Composites: Part B 59 (2014) 33–42

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites: Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Graded conventional-auxetic Kirigami sandwich structures: Flatwise

compression and edgewise loading
Y. Hou a, R. Neville b, F. Scarpa b,⇑, C. Remillat b, B. Gu a,⇑, M. Ruzzene c
a
College of Textiles, Key Laboratory of High-Performance Fibers & Products, Ministry of Education, Donghua University, Shanghai 201620, China
b
Advanced Composites Centre for Innovation and Science, University of Bristol, BS8 1TR Bristol, UK
c
D. Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The work describes the manufacturing and testing of graded conventional/auxetic honeycomb cores. The
Received 19 July 2013 graded honeycombs are manufactured using Kevlar woven fabric/914 epoxy prepreg using Kirigami tech-
Received in revised form 20 September 2013 niques, which consist in a combination of Origami and ply-cut processes. The cores are used to manufac-
Accepted 29 October 2013
ture sandwich panels for flatwise compression and edgewise loading. The compressive modulus and
Available online 8 November 2013
compressive strength of stabilized (sandwich) honeycombs are found to be higher than those of bare
honeycombs, and with density-averaged properties enhanced compared to other sandwich panels
Keywords:
offered in the market place. The modulus and strength of graded sandwich panel under quasi-static edge-
A. Honeycomb
B. Mechanical properties
wise loading vary with different failure mode mechanisms, and offer also improvements towards avail-
B. Impact behavior able panels from open literature. Edgewise impact loading shows a strong directionality of the
E. Assembly mechanical response. When the indenter impacts the auxetic portion of the graded core, the strong local-
ization of the damage due to the negative Poisson’s ratio effect contains significantly the maximum
dynamic displacement of the sandwich panel.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction rotating rigid units [18–22]. Honeycombs with negative Poisson’s

Sandwich structures with composite skin and honeycomb core
have been widely used for a variety of engineering applications,
from advanced aircraft design [1,2], to modern wind turbines [3].
Between the main features behind the use of sandwich structures
is the possibility to design lightweight components and structures
with high specific bending stiffness, high strength and high buck-
ling resistance [4–6]. Conventional hexagonal shaped honeycomb
constitutes the most fundamental and widely used cellular config-
uration, which is produced using the expansion method or corru-
gated process [1,7]. Hexagonal honeycombs possess a positive
Poisson’s ratio, leading to anticlastic behavior (i.e., producing sad-
dle-shaped curvatures when bent out-of-plane), making difficult to
manufacture sandwich structures with complex geometry without
using postprocessing techniques with high discard rates. An alter-
native to the hexagonal core is represented by auxetics (negative
Poisson’s ratio) honeycombs, which are usually characterized by
stiffening geometric effects [8–12], enhanced in-plane indentation
resistance [9,11,13,14], transverse shear modulus [12,15] and im-
pact energy absorption [15–17]. The auxetic topologies reported
so far mainly involve re-entrant, chiral, double arrow-head and
⇑ Corresponding authors. Tel.: +44 1173315306; fax: +44 1179272771 (F. Scarpa).
E-mail addresses: f.scarpa@bristol.ac.uk (F. Scarpa), gubh@dhu.edu.cn (B. Gu).
ratio illustrated in open literature are made primarily made by dif-
ferent RP (Rapid Prototyping) techniques, like FDM and SLS [23,24],
or general 3D printing process [25] usually confined to the use of
thermoplastic materials. However, for practical applications in
aerospace or wind turbine blades, more composite production-ori-
ented techniques should be explored to bring non-classical honey-
comb topologies into the market place, and efforts in that sense
have been recently done about using composite manufacturing
techniques [25,26]. Kirigami (Origami plus ply-cut patterns) is
found to be a promising way to produce honeycombs with
complex geometries, starting from a thin flat composite prepeg
sheet (i.e. Kevlar woven fabric/914 epoxy prepreg, carbon fiber
reinforced plastic prepreg) [27]. The Kirigami structures consisting
of combinations of fold/valleys and cuts to create a cellular tessel-
lation, and modular molds for the curing of the cellular composite
More specifically, the flat composite prepreg material is scored and
cut with periodically-distributed slits by ply-cutting, and then
folded in a zigzag fashion into a 3D honeycomb structure. Kuribay-
ashi et al. [28] presented a self-foldable stent graft using a single
piece of SMA foil made by the Origami concept. Heimbs et al.
[29] experimentally and numerically characterized the mechanical
behavior of folded core structures made from aramid paper and
CFRP under flatwise compression loading. Saito et al. [30] produced
cellular morphing wingbox using the Kirigami concept and

1359-8368/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.10.084
34 Y. Hou et al. / Composites: Part B 59 (2014) 33–42

