S.
No Authors Work
1 Wang, D. (2009). Dynamic cushioning tests on
paper honey
Comb by drop test and shock
absorption principle.
2 Meran, A. P., A parametric study on
Toprak, T., & aluminum (A5052) honey comb
Muğan, A. structure for finding its
(2014). crashworthiness parameter
under impact load by FEM and
experiment. Varying the
expanding angle and keeping
other parameter same, test were
conducted.
3 Crupi, V., Validation of Low velocity
Epasto, G., impact test on aluminum honey
Guglielmino, E., comb sandwiches with FEM
Mozafari, H., & solution.
Najafian, S.
(2014)
4 Herup, E. J. To characterize damage
initiation on sandwich structure
with laminated face sheet as a
function of face sheet thickness
and loading rate
5 Herup, E. J., & Low velocity impact test on
Palazotto, A. N. composite honeycomb structure
(1998) to evaluate damage value as a
function of face sheet thickness
and rate of loading
6 Foo, C. C., Chai, Experimental and numerical
G. B., & Seah, L. (FEM) investigation of
K. (2006). aluminum sandwich plates
subjected to quasi static loading
and low velocity.
Observations
Cushioning of paper
honey comb structure is
directly proportional to
cell-wall thickness and
inversely to cell wall
length.
Varying the expanding
angle and keeping other
parameter same, the
honeycomb having
expanding angle 1200 is
the yield of
crashworthiness
parameter up to which
total energy absorption
and energy absorber
effectiveness parameters
increase.
The percentage error of
experimental data and
FEM results are
generally less than 10%.
Now the old assumption
is not valid for
composite sandwich
plate is that it is
independent of loading
rate
The value of force at
which damage start is
lower for static test than
low velocity test. At low
velocity impact damage
sandwich is dependent
of rate of loading.
The energy absorbed
during the impact
dependent on density
core
7 Foo, C. C., Seah, The modified energy-balance The simulation and
L. K., & Chai, G. model is use to predict transient experiment data are
B. (2011). load and deflection histories for comparable.
composite sandwich structure.
8 Xu, A., Simulation and experiment on Tearing occur at critical
Vodenitcharova quasi-static indentation of shear energy.
closed-cell aluminum foams and
sandwich panels with
aluminium foams for reliability.
9 Chai, G. B Research progress on dynamic The response under low
response on sandwich structure velocity impact is
subjected to low velocity impact. subdivided 3 catg. Large,
small and medium mass
impact and these can be
model by different
method like quasi-static
method.
10 Wang, J Low velocity impact test on Damage on model like
sandwich structure with foam semi-spherical shapes
core and carbon fabric laminated permanent
face-sheet with different dia steel identation, matrix
hemispherical impactor. crushing due to
compression, tow breaks
etc.
11 Liu, J., Zhu Low velocity impact behavior impact damaged area,
and damage mechanism of delamination, buckling
composite pyramidal truss core and absorbed energies
sandwich panels with varying are directly proportional
the exposure temperature. to exposure temperature
12 Jing, L. The clamped aluminum face- On impact loading shell
sheet cylindrical sandwich shells have indentation
study for deformation, dynamic deformation on front
response, energy absorption sheet, core compression
capability by projectile impact. and tearing failure of
back face sheet.
13 Reddy, B. V. The macro-deformation response Energy absorption is
and energy absorption capacity directly proportional to
of two type of cellular sandwich impact velocity and the
panel increase in type I 50%
Type I : sandwich panel having and type two 25%.
silk-cotton wood face plates with
their grains oriented to the
direction of loading axis
 Type II: sandwich panel having
where wood grains are
transverse of loading.
14 Gilkie, R. C. Study of impact structure having
urethane foam core (low density)
and fiber glass chopped strand
mat polyester facing
15 Goldsmith, W Impact test on bare honeycomb
and sandwich honeycomb by
blunt striker
16 Wu, E. Honeycomb cellular structure
study under quasi-static and
axial impact load
17 Zhao, H. To understanding the crushing
behavior of honeycombs by a
new application split Hopkinson
pressure bar (SHPB) based on
viscoelastic split bars and the
1two-strain measurement
method.
