Date of download: 10/10/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: On the Crush Worthiness of a Laterally Confined Bar Under Axial Compression J. Appl. Mech. 2005;73(5):834-841. doi:10.1115/1.2047595 Figure Legend: Nominal stress vs. nominal strain for three different volume fractions, t=4mm, L∕t=20

Date of download: 10/10/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: On the Crush Worthiness of a Laterally Confined Bar Under Axial Compression J. Appl. Mech. 2005;73(5):834-841. doi:10.1115/1.2047595 Figure Legend: Fully compacted specimens as they appear after unloading, t=4mm, L∕t=26

Date of download: 10/10/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: On the Crush Worthiness of a Laterally Confined Bar Under Axial Compression J. Appl. Mech. 2005;73(5):834-841. doi:10.1115/1.2047595 Figure Legend: Normalized cell length vs. volume fraction for a fixed value of L∕t(=26); symbols are test results, dashed line is a possible fit

Date of download: 10/10/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: On the Crush Worthiness of a Laterally Confined Bar Under Axial Compression J. Appl. Mech. 2005;73(5):834-841. doi:10.1115/1.2047595 Figure Legend: The average number of folds in a unit cell vs. volume fraction, L∕t=26; symbols denote test results, dashed line is a possible fit

Date of download: 10/10/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: On the Crush Worthiness of a Laterally Confined Bar Under Axial Compression J. Appl. Mech. 2005;73(5):834-841. doi:10.1115/1.2047595 Figure Legend: The specific energy delivered to the bar (i.e., energy per unit confinement volume, bhL) vs. volume fraction for three bar thicknesses, L∕t=26; the symbols and the curve denote test results and analytic prediction, respectively

Date of download: 10/10/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: On the Crush Worthiness of a Laterally Confined Bar Under Axial Compression J. Appl. Mech. 2005;73(5):834-841. doi:10.1115/1.2047595 Figure Legend: Densification strain (i.e., end displacement at full stroke divided by the length of the bar) vs. volume fraction. The symbols correspond to the test data of Fig. , the solid line is analytic prediction derived based on material incompressibility.

Date of download: 10/10/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: On the Crush Worthiness of a Laterally Confined Bar Under Axial Compression J. Appl. Mech. 2005;73(5):834-841. doi:10.1115/1.2047595 Figure Legend: Specific energy vs. normalized bar length for two different bar thicknesses such that h∕t=1.5; the symbols and the curve denote test results and analytical prediction, respectively

Date of download: 10/10/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: On the Crush Worthiness of a Laterally Confined Bar Under Axial Compression J. Appl. Mech. 2005;73(5):834-841. doi:10.1115/1.2047595 Figure Legend: Normalized specific energy vs. volume fraction for the four energy absorption models considered; dotted lines indicate a regions outside the nominally applicable range for each model. The frictional model is specified to L∕t=26 and μ=0.3.

Date of download: 10/10/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: On the Crush Worthiness of a Laterally Confined Bar Under Axial Compression J. Appl. Mech. 2005;73(5):834-841. doi:10.1115/1.2047595 Figure Legend: Normalized mean stress vs. volume fraction for various cellular structures. The data for the circular and square tubes are constructed from results given in and , respectively, while those for the honeycomb and foams are produced based on relations given in . The inserts for the square tube, the circular tube, and the honeycomb structure are taken from , in that order.

Date of download: 10/10/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: On the Crush Worthiness of a Laterally Confined Bar Under Axial Compression J. Appl. Mech. 2005;73(5):834-841. doi:10.1115/1.2047595 Figure Legend: Schematics of the test fixture and test specimen for a bar confined on all four sides and subject to axial compression