DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF HONEYCOMBED

SANDWICHED PANEL IN RC STRUCTURES

By :-
VAG I S H V I S H A L ( 14 B C L 0 0 91 )
P I Y U S H J A I S W A L ( 14 B C L 01 31 )
ARPIT GOEL(14BCL0128)
 Objective
 To make 3D models of honeycomb core and honeycomb panel and
to analyse the models using numerical stimulation that employ
different finite element analysis approaches.
 To varying the materials of the honeycomb panels and core to fine
the optimum combination.
 To study the panel behaviour by varying the load conditions and
also varying the type of load applied.
 To compare and plot the results like Total Deformation, Equivalent
Stress and Shear Stress by changing the cell thickness and height.
 ARCHITECTURE
Slabs
Interior Decoration
Ceiling
Furniture Material
Tabletop/Kitchen
Doors
Elevators
Stone Cladding
EMP Ventilation Panel
Partition Walls
 FEATURES OF HONEYCOMB
Excellent Strength
Light Weight
Fire Retardant
Insulating & Sound Proof
Exceptionally Flat Surface
Compression, Shear And Corrosion Resistance
 METHODOLOGY
• The project deals with the analysis of a honeycombed sandwiched
panel in terms of stresses
and deflection resisted by it. The project has been divided into three
phases of work as follows:

• 1. Modeling of the sandwiched panel in SOLID WORKS 2010.

• 2. Analysis of structure in ANSYS WORKBENCH 18.0 by varying core
materials and load conditions.
• 3. Study the results graphically and find the suitable structure
among the various conditions.
• Considerable rigidity in shear.
• Almost constant crushing force.
• Low weight.
• Sound Resistant to some extent.
• Minimization of the amount of material used.
 Modeling
( SolidWorks )

Core Plates

Assembly

Analysis
(Ansys)

Results

Plot Results
( Excel )
 Pre-Processing

• Designing in Solidworks

• Converting solidworks file to .IGS format

• Then open Mechanical APDL software

 HONEYCOMB STRUCTURE

.
 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Material Density Young’s Poisson’s Ultimate
(kg/m^3) Modulus Ratio Tensile
(Pa) Strength(Pa)

Structural Steel 7850 2E+11 0.3 4.6E+08

Aluminium 2700 68.9E+09 0.33 241E+06

Alloy

Titanium Alloy 4500 96E+09 0.36 1.07E+09

Cast Iron 7200 1.1E+11 0.28 2.4E+08

 PANEL DIMENSION
Item Specimen Dimension(cm)
Cell Size 3
Core Cell Thickness 0.1
Cell Height 5.2
Thickness 0.5
Facing Length 70
Width 15
D Design of Honeycombed
C Core Sandwiched Panel
B
A in SOLIDWORKS
D
C 3D Design of Honeycombed
B Core Sandwiched Panel in
A SOLIDWORKS
 SOFTWARES USED

ANSYS
Ansys is a high perform finite element pre and
post processor for major element solvers.
Benefits
• High speed, High Quality Meshing.
• Increases End-User Modelling Efficiency.
• Reduces training time and cost through elimination of
Redundant Tools.
• Closes the loop between CAD and FEA.a
D STEPWISE MODELLING
C PROCESS IN ANSYS
B
A
D STEPWISE MODELLING
C PROCESS IN ANSYS
B
A Cont…..
D STEPWISE MODELLING
C PROCESS IN ANSYS
B
A (providing boundary
conditions)
nt Elastic Strain
al Elastic Strain

D
C
B Results
A
ormation
n
Strain

E
D
C
B Graph for Core Material
A
ormation
Strain

ED
D
C
B SAME FACE AND CORE
A MATERIAL (both ends
fixed).
nd

rB A
um
Conclusion when
is
or materials used are same
 ed and
Candand Titanium
B A
sheets.

mface
core and
um face

Conclusion when both

luminium
and Titanium
nd
core and face sheet is of
tanium face
different materials.
ets.

re and
Steel face
Case 1 When both support ends are fixed

Case 2 When one support end is fixed and other is simply supported

Case 3 When both support ends are simply supported

Comparison of Total Deformation in Aluminium and
Steel composite panel for different support conditions
 Same Core and Face Material
When support conditions are changed from both ends fixed to one fixed end
and other simply supported end.