18 Zhang, D. 3D finite element model of
sandwich honeycomb structure
for understanding the surface
deformation and energy
absorption subjected to low
velocity impact
19 Wierzbicki, T. New method for hexagon cell
(1983). structure(metal) for determining
crushing strength value
The impact strength of
core is increase with its
thickness but front face
is independent of core.
The shape of pressure
deformation curve for
sandwich is different
than honeycomb but for
dynamic loading
roughly similar
Under quasi-static
loading structure show a
sharped peak load and
having average dynamic
crushing strength range
1.33-1.74
Out of plane crushing
behavior is affected by
40% increase in loading
rate.
Honeycomb is a good
energy observer and its
core important role for
this.
A new formulae of
crushing strength of
metal honeycomb have
relation with width of
cell, gauge thickness of
cell wall and yield
strength.
20 Klintworth, J. New equation for finding the The analysis of elasto-
W., & Stronge, large deformation when load is plastic honeycomb
W. J. (1988) applied transversally on elasto- consider idealized elastic
plastic honeycomb buckling and plastic
structure collapse modes.
21 Klintworth, J. Stress and deformation of Under punch after yield
W., & Stronge, honeycomb structure having flat strength of honeycomb
W. J. (1989) puch. deformation get
localized in a thin band
of crushing cell.
22 Goldsmith, W., Under static perforation, getting Damage mechanism is
& Louie, D. L. deformation and energy depend on two factor
(1995) absorption of honey comb i.e., position of contact
structure in axial direction by and cell size
cylinder or sphere.
23 Hazizan, M. A., Low velocity impact response of Shear modulus of core
& Cantwell, W. two glass fiber aluminium and flexure modulus of
J. (2003) honeycomb sandwich by drop- skin are insensitive to
weight impact test and modelled crosshead displacement
by simple energy balance model. rate
24 Meo, M., Experiment and simulation on By Low velocity impact
Vignjevic, R., & (LS-DYNA3D) for finding on Fan Cowl Door
Marengo, G. damage on sandwich structure structure sandwich
(2005). existing and modified Fan Cowl structure get damage
Door structure of aircraft. that decrease residual
strength of panel
25 Castanié, B., Spring element is used in New method develop to
Bouvet, C., sandwich structure NOMEXtm model low velocity
Aminanda, Y., honeycomb and model by impact on sandwich and
Barrau, J. J., & Mindlin plate elements the spring implicit finite
Thévenet, P. element provide faster
(2008) computation
26 Park, J. H., Ha, Impact test on two honeycomb Core is effectively
S. K., Kang, K. sandwich structure (having resisting more impact
W., Kim, C. W., carbon +epoxy and second glass response and damage
& Kim, H. S. +epoxy) by impact testing resistance is dependent
(2008) machine and damage is on core and face sheet
inspected by scanning acoustic
microscope (SAM).
27 Shin, K. B., Lee, sandwich structures of the Body shell sandwich
J. Y., & Cho, S. Korean low floor bus tested for structure with epoxy
H. (2008). low velocity impact loading. laminated face sheet the
residual indentation was
 to small but in case of
aluminium honeycomb
only it show less than 1
mm.
28 Yu, J., Wang, E., Sandwich beam with aluminium Thin face sheet and thick
Li, J., & Zheng, foam core tested under quasi- core beam is fail in
Z. (2008 static and low velocity impact indentation mode and
bending test. collapse at end.
29 Yu, J. L., Wang, Response and failure of Failure occur when
X., Wei, Z. G., & sandwich beam having lower face sheet or lower
Wang, E. H. aluminium foam core under portion of aluminium
(2003) dynamic loading. core get cracked.