numerically demonstrated that the cellular wingbox was a major strong dependence over the direction of dynamic loading, with
contributor in the torsion stiffness and static divergence of the interesting potential implications for energy absorption during im-
wing structure. In terms of graded honeycomb core and pact (see Fig. 1).
corresponding sandwich structures, efforts have been produced
to design and develop gradient-type cellular and porous structures
2. Kirigami sandwich panels manufacturing process
[29–32]. Lim [33] theoretically designed a functionally graded
cellular structure exhibiting Poisson’s curving by combining the
Both hexagonal and auxetic honeycombs are manufactured
re-entrant and hexagonal honeycomb together, which is called
using one layer woven Kevlar/914 epoxy prepreg from Hexcel
positional semi-auxetics. Also the same author has shown that
Composites Ltd., Duxford, UK (Es = 29 GPa, q = 1380 kg/m3, thick-
the combination of conventional laminas (possessing positive
ness 0.250 mm).
Poisson’s ratio) and auxetic laminas (possessing negative Poisson’s
The Kirigami manufacturing process consists in the following
ratio) can give rise to effective in-plane composite laminates with a
five steps: cutting, molding, curing, folding and bonding. Periodic
stiffness that surpasses the one predicted by rule-of-mixture [34].
distributions of slits are introduced within the plain weave woven
Gradient honeycomb configurations have been produced and
using an Auto Prepreg Cutting machine following the patterns
tested showing high specific shear stiffness capabilities, together
shown in Fig. 2a. The ply-cut pattern is programmed based on
with control of the anisotropy of the cellular panel [35]. Gradient
the topology of the unit cell of honeycombs with parameters l, h
core configurations have been also proposed to design aeroengine
and h, and the gauge thickness of the honeycomb walls (b) [5].
fan blades with low dynamic displacement characteristics [36].
The automatic machining is illustrated in Fig. 3a. The solid lines
Gradient cellular structures with auxetic behavior for sandwich
in the cutting pattern (Fig. 2b) indicate cutting through the thick-
panels have also shown strong localization charcateristics in terms
ness of the prepreg (0.125 mm). The long cutting-through lines will
of damage and failure under 3-point bending loading [37]. Gradi-
form the open cores after folding, whereas the dot cutting lines are
ent cellular structures can be considered a form piezomorphing
applied to ease the subsequent folding. The pre-cut prepreg is then
porous material, in which the structure responds with shape
laid over an aluminum bar (Fig. 3b) designed according to the
changes due to an external mechanical loading [38]. Ruzzene
topology of the unit cell (Fig. 2c). The molded sample is subse-
et al. [39] have investigated the wave propagation characteristics
quently sealed in a vacuum bag and placed for curing in an auto-
of sandwich plates with periodic honeycomb core. Negative Pois-
clave. The curing temperature for the thermoset woven prepreg
son’s ratio (auxetic) core materials of different geometry placed
used is 175°. The other parameters of the autoclave curing
periodically in the plate have demonstrated to introduce the
(Fig. 3c) are the pressure (100 psi) and duration (125 min).
impedance mismatch necessary to obstruct the propagation of
The cured prepreg is extracted and folded along a zigzag pattern
waves over specified frequency bands (stop bands) and along par-
along the cutting line to form the honeycombs (Fig. 3d). After fold-
ticular directions [39].
ing, the horizontal walls of the honeycomb ribbons are bonded to-
The work described in this paper is concerned about the phys-
gether using epoxy adhesive (Hexcel ReduxÒ 810) and cured for
ical realization of the concept proposed in Ref. [39], the graded core
10 min at 120° (Fig. 3e. The dimensions of the honeycomb config-
sandwich panel. The complex geometry of the core is produced
urations used in this work are l = h = 5.5 mm, h = 30° for the hexag-
using the Kirigami technique using woven Kevlar prepreg and
onal case, and h = 10.5 mm, l = 5.5 mm, h = 30° for the auxetic
modulus molds for autoclave curing. A portion of the graded hon-
cellular structure. The total gauge thickness of the two honeycomb
eycomb is made with hexagonal conventional cells, while the other
structures is b = 25 mm. According to the Cellular Material Theory
section is represented by a re-entrant (negative Poisson’s ratio)
(CMT), the in-plane Poisson’s ratio t12 for the hexagonal honey-
butterfly-type core. The graded honeycombs are then embedded
comb is 1.0, while the auxetic configuration would have a Poisson’s
into CFRP sandwich panels, and subjected to ASTM standards tests
ratio value of 1.06 [5].
related to flatwise compression and edgewise loading. A drop-
Conventional-auxetic graded honeycomb have been produced
tower impact edgewise test is also carried out, with the samples
by gluing together the hexagonal and auxetic core using the same
facing up the indenter alternatively along the conventional and
Hexcel ReduxÒ 810 epoxy adhesive. The final graded cellular
auxetic face. The experimental results are compared against avail-
structure is shown in Fig. 4. The graded cores have been used to
able cores and sandwich panels from open literature and the mar-
manufacture flat sandwich panels, with face skins made from
ket place. It will be shown that the graded core concept provides
two quasi-isotropic carbon fiber composites (stacking sequence
some significant enhancements in terms of specific flatwise and
of [0°/45°/–45°/90°]2s). The carbon prepreg chosen is T800/2020
edgewise compressive strength against commercial sandwich pan-
carbon/epoxy unidirectional prepreg (CYCOMÒ Corporation) with
els and core materials. The graded cellular concept shows also a
a sheet thickness of 0.125 mm. The skins are bonded to the
graded honeycomb core using a LH149 epoxy adhesive (LETOXITÒ
Corporation) cured at 120° for 1 hour and a half.

