Part III

Cellular Solids
14. Some denitions of cellular solids
Cellular solids are described by the geometric structure of the cells, that is both shape and size of the cells and the way the cells are distributed. Foams are threedimensional cellular solids and are more complex than the two-dimensional structures like honeycomb-structures. But, by studying the two-dimensional structures we make a basis in understanding the more dicult and complex three-dimensional structures of for instance foams. One of the most important feature of a cellular solid is what we call the relative density, dened by = (14.1) o where and o are the density of the cellular material and the outer (connected solid) material (which is the material that the cell-walls are made up of), respectively. When the relative density increases, the cell wall gets thicker. Relative density of the outer material is the same as the volume fraction of the outer material, vo , dened by Vo volume of outer material (m3 ) = vo = 3 V volume of foam (m ) (see Figure 14.1). In order to see this, we observe that the density of the foam mass of foam (kg) m = = V volume of foam (m3 )

and the density of the outer connected material o = mass of outer (kg) mo . 3 = Vo volume of outer (m )

For the case when the inner material in Figure 14.1 and 14.2 is air, we have that m = mo . 182

Figure 14.1: Cellular solids.

Figure 14.2: Volume fraction of square honeycomb cells. Thus, the volume fraction of the outer material Vo vo = = V
mo o m

m o m

. o

(14.2)

Moreover, the volume fraction of the inner material vI = Note also that volume of inner (m3 ) VI . 3 = V volume of foam (m )

Vo V VI VI = = 1 = 1 pI . V V V When the cells are square honeycombs, as in Figure 14.2, the volume fractions can also be expressed in the terms of side length l and wall thickness t in the following way vo = 183

Materials Special ultra-low-density foams 0,001 Polymeric foams (packaging and insulation) 0,05-0,20 Cork 0,14 Softwoods 0,15-0,40 Table 14.1: Relative density for some cellular solids. 2 2 (l t)2 lt t vo = 1 vI = 1 =1 =1 1 = 2 l l l 2 ! 2 t t t t 1 12 =2 , + l l l l which is approximately 2 (t/l) for small values of t/l. For a closed-cell structure, the relative density /o can be written as t = vo = 2 . o l If the relative density /o (= vo ) is is large, say vo > 0.3, the structure will look more like a solid material with isolated pores than a cellular structure (see [5], p. 2). Gibson and Ashby refer to materials with relative density less than 0.3 as true cellular solids. Throughout we assume a low density, so that t << l (wall thickness<<wall-length), see Figure 14.3 and that all the walls have the same thickness. Simple beam theory is valid only when t/l < 1/4 (see [5], p. 110). Some examples of the relative density of some cellular solids are given in Table 14.1. In the same way we dene the relative Youngs modulus as E E= Eo where E and Eo are the Youngs modulus of the cellular material and the solid material, respectively.

184

l h t
x2 x3 x1

Figure 14.3: Honeycomb structure. 14.1. Mechanics of honeycombs When honeycombs are used in load-bearing structures it is important to understand the mechanical behavior of these two-dimensional structures, illustrated as hexagonal honeycomb-structures in Figure 14.3. Besides, many natural three-dimensional cellular solids (for instance wood) that normally are too complex to be treated can be idealized and analyzed as honeycomb-structures. 14.2. In-plane deformation properties, uniaxial loading of hexagonal honeycombs The study of the in-plane (also called transversal) properties will highlight the dierent deformation and failure mechanisms of the cellular solids. In-plane properties are dened as (the stiness and strength) properties in the X1 X2 plane, see Figure 14.4. In-plane compression of honeycombs gives us rst a bending of the cell walls and we obtain a linear elastic deformation. If the compression increases beyond a critical strain the cell walls will undergo collapse by elastic buckling, plastic yielding, creep or brittle fracture depending on the type material the cell wall is made of. If the honeycomb is exposed for tension the cell walls rst bend but they will not obtain elastic buckling. Instead the cell walls will show extensive plasticity and if the cells are brittle it will fracture. The in-plane stiness and strength are 185

2 1

1 2

Figure 14.4: Honeycombstructure loaded in X1 or X2 direction. the lowest ones because in this plane the cell walls will bend. We will study only the linear-elastic deformation case of a hexagonal honeycomb in uniaxial loading in detail. The study of in-plane properties highlights the mechanisms by which cellular solids deform and fail. 14.2.1. Linear-elastic deformation If the hexagonal honeycomb is regular (all angles are 30 , h = l and wall thicknesses are equal as Figure 14.5 shows), then the in-plane properties are isotropic. This means that the in-plane properties of the honeycomb can be described by only two independent elastic moduli, for instance by Youngs modulus E and a shear modulus G . The notation means the eective value. If the honeycomb is not regular, the in-plane properties is described with four moduli (e.g. E1 , E2, G12 and 12 ). Here, 12 is the Poissons ratio. If the general hexagonal honeycomb (arbitrary cell wall angle ) has a low relative density, /o , (t/l is small) we have that
t h ( + 2) l l . o 2 cos ( h + sin ) l

(14.3)

When the honeycomb is regular (h = l and = 30 ), see Figure 14.5, then (14.3) is reduced to

186

Figure 14.5: A regular hexagonal honeycomb.

