Honeycomb modeling with shell elements

Hi Staedtlerp,

Can you share the reference, from where you got this data?

Thank you

Hi Premenand,

thank you for your reply.

yes sure, below you can find the document downloaded directly from Hexcel supplier's site.

Thank you

Unable to find an attachment - read this blog

I generally model Nomex honeycomb in the same way, and would make this MAT8 card for that core:

 MAT8           1     1.0     1.0     0.3      1.0   41.0    20.0  3.2-11                                      1.0      1.0    1.0     1.0    0.35

EDIT: You can put the real strengths in if you like, but generally I just use 1MPa since I don't check the failure of the core within my FEM analysis. I use 1.0 for E11 and E22 since the honeycomb doesn't carry load in these directions - the skins do.

Great!!/emoticons/default_biggrin.png' srcset='/emoticons/biggrin@2x.png 2x' title=':D' width='20' />

Thank you very much for your help.

I'll put the values and I'll let you know.

Thanks gain

Hi @Staedtlerp

Is there a reason for modeling honeycomb with the shell?

The std practice is to model with solid elements. but if you have a very large honeycomb cell size, shells can be used effectively as long as you are not resin filled.  If your core is a significant thickness in the total composite, it would be more appropriate to use a solid representation anyway rather than assuming it is a 'layer' in a composite PCOMP

It depends on the model and the part. For example we don't use solid elements in GFEMs of whole aircraft models in the aerospace industry.

It depends on the model and the part. For example we don't use solid elements in GFEMs of whole aircraft models in the aerospace industry.

Yes, because of their large size.