30 Crupi, V., & To find out structure response 3
Montanini, R. point bending test carried out on
(2007) sandwich aluminium foam
structure under static and impact
loading
31 Crupi, V., response and low velocity The failure of honey
Epasto, G., & impact on different cell size comb structure occur
Guglielmino, E. aluminium honeycomb due to bucking
(2012). sandwiches phenomenon of cell wall
32 Amir, F. A., Response on thermoplastic The plastic stage of
Othman, A. R., honeycomb structure due to thermoplastic structure
& Akil, H. M. impact honeycomb start when
(2013 energy time graph
shows sudden change in
gradient, this is due to
stiffness.
33 Othman, A. R., To get the better design of Failure characteristics of
& Barton, D. C. sandwich structure, failure and sandwich under these
(2008 propagation characteristics of its condition include non-
beams and panels subjected to linear behavior of
quasi-static and impact loadings material and complex
were investigated. iteration between
different failure.
34 Anderson, T., & To differentiate honeycomb Residual indentation
Madenci, E. sandwich on the basis of damage over foam core is
(2000). induced on different face sheet, 0.13mm and for honey
foam and honeycomb core. comb it is 0.25 mm
35 McQuigg, T. D., Comparison after impact on thin The failure is only
Kapania, R. K., faced sheet honeycomb dependent on
Scotti, S. J., & sandwich structure by honeycomb core density
Walker, S. P. experiment
(2013)
36 Raju, K. S., Damage resistance of The reduction on
Smith, B. L., honeycomb sandwich structure compressive strength
Tomblin, J. S., subjected to low velocity upto 60% of undamaged
Liew, K. H., & strength
Guarddon, J. C.
(2008).
37 Kim, H., Welch, Determine the damage resistance Potential impact under
D. A., & of thin wall composite structure normal loading is
Kedward, K. T. on high velocity ice impact. varying with projectile
(2003) kinetic
38 Rhymer, J., Kim, Experimental characterization of Failure threshold energy
H., & Roach, D. damage resistance of sandwich of composite panel is
(2012) structure by high velocity ice impacted by high
sphere velocity ice shere
40 Johnson, A. F., Fiber reinforcement structure has Here depending on
& Holzapfel, M. been numerically simulated for impact energy level and
(2003). soft body impact damage failure occur

41 Bull, P. H., & Simulate ballistic impact using Limited damage by high
Hallstrom, S. qasi-static experiment on velocity impact and by
(2004) sandwich structure repair it can gain
undamaged strength
42 Sokolinsky, V. Different theory has been used to The damping properties
S., Von Bremen, find out natural frequency and of foam core has effect
H. F., Lavoie, J. corresponding vibration of on vibration modes
A., & Nutt, S. R. cantilever sandwich beam
(2004)
43 Raju, M., A ply-drop-patching technique NDT methods are used
Reddy, C. R., use to repaire damaged for repair work to give
Swamy, M. N., sandwich better quality
Giridhar, G.,
Srikanth, L.,
Prakash, M. R.,
& Rao, R. M. V.
G. K. (2006)
44 Garg, A. K., A simply supported cross ply Numerical result
Khare, R. K., & laminated composite and represent natural
Kant, T. (2006) sandwich has been study by frequencies for these
closed formulation for 2D higher structure
order shear deformation
45 Hong, S. T., Pan, The different type of honeycomb Under pure compressive
J., Tyan, T., & tested for dynamic crush in out and inclined load it
Prasad, P. (2008) of plan loading on aluminum shows like microscopic
5052-H38 honeycomb progressive folding
mechanisms
46 Shuaeib, F. M., A sandwich beam having glass For the double failure
& Soden, P. D. fiber plastic skin and poly foam load almost we have to
(1997) core having rigid support is double face sheet or
indented at mid for getting change density from 55
load/deflection characteristic for to 130 kg m-3
different parameters
47 Thomsen, O. T. For the central point loading Local bending induced
(1995) they have study local bending by point loading is truly
effect on clamped circular a local phenomenon.
sandwich structure by Experiment and theory
experiment and theory result are for loaded face
are close.