3. Testing

3.1. Flatwise compression tests of graded sandwich panels

The flatwise compression tests of the hexagonal-auxetic graded

Fig. 1. Structure of the graded hexagonal-auxetic sandwich panel (from [32]).
sandwich panels have been performed using a Zwick machine with
a calibrated loading cell of 100 kN. Compressive buckling tests
were performed until the load–displacement curve indicated a col-
lapsed structure, i.e. with significantly reduced stiffness. The test
rig has been is setup according to the ASTM Standard ASTM
C365/C365M-11a [42] (Fig. 5). The specimens used have dimen-
sions 51 mm  51 mm  28 mm (Fig. 5a and b). The flatwise com-
pression tests are carried out under displacement-control mode
 Y. Hou et al. / Composites: Part B 59 (2014) 33–42
Fig. 2. Kirigami technique layout to produce hexagonal and re-entrant honeycombs.
with the top plate being fixed and the bottom plate moving
upwards at a constant velocity of 0.5 mm/min. The deflection of
the sandwich panel is calculated from the displacements of the
bottom plate, which were tracked using a 2D digital image correla-
tion system (Davis 7). A total of three sandwich panels have been
tested, and the buckling morphology of one of them is shown in
Fig. 5d.
3.2. Edgewise compression tests of graded sandwich panels
The compressive properties of the graded sandwich topology
along the direction parallel to the plane of the sandwich face skin
are evaluated through edgewise compression tests according
to the ASTM Standard ASTM C364/C364M-07 [43] carried out
on a Zwick testing machine (Fig. 6a). The specimen size
(51 mm  51 mm  28 mm) satisfies the requirements of the
ASTM standard, while being quite similar to the one used to
dimension the specimens for flatwise compression tests (Fig. 5a
and b). The specific machine configuration setup shown in Fig. 6a
is the same used for the flatwise testing, with the top plate fixed
and the bottom plate moving upwards at a constant velocity of
0.5 mm/min. The 2D digital image correlation system (Davis 7) is
again used to track the displacement at the bottom plate, consid-
ered as the overall deflection of the sample. Three specimens are
tested in total, and different failure modes are observed during
loading (Fig. 6b–d). Since the edgewise loading is quasi-static,
edgewise compression tests are only performed in only one direc-
tion, with the auxetic core over the hexagonal one. The use of qua-
si-static tests implies that the loading force has sufficient time to
be transmitted throughout the whole graded sandwich structure
before the specimen fails.
3.3. Edgewise impact tests on graded sandwich panels
The impact response of the graded sandwich panels under
edgewise loading from two different sides is investigated using
an Instron Dynatup Model 9250HV Drop Weight System. Since
35
there is no relevant testing standard for edgewise impact loading,
the configuration and the specimen dimensions are designed to
meet the setup of the Instron drop weight tower (Fig. 7a and b).
The dimension of the specimen is 110 mm  80 mm  28 mm,
with the diameter of the impact roller equal to 50 mm. The bottom
end of the graded sandwich panel is fixed by clamping between
two plates to prevent a fall during the impact. Two specimens have
been impacted edgewise, one with the roller hitting the hexagonal
core side, the other the re-entrant one. The tests have been carried
out using impact energy of 15 J.
4. Results and discussions
4.1. Flatwise compression
The stress and strain curves of the graded sandwich panels un-
der flatwise compression are shown in Fig. 8. Table 1 shows also
the compressive modulus and strength for different conventional,
auxetic and graded configurations. Samples #1 and #2 are the re-
ferred to the Kevlar woven epoxy (KWEP) fabric specimens, with
hexagonal and auxetic topology respectively [44]. Sample #3 is re-
ferred to KWEP graded sandwich core developed in this work. The
table contains other comparative data available from open litera-
ture, like HRH78 core (Sample #4), the sandwich panel made with
the same type core material (Sample #5), and core and sandwich
panel made with HRH10 honeycomb (Samples #6 and #7 respec-
tively). HRH78 is made from aramid paper sheets (NOMEX paper),
while aramid fiber sheets constitute the HRH10 core. Both honey-
combs are impregnated with phenolic resin. The face skins of the
benchmark sandwich panels with aramid core are made from glass
fiber [45]. Another core considered for comparison is the alumi-
num-based 5052 (pristine core and sandwich panel for Samples
#8 and #9 respectively). The data for the material properties are
available from Ref. [46].
A sandwich panel with honeycomb core bonded to composite
skins has higher compressive strength than the pristine
honeycomb cores [40,41]. Flatwise compression tests on bare
36 Y. Hou et al. / Composites: Part B 59 (2014) 33–42

Fig. 3. Specific manufacturing process of hexagonal and re-entrant honeycombs using the Kirigami technique.

Fig. 4. Manufacturing of graded honeycomb core and corresponding sandwich panel. The sample on the left is the one used for edgewise loading, while the one on the right is
for flatwise compression.
 Y. Hou et al. / Composites: Part B 59 (2014) 33–42
Fig. 5. Flatwise compression tests on the graded sandwich panels. (a) Geometry
parameters of the cores; (b) example of one sandwich specimen; (c) flatwise
compressive test performed on a sample; (d) buckling and kinking of one failed
sample.
honeycomb core structure tend to provide an underestimation of
the honeycomb performance in the sandwich panels, since the
boundary conditions in the two cases are quite different [40].
The presence of face skins constrains the rotations in the plane
perpendicular to the loading and imposes a more uniform
through-the-thickness deformation than the one guaranteed by
Fig. 6. Edgewise compression tests on graded sandwich panels and different failure modes observed.
37
the self-adjusting compressive plates of the tensile machine.
Compared with the results from flatwise compression on bare hex-
agonal and auxetic honeycombs [44], the stiffening effect of the
composite skins in sandwich structure is evident. Another conse-
quence of the use of the face skins is the decrease of the strain
corresponding to the flatwise compressive strength compared to
the pristine non-stabilized cores [40]. The average compressive
modulus for the bare hexagonal honeycombs produced with the
Kirigami technique is 8.14 MPa, while the auxetic core made with
the same Hexcel Kevlar woven fabric/914 epoxy prepreg features a
compressive modulus of 10.4 MPa (27% higher). The peak compres-
sive stress value for the bare conventional honeycombs is
0.47 MPa, and 0.56 MPa for the auxetic core. The experimental glo-
bal compressive stresses for the auxetic core are 19% higher than
the conventional ones, and are in line with the one observed in alu-
minum over-expanded cores with re-entrant shape. Auxetic Al-29
honeycombs with internal cell angles h = 5° and lower density
(q = 34.1 kg m3) have shown a compressive modulus of
14.5 MPa and compressive strength of 0.91 MPa [47]. The compres-
sive strength when the honeycomb cells undergo the same funda-
mental Eulerian buckling mode is proportional to a geometry
factor r
 z [47,48]:
ðh=l þ 4Þ
r z ¼ ð1Þ
cos hðh=lÞðsin h þ h=lÞ
When inserting the numerical values related to the conventional
and auxetic bare honeycombs in Eq. (1), the hexagonal configura-
tion provides an increase of the global buckling stress compared
to the conventional configuration by 34%. The experimental results
show however an opposite trend, suggesting that the Kirigami-
based honeycombs do undergo a more complex compression failure
38 Y. Hou et al. / Composites: Part B 59 (2014) 33–42

