To address the negative impact of excessive impact forces during the penetration of space debris by harpoon attachment devices, causing damage to rear electronic components, research has been conducted on the buffering and energy absorption effects of 2A12 aluminum honeycomb. A simulation model for aluminum honeycomb impact crushing was established through 2A12 aluminum alloy quasi-static tests, SHPB dynamic compression tests, and 2A12 aluminum honeycomb quasi-static compression tests. The study investigated the effect of aluminum honeycomb on impact response accelerations in harpoon attachment device impact tests. The research results show that at launch velocities of 29.2 m/s and 29.6 m/s, the peak impact response accelerations were 866.56 g and 880.75 g respectively, with simulation results of 841.31 g and 868.29 g, indicating small errors of 2.91% and 1.41% respectively, verifying the correctness of the impact crushing simulation model. Further simulation analysis showed that the peak impact response accelerations without aluminum honeycomb buffering were 1549.21 g and 1588.14 g respectively. Compared with test results with aluminum honeycomb buffering, the peak impact response accelerations decreased by 682.65 g and 707.39 g respectively; compared with simulation results with buffering, the peak impact response accelerations decreased by 707.9 g and 719.85 g respectively. This demonstrates that using 2A12 aluminum honeycomb as a buffering structure for harpoon attachment devices effectively enhances energy absorption.
CampbellJCHughesKVignjevicR, et al.Development of modelling design tool for harpoon for active space debris removal. Int J Impact Eng2022; 166: 104236. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.104236.
2.
ForshawJLAgliettiGSFellowesS, et al.The active space debris removal mission RemoveDebris. Part 1: from concept to launch. Acta Astronaut2020; 168: 293–309. DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.09.002.
3.
DudziakRTuttleSBarracloughS. Harpoon technology development for the active removal of space debris. Adv Space Res2015; 56: 509–527. DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2015.04.012.
4.
ZhaoWPangZWangM, et al.Experimental and numerical investigations of damage and ballistic limit velocity of CFRP laminates subject to harpoon impact. Thin-Walled Struct2024; 198: 111732. DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2024.111732.
5.
MaoLZhaoWPangZ, et al.Study on the penetration characteristics of conical harpoon on rotating space debris. Adv Space Res2024; 74: S0273117724006677. DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2024.06.076.
6.
WuCYueSShiW, et al.Dynamic simulation and parameter analysis of harpoon capturing space debris. Materials2022; 15: 8859. DOI: 10.3390/ma15248859.
7.
LeeJ-RChiaCCKongC-W. Review of pyroshock wave measurement and simulation for space systems. Measurement2012; 45: 631–642. DOI: 10.1016/j.measurement.2011.12.011.
8.
AgliettiGSTaylorBFellowesS, et al.RemoveDEBRIS: an in-orbit demonstration of technologies for the removal of space debris. Aeronaut J2020; 124: 1–23. DOI: 10.1017/aer.2019.136.
9.
JohnsonCDWilkePSGrosserodePJ. Whole-spacecraft vibration isolation system for the GFO/Taurus mission. In: HydeTT (ed) InSmart Structures and Materials 1999: Passive Damping and Isolation. Newport Beach, CA: Smart Structures and Materials, 1999, 3672, pp. 175–185. SPIE.
10.
YamashitaMGotohM. Impact behavior of honeycomb structures with various cell specifications—numerical simulation and experiment. Int J Impact Eng2005; 32: 618–630. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2004.09.001.
11.
YasuiY. Dynamic axial crushing of multi-layer honeycomb panels and impact tensile behavior of the component members. Int J Impact Eng2000; 24: 659–671. DOI: 10.1016/S0734-743X(99)00174-8.
12.
WuJChenXZhuH, et al.Meta-honeycomb sandwich tubes: designing, manufacturing, and crashworthiness performance. Compos Sci Technol2023; 240: 110096. DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2023.110096.
13.
SelivanovVVSilnikovMVMarkovVA, et al.Using highly porous aluminum alloys and honeycomb structures in spacecraft landing gear. Acta Astronaut2021; 180: 105–109. DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.12.014.
14.
WangCNieHChenJ, et al.The design and dynamic analysis of a lunar lander with semi-active control. Acta Astronaut2019; 157: 145–156. DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.12.037.
15.