2 1 1

x2
x1

x2

x1

Figure 14.6: Honeycomb deformed by normal stresss when loaded in X1 and X2 . 1

l2 1 l2

t h ( + 2) l l = o 2 cos ( h + sin ) l

t (1 + 2) l 2 23 (1 + 1 ) 2

t 2 = l 3

which holds when strains are less than 20% or t/l is small. The response of the honeycomb when loaded in x 1 or x 2 direction (see Figure 14.4), is bending of the cell walls (see Figure 14.6), and is described by ve moduli: two Youngs moduli E1 and E2 , a shear modulus G 12 and two Poissons ratio 12 and 21 . The reciprocal relation (according to Ashby)
E1 21 = E2 12

(14.4)

187

where 12 is the negative ratio of the strain in the x 2 direction to that in the x 1 direction for normal loading in the x 1 direction, reduces the ve not independent moduli to four independent moduli. (According to Meidell & Lukkassen, ) 21 = 12 which gives that 21 E2 = 12 E1 E1 E2 When loading in x 1 or x 2 direction, respectively, the four independent moduli are described as 3 E1 cos t h = , (14.5) Eo l + sin sin2 l 3 h + sin t E2 l , (14.6) = Eo l cos3 12 = and 2 cos2 = h 1 + sin sin l (14.7)

which for regular honeycombs is reduced to 3 G t 1 E1 12 = 0.57 = Eo l 4 Eo

and the two Poissons ratio will be reduced to 12 = 21 = 1. The honeycomb exposed to a shear stress is shown in Figure 14.7. It is possible to show that the shear moduli G 12 is given by h 3 + sin t G 12 l , = h 2 Eo l (1 + 2h/l) cos l

h + sin sin 1 = l . (14.8) 21 = 2 2 cos For regular hexagonal honeycombs, the two Youngs moduli will be reduced to 3 E2 t E1 = = 2.3 , Eo Eo l

188


x2

x1

Figure 14.7: Honeycomb deformated by shear stress.

Figure 14.8: A honeycomb with out-of-plane loads (faces normal to X3 direction). which correctly obeys the relation G= for isotropic solids. 14.3. Out-of-plane deformation properties Out-of-plane properties are dened as (the stiness and strength) properties in the x 3 -plane, see Figure 14.8. The function of a honeycomb core in a sandwich panel is to carry the shear and normal loads in the x 3 -direction. When honeycombs are loaded either along the x 3 plane or in out-of-plane shear they are much stier and stronger than if they are loaded in in-plane. 189 E 2 (1 + )

Out-of-plane tension and compression loading of a honeycomb imply that the cell walls undergo only axial extension or compression and therefore the moduli, collapse stresses, and strength will be much larger. Also in the out-of-plane case we will only consider the linear-elastic deformation case, as we did in the in-plane case. The out-of-plane analysis gives the additional stiness which is needed for the design of honeycomb cores in sandwichpanels, and for the description of the behavior of natural honeycomb-like material, such as wood. 14.3.1. Linear-elastic deformation A total of nine moduli are needed to describe the out-of-plane deformation, that means ve new ones in addition to the four already described (E1 , E2 , G 12 and 12 ). We will now nd the ve new moduli. The Youngs modulus E3 , for normal loading in the x3 -direction is obviously the same as the Youngs modulus for the outer material, Eo , scaled by the loadbearing section area
E3 t = . Eo o l

The next two Poissons ratio are equal to the solid itself
31 = 32 = o , and the Poissons ratio 13 and 23 are found from the reciprocal relations (see [5], p. 498) E1 E2 = 0 , = 0. o 13 23 o E3 E3 The shear moduli are more complicated to nd because of the non-uniform deformation in the cell walls due to stress distribution in the honeycomb. The plane honeycomb may not remain plane, and exact calculations may only be done using numerical methods. But, we can obtain upper and lower bounds for the two shear moduli, with the help of the method in [23], by calculating the strain energy associated rst with the strain distribution and next by the stress distribution (see [5], p. 149). If the two coincide, the solution is exact, but if not the true solution lies somewhere in between the upper and lower bound. We will only give the results here, for more information see [5], p. 150. The upper and lower bounds for G 13 , respectively: G cos t 13 , Go h/l + sin l

190

 G t cos 13 Go h/l + sin l which are identically, and therefor we have an exact solution. For the regular hexagon we obtain that G t 13 = 0.577 . (14.9) Go l The upper and lower bounds for G 23 , respectively: G 1 h/l + 2 sin2 t 23 , Go 2 (h/l + sin ) cos l t h/l + sin G 23 Go (1 + 2h/l) cos l which are not identically. They will not coincide for a general, anisotropic honeycomb but for a regular hexagon they are reduced to t G 23 . (14.10) = 0.577 Go l We see that (14.9) and (14.10) are identical, which conrms that regular hexagons are isotropic in the x 1 x 2 plane. The out-of plane shear moduli vary linearly with the relative density (t/l) and are therefore larger that the in-plane moduli by the factor (t/l)2 . Now we have all the parameters describing the orthrotropic structure, and we can put them into the matrix 18.5 in order to nd the compliance matrix (the inverse of the stiness matrix). Questions What is relative density? Show that relative density is the same as volume fraction. Assume air inside the cell. Show that if the hexagonal honeycomb has a low relative density, /o , (t/l is small) then
t h ( + 2) l l . s 2 cos ( h + sin ) l

If the relative density of a square honeycomb is 0.8, what is the wall-thickness of the honeycomb? 191

 If the volume fraction of a hexagonal honeycomb is 0.8, what is the wall-thickness of the honeycomb? When is simple beam theory valid, according to Ashby & Gibson? What is the dierence between in-plane and out-of-plane properties of a honeycomb structure? If a hexagonal honeycomb is regular (wall thicknesses are equal), are the in-plane properties isotropic? What does isotropic mean? If the honeycomb is irregular and anisotropic, how many moduli for a complete description of the in-plane properties is needed? What is the denition of Poissons ratio?

192