Fig. 7. Edgewise impact on graded sandwich panels from the re-entrant side and hexagonal side.

splitting and debonding. Kevlar failure modes involve fibers

Fig. 8. Stress strain curves of stabilized graded honeycomb cores and bare
honeycombs under flatwise compression.
mechanism than the pure Eulerian-based one underlying the
assumptions behind the validity of Eq. (1). A visual inspection of a
failed sample (Fig. 5d) appears to confirm the complexity of the
deformation mechanism, where several eigenbuckling modes at dif-
ferent wavelengths occur in different cells, together with fabric
splitting and debonding [49], and general honeycombs undergoing
failure by fracture have a compressive strength rs ruled by the
following approximate formula [47]:
q
rs  rfc ð2Þ
qc
In (2), rfc and qc are the failure stress and density of the core mate-
rial respectively. When using Eq. (2), the auxetic honeycomb config-
uration would offer an increase of 74% in terms of compressive
strength compared to the conventional one. While the experimental
compressive strength increase is more contained (19%), it does sug-
gest that the failure of the Kirigami Kevlar/epoxy honeycombs is in-
deed made from different failure mechanisms, in which fracture
may provide a dominant contribution.
The three graded specimens show very similar linear elastic
parts, with an average compressive modulus of 91.7 MPa observed
between 0.65% and 0.75% strains. The average compressive stress
of the graded sandwich panels is 1.21 MPa, although in this case
one can observe some noticeable variations among the specimens.
The discrepancy present in the peak compressive strength could be
ascribed to the bonding quality of the overlapped surface during
the folding operation. Other manufacturing imperfections like the
inclination of the edges along the thickness direction in the sample
have been also observed to be present. All the graded sandwich

Table 1
Compression properties and density of different honeycomb cores and sandwich panels [45,46].

Specimens #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9
Compressive modulus (MPa) 8.14 10.41 91.71 – 41.37 – 41.37 – 137.90
Compressive strength (MPa) 0.47 0.56 1.21 0.59 0.66 0.66 0.72 0.62 0.66
Density (kg/m3) 33.9 59.3 269.0 24 272.28 24 272.28 25.6 231.86
 Y. Hou et al. / Composites: Part B 59 (2014) 33–42 39

tions considering their density (Fig. 9a and b). The HRH78,

HRH10 and aluminum 5052 cores show an enhanced specific com-
pressive strength compared the pristine Kevlar conventional and
auxetic honeycombs (between 66% and 150% against the conven-
tional and auxetic ore respectively). The situation is different when
one considers the stabilized (i.e. sandwich) core configurations. In
that case, the graded core outperforms the conventional sandwich
panels by a factor of 2 on average (Fig. 9a). The highest specific
compressive modulus is provided by the aluminum 5052 honey-
comb panel (Fig. 9b). However, the graded stabilized core shows
a compressive stiffness 2.3 times higher than the one of the
HRH-based sandwich panels.

