
W(i)=(1/8)*((8*kbs)+(8*kcore)+3*km*(A(i))^2)/((w0)*(m2));
f(i)=W(i)/(2*pi);
end
figure(1);
plot(f,a0,'marker','+','markersize',2)
hold on;
grid on;
xlabel(' frequency/ Hz ');
ylabel(' amplitude of vibration ')
Failure Analysis (adjusting values of elastic constants)

clear all;
close all;
clc;
= ');
Ez_steel=200*10^9;
val=0.33;
vst=0.27;
Ef=0.024585*10^9;
kc = 4/3 * E_star * (Ra)^(1/2);
= ');
top plate = ');
162
September, 2013

bottom plate = ');
Ic=1/12*(b)*(t_core)^3;
I=2*Iplate*Ic;
Efx= Ezz_plate;
kbs=48*D/(L)^3;
Volume_of_core=7913.55*10^(-9);
%
% calculate km %
km=0;%supposed%
m1=0.031878;
m2=0.0759846;
tf=t_top_plate;
thickness_of_core=t_core;
Gcxz=6.0930*10^6;
d=t_core+t_top_plate;
h=t_core+t_top_plate*2;
%
% kc=9200000000.00000;%1.54*10^10;%input(' Enter the value of
contact stiffness = ');
% kb=input( ' Enter the value of bending stiffness = ');
% ks=input (' Enter the value of shear stiffness = ');
% kbs=7360274.27200000;%3840000.00;%(1/kb+1/ks)^(-1);
% kcore=0;%1*10^8;%input(' Enter the value of core stiffness =
');
% km =0;%320837415000.000;%1000;%input ('enter the value of
membrane stiffness = ');
y1(1)=0;%input (' enter the initial value of indentor = ');
y1_dot(1)=50;% input (' enter the value of indentor velocity at
contact = ');
y2(1)=0;%input(' enter the initial value of plate distance= ');
y2_dot(1)= 0;%input(' enter the initial velocity of honeycomb =
');
delta_t= 1E-7 ;%input(' enter the value of time-step = ');
p=1; % initialize value of p %
163
September, 2013
t(1)=0;%input(' enter the value of initial time = ');

%--------Equations---------%
Fc(p)= kc*(y1(p)-y2(p))^(3/2);
y1(p+2)
=
-(Fc(p)/m1)*(delta_t)^2-y1(p)+2*(y1_dot(p)*(delta_t)
+y1(p));
y1(p+1)=y1_dot(p)*(delta_t)+y1(p);
%-------Equations for y2 -------%
A(p)=kbs*y2(p)+kcore*y2(p)+km*(y2(p))^3-Fc(p);
y2(p+2)=
-A(p)/m2*(delta_t)^2-y2(p)+2*(y2_dot(p)*(delta_t)
+y2(p));
%-------------------------------------%
%--------------loop--------------------------%
%while (y1(p) >= 0)&&(y2(p)>0)
for p=2:4000
t(p)=delta_t*(p-1)+t(1);
y1_dot(p)=(y1(p+1)-y1(p))/(delta_t);
Fc(p)= kc*(y1(p)-y2(p))^(3/2);
y1(p+2) = -Fc(p)/m1*(delta_t)^2-y1(p)+2*(y1_dot(p)*(delta_t)
+y1(p));
y2(p+2)=
+y2(p));
%p=p+1;
k(p)=y1(p)-y2(p);
if k(p)<0
l(p)=p;
end
end
%end
t(p+1)=delta_t*(p)+t(1);
t(p+2)=delta_t*(p+1)+t(1);
Fc(p)=kc*(y1(p)-y2(p))^(3/2);
Fc(p+1)=kc*(y1(p+1)-y2(p+1))^(3/2);
Fc(p+2)=kc*(y1(p+2)-y2(p+2))^(3/2);
idx = find(l~=0, 1, 'first');
tm=t(idx);
x1_max=max(y1(1:idx));
x2_max=max(y2(1:idx));
Fc_max=max(Fc(1:idx));
164
September, 2013
thetaar=L/(thickness_of_core)*(Gcxz/
(2*Efx)*(thickness_of_core/tf)*(1+3*d^2/tf^2))^(1/2);
del_max=x2_max;
zeta=thetaar*(tf^5/9+(tf^3*d^2)/3)/(h*tf^3*(thetaar1)/3+tf^4/3+tf^2*d^2);
d=(thickness_of_core)+(t_top_plate);
del_distance=del_max-del_linear;
compressive_strength_of_core=276*10^6;
sigmasc=compressive_strength_of_core;
%------------------Experimental
Analysis
-----------------------------%
strain=[0 0.008 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
0.055 0.06];
str=[0 480 545 580 630 670 710 730 755 770 780 790 792];
stress=10^6.*str;
strain1=6*x2_max*(thickness_of_core)/(L^2);
stress1=3*Fmax*L/(2*b*d^2);
strain_2=interp1(stress,strain,stress1);
stress2 =stress1+10*10^6;
stress3 =stress1-10*10^6;
del_strain =abs(strain_4-strain_3);
E_damged_plate = (stress2-stress3)/(del_strain);
plot(strain,stress);
grid on;
xlabel('Strain');
ylabel('Stress Nm-2');
title(' stress strain graph for Aluminium Facesheet ');
%------------------7
failure
Criterias
--------------------------------%
% (a). Top skin Yield %
Ffy= 4*sigmafy*(tf/L)*zeta*width_of_simply_supported_beam;
W1=Ffy;
if (W1<Fmax)
k1=((m*v^2-del_linear*W1^2)/(del_distance)-W1)/(del_max);
end
% (b). Intra cell buckling%
Fib=
8/(1vf^2)*(tf/alpha)^2*(Ef)*(tf/L)*zeta*width_of_simply_supported_bea
m;
165
September, 2013
% (c). Face Wrinkling %

