Composite Structures 255 (2021) 112984

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Enhancing out-of-plane compressive performance of carbon fiber composite

honeycombs
Xiaojian Chen a,b, Guocai Yu b,c,⇑, Zengxian Wang b,c, Lijia Feng b, Linzhi Wu a,b,c,⇑
a
Center for Composite Materials, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, PR China
b
Key Laboratory of Advanced Ship Materials and Mechanics, Harbin Engineering, University, Harbin 150001, PR China
c
Department of Engineering Mechanics, College of Aerospace and Civil Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper focuses on strengthening carbon fiber composite honeycombs which provide the higher strength
Carbon fiber composite honeycombs than other competitive lightweight materials by the design of curved wall topology. And the carbon fiber com-
Curved wall topology posite curved honeycombs (CCCHs) are manufactured via a molding and bonding process. The out‐of‐plane
Out‐of‐plane compressive strength compressive properties of the woven and unidirectional laminated CCCHs are measured and analyzed. In addi-
Failure mechanics
tion, the effects of curvature radius and wall thickness on the compressive strength of the laminated CCCHs are
investigated. The experimental results show that the out‐of‐plane compressive strengths increase when only the
curvature radius decreases or the wall thickness increases. By comparison, the out‐of‐plane compressive
strengths of the laminated CCCHs show superior to those of almost existing competitive lightweight honey-
combs, and it can be considered as a selective lightweight sandwich structure. It provides a possibility for
the honeycomb structure to be used as load‐bearing components.

1. Introduction properties of composite honeycombs are optimal topology and high‐

Honeycomb structure, as a kind of porous structure, has been
attracting many scholars for its beautiful regularity and excellent
mechanical properties. And it gives rise to many other configurations.
With the emergence of new materials, the carrying capacity of honey-
comb structure is improved, and the function of honeycomb structure
is changing. Aluminum Honeycomb has superior mechanical proper-
ties due to its ductility and lightweight features, and has been widely
used as a lightweight structure in advanced aerospace, aircrafts and
shipping areas. However, prone to buckling failure is the weakness
of the thin‐walled honeycomb structure. Composite honeycombs are
a kind of ultralight cellular structure with excellent mechanical prop-
erties, and aramid fiber honeycombs [1] have been widely used in the
field of spacecrafts and aircrafts because of its various advantages.
However, the compression resistance of aramid fiber honeycomb is
not strong. It is hard to be used in the field of deep‐space vehicle,
deep‐sea submersibles, etc. Carbon fiber composite honeycombs
[2,3] are potential to be used in these fields due to its excellent
mechanical properties, but its mechanical properties still need to be
further strengthened. At present, efficient ways to enhance mechanical
quality manufacture process.
First, one of the efficient ways is the topological optimum design
[4]. Chen and Tsai et al. [5] optimized the mechanical properties of
honeycombs. Huybrechts et al. [6] carried out theoretical analysis
and experimental research on the mechanical behavior of a variety
of honeycomb structures. Hohe et al. [7,8] predicted the effective elas-
tic modulus of honeycombs. Qiao et al. [9] designed sinusoidal honey-
comb structure of composite materials. He et al. [10] optimized the
honeycomb sandwich structure of composite materials. Liu et al.
[11] designed all‐composite sandwich structure with Y‐shaped cores.
Russell et al. [12] designed and manufactured the square honeycomb
sandwich structures from carbon fiber reinforced polymers.
Second, lightweight composite honeycombs have low load‐bearing
efficiency because of the elastic buckling failure of thin honeycomb
walls. The researches show that the hierarchical design method is
helpful to strengthen the mechanical properties of lightweight struc-
tures. Lakes [13] explained the concept of hierarchical structure. Fan
et al. [14] theoretically predicted the stiffness, strengths and fracture
toughness of two‐dimensional hierarchical honeycombs. Sun et al.
[15] studied the mechanical properties of hierarchical honeycombs
under impact load. Cote et al. [16] manufactured the composite hier-

