This paper presents a crashworthiness robust optimization design of aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel with regular hexagonal core cell based on explicit finite element analysis. First, the crashworthiness of honeycomb sandwich panel and the bare honeycomb core are compared with each other in the aspects of specific energy absorption and peak crushing force. The comparative results show that honeycomb sandwich panel can absorb more energy than the bare honeycomb core, though the peak crushing force of honeycomb sandwich panel is larger. Then the factor screening experiments are carried out to find out variables that have significant effects on the crashworthiness of honeycomb sandwich panel. The ultimate purpose of factor screening experiments is to decrease the computational expense by reducing the number of design variables. Finally, the dual response surface method and the crossed array design are employed to formulate the complex robust optimization design problem. The regression expressions of specific energy absorption and peak crushing force are defined as the objective and constraint function respectively in the robust design of crashworthiness optimization.
WadleyHNG. Multifunctional periodic cellular metal. Phil Trans R Soc A2006; 364: 31–68.
2.
KoHYShinKBJeonKW. A study on the crashworthiness and rollover characteristics of low-floor bus made of sandwich composites. J Mech Sci Technol2006; 23: 2686–2693.
GoldsmithWSackmanJL. Experimental study of energy absorption in impact on sandwich plates. Int J Impact Eng1992; 12: 241–262.
10.
MoriartyKGoldsmithW. Dynamic energy absorption characteristics of sandwich shells. Manuf Eng1993; 110: 293–317.
11.
ZhouGHillM. Investigation of parameters governing the damage and energy absorption characteristics of honeycomb sandwich panels. J Sandwich Struct Mater2007; 9: 309–342.
12.
Atli-Veltin B and Gandhi F. Energy absorption of sandwiched honeycombs with facesheets under in-plane crushing. In: Proceedings 66th American Helicopter Society Annual Forum, Phoenix, AZ, May 2010, 206–221.
13.
JanssonTNilssonLRedheM. Using surrogate models and response surfaces in structural optimization—with application to crashworthiness design and sheet metal forming. Struct Multidisc Optim2003; 25: 129–140.
14.
FangHRais-RohaniMLiuZ. A comparative study of metamodeling methods for multiobjective crashworthiness optimization. Comput Struct2005; 83: 2121–2136.
15.
HouSJLiQLongSY. Design optimization of regular hexagonal thin-walled columns with crashworthiness criteria. Finite Elem Anal Des2007; 43: 555–565.
16.
HouSJLiQLongSY. Multiobjective optimization of multi-cell sections for the crashworthiness design. Int J Impact Eng2008; 35: 1355–1367.
17.
HouSJLiQLongSY. Crashworthiness design for foam filled thin-wall structures. Mater Des2009; 30: 2024–2032.
SunGYLiGYStoneM. A two-stage multi-fidelity optimization procedure for honeycomb-type cellular materials. Comp Mater Sci2010; 49: 500–511.
20.
KimKJLinDKJ. Dual response surface optimization: a fuzzy modeling approach. J Qual Technol1998; 30(1): 1–10.
21.
ViningGGMyersRH. Combining Taguchi and response surface philosophies: a dual response approach. J Qual Technol1990; 22(1): 38–45.
22.
LinDKJTuWZ. Dual response surface optimization. J Qual Technol1995; 27(1): 34–39.
23.
CopelandKNelsonP. Dual response optimization via direct function minimization. J Qual Technol1996; 28(3): 331–336.
24.
TangLCXuK. A unified approach for dual response surface optimization. J Qual Technol2002; 34(4): 437–447.
25.
DingRLinDKJWeiD. Dual-response surface optimization: a weighted MSE approach. Qual Eng2004; 16(3): 377–385.
26.
ShaibuABChoBR. Another view of dual response surface modeling and optimization in robust parameter design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2009; 41: 631–641.
27.
CostaNRP. Simultaneous optimization of mean and standard deviation. Qual Eng2010; 22: 140–149.
28.
YeniayOUnalRLepschRA. Using dual response surfaces to reduce variability in launch vehicle design: a case study. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2006; 91: 407–412.
29.
SunGYLiGYGongZH. Multiobjective robust optimization method for drawbead design in sheet metal forming. Mater Des2010; 31: 1917–1929.
30.
SunGYLiGYZhouSW. Crashworthiness design of vehicle by using multiobjective robust optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim2011; 44: 99–110.
31.
MontgomeryDC. Design and analysis of experiments, 6th edn. New York, NY: Wiley, 2005.
32.
DanielC. Use of half-normal plots in interpreting factorial two level experiments. Technometrics1959; 1: 311–342.