Ffw=
4*B1*(Ef)^(1/3)*(Es)^(2/3)*(tf/L)*(rhoc/rhos)^(2/3)*zeta*width_of
_simply_supported_beam;
% (d). Core Shear %
Fcs= 2*(A)*Es*d*(rhoc/rhos)^3*width_of_simply_supported_beam;
% (e). Indentation %
Fi=
3.25*(sigmasc)*(rhoc/rhos)^(5/3)*(indentation)*width_of_simply_su
pported_beam;
W2=Fi;
if (W2<Fmax)
k2=((m*v^2-del_linear*W2^2)/(del_distance)-W2)/(del_max);
end
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------%
% if failure has occured, get kc, find Ez.... Before this check
which
% criteria occurs... use gradient between Fc and indentation
graph to
% calculate equivalent young modulus.... Convert system to 1
dof....then
% use D=Ezz_plate*(2*Iplate)+Ecore_in_plane*(Ic) to calculate for
Ezz_plate
% and Ecore_in_plane, check... that whether you need to modify
Ezz_plate or
% Ecore_in_plane or both. Calculate kcore using kcore =
% Ezz_core*Area/t_core
Phase plane
%-----Phase plane------%
clear all;
close all;
clc;
= ');
Ez_steel=200*10^9;
val=0.33;
vst=0.27;
166
September, 2013
Ef=0.024585*10^9;
kc = 4/3 * E_star * (Ra)^(1/2);
= ');
top plate = ');
bottom plate = ');
Ic=1/12*(b)*(t_core)^3;
I=2*Iplate*Ic;
kbs=48*D/(L)^3;
Volume_of_core=7913.55*10^(-9);
%
% calculate km %
km=0;%supposed%
m1=0.031878;
m2=0.0759846;
linestyles
=
cellstr(char('-',':','-.','--','-',':','-.','--','-',':','-',':',
...
'-.','--','-',':','-.','--','-',':','-.'));
MarkerEdgeColors=jet(9);
% n is the number of different items
you have
Markers=['o','x','+','*','s','d','v','^','<','>','p','h','.'];
%
% kc=9200000000.00000;%1.54*10^10;%input(' Enter the value of
contact stiffness = ');
% kb=input( ' Enter the value of bending stiffness = ');
% ks=input (' Enter the value of shear stiffness = ');
% kbs=7360274.27200000;%3840000.00;%(1/kb+1/ks)^(-1);
% kcore=0;%1*10^8;%input(' Enter the value of core stiffness =
');
167
September, 2013
%
% km =0;%320837415000.000;%1000;%input
membrane stiffness = ');
for nm=1:9
('enter
the
value
of
y1(1)=0;%input (' enter the initial value of indentor = ');