⇑ Corresponding authors at: Key Laboratory of Advanced Ship Materials and Mechanics, Harbin Engineering, University, Harbin 150001, PR China.
E-mail addresses: yuguocai@hrbeu.edu.cn (G. Yu), wulinzhi@hrbeu.edu.cn (L. Wu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112984
Received 12 June 2020; Accepted 11 September 2020
Available online 17 September 2020
0263-8223/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Chen et al. Composite Structures 255 (2021) 112984

archical square honeycombs sandwiched a polymethacrylimide (PMI) of the supported sides, k tends to 4.0 as the ratio a/b increases. But
foam between E‐glass fiber/epoxy composite face sheets. Feng et al. in the honeycomb prepared in this paper, the cell wall is neither sim-
[17] optimized material properties and geometric dimensions of car- ply supported nor completely free; as an approximation, we take the k
bon fiber composite hierarchical honeycombs, and manufactured hier- as 2.0. In this paper, we assume the composite to be an orthotropic
archical honeycombs with the interlocking assembly process. To material and the appropriate bending stiffness D is given as
improve the energy absorption of the woven honeycomb panels, Fan pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
E1s E3s δ3
et al. [18,19] designed and manufactured hierarchical square honey- D¼ ð4Þ
1  v13s v31s 12
comb panels. Chen et al. [20] studied dynamic behavior of lattice
cylindrical structures with triangular and hexagonal configurations. where Eis and vijs are the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratios of the
Third, Ashby [21] pointed out that the hybrid materials by mixing orthotropic faces along the xi = (x1, x3) directions as defined in
materials with materials or materials with space could effectively Fig. 1(e).
improve the mechanical properties of structures. Lu [22] extended In addition to this, the cell walls of composite honeycombs can also
the idea of material hybrid reinforcement by filling the corrugated fail by crushing failure. With the crushing stress of the cell wall mate-
gap with honeycomb aluminum. Yin et al. [23] designed and manufac- rial in the out‐of‐plane direction given by σmaterial, crushing stress of the
tured hollow lattice truss reinforced honeycombs. Liu et al. [24] stud- honeycomb is given by Eq. (5). And in this formula, ρmaterial is the rel-
ied the mechanical properties of carbon fiber square tubes filled with ative density of the cell wall material in the honeycomb structure. The
aluminum honeycomb. Xiao et al. [25] studied the mechanical proper- failure strength of the CCCHs is the minimum value of strength of the
ties of this hybrid materials under dynamic bending load. Wang et al. two failure modes.
[26] manufactured hybrid materials by filling carbon fiber tubes in σ crush ¼ σ material  ρmaterial ð5Þ
aluminum honeycombs. Zhang et al. [27] designed sandwich beams
with fiber‐metal laminate face‐sheets. Lei et al. [28] investigated the It can be seen from Eqs. (1), (2) and (4) that when the material,
buckling and crushing behavior of foam‐filled glass‐fiber reinforced geometric parameters and boundary conditions of the structure are
sandwich composite column. determined, the buckling strength of the honeycomb structure is only
Although many design methods have been proposed to enhance the related to δ3/12. For the conventional honeycomb structure with the
buckling strength of the honeycomb structure, the disadvantages of straight wall configuration, the value of δ3/12 is relatively low, result-