48 Olsson, R., & The theory of contact indentation Core undergo yielding
McManus, H. L. use for study core crushing and and face sheet have large
(1996) large face sheet deflection deflection. load and
indentation have linear
relationship
49 Anderson, T., & The sandwich structure having This is a analytical
Madenci, E. graphite and epoxy face sheet method based on 3D
(2000) 2nd paper with polymethacrylimide foam elastic theory.strain
core is tested for force- enrgy criteria is helpful
indentation response to predict damage
50 Swanson, S. R. Calculation of core compressive 2D linear elastic solution
(2004) strength under contact loading due to Pagano and
shrinivas and rao is used

51 Buitrago, B. L., 3D finite element modeling of The neumerical

Santiuste, C., sandwich structure having simulation and theory
Sánchez-Sáez, aluminium core subjected to have difference 2% only.
S., Barbero, E., high velocity impact
& Navarro, C.
(2010)
52 Harrigan, J. J., Experiment and numerical The performance of
Reid, S. R., & simulation/computation of energy absorbing
Peng, C. (1999) aluminium sandwich structure material is influenced by
under dynamic crushing and of inertia
internal inversion of metal tube
53 Reid, S. R., & Uniaxial Dynamic crushing of High velocity impact
Peng, C. (1997) cylindrical specimen with impact shows shock response
velocity approx. 300 ms-1 initiated.
Crushing strength of
wood can be increase as
depend on energy
absorption capacity
54 Tan, P. J., Direct impact technique is use to The variation of crushing
Harrigan, J. J., & get compressive characteristics stress varies quadratic
Reid, S. R. of close cell honeycomb under with impact velocity
(2002) high velocity (210 ms-1)
55 Lopatnikov, S. Taylor cylinder–Hopkinson bar This method is simple
L., Gama, B. A., impact experiment is used for and reliable for non-
Haque, M. J., get the dynamic deformation of equilibrium deformation
Krauthauser, C., foam and during fast impact of foam/core under sock
Gillespie, J. W., shock wave generate. wave
Guden, M., &
Hall, I. W.
(2003)
56 Lopatnikov, S. First Blastic impact on stationay Analytical and
L., Gama, B. A., plate consider then four regime numerical simulation
Haque, M. J., condition give as per intial plate result are satisflynig
Krauthauser, C., velocity and sound velocity of
& Gillespie, J. consecutive material of foam for
W. (2004 study of non- equilibrium
dynamic deformation and
energy absorption of metal foam.
57 Radford, D. D., 1D plastic shock wave loading is These water and air
Deshpande, V. given to projectile metal foam shock wave are
S., & Fleck, N. under water to generate dynamic simulated on structure
A. (2005) pressure vs time history as it done on metal foam
58 Elnasri, I., existence of a shock front in To prove this shock front
Pattofatto, S., cellular structures has been velocity and shock stress
Zhao, H., proved experimentally jump measured
Tsitsiris, H.,
Hild, F., &
Girard, Y. (2007)
59 Pattofatto, S., Numerical simulations of This numerical
Elnasri, I., Zhao, Hopkinson bar simulation is done by
H., Tsitsiris, H., Pressure bar behind simple macroscopic
Hild, F., & Pressure bar ahead of sock homogeneous and stress
Girard, Y. (2007) front in finite element code. strain relationship

60 Zou, Z., Reid, S. The 2D hexagonal-cell Cell collapse generally at

R., Tan, P. J., Li, honeycombs has been ends under low rate of
S., & Harrigan, simulated for crushing to know crushing
J. J. (2009) the response of cellular material
61 Liu, Y. D., Yu, J. The study 2D Voronoi Due to inertia and cell
L., Zheng, Z. J., honeycomb by finite element wall thickness sensitivity
& Li, J. R. (2009). method under dynamic crushing varies as in different 3
to know its sensitivity. modes.