4.2. Edgewise loading

4.2.1. Edgewise compression tests

The stress and strain response of the hexagonal-auxetic graded
sandwich structures under quasi-static edgewise compression
loading is shown in Fig. 10. One can observe a significant difference
in modulus and maximum stress due to the different failure modes
shown in Fig. 6b–d. Specimen 1 suffers a sudden failure due to deb-
onding between the composite skin and the epoxy adhesive. The
specimen shows a good linearity before failure, with a modulus
of 1399 MPa when the strain increases from 1% to 1.1%. Specimen
2 shows a softening phase followed by failure caused by a delam-
ination of the bottom composite skin and debonding between the
epoxy adhesive and the skin itself (Fig. 6c). The modulus between
1% and 1.1% of strain is in this case 1113 MPa. Specimen 3 exhibits
the highest modulus (1529 MPa), and extensive linear elastic
behavior until 1.8% of strain. It is worth noticing that this specific
specimen shows a global failure provided by localized buckling
of the composite skin in the mid section, followed by debonding
and breaking of the adhesive layer as well as shear (Fig. 6d). Sim-
ilarly to flatwise compression tests, the different failure modes re-
flect some manufacturing aspects related to the complex geometry
and bonding techniques used in this work to produce these graded
sandwich structures. The stress–strain curves of Samples 1 and 2
Fig. 9. Comparison of flatwise compressive modulus and maximum stress among
show some similarity to the analogous ones exhibited by alumi-
different Hexcel products. (KWEP means Kevlar woven fabric/914 epoxy, Hex
means hexagonal and Aux auxetic). num honeycomb panels subjected to edgewise compression,
with a monotonic force increase followed by sudden collapse
and quasi-plateau region, or even negative stiffness with a small
specimens reach an average plateau value of 0.5 MPa in the slope [50]. It is interesting to notice that failure modes coincide
post-buckling stage. The compressive modulus in cellular materi- in these cases with debonding between face skins and core at the
als is proportional to the relative density of the material itself edges, similarly to Fig. 6b and c [50]. Glass fiber/Al 3003 sandwich
[5], although for bare non-stabilized cores the effective compres- panels with global thickness of 26.5 mm exhibit edgewise
sive modulus is lower than the one predicted by theory [48]. The
graded cores have a density that is an average between the one
of the conventional and the auxetic honeycombs (46.6 kg m3).
The graded honeycomb should have therefore a compressive mod-
ulus 37% higher than the conventional one, but 21% lower than the
auxetic case. However, the stiffening effect provided by the face
skins can lead to increases of compressive strength by 10–20%
compared to non-stabilized pristine cores [1]. Paik et al. have
observed increases between 30% and 50% in stabilized aluminum
cores, although on lateral pressure loading [50]. The stabilized
graded panels show an average increase between 116% and 157%
against the auxetic and conventional non-stabilized cores. The
compressive modulus shows an even higher enhancement, by fac-
tors within the 8.8–11.4 range (Table 1). The compressive failure
strain in the graded stabilized cores is lower than the pristine bare
conventional and auxetic honeycombs. While the auxetic and con-
ventional specimens tend to have similar strains at compressive
strength (12%), the graded stabilized cores have the correspondent
strains between 2.8% and 4%.
It is interesting at this stage to compare the specific mechanical Fig. 10. Stress and strain curves of graded sandwich panels under quasi-static
properties of the different honeycomb/sandwich panel configura- edgewise compression loading.
40 Y. Hou et al. / Composites: Part B 59 (2014) 33–42
Fig. 11. Comparison of edgewise compressive strength of different sandwich
panels.
compressive strengths between 1.2 MPa and 1.6 MPa under
ASTM C-3694-94 standard [51]. Glass–phenolic/Nomex honey-
combs subjected to edgewise loading have shown maximum
compressive strengths of 235.2 MPa in larger sandwich panel sam-
ples (25.4 mm  75 mm  115 mm) [52]. FRP/PMI/PVC sandwich
panels with overall thickness around 40 mm have been observed
to provide edgewise compressive strengths varying between
4 MPa and 14 MPa, depending on the type of collapse mode [53].
Similar values of the compressive edgewise strength recorded for
the graded panels (26 MPa) at 2% of edgewise strain have been
observed recently in sandwich panels made with glass/epoxy face
skins (1.5 mm of thickness) and composite Nomex/sintactic foam
cores, albeit with densities around 624 kg m3 [54]. A comparative
analysis of the specific edgewise compressive strength for com-
mercially available sandwich panels is shown in Fig. 11. The graded
core panel shows an improvement of the compressive strength per
density by a factor varying between 6.3 and 13.1.
4.2.2. Edgewise impact tests
Load–displacement curves of the graded sandwich structures
subjected to edgewise impact are shown in Fig. 12. One can ob-
serve a significant difference between the impact sustained by
the sample with the hexagonal core side against the indenter,
Fig. 12. Load displacement curves of graded sandwich panels impacted from
hexagonal and re-entrant side.
and the same type of dynamic loading when the auxetic core faces
directly the impact. The maximum displacement occurred by the
graded specimen with the auxetic face against the indenter is
2.8 mm, against the 7 mm observed for the sample with the hexag-
onal honeycomb face-up. The peak loads are also quite different,
with the specimen with the auxetic side against the indenter
exhibiting peak force values of 8.7 kN, while the other sample sus-
tains peak force of 6 kN. It is interesting at this stage to observe the
damage occurred by the two samples around the impact area. The
area of the auxetic honeycomb facing up the indenter has a strong
localization of the damage, with the nearby cell walls (L direction
[1]) barely affected (Fig. 7c). The samples with the conventional
hexagonal side (W direction [1]) shows a larger portion of the ob-
lique cell walls affected by the impact (Fig. 7d). The contribution to
the damage mechanism given also by the relative scale between
cell sizes, their orientation and overall width of the sandwich spec-
imen is evident in this case. For the case where the full edge of the
wall of length h faces the indenter, the stress on the wall are likely
to be reduced due to the larger area of cell wall available to the in-
denter, leading to reduced displacement of the core. On the other
hand, for the conventional side facing the indenter the vastly re-
duced area of the edge of the oblique cell wall (length l) contributes
to a much higher stress with which to cause deformation of the
wall, which itself is free at the facing edge (away from the skins)
and therefore easier to deform. These interactions between local
deformations, size and geometry of the cells are an important com-
ponent of the different edgewise-loading behavior observed in
these tests. The strong localization of the damage is however a
characteristic feature of auxetic materials, and it has been observed
experimentally in CFRP laminates with cross-ply [±30]6s stacking
sequence showing a negative through-the-thickness Poisson’s ratio
(t13 = 0.156 [55,56]). It is also worth noticing that the auxetic
laminates have also shown a higher peak load during low kinetic
energy impact (5 J) compared to analogous CFRP plates with equiv-
alent in-plane stiffness [56]. However, contrary to auxetic plates
impacted along the through-the-thickness direction, the maximum
displacement observed in these graded core structures (auxetic
side face up) is significantly lower than the analogous one from
the sandwich panel with conventional side bearing the load. It ap-
pears that the auxetic portion of the core absorbs a significant
amount of the deformation of the panel, leaving the rest of the
structure relatively unaffected by the dynamic loading. Stress
waves in 1D gradient configurations have shown a clear depen-
dence of the maximum displacement of the structure versus the
density variation, with the minimum deformation occurring in lay-
ered configuration towards higher linear density distributions [57].
Another aspect to be considered for these graded cellular struc-
tures is the mismatch impedance existing at the interface between
the two sets of cellular cores. The use of cellular cores with differ-
ent topologies and discrete interface can induce a strong change in
pass-stop band distributions in one dimensional periodic struc-
tures, with deeper attenuation of the dynamic displacements
[39,58]. Graded distributions of foams in finite size samples have
shown a marked reduction of the transmitted waves through the
portion of the foam with diminishing density [59]. For low kinetic
energy impacts, the relative scale of the wavelength with the
dimension of the samples allows to use one a 2D wave propagation
theory between mismatched media. Because of the finite size scale
effects between number and dimensions of the cells and the inter-
face between the two cellular sections, the theoretical consider-
ations based on asymptotic homogenization have some
limitations in terms of validity, however they are able to capture
some underlying physics aspects occurring during the impact. It
can be demonstrated that for a wave with propagation direction
of 0° (i.e., along the loading direction of the impact), the Christoffel
equation to calculate the wave group velocities cph reduces to [60]:
 Y. Hou et al. / Composites: Part B 59 (2014) 33–42 41