these methods are obvious. So can we find a honeycomb structure that ing in a low buckling strength of the structure. However, we can also
is easy to implement and has high strength without introducing exter- find that if this coefficient can be increased, it will directly increase the
nal materials? In this case, the curved honeycombs are designed and tolerance of structure to the bulking.
fabricated using carbon fiber composites. The CCCHs is not only easier First, to clarify the meaning of this coefficient, the bending of a thin
to fabricate, but also tends to provide higher resistance to buckling of plate is studied. Suppose a thin plate with length a and width b and it is
honeycombs than traditional honeycombs. In addition, the effects of subjected to the compressive load on the side of b. According to the
curvature radius and wall thickness on the compressive strengths of definition of the moment of inertia of the mandrel, this paper calcu-
the laminated CCCHs are investigated. To further study the failure lates the principal moment of inertia of the cross section corresponding
modes of the CCCHs, this paper uses finite element analysis (FEA) to to the thin plate as shown in Eq. (6). The calculated Iz and Iy are then
explain the failure mechanism. Finally, the out‐of‐plane compressive homogenized to obtain the principal moment of inertia of the thin
strengths of the CCCHs are compared with those of other existing light- plate with unit width as shown in Eq. (7). It can be seen that the value
weight materials and structures. of Iy0 is δ3/12.
8 R Rb
>
< I z ¼ A y 2 dA ¼ 2 b y 2 δdy ¼ δb
3
12
2. Design and fabrication 2
ð6Þ
> R Rδ
: I y ¼ z2 dA ¼ 2 δ z2 bdz ¼ bδ3
A  2
12
2.1. Design of composite curved honeycombs
( 2
I z0 ¼ Ibz ¼ δb
According to the classic theory of composite honeycombs, the out‐ 12
ð7Þ
Iy δ3
of‐plane compressive strengths of the CCCHs are predicted by two col- I y0 ¼ b
¼ 12
lapse mechanisms. (i) elastic buckling, (ii) crushing failure. For the dif-
Eqs. (6) and (7) show that in order to increase the Iy0 of the struc-
ferent failure modes, the corresponding out‐of‐plane compressive
ture, the cross‐sectional geometry of the honeycomb structure can only
strengths of the CCCHs are given. First, the elastic buckling strength
be changed if the wall thickness remains unchanged. Based on this
can be expressed as
idea, a honeycomb structure with curved wall configuration is
F buck designed in this paper. In addition, considering that the honeycomb
σ buck ¼ ð1Þ
δ structure is a periodic structure, a row of cores needs to be bonded
where to another row of cores, which requires a bonding area to be reserved.
According to the method of calculating the moment of inertia of the
π2 D thin plate, the moment of inertia of the curved wall honeycomb section
F buck ¼ k ð2Þ
b2 is calculated as shown in Eq. (8). y0, z0, and r are the center coordi-
! nates and radius, respectively. Since the main axis of inertia of the sec-
mb 1 tion is not determined, it is necessary to calculate Iz0 and Iy0 according
k¼ þ mb ð3Þ
a a to the rotation axis formula as shown in Eq. (9). Where, the platform
width is assumed to be h.
Here, F is the elastic buckling load per unit width, δ is the wall 8 R 2 R y0 2h R z1 2
thickness, D is the bending stiffness of the composite cell wall, a and >
>
> y dA
> Iz ¼ A b ¼ 0
2
z2
y dzdy
b are the length and width of honeycomb wall, and k is a buckling coef- >
>
>
<
b
R y0 2h R z1 2
ficient as prescribed by Timoshenko and Gere [29] and related to the R 2
z dA 2 z dzdy
ð8Þ
ratio a/b and boundary constraints of the honeycomb wall. When a >
> I y ¼ A
¼ 0 z2

