Abstract. A problem of selecting rational submodeling zones in finite element analysis of sandwich structures with a honeycomb core is considered. The use of numerical methods in modern design inevitably faces a trade-off between analysis accuracy and computational cost. Simple mesh refinement across the entire structure is inefficient; therefore, the submodeling technique is a promising approach, allowing detailed examination of local zones only, with boundary conditions taken from the global analysis. A sandwich panel with aluminum face sheets and a honeycomb core, bolted and subjected to a uniformly distributed load, is taken as the object of study. The aim of the work is to select submodeling zones and determine their optimal dimensions, accounting for the loading pattern, boundary conditions, and underlying physics. In the theoretical part, two key zones are identified: the panel center (the region of maximum displacement) and the bolted joint zones (regions of elevated local stresses). A method for determining the dimensions of these zones is proposed. For the center zone, the criterion is suppression of edge effects (inclusion of at least 3–5 periodic unit cells). For the attachment zones, the in-plane dimension is determined by the half-wavelength of the deformation (from the bolt to the midspan), and the through-thickness dimension is determined by the decay length of local stresses according to the Saint-Venant principle (1,5–2,5 of the characteristic body dimension). Practical calculations were performed in two stages: global analysis with an orthotropic equivalent core and subsequent submodel analysis with explicitly modeled discrete cell geometry. Comparison of the results confirmed the effectiveness of the approach. The discrepancy in displacements between the global model and the submodels did not exceed 10%, indicating correct transfer of boundary conditions. At the same time, the maximum von Mises stresses in the attachment zone of the long side and at the panel center, obtained from the submodels, exceeded the global analysis results by 138 % and 695 %, respectively. This demonstrates that accounting for the actual core geometry is essential for strength assessment, as it reveals stress redistribution from the face sheets to the honeycomb core members. The developed recommendations for selecting submodeling zone dimensions allow efficient analysis models to be constructed, ensuring high fidelity of local strength analysis at acceptable computational cost, which is of particular importance for aerospace applications.

Keywords: submodeling, sandwich structure with discrete core, honeycomb core, finite element method, homogenized equivalent material, ANSYS Material Designer

For citation: Artemenko D. E., Oleinikov A. Yu. On the selection of submodeling zones for honeycomb sandwich elements. Aerospace Engineering and Technology. 2026. Vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 215–228. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.52467/2949-401X-2026-4-1-215-228; https://elibrary.ru/WJLUSV

References
1. Nadolsky V. V. Statistical characteristics of the numerical model uncertainties for steel elements. Stroitel’stvo i rekonstruktsiya [Building and Reconstruction]. 2023. No. 3(107). Pp. 17–34. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33979/2073-7416-2023-107-3-17-34
2. Kardak A. A. On an Efective Submodeling Procedure for Stresses Determined with Finite Element Analysis. LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 2015. 306. https://doi.org/10.31390/gradschool_dissertations.306
3. Silkina L. A. Technology of submodeling for analyzing spacecraft elements. Reshetnevskie chteniya: Materialy` XXI Mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii, posvyashhennoj pamyati general`nogo konstruktora raketno-kosmicheskix sistem akademika M. F. Reshetneva [Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “RESHETNEV READINGS”]. November 09–12, 2016, Krasnoyarsk. Т. 1. С. 455–457. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/XEAGALURL
4. Vaytelenok L. V., Kovzhenkin V. S. Application of submodeling technique to reduce time spent modeling remote magnetic field sensors. Vestnik IGEU. 2024. No. 1, pp. 53–59. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17588/2072-2672.2024.1.053-059
5. Nilov A. S., Galinskaya O. O., Krasnov V. I. Analysis of technological features manufacture of three-layer struc-tures with space filler made from composite materials with reactoplastic matrix. Aerospace Engineering and Technology. 2024. Vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 24–51. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.52467/2949-401X-2024-2-2-24-51; https://elibrary.ru/BQPGTE
6. Rayhan S., Rahman Md. M. Modeling elastic properties of unidirectional composite materials using Ansys Material Designer. Procedia Structural Integrity. 2020. Vol. 28. Pp. 1892–1900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2020.11.012
7. Pisarev P. V., Vlasov S. S., Roman K. V. Multilevel approach to numerical forecasting of effective elastic characteristics of cellular aggregate at various temperatures. PNRPU Aerospace Engineering Bulletin. 2023. No. 73. Pp. 26–40. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15593/2224-9982/2023.73.03
8. Kolyvanova D. A., Avferonok S. E., Syatchikhin A. A. Development of a model for replacing the properties of a complex structure working on tension and compression with the help of properties of equivalent materials. Innovacionny`e texnologii i texnicheskie sredstva special`nogo naznacheniya : Trudy` XVII obshherossijskoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii [Innovative technologies and technical means of special purpose: Proceedings of the XVII All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference]. St. Petersburg, November 21–22, 2024. St. Petersburg: Baltic State Technical University “VOENMEH”, 2025. Vol. 1. Pp. 41-47. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/HVEYKF
9. Tun Lin Htet, Prosuntsov P. V. Design-theoretical and experimental determination of physical and mechanical properties of the composite materials for the light aircraft fuselage multilayer load-bearing elements. Engineering Journal: Science and Innovation. 2024. No. 10 (154). (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18698/2308-6033-2024-10-2392; https://elibrary.ru/HMAFWE
10. Testoedov N. A., Nagovitsin V. N., Permyakov M. Yu. Spacecraft application of three layer honeycomb structures. Siberian Aerospace Journal. 2016. Vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 200–211. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/VUSEAV
11. Erasov V. S., Sibayev I. G., Sutubalov A. I. Testing of samples from three-layer structures with honeycomb filler. Trudy VIAM. 2025. No. 10 (152), pp. 133–155. http://www.viam-works.ru. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18577/2307-6046-2025-0-10-133-155; https://elibrary.ru/EXTZKG
12. Sun C. T., Vaidya R. S. Prediction of composite properties from a representative volume element. Composites Science and Technology. 1996. Vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-3538(95)00141-7
13. Tikhonov A. N. Uravneniya matematicheskoj fiziki [Equations of mathematical physics]. 7th ed. Moscow: Publishing House of Moscow State University, Nauka, 2004. 798 p. (In Russ.) ISBN 5-211-04843-1, 5-02-033599-1.
14. Gorshkov A. G., Troshin V. N., Shalashilin V. I. Soprotivlenie materialov [Resistance of materials: Training Course]. 2nd ed. Moscow: FIZMATLIT, 2005. 544 p. (In Russ.) ISBN 5-9221-0181-1
15. Lakhtin Y. M. Metallovedenie i termicheskaya obrabotka [Metal Science and Heat Treatment: Tutorial for Universities]. Moscow: Metallurgy, 1964. 471 p. (In Russ.)