Table 2 efficient in terms of stress wave transmission reduction. If the aux-

Tensors constants, shear and bulk wave group velocities and related specific etic honeycomb is now placed in front of the indenter, the value of a
impedances for the auxetic and hexagonal honeycombs. The suffix h stands for
honeycomb, s and b for shear and bulk wave respectively.
becomes 1.37, and rt/ri = 0.16. In that case, 84% of the impinging
stress wave amplitudes would be reflected back. For the case of bulk
Hexagonal Auxetic waves, a = 0.91, and the ratio of transmitted to incident waves be-
C66/Gc  105 1.89 0.30 comes now 0.95.
C11/Ec  103 6.57 5.37 It is apparent that auxetic honeycomb has a very low in-plane
csh/cs  102 3.01 0.91
shear stiffness, which is also accompanied by a low group velocity
cbh/cb 0.39 0.27
zsh/zs  104 6.30 3.34 shear wave speed. The indentor has also a sizeable scale compared
zbh/zb  103 8.24 9.85 to the overall dimensions of the honeycomb samples (Fig. 7c and
d). This aspect makes the impact different from a theoretical single
point concentrated one, which would create bulk (or P-waves) in a
   continuum homogenized medium [62]. The indenter appears
C 66 C 11
 c2ph  c2ph ¼0 ð3Þ therefore to exert a pressure strongly concentrated around the
q q
indentation zone due to the auxetic effect, and generates a series
The solution
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiof (3) p
leads to two group velocities (shear and bulk-
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi of shear motions that tends to deform the honeycomb towards
type) C 66 =q and C 11 =q. In plane strain elasticity, the stress– the lateral edges of the auxetic honeycomb portion. Multiple
strain tensor coefficients of the homogenized asymptotic medium reflections from the edges lead also to a stronger localization of
are C66 = G12 and C11 = E1/(1  t12t21). One has to note that for the the overall deformation on the auxetic top portion [63], making
calculation of the in-plane properties in biaxial state the cell walls the graded sample with the negative Poisson’s ratio section facing
should be considered as being subjected to both bending and axial the indenter undergoing a lower displacement than the reversed
deformations [5]. Table 2 shows the values of the constants C66 and graded panel. With graded core having the hexagonal honeycomb
C11 normalized against the core material properties (Young’s mod- facing the indenter the shear stress waves are weakly reflected
ulus Ec of 120 GPa, density qc = 1620 kg m3 and Poisson’s ratio tc of back, with the great majority of the energy being transmitted
0.4 [61]) for the two types of honeycombs. The shear and bulk group through the interface.
velocities of the cellular structures are also normalized against the
corresponding quantities related to the core material [60]: 5. Conclusions
sffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Gc K c þ Gc
cs ¼ cb ¼ ð4Þ Kirigami techniques applied to cellular composite structures
qc qc show significant promise in manufacturing composite honeycomb
with diverse and arbitrary geometry. The graded core configura-
where Gc is the shear modulus of the core material, and Kc = Ec/
tion proposed in this work makes use of a dual conventional-neg-
(3(1  2tc)) is the bulk volume of the core fabric. The specific
ative Poisson’s ratio cellular structure that shows interesting
impedances of the honeycombs are calculated as the products be-
capabilities in terms of flatwise compression and edgewise loading
tween the wave group velocities and the honeycomb densities
against existing sandwich panels offered in the market place. The
(zh = qhch, where the suffix h stands for honeycomb). The normaliz-
edgewise impact loading shows a different mechanical response
ing specific impedances for the core material are calculated in the
offered by the graded structure, whether the auxetic portion bears
same way using the bulk Kevlar material properties. From Table 2
directly the dynamic load or not. The peculiar deformation charac-
it is possible to observe that the auxetic honeycomb has lower shear
teristics of the negative Poisson’s ratio cellular solid make the
and bulk group velocities compared to the hexagonal case. The spe-
graded cellular structure directionally dependent on the loading,
cific impedance related to shear wave speed the specific impedance
and suggest possible use as stop tabs for energy absorption
for the negative Poisson’s ratio cellular solid for bulk waves is al-
applications.
most 20% higher because of the higher density. If one assumes that
the wave is travelling along the loading direction, it is possible to
simplify the wave propagation as a one dimensional case. The wave Acknowledgements
will impinge a medium indicated with the I subscript. The medium I
is interfaced with a second medium called II.pThe The UK Royal Society Grant RG2625 has supported this work.
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiimpedance
ffi ratio
between the two media is indicated as a ¼ zII =zI [60]. The ratio RN acknowledges the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Re-
between the amplitude of the transmitted stress waves (rt) and search Council (EPSRC) for his PhD bursary through the ACCIS Doc-