>
>
b
R
b
R
rectangular plate clamped at two opposite sides, simply supported >
> R y0  h
>
z1
: 2 2 yzdzdy
yzdA
along the other two sides, and uniformly compressed in the direction I yz ¼ A b ¼ 0 b
z2

2
X. Chen et al. Composite Structures 255 (2021) 112984

Fig. 1. Preparation process and finished product of the CCCHs. (a) and (b) a typical sample of the honeycomb core; (c) and (d) the theoretical design width h and
the measured width h'; (e) the preparation process of the CCCHs.

8 r
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
> 2 [17]. The thickness of the woven monolayer curved composite is
>
> I z þI y I z I y
< I z0 ¼ 2 þ 2
þ I 2yz
0.16 mm and the composite material model is T300.
r
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 ffi ð9Þ
>
>
>
: I y0 ¼ I z þI y

I z I y
þ I 2
2 2 yz 3. Woven carbon fiber composite curved honeycombs

The woven CCCHs comprised 3 × 5 cells are fabricated with two

2.2. Preparation of composite honeycomb
same direction (0–90° aligned with the out‐of‐plane direction) layers.
The out‐of‐plane compressive response of the woven CCCHs are mea-
Four processes are carried out to manufacture the CCCHs as shown
sured referring to ASTM C365/C365M‐05. Three repeated specimens
in Fig. 1(e). First, a molding process is used to fabricate the carbon
are tested to gauge the variability in each case. The mechanical tests
fiber composite corrugated sheet. Second, two corrugated sheets are
of specimens are accomplished on a 5500 Instron machine fitted with
bonded together and made into a honeycomb plate using the molding
a 200 kN load cell. The compressive strain of the woven CCCHs are
method. Third, a single row of honeycomb core is cut from the honey-
measured by sticking strain gauge on honeycomb wall. The strain rate
comb plates. Finally, multiple single‐cell honeycomb cores are bonded,
of compression test is 10−3 s−1. The damage morphologies are
and then fabricated into a whole honeycomb core using a heating cur-
recorded using a camera. The parametric dimensions of the specimens
ing process. Upper composite panel, honeycomb core and lower com-
are given in Table 1. In all parameters, e is a small overhang length for
posite panel are bonded together into a composite honeycomb
decreasing the boundary effect. It can be ignored as the out‐of‐plane
sandwich structure.
compressive strengths are calculated. ρ is the theoretical density.
The final product of the CCCHs is shown in Fig. 1(a) and there are
The out‐of‐plane compressive strength was obtained as the crush-
two phenomena worthy of attention in Fig. 1(c). One of the phenom-
ing failure of composite honeycombs was first observed. All the woven
ena is the fracture and stratification of the fibers in the core platform
CCCHs specimens exhibit the crushing failure of carbon fiber compos-
area, which proves that the adhesive film used between the cores has
ites in Fig. 2. From the failure morphology, the main failure mode of
good adhesive performance. Another phenomenon is that the adhesive
all specimens was the crushing failure of composite honeycomb walls.
film is bonded on the curved wall, which is more obvious as shown in
This conclusion is consistent with the theoretical prediction. In fact,
Fig. 1(d). The reason for this phenomenon is that the excess film flows
the crushing failure strength is less than the buckling failure strength
during the curing process, and then after the temperature drops, the
of the woven CCCHs (ρ > 0.091 g/cm3). And the out‐of‐plane com-
film gathers around the core platform. Thus, the strength of the con-
pressive modulus and strengths are summarized in Table 2 as a func-
nection area is enhanced by the aggregation of the adhesive film. How-
tion of their densities. Considering that the elastic modulus and
ever, the aggregation of the adhesive film also shortens the effective
compressive strength of the woven carbon fiber composite material
length of the curved wall. The reason is that the enhanced connection
are low, and the bending stiffness of the honeycomb wall is poor, it
area should be considered part of the platform area. At the same time,
may be a good performance to replace the honeycomb material as uni-
the reduction of effective length will lead to the decrease of the mini-
directional carbon fiber composite material.
mum moment of inertia and the error of theoretical prediction. There-
fore, to correct the results of theoretical prediction, the platform width
adopts the measured value and is expressed by h' as shown in Fig. 1(d). 4. Laminated carbon fiber composite curved honeycombs

4.1. Experiment
2.3. Material property
The crushing failure is easy to occur for the woven CCCHs because
The unidirectional carbon fiber epoxy prepreg with 31% resin con-
of low longitudinal compressive strength of woven composites. And
tent is used to fabricate the honeycomb core. The thickness of the uni-
for experimental specimens, the choice of woven carbon fiber compos-
directional monolayer curved composite is 0.07 mm and the composite
ite results in low specific compressive strength. Moreover it can be
material model is T700. The plain woven carbon fiber epoxy prepreg
seen from the theoretical prediction that the buckling resistance of
with 45% resin content is also used to fabricate the honeycomb core
honeycomb core depends on the elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio

3
X. Chen et al. Composite Structures 255 (2021) 112984

Table 1
Parametric dimensions of the woven CCCHs specimens.

r (mm) α ( o) δ (mm) h (mm) h' (mm) l (mm) e (mm) l0 = l−2e (mm) w (mm) H (mm) ρ (g/cm3)

3 60 0.32 1.5 3.4 36.0 1.8 32.4 32 30 0.206

5 2.0 4.5 57.0 1.8 53.4 51 0.132
7 2.5 5.4 78.7 3.0 72.7 70.8 0.091

Fig. 2. The out-of-plane compressive damage morphologies of the CCCHs. The left picture shows the woven CCCHs, and the right picture shows the laminated
CCCHs.

Table 2
The out-of-plane compressive modulus and strengths of the woven CCCHs specimens.

r (mm) ρ (g/cm3) Equivalent elastic modulus (GPa) Compressive strengths (MPa)

