Article Sidebar

Submitted
Aug 28, 2024
Published
Aug 25, 2025
Download
pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 204 Download : 200

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study aims to compare the structural performance of auxetic chiral and honeycomb sandwich panels under compression and impact loading to identify their potential application in lightweight aerospace structures. Numerical simulations were conducted using the ABAQUS platform to analyze the mechanical response and failure behavior of both core designs. A mesh convergence study was performed to ensure accurate and reliable simulation results. The impact tests were conducted at energy levels of 5 J, 10 J, and 20 J, while compression tests were applied with a displacement of 4 mm. The results show that the auxetic chiral core demonstrates superior performance compared to the honeycomb core by achieving smaller deformations and better energy absorption under equivalent impact forces. Furthermore, the auxetic chiral core exhibits a higher compressive strength of up to 111 MPa, outperforming the honeycomb core, which withstands only 50 MPa. Failure analysis also reveals that facesheets on auxetic panels experience significantly smaller damage areas compared to honeycomb panels. These findings indicate that auxetic chiral cores offer promising advantages for designing lightweight, impact-resistant aerospace structures.

Keywords

auxetic honeycomb impact loading numerical simulation sandwich structure Struktur Sandwich, Honeycomb, Auxetic, Simulasi Numerik

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Simon Sindhu Hendradjaja, Algazali, F., Syarifah Fairuza, Budi Aji Warsiyanto, & Riskha Agustianingsih. (2025). Numerical Study on the Comparative Structural Behavior of Auxetic Chiral and Honeycomb Structures Under Compression and Impact Loading. Jurnal Teknologi Kedirgantaraan, 10(2), 222-231. https://doi.org/10.35894/jtk.v10i2.128
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. K. J. Al-Fatlawi, K. Jármai, and G. Kovács, “Optimization of a totally fiber-reinforced plastic composite sandwich construction of helicopter floor for weight saving, fuel saving and higher safety,” Polymers, vol. 13, no. 16, pp. 1–16, 2021.
  2. S. N. Abhinav, “A review paper on origin of honeycomb structure and its sailing properties,” Int. J. Eng. Res., vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 861–866, 2020.
  3. C. İnan, Z. Evis, and B. Ozturk, “Structural comparison of conventional and chiral auxetic morphed aircraft rib,” Mater. Test., vol. 66, 2023.
  4. M. Altay, “A review of auxetic structures with chiral cores for morphing wing applications,” 2018.
  5. Y. Zhang et al., “In-plane compressive properties of assembled auxetic chiral honeycomb composed of slotted wave plate,” Mater. Des., vol. 221, p. 110956, 2022.
  6. I. A. Shah et al., “Finite element analysis of the ballistic impact on auxetic sandwich composite human body armor,” Materials, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1–16, 2022.
  7. S. Dong and H. Hu, “Sensors based on auxetic materials and structures: A review,” Materials, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 1–20, 2023.
  8. A. Mauko et al., “Dynamic deformation behaviour of chiral auxetic lattices at low and high strain-rates,” Metals, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2021.
  9. K. Gunaydin, H. S. Türkmen, A. Airoldi, M. Grasso, G. Sala, and A. M. Grande, “Compression behavior of EBM printed auxetic chiral structures,” Materials, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1–21, 2022.
  10. R. Gatt et al., “On the effect of the mode of connection between the node and the ligaments in anti-tetrachiral systems,” Adv. Eng. Mater., vol. 17, pp. 1–12, 2014.
  11. E. Montgomery-Liljeroth, S. Schievano, and G. Burriesci, “Elastic properties of 2D auxetic honeycomb structures: A review,” Appl. Mater. Today, vol. 30, p. 101722, 2023.
  12. Q. Hu, G. Lu, and K. M. Tse, “Compressive and tensile behaviours of 3D hybrid auxetic-honeycomb lattice structures,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., vol. 263, p. 108767, 2024.
  13. H. Hu et al., “Progressive damage behaviour analysis and comparison with 2D/3D Hashin failure models on carbon fibre–reinforced aluminium laminates,” Polymers, vol. 14, p. 2946, 2022.
  14. J. X. Wang, Q. S. Yang, Y. L. Wei, and R. Tao, “A novel chiral metamaterial with multistability and programmable stiffness,” Smart Mater. Struct., vol. 30, no. 6, 2021.
  15. Y. Jiang and Y. Li, “3D printed auxetic mechanical metamaterial with chiral cells and re-entrant cores,” Sci. Rep., vol. 8, pp. 1–11, 2018.
  16. H. Huang, B. Wong, and Y. Chou, “Design and properties of 3D‐printed chiral auxetic metamaterials by reconfigurable connections,” Phys. Status Solidi, vol. 253, pp. 1–8, 2016.
  17. Z. Hashin, “Failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composites,” J. Appl. Mech., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 329–334, 1980.
  18. ASM International, “ASM Material Data Sheet: Aluminum 2024-T3,” Accessed: Aug. 25, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://asm.matweb.com