Research Article
Crashworthiness Design and Multiobjective Optimization for Hexagon Honeycomb Structure with Functionally Graded Thickness
Table 5
Crashworthiness performance improvement of the FGT honeycomb to the corresponding UT honeycomb.
| | Case | Corresponding UT (mm) | Optimal FGT parameters | SEA (kJ/kg) | PCF (kN) | | Tmax | Tmin | n | UT | FGT | PC (%) | UT | FGT | PC (%) |
| | A | 0.4084 | 1.013 | 0.200 | 4.879 | 13.31 | 16.52 | +19.43 | 48.82 | 48.30 | −1.08 | | B | 0.5156 | 1.188 | 0.273 | 7.050 | 14.93 | 20.36 | +26.65 | 65.25 | 64.25 | −1.54 | | C | 0.6622 | 1.380 | 0.307 | 4.454 | 17.04 | 22.65 | +24.77 | 89.95 | 89.13 | −0.91 | | D | 1.0658 | 1.485 | 0.364 | 0.461 | 21.87 | 25.13 | +12.96 | 161.08 | 162.78 | +1.05 |
|
|
PC: percentage change of SEA and PCF for FGT compared to that of UT.
|
