David Ashby - 120092684

MEC3019 - Honeycomb Crush Test Report

Contents
Introduction
Experimental Procedure
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Page
1
2
3
10
11

Introduction
The aim of this report is document the experimental procedure for
crushing a variety of samples of honeycomb material. As part of the
experiment the deformation and failure modes will be observed. Then the
data collected along with before and after photos will be used to
determine which sample is the strongest, based on their mean crush
stress, and why. The data collected will be compared to that from
manufacturers of similar products to try to determine the materials and
manufacturing technique used for each type of honeycomb.
Honeycomb is used in sandwich panels to increase their stiffness by
increasing the second moment of area whilst adding little mass, for
example in aeroplane floors. They can also be used in energy absorbing
applications such as buffers on trains. For both these types of applications
it is important to know the compressive strength. The advantages of using
honeycomb are its low density and relatively high strength to weight ratio.
The common materials for constructing honeycomb include aluminium,
stainless steel and Nomex.

David Ashby - 120092684

Experimental Procedure
First the key dimensions of each sample need to be measured, these
include sample height, width and thickness. As well as material thickness
and the locations where this is doubled. Also, the number of hexagons and
their geometry needs to be recorded. This is done using a set of digital
Vernier callipers. The measurements taken are used to calculate the whole
area and true area. Whole area is calculated by multiplying the width by
the thickness of the sample. To get the true area the area inside the
hexagons is calculated then multiplied by the number of hexagons and
this value is subtracted from the whole area. With this data the force
applied per unit area and the corresponding real stresses can be
calculated.
Three different
types of
Figure 1 Photo of the compressive test machine set up
honeycomb are
to be used and
each type is
tested 4 times.
Twice in
Load Applied
crushing at the
faster speed of
20mm/min and
Plate with mass of 2.64kg
then twice in
crushing at a
slower speed of
Honeycomb Sample
50mm/min. The
machine used
to conduct the
tests is a
Fixed support
Shimadzu AGXplus universal
test machine.
The set up is
shown to the
right in figure 1.
Recordings of
the force
applied and stroke are automatically recorded every 0.01 seconds. To
apply the force evenly a steel disc, with a mass of 2.64kg, is placed on top
of the sample between it and the surface applying the load. Therefore the
force of this acting under gravity (2.64x9.805=25.885N) must be added to
the force applied by the machine to get the total force applied.

David Ashby - 120092684

To calculate the average force applied the data between displacements of
10mm and 30mm will be used. This will therefore ignore the large peak at
the start of the test and measure the force once the honeycomb has
buckled and is crushing at a constant rate. The corresponding force per
unit area will be calculated by dividing the average force by the whole
area. The Corresponding real stresses will be calculated by dividing the
average force by the true area.

David Ashby - 120092684

Results
Samp
le

Before

After

A1

A2

A3

David Ashby - 120092684

A4

Samp
le

Before

After

B1

B2

David Ashby - 120092684

B3

B4

Samp
le

Before

After

C1

David Ashby - 120092684

C2

C3

C4

Test Sample Measurements

Sampl
e

Material
Thicknes
s (mm)

Number
of
Hexagon
s

A1

0.2

14

A2

0.2

14

Area per
Hexagon
(m2)
9.100 x105

9.241 x105

Whole area
(m2)
47mmx35mm
=1.645 x10-3
48.71mmx37.07m
m
=1.806 x10-3

True
area
(m2)
3.710x104

5.119
x10-4

Sampl
e
heigh
t
(mm)
78
75.7

David Ashby - 120092684

9.060 x10-

A3

0.2

14

A4

0.2

14

Averag
e

0.2

14

B1

0.2

20

8.720x10-5

B2

0.2

20

8.707x10-5

B3

0.2

20

B4

0.2

20

Averag
e

0.2

20

C1

0.2

18

C2

0.2

18

C3

0.2

22.5

C4

0.2

22.5

Averag
e

0.2

20.25

8.922 x105

9.081 x105

8.520 x105

8.533 x105

8.620 x105

8.790 x105

8.261x10-5
8.730 x105

9.260x10-5
8.760 x105

46.73mmx37.24m
m
=1.740 x10-3
45.55mmx36.64m
m
=1.669 x10-3
1.715 x10-3
49mmx47mm
= 2.303x10-3
50.40mmx42.75m
m
=2.139 x10-3
46mmx51mm
=2.295 x10-3
55.44mmx43.77m
m
=2.427 x10-3
2.291 x10-3
49mmx49mm
=2.401 x10-3
47.67mmx48.86m
m
=2.329 x10-3
51.45mmx49.47m
m
=2.545 x10-3
50.02mmx50.47m
m
=2.525 x10-3
2.450 x10-3

4.718
x10-4
4.199x104

4.437
x10-4
5.590
x10-4

76.13

76
76.46
79

3.978
x10-4

75

5.910
x10-4

74.5

7.200x104

5.670x104

9.168
x10-4
9.146x104

6.799x104

5.351x104

7.616x104

74
75.63
75
75

74.85

76
75.21

A and B samples have hexagons with two layers where the top and
bottom of each row of hexagons join as shown by the black lines in figure
2 below. C has three layers where the black lines are shown below in
figure 3.

