×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

honeycomb cores

honeycomb cores

honeycomb cores

(OP)
My question concerns the X-33 spaceplane and the use of honeycomb cores in composites.

My understanding of the situation is that the program was cancelled due mainly to the failure of the composite fuel tanks, which, after core delamination was detected, it was decided to use a different material thus increasing the weight, resulting in reassessment and eventual cancellation of the program.  I'm sure that is an over-simplification of the circumstances, but what puzzles me is that for many years now state-of-the-art in honeycomb technology has always revolved around the industry standard: ie strips of metal or similar, glued together to form hexagonal open-ended tubes of varying diameter and length.

My interest in this subject stems from the fact that due to my own discovery of a new method of producing honeycomb, I have been searching the patent databases to see what the competition has to offer.  Imagine my surprise to find that there are literally hundreds of ways to form honeycomb, many of which could possibly do a better job than current designs. It doesn't seem to matter whether it's aerospace, powerboats, automobiles or whatever, good ole' state-of-the-art honeycomb is where it's at, and always has been! So, what is the problem?

david

RE: honeycomb cores

I venture to think it won't be in reality a honeycomb particular structure problem, but the weight of any of those envisageably at hand. A little more weight and the reusability of the vehicle turns inviable, hence for now the concept itself...  or maybe the issue is not technical at all and budget or even strategic measures advise to cancel the program for whatever the reason and a seemingly acceptable cause is blamed for. Spatial systems allow for many unknowns in so complex activities and to most unfathomable deep purse budget procedures.

RE: honeycomb cores

Though I'm no expert on this subject, here's some speculation, comparing honeycomb versus rigid foam core.  Honeycomb core:  far more difficult to manufacture, susceptible to handling/transportation damage, low adhesion surface area hence face sheet delamination issue, anisotropic properties for analysis, good for high-heat applications, expensive.  Rigid foam core:  extremely easy to manufacture, very large adhesion surface area hence less delamination problem, ultra lightweight, almost as strong if not as strong as honeycomb (?), better impact resistance, better insulating and dampening properties, isotropic properties for analysis hence easier to analyze, better resilience if buckling occurs, extremely inexpensive, no good for aerospace or other high-heat applications (except metal foam, expensive).

As you mentioned, for high-heat applications, it seems if any honeycomb design maximizes adhesion surface area, it should have been great.  Or perhaps metal foam core would have been good.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources