Open Access
MATEC Web Conf.
Volume 198, 2018
2018 Asia Conference on Mechanical Engineering and Aerospace Engineering (MEAE 2018)
Article Number 02005
Number of page(s) 5
Section Mechanical Engineering
Published online 12 September 2018
  1. A Ashab, R Dong, G Lu, et al. Quasi-static and dynamic experiments of aluminum honeycombs under combined compression-shear loading [J]. Material and Design, 2016 (97): 183–194. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. N Michihata, H Matsui, K Fushimi. An inverse parallel genetic algorithm for the identification of skin/core debonding in honeycomb aluminium panels [J]. Structural Control & Health Monitoring, 2015, 22 (12): 1426–1439. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. V Crupi, G Epasto, E Guglielmino. Comparison of aluminium sandwiches for lightweight ship structures: honeycomb vs. foam [J]. Marine Structures, 2013, 30: 74–96. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. P Ren, W Zhang, JH Liu et al. Dynamic analysis of aluminium alloy honeycomb core sandwich panels subjected to underwater shock loading [J]. Journal of Vibration & Shock, 2016, 35 (2): 7–11. [Google Scholar]
  5. Y Song, Z Wang, T Zhao, et al. Dynamic response of foam sandwich plates subjected to impact loading [J]. Explosion & Shock Waves, 2010, 30 (3): 301–307. [Google Scholar]
  6. J Huang, Z Ma, S Lan, et al. Study on Hypervelocity Impact Characteristics for Honeycomb Sandwich with Multi-Layer Insulation [J]. Journal of Astronautics, 2010, 31 (8): 2043–2049. [Google Scholar]
  7. M Hozhar, K Sotoush, M Habinollah, et al. Finite element analysis of foam-filled honeycomb structures under impact loading and crash-worthiness design [J]. Taylor & Francis, 2015, 21 (2): 2043–2049. [Google Scholar]
  8. S Li, X Li, Z Wang, et al. Finite element analysis of sandwich panels with stepwise graded aluminum honeycomb cores under blast loading [J]. Composites Part A, 2016, 80: 1–12. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. H Zhou, X Wang, Z Zhao. High velocity impact mitigation with gradient cellular solids [J]. Composites Part B: Engineering, 2016, 85: 93–101. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. M Shan, J Guo, E Gill. Review and comparison of active space debris capturing and removal methods [J]. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2015, 80: 18–32. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. M M Castronuovo. Active space debris removal—A preliminary mission analysis and design [J]. Acta Astronautica, 2011, 69 (9–10): 848–859. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. S I Nishida, S Kawamoto, Y Okawa, et al. Space debris removal system using a small satellite[J]. Acta Astronautica, 2009, 65 (1): 95–102. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. J Jianping. Determination of the Thermo-Viscoplastic Constitutive Relations of 45~# Steel [J]. Transactions of Beijing Institute of Technology, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  14. W Zhang, G Wei, X Xiao. Constitutive relation and fracture criterion of 2A12 aluminum alloy[J]. Binggong Xuebao/acta Armamentarii, 2013, 34 (3): 276–282. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.