y1_dot(1)=input (' enter the value of indentor velocity at
contact = ');
y2(1)=0;%input(' enter the initial value of plate distance= ');
y2_dot(1)= 0;%input(' enter the initial velocity of honeycomb =
');
delta_t= 1E-7 ;%input(' enter the value of time-step = ');
p=1; % initialize value of p %
t(1)=0;%input(' enter the value of initial time = ');
%--------Equations---------%
Fc(p)= kc*(y1(p)-y2(p))^(3/2);
y1(p+2)
=
-(Fc(p)/m1)*(delta_t)^2-y1(p)+2*(y1_dot(p)*(delta_t)
+y1(p));
%-------Equations for y2 -------%
y2(p+2)=
+y2(p));
%-------------------------------------%
%--------------loop--------------------------%
%while (y1(p) >= 0)&&(y2(p)>0)
for p=2:4000
Fc(p)= kc*(y1(p)-y2(p))^(3/2);
y1(p+2) = -Fc(p)/m1*(delta_t)^2-y1(p)+2*(y1_dot(p)*(delta_t)
+y1(p));
y2(p+2)=
+y2(p));
%p=p+1;
k(p)=y1(p)-y2(p);
168
September, 2013
if k(p)<0
l(p)=p;
end
end
%end
t(p+1)=delta_t*(p)+t(1);
t(p+2)=delta_t*(p+1)+t(1);
Fc(p)=kc*(y1(p)-y2(p))^(3/2);
Fc(p+1)=kc*(y1(p+1)-y2(p+1))^(3/2);
Fc(p+2)=kc*(y1(p+2)-y2(p+2))^(3/2);
idx = find(l~=0, 1, 'first');
plot(y1_dot(1:idx),y1(1:idx),[linestyles{nm}
Markers(nm)],'Color',MarkerEdgeColors(nm,:));
hold on;
H(nm)=1/2*m1*(y1_dot(1))^2;
end
grid on;
xlabel('displacement');
ylabel('velocity');
legend('v=05m/s
h=0.3985 J','v=10m/s
h=1.5939 J','v=15m/s
h=3.5863 J','v=20m/s h=6.3756 J','v=25m/s h=9.9619 J','v=30m/s
h=14.3451
J','v=35m/s
h=19.5253
J','v=40m/s
h=25.5024
J','v=50m/s h=39.8475 J')
169
September, 2013

Hamza Report

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hamza Report

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Institute of Space Technology

An Analytical Modeling and Damage Analysis of Honeycomb Sandwich Structure

Project Supervisors Name: Dr. Asif Israr

(Dr. Asif Israr)

standardized specimens. Non-linear high order couple homogeneous ordinary differential

We pay our humble dedication of this research work to our parents!

Modes of Deformation of Sandwich Structure

Applications of Honeycomb Sandwich Structures

1.7. OUTLINE OF MAIN CHAPTERS

3.1. BASIC PROPERTIES OF HONEYCOMB SANDWICH STRUCTURES

Damage Inclusion in Honeycomb

MODELING OF HONEYCOMB SANDWICH STRUCTURE

IMPACT ANALYSIS USING LS-DYNA

MESH INDEPENDENCE, NUMBER

PREPARATION OF WORKING SAMPLES

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

PROVES FOR DEVELOPED THEORIES

CONCLUSION OF IMPACT ANALYSIS

7.1. RESULTS OF OPTIMIZATION OF ELASTIC CONSTANTS

6.1. FLEXURAL BENDING TEST

APPENDIX A-MATLAB PROGRAM

AMPLITUDE VS. FREQUENCY

VALUES OF ELASTIC CONSTANTS)

1.2 SANDWICH STRUCTURE

3.14 2-DOF MODEL OF HONEYCOMB SANDWICH STRUCTURE

4.34 ASSIGNING PROPERTIES TO THE CREATED PARTS

Interest in the structures and design of the aircrafts

aircrafts, so we want to transform this practical study in the theoretical one

1.2. Previous work done by the earlier colleagues

1.3. Introduction about our project

1.4. Objectives of the study

To perform an impact analysis on honeycomb sandwich structure

numerical integration technique.

1.5. Outcomes of the study

Analytical and numerical techniques are improved, so that if any researcher

that no rotation occurs during the collision.

Senior Design Project

Damages are included through the use of improved numerical technique to

1.6. Sandwich Theory

Fig. 1.1 Sandwich Structure

The advantages of sandwich construction are discussed in the proceeding sections:

Fig. 1.2 Core

The fundamental properties are typically:

Fig. 1.3 Face Sheet-Core Combination

1.6.1.3. Adhesive Material

Fig. 1.4 Adhesive Material Layer Schematic Diagram

1.6.2.Modes of Deformation of Sandwich Structure

Fig. 1.6 Strength

Senior Design Project

Fig. 1.5 Excessive Deflection

Fig. 1.7 Panel Buckling

1.6.2.4. Skin Wrinkling

Fig. 1.9 Skin Wrinkling

1.6.2.5. Intra-cell Buckling

Fig. 1.9 Load Compression

Fig. 1.10 Delamination

1.6.3.Applications of Honeycomb Sandwich Structures

Fig. 1.12 Spacecraft

Fig. 1.11 Aircraft

The spacecraft application is shown in the fig. 1.12.

Other applications of honeycomb sandwich structure are listed below:

1.7. Outline of main chapters

Different analytical approaches are used to model honeycomb sandwich structures

Fig. 1.13 2-DOF Generalized spring-Mass System