WangZ. Recent advances in novel metallic honeycomb structure. Compos B Eng2019; 166: 731–741. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.02.011.
16.
ShenLWangZWangX, et al.Negative Poisson’s ratio and effective Young’s modulus of a vertex-based hierarchical re-entrant honeycomb structure. Int J Mech Sci2021; 206: 106611. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2021.106611.
17.
SantosaSWierzbickiT. Effect of an ultralight metal filler on the bending collapse behavior of thin-walled prismatic columns. Int J Mech Sci1999; 41: 995–1019. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-7403(98)00066-6.
18.
TaoYDuanSWenW, et al.Enhanced out-of-plane crushing strength and energy absorption of in-plane graded honeycombs. Compos B Eng2017; 118: 33–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.03.002.
19.
AliMQamhiyahAFlugradD, et al.Theoretical and finite element study of a compact energy absorber. Adv Eng Software2008; 39: 95–106. DOI: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2006.12.006.
20.
CaoLLinYLuF, et al.Experimental study on the shock absorption performance of combined aluminium honeycombs under impact loading. Shock Vib2015; 2015: 1–8. DOI: 10.1155/2015/689546.
21.
MeyerHWKleponisDS. Modeling the high strain rate behavior of titanium undergoing ballistic impact and penetration. Int J Impact Eng2001; 26: 509–521. DOI: 10.1016/S0734-743X(01)00107-5.
22.
JohnsonGRCookWH. Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures. Eng Fract Mech1985; 21: 31–48. DOI: 10.1016/0013-7944(85)90052-9.
23.
ElekPMJaramazSSMickovićDM, et al.Experimental and numerical investigation of perforation of thin steel plates by deformable steel penetrators. Thin-Walled Struct2016; 102: 58–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2016.01.022.
24.
WangYChenXXiaoX, et al.Effect of Lode angle incorporation into a fracture criterion in predicting the ballistic resistance of 2024-T351 aluminum alloy plates struck by cylindrical projectiles with different nose shapes. Int J Impact Eng2020; 139: 103498. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2019.103498.
25.
ZhaoWPangZZhaoZ, et al.A simulation and an experimental study of space harpoon low-velocity impact. Anchored Debris, Materials2022; 15: 5041. DOI: 10.3390/ma15145041.
26.
WangCXuJChenX, et al.A modified Johnson–Cook model for 2A12 aluminum alloys. Mech Time-Depend Mater2023; 28: 2085–2104. DOI: 10.1007/s11043-023-09611-1.
27.
XiaWLuSBaiE, et al.Strengthening and toughening behaviors and dynamic constitutive model of carbon-based hierarchical fiber modified concrete: cross-scale synergistic effects of carbon nanotubes and carbon fiber. J Build Eng2023; 63: 105482. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105482.
28.
LiXLiKLinY, et al.Inserting stress analysis of combined hexagonal aluminum honeycombs. Shock Vib2016; 2016: 1–10. DOI: 10.1155/2016/3240651.
29.
ShiWYueSWuC, et al.Temperature influences of the recoil characteristics for aluminum honeycomb buffer in the tether-net launcher. Defence Technol2023; 29: 39–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.dt.2022.11.015.
30.
ShiWYueSLiuZ, et al.Dynamics analysis and experimental validation of the aluminum honeycomb buffer in the tether-net launcher. Adv Space Res2022; 70: 3405–3417. DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2022.08.055.
31.
TounsiRMarkiewiczEZouariB, et al.Numerical investigation, experimental validation and macroscopic yield criterion of Al5056 honeycombs under mixed shear-compression loading. Int J Impact Eng2017; 108: 348–360. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.05.001.
32.
GhamarianAZareiHRAbadiMT. Experimental and numerical crashworthiness investigation of empty and foam-filled end-capped conical tubes. Thin-Walled Struct2011; 49: 1312–1319. DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2011.03.005.
33.
WangJYuYZhouL, et al.Numerical simulation and optimized design of cased telescoped ammunition interior ballistic. Defence Technology2018; 14: 119–125. DOI: 10.1016/j.dt.2017.11.006.
34.
WangYZhuWDiJ, et al.Study on the analysis method on ballistic performance of deterred propellant with large web size in large caliber artillery. Defence Technology2018; 14: 522–526. DOI: 10.1016/j.dt.2018.07.027.