the incident ones (ri) when a < 1 is calculated as [59,60]: toral Training Centre in Composites. FS acknowledges also the
contribution of the European Commission to the logistics of the
rt 2a manufacturing and testing rigs through the project NMP4-LA-
¼ ð5Þ
ri 1 þ a 2010-246067-, Acronym: M-RECT. YH would also like to thank
For a > 1 relation (5) becomes: the Chinese Scholarship Council for the provision of a bursary to
help her doctoral research.
rt a  1
¼ ð6Þ
ri 1 þ a References
When the hexagonal honeycomb is impacted, the impedance ratio [1] Bitzer T. Honeycomb technology: materials, design, manufacturing,
for the shear waves is 0.72, meaning that the ratio between trans- applications and testing. Springer; 1997.
mitted and incident wave amplitudes is 0.84. Therefore, only 16% [2] Zenkert D. Handbook of sandwich construction: engineering materials
advisory services; 1997.
of the shear stress wave amplitude is reflected back, indicating that
[3] Thomsen OT. Sandwich materials for wind turbine blades—present and future.
the mismatch impedance provided by the presence of the hexago- J Sandwich Struct Mater 2009;11(1):7–26.
nal honeycomb as the first material to receive the impact is not [4] Ajdari A, Nayeb-Hashemi H, Vaziri A. Dynamic crushing and energy absorption
favorable. In the case of bulk waves, a becomes 1.19, and the ratio of regular, irregular and functionally graded cellular structures. Int J Solids
Struct 2011;48(3):506–16.
rt/ri becomes 0.09. In that case, 91% of the bulk waves would be re- [5] Gibson LJ, Ashby MF. Cellular solids: structure and properties. Cambridge
flected, indicating that the conventional honeycomb is significantly university press; 1999.
42 Y. Hou et al. / Composites: Part B 59 (2014) 33–42
[6] Papka SD, Kyriakides S. Experiments and full-scale numerical simulations of
in-plane crushing of a honeycomb. Acta Mater. 1998;46(8):2765–76.
[7] Huebner F, Schoeb GJ. Honeycomb fabrication. Google patents; 1998.
[8] Lakes R. Foam structures with a negative Poisson’s ratio. Science
1987;235:1038–40.
[9] Evans KE, Alderson A. Auxetic materials: functional materials and structures
from lateral thinking! Adv Mater 2000;12(9):617–28.
[10] Yang W, Li ZM, Shi W, Xie BH, Yang MB. Review on auxetic materials. J Mater
Sci 2004;39(10):3269–79.
[11] Grima JN, Caruana-Gauci R, Attard D, Gatt R. Three-dimensional cellular
structures with negative Poisson’s ratio and negative compressibility
properties. Proc R Soc A: Math, Phys Eng Sci 2012;468(2146):3121–38.
[12] Prawoto Y. Seeing auxetic materials from the mechanics point of view: a
structural review on the negative Poisson’s ratio. Comput Mater Sci
2012;58:140–53.
[13] Scarpa F, Blain S, Lew T, Perrott D, Ruzzene M, Yates J. Elastic buckling of
hexagonal chiral cell honeycombs. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf
2007;38(2):280–9.
[14] Miller W, Smith C, Evans K. Honeycomb cores with enhanced buckling
strength. Compos Struct 2011;93(3):1072–7.
[15] Ju J, Summers JD. Compliant hexagonal periodic lattice structures having both
high shear strength and high shear strain. Mater Des 2011;32(2):512–24.
[16] Scarpa F, Ciffo L, Yates J. Dynamic properties of high structural integrity
auxetic open cell foam. Smart Mater Struct 2003;13(1):49.
[17] Liu Y, Hu H. A review on auxetic structures and polymeric materials. Sci Res
Essays 2010;5:1052–63.
[18] Lakes R, Witt R. Making and characterizing negative Poisson’s ratio materials.
Int J Mech Eng Edu 2002;30(1):50–8.
[19] Lira C, Innocenti P, Scarpa F. Transverse elastic shear of auxetic multi-re-
entrant honeycombs. Compos Struct 2009;90(3):314–22.
[20] Grima J, Alderson A, Evans K. Auxetic behaviour from rotating rigid units. Phys
Status Solidi (b) 2005;242(3):561–75.
[21] Prall D, Lakes R. Properties of a chiral honeycomb with a Poisson’s ratio of—1.
Int J Mech Sci 1997;39(3):305–14.
[22] Larsen UD, Sigmund O, Bouwstra S. Design and fabrication of compliant
micromechanisms and structures with negative Poisson’s ratio. Micro-electro
mechanical systems, 1996, MEMS’96, In: Proceedings an investigation of
micro-structures, sensors, actuators, machines and systems IEEE, The Ninth
Annual International Workshop on IEEE; 1996. p. 365–71.
[23] Spadoni A, Ruzzene M, Scarpa F. Dynamic response of chiral truss-core
assemblies. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 2006;17(11):941–52.
[24] Martin J, Heyder-Bruckner JJ, Remillat C, Scarpa F, Potter K, Ruzzene M. The
hexachiral prismatic wingbox concept. Phys Status Solidi (b)
2008;245(3):570–7.
[25] Ajdari A, Jahromi BH, Papadopoulos J, Nayeb-Hashemi H, Vaziri A. Hierarchical
honeycombs with tailorable properties. Int J Solids Struct 2012.
[26] Bettini P, Airoldi A, Sala G, Di Landro L, Ruzzene M, Spadoni A. Composite chiral
structures for morphing airfoils: numerical analyses and development of a
manufacturing process. Composites Part B. 2010;41(2):133–47.
[27] Nojima T, Saito K. Development of newly designed ultra-light core structures.
JSME Int J Ser A 2006;49(1):38–42.
[28] Kuribayashi K, Tsuchiya K, You Z, Tomus D, Umemoto M, Ito T, et al. Self-
deployable origami stent grafts as a biomedical application of Ni-rich TiNi
shape memory alloy foil. Mater Sci Eng: A 2006;419(1):131–7.