Figure 2 Structure of A & B

Samples

Figure 3 Structure of C
Samples
8

David Ashby - 120092684

Graphs of Test Results

A Test Results - Force v Displacement

10
9
8
7
6

Force (kN)

A1
A2

A3

A4

3
2
1
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Displacement (mm)

David Ashby - 120092684

B Test Results - Force v Displacement

25

20

15

B1
B2

Force (kN)

B3
10

B4

10

15

20

25

30

35

Displacement (mm)

C Test Results - Force v Displacement

16
14
12
10

Force (kN)

C1
C2

C3
C4

6
4
2
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Displacement (mm)

10

David Ashby - 120092684

Test Results
Sample

Crush
Speed
(mm/min)

Peak
Force
(kN)

Average
Force
(kN)

Correspondi
ng Force per
Unit Area
(MN/m2)

Correspondi
ng Real
Stresses
(MPa)

A1

20

8.96

5.49

3.340

14.811

A2

20

7.07

5.51

3.050

10.759

A3

50

7.70

5.43

3.122

11.516

A4

50

8.20

5.27

3.160

12.560

Average

7.98

5.43

3.168

12.411

B1

20

16.10

10.71

4.651

19.161

B2

20

17.70

10.79

5.046

27.131

B3

50

21.30

11.52

5.020

19.492

B4

50

19.20

11.59

4.776

16.098

Average

18.58

4.87

4.873

20.471

C1

20

14.10

9.21

3.834

10.040

C2

20

13.80

9.68

4.154

10.580

C3

50

14.30

10.17

3.994

14.951

C4

50

12.60

10.45

4.139

19.527

Average

13.70

9.87

4.030

13.775

11

David Ashby - 120092684

Discussion
From the test result it can be seen that on average the B samples required
almost twice the stress, 20.5 MPa v 12.41Mpa, of the A samples to be
deformed by the same amount. This is despite both samples having a very
similar hexagon structure. The A samples had fewer hexagons in each
sample which makes sense given the lower average force needed to be
applied to crush the samples. However, as the hexagons were roughly the
same size and the material thickness, the same 0.2mm, then it can be
assumed that the material of the honeycombs differs between the A
samples and B samples. From the test result and the appearance of the
samples I would predict that A were made of aluminium and B were
stainless steel. Both appeared to be expanded honeycomb created by
placing adhesive in strips on flat sheets of material then pulling the
material apart once the adhesive has set to form the honeycomb shape.
To confirm the materials of these samples further tests would have to be
done. I would recommend measuring the mass of each sample to
calculate the density and see if this corresponds to either aluminium or
steel. As well as this a magnet should be applied to the samples to
determine if either sample is magnetic, if so then the material is probably
a form of steel.
The C samples have a slightly higher average value for real stress than
the A samples of 13.8MPa verses 12.4MPa. But the C samples are on
average much less than the B samples. This suggests that the material of
C is, like A, aluminium. Again the tests mentioned earlier should be
repeated for C to try and confirm its material. However, C has a different
hexagon structure to A and B with each hexagon being spilt into two. This
would help to increase the force required to crush the samples, reflected
in C having an average crush force approximately double that of the other
two samples, but its stress is similar to A. This is probably because it is the
same material but has a larger true area of 7.616x10-4 m2 compared to
4.437 x10-4 m2 for A. The structure of the hexagons implies the
honeycomb was created using a corrugated process. Where sheets are
pressed into a corrugated shape then bonded to each other with adhesive,
in the case of this honeycomb adding a flat sheet between the two
corrugated sheets.
From the photos it can be seen that both A and B samples deformed in a
very similar way with the hexagons staying bonded together and the
individual columns that make up the hexagons buckling. The A samples
have deformed at both ends whereas the B samples have only deformed
at the end where the load was applied. This implies that the B samples
were made of a material with a higher youngs modulus again implying
they were made of steel whereas A was probably aluminium. The C
samples deformed differently to the other two. The columns have also

12

David Ashby - 120092684

buckled but as part of the crushing the outside columns have debonded
and been pushed away from the rest of the honeycomb.
Testing at different crush speeds doesnt appear to have made any real
difference in the results, the only difference is at the slower speed of
20mm/min more data is collected. This is because the force and
displacement is recorded every 0.01 seconds and the lower speed tests
last longer to deform the samples by approximately the same
displacement.
The A samples are comparable to HexWeb CR III a product from Hexcel
(http://www.hexcel.com/Resources/DataSheets/Honeycomb-DataSheets/CR3_us.pdf) the cells of A were approximately 10mm wide which is
roughly equivalent to 3/8 cell size of the Hexcel product. With a nominal
density pcf of 6.5 the minimum average crush strength is given as 505psi
which is 3.48MPa. This is close to the 3.2MPa for the corresponding force
per unit area found during the experiment. This implies a 5052 grade of
aluminium that is used for the Hexcel product is probably used for the A
sample of honeycomb.

Conclusions
The B samples are able to withstand the greatest mean crush stress
(average force per unit area of honeycomb material) with an average of
4.8MN/m2. This is probably due to this honeycomb being made of stainless
steel whereas the other two are probably aluminium. The A samples have
the lowest mean crush stress at 3. 2MN/m2. This is due to having less
material per unit area as it has the fewest hexagons. This is probably due
to the process used to create the honeycomb as I expect it is expanded
honeycomb. On the other hand, the C samples withstand a similar real
stress, within the material, to the A samples of 13.8MPa and 12.4MPa
respectively. Leading to the assumption that both A and C are made of the
same materials, probably aluminium. However, as the C samples have
their hexagons split in half, there is more material per unit area,
effectively creating more columns in the material that need to be buckled,
making it harder to crush. This means that the C samples of honeycomb
require a greater mean crush stress of 4.0MN/m2 compared to 3.2MN/m2
for the A samples.

13