Material % Change in Total % Change in Equivalent Elastic %Change in Max Principal %Change %Change in Max
Deformation Strain Elastic in Equivalent Principal Stress
Strain Stress

Aluminium 70.09 57.44 1.78 35.51 10.06

Steel 57.02 35.54 4.84 35.94 10.00

Titanium 56.62 34.75 14.62 35.07 10.00

Cast Iron 57.18 35.79 2.89 35.29 10.00

 Different Core and Face Material

When support conditions are changed from both ends fixed to one fixed end and
other simply supported end.
Material % Change in Total % Change in Equivalent % Change in Max Principal % Change % Change in Max
Deformation Elastic Elastic in Equivalent Principal Stress
Strain Strain Stress

Al+Steel 43.65 198.84 211.34 168.97 77.21

Ti+Steel 46.87 192.59 193.25 192.57 116.21

Steel+Ti 65.29 191.29 192.71 191.27 198.19

C.Iron+Steel 49.75 195.64 196.71 195.62 126.28

Al+Ti 53.39 205.45 206.43 205.42 145.96

Al+C.Iron 50.85 186.59 187.52 186.57 161.05

ere welded
were cut down
ne
also cut
ore same
15 X 75 cm.
nsion.
E
D
C
B THREE POINT FLEXURE
A TEST
 Load vs Deflection for Aluminium Core and Steel
Face Sheets for Sandwiched Panel
STEEL ALUMINIUM SANDWICHED PANEL
9

6
Deflection(mm)

0
2 4 6 8 10 LOAD(kN)
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
 CONCLUSION

Honeycomb structure used to minimize the amount of used products, reduce the weight and cost of the materials. In this work, the
variation in Total Deformation, Equivalent Stress, Maximum Principal elastic Strain, Maximum Principal Stress, Equivalent
Elastic Strain has been found by Varying the support and Materials used.

 In case of both core and face sheets made of same material, deformation value is minimum for steel material and maximum for
aluminium in all three support conditions.

 In case of core and face sheets made of different material, deformation value is minimum for both face sheets made from steel
material and core made from Grey cast Iron and maximum for face made of Titanium and core made of aluminium material, in
all three support conditions.

 In case of both core and face sheets made of same material, Equivalent Elastic Strain value is minimum for steel material and
maximum for aluminium in all three support conditions
 In case of core and face sheets made of different material, Equivalent Elastic Strain value is minimum for both face sheets
made from Titanium material and core made from Structural Steel and maximum for face made of cast iron and core made of
aluminium alloy material, in all three support conditions.

 In case of both core and face sheets made of same material, Equivalent Stress value is minimum for Titanium material and
maximum for Grey Cast Iron in all three support conditions.

 In case of core and face sheets made of different material, Equivalent Stress value is minimum for both face sheets made from
Structural Steel material and core made from Structural Steel and maximum for face made of Titanium and core made of
Structural Steel material, in all three support conditions.
 REFERENCES
 A. Wilbert, W. –Y. Jang, S. Kyriakides, J. F. Floccari. “ Buckling and progressive crushing of laterally loaded honeycomb” .
International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 803-816.

 Wahl, L.; Maas, S.; Waldmann, D.; Zurbes, A.; Freres, P. (28 May 2012). "Stresses in honeycomb sandwich plates:
Analytical solution, finite element method and experimental verification". Journal of Sandwich Structures and
Materials. 14 (4): 449468.

 JeomKee Paik, Anil K. Thayamballi, Gyu Sung Kim- The strength characteristics of aluminum honeycomb sandwich panels.

 Kelsey S, Gellatly RA, Clark BW. The shear modulus of foil honeycomb cores. Aircraft Engng
1958;30:294–308.

 Witherell PW. Air cushion vehicle structural design methods, Masters thesis, The George Washington
University, December 1977.