[29] Heimbs S, Middendorf P, Kilchert S, Johnson AF, Maier M. Experimental and
numerical analysis of composite folded sandwich core structures under
compression. Appl Compos Mater 2007;14(5):363–77.
[30] Saito K, Agnese F, Scarpa F. A cellular kirigami morphing wingbox concept. J
Intell Mater Syst Struct 2011;22(9):935–44.
[31] Cui L, Kiernan S, Gilchrist MD. Designing the energy absorption capacity of
functionally graded foam materials. Mater Sci Eng A 2009;507:215–25.
[32] Zhou J, Guan ZW, Cantwell WJ. The impact response of graded foam sandwich
structures. Compos Struct 2013;97:370–7.
[33] Lim TC. Functionally graded beam for attaining Poisson-curving. J Mater Sci
Lett 2002;21(24):1899–901.
[34] Lim TC. In-plane stiffness of semiauxetic laminates. J Eng Mech
2010;136(9):1176–80.
[35] Lira C, Scarpa F. Transverse shear stiffness of thickness gradient honeycombs.
Compos Sci Technol 2010;70(6):930–6.
[36] Lira C, Scarpa F, Rajasekaran R. A gradient cellular core for aeroengine fan
blades based on auxetic configurations. J Intell Mater Syst Struct
2011;22(9):907–17.
[37] Hou Y, Tai YH, Lira C, Scarpa F, Yates JR, Gu B. The bending and failure of
sandwich structures with auxetic gradient cellular cores. Composites Part A
2013;49:119–31.
[38] Alderson A, Alderson KL, McDonald SA, Mottershead B, Nazare S, Withers PJ,
et al. Piezomorphic materials. Macromol Mater Eng 2013;298(3):318–27.
[39] Ruzzene M, Mazzarella L, Tsopelas P, Scarpa F. Wave propagation in sandwich
plates with periodic auxetic core. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 2002;13(9):587–97.
[40] Davalos JF, Chen A. Buckling behavior of honeycomb FRP core with partially
restrained loaded edges under out-of-plane compression. J Compos Mater
2005;39(16):1465–85.
[41] Othman A, Barton D. Failure initiation and propagation characteristics of
honeycomb sandwich composites. Compos Struct 2008;85(2):126–38.
[42] Standard A. C365-03: standard test method for flatwise compressive
properties of sandwich cores. Annual book of ASTM standards; 2003.
[43] C364/C365M-07 A, Standard test method for edgewise compressive strength
of sandwich constructions.
[44] Saito K, Scarpa F, Neville R. Origami composite auxetic honeycomb. In:
Proceedings of the 16th international conference on composite structures.
Porto; 28–30 June, 2011.
[45] Khan M. Compressive and lamination strength of honeycomb sandwich panels
with strain energy calculation from ASTM standards. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part
G: J Aerospace Eng 2006;220(5):375–86.
[46] http://www.hexcel.com/Resources/DataSheets/Brochure-Data-Sheets/
Honeycomb_Attributes_and_Properties.pdf. [accessed 08.07.13].
[47] Zhang J, Ashby MF. The out-of-plane properties of honeycombs. Int J Mech Sci
1992;34(6):475–89.
[48] Scarpa F, Burriesci G, Smith FC, Chambers B. Mechanical and electromagnetic
behaviour of auxetic honeycomb structures. Aeronaut J 2003;107(1069):
175–83.
[49] Jacob E, Diwakar V, Arumugham S, Lakshmanan TS, Sarkar BK. Strength and
failure mode correlation in Kevlar/epoxy composite. Fibre Sci Technol
1984;20(1):13–23.
[50] Paik JK, Thayamballi AK, Kim GS. The strength characteristics of aluminum
honeycomb sandwich panels. Thin-Walled Struct 1999;35:205–31.
[51] Khan MK. Compressive and lamination strength of honeycomb sandwich
panels with strain energy calculation from ASTM standards. Proc IMechE Part
G: J Aerospace Eng 2006;220:375–86.
[52] Bailey NW, Battley MA, Zhou M. Experimental method for dynamic residual
strength characterisation of aircraft sandwich structures. Int J
Crashworthiness 2013;18(1):64–81.
[53] Mamalis AG, Manolakos DE, Ioannidis MB, Papapostolou DP. On the crushing
response of composite sandwich panels subjected to edgewise compression:
experimental. Compos Struct 2005;71(2):246–57.
[54] Kumar SJA, Ahmed KS. Compression behavior and energy absorption capacity
of stiffened syntactic foam core sandwich composites. J Reinf Plast Compos
2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/073168441349286.
[55] Alderson KL, Simkins VR, Coenen VL, Davies PJ, Alderson A, Evans KE. How to
make auxetic fibres reinforced composites. Phys Status Solidi B
2005;242(3):509–18.
[56] Alderson KL, Coenen VL. The low velocity impact response of auxetic carbon
fibre laminates. Phys Status Solidi B 2008;245(3):489–96.
[57] Liu GR, Han X, Lam KY. Stress waves in functionally graded materials and its
use for material characterization. Compos Part B 1999;30:383–94.
[58] Ruzzene M, Scarpa F. Control of wave propagation in sandwich beams with
auxetic core. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 2003;14(7):443–53.
[59] Kiernan S, Cui L, Gilchrist MD. Propagation of a stress wave through a virtual
functionally graded foam. Int J Non-linear Mech 2009;44(5):456–68.
[60] Nayfeh AH. Wave propagation in layered anisotropic media: with application
to composites. Netherlands: Elsevier Sciences; 1995.
[61] Zhu D, Mobasher B, Rajan SD. Dynamic tensile testing of Kevlar 49 fabrics.
ASCEE J Mater Civil Eng 2011;23(3):230–9.
[62] Graff KG. Wave motion in elastic solids. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications;
1975.
[63] Lim T-C. Stress wave transmission and reflection through auxetic solids. Smart
Mater Struct 2013;22(084002):10.