Prediction Measurements Error Prediction Measurements Error

3 0.206 7.15 8.66 ± 1.03 17.39% 40.70 38.06 ± 1.39 6.93%

5 0.132 4.38 5.92 ± 0.85 26.02% 24.92 20.32 ± 2.01 22.61%
7 0.091 3.16 4.47 ± 0.47 29.24% 17.98 14.16 ± 1.47 26.94%

of the parent material when the core geometry remains unchanged.
Therefore, this paper focuses on designing and manufacturing the lam-
inated CCCHs, and measuring its mechanical properties.
To study the influences of different parameters on the out‐of‐plane
compressive strength of the laminated CCCHs, three experiments are
designed for each parameter. First, the effect of cell size on mechanical
properties are tested as the thickness of honeycomb wall is fixed with
0.21 mm. Second, the effect of thickness of honeycomb wall are inves-
tigated as the curve radius of honeycomb is fixed at 5 mm. Finally, the
effect of core size is analyzed when the core relative density keeps
unchanged. The experimental design is shown in Table 3. Where,
the layer order of composite material corresponding to the wall thick-
ness of 0.21 mm, 0.35 mm and 0.49 mm are [0/90/0], [02/90/02] and
[03/90/03].
The standard, instruments, and test rate used in the experimental
tests are consistent with the description in Section 3. The experimental
damage morphologies of the specimens are shown in Fig. 2. It can be
seen that the failure mode of Fig. 2(d) is crushing failure, and all the
specimens except Fig. 2(d) exhibit the crushing failure of carbon fiber
composites and the elastic buckling. In fact, apart from Fig. 2(d), elas-
tic buckling is also the main failure mode for all laminated CCCHs
specimens, according to the theoretical prediction.
4.2. Analysis
The out‐of‐plane compressive modulus and strengths of the lami-
nated CCCHs specimens are shown in Table 4. First, this paper inves-
tigates the effect of radius of curvature on the out‐of‐plane
compressive strength. The radii r of curvature of honeycomb wall
are 3 mm, 5 mm and 7 mm, respectively. And other parameters of
sandwich panels keep unchanged. Each test was terminated after the
drop in load. It is evident that the strengths of honeycomb decrease
as the radius of curvature increases. And it can be seen from Fig. 3
(a) that the predictions are in good agreement with the measurements.
Then, this paper investigates the effect of thickness of honeycomb
wall on the out‐of‐plane compressive strength of the laminated CCCHs.
The thicknesses δ of honeycomb wall are separately 0.21 mm,
0.35 mm and 0.49 mm and the radius of curvature remains
unchanged. It is evidently that with the increase of equivalent density,
the increasing trend of modulus of the structure is more obvious in
Table 4. The relationships about prediction, simulation and measure-
ment versus thickness of honeycomb wall are shown in Fig. 3(b).
The predictions are in good agreement with the measurements, and
the out‐of‐plane compressive strength is approximately linear with
the thickness of honeycomb wall. It is worth noting that when
ρ = 0.209 g/cm3, the failure mode predicted by the theory is crushing
failure, which is consistent with the phenomenon observed in the
experiment.
Finally, this paper investigates the effect of core size with core rel-
ative density unchanged on the out‐of‐plane compressive strength
(corresponding to the data in rows 1, 3, and 6 of Table 4). Although
the radii of curvature and the thicknesses of honeycomb wall are
inconsistent, the relative densities of the CCCHs are consistent, both
of which are 10%. It can be seen from Table 4 that the compressive
modulus and strengths of the three sets of experiments are very close.
Therefore, it can be concluded that when the relative density keeps

4
X. Chen et al. Composite Structures 255 (2021) 112984

Table 3
Parametric dimensions of the laminated CCCHs specimens.

r (mm) Unit cell δ (mm) h (mm) h' (mm) l (mm) e (mm) l0 = l−2e (mm) w (mm) H (mm) ρ (g/cm3)

3 3 × 5 0.21 1.5 3.1 36.1 1.9 32.4 30.6 30.0 0.172

5 3 × 5 0.21 2.0 3.7 56.4 1.5 53.4 49.8 0.102
3 × 5 0.35 3.9 56.6 1.6 53.4 51.2 0.159
3 × 3 0.49 4.0 56.3 1.5 53.4 32.3 0.209
7 3 × 5 0.21 2.5 4.7 78.6 3.0 72.7 67.8 0.074
3 × 3 0.49 4.9 78.8 3.1 72.7 43.4 0.153

Table 4
The out-of-plane compressive modulus and strengths of the laminated CCCHs specimens.

r (mm) δ(mm) Equivalent elastic modulus (GPa) Compressive strengths (MPa)

Prediction Measurements Error Prediction Simulation Measurements

3 0.21 8.87 11.14 ± 0.23 20.32% 58.62 50.98 49.49 ± 2.27

5 0.21 5.36 5.97 ± 0.41 10.27% 25.13 21.23 17.90 ± 0.63
0.35 10.27 11.63 ± 0.65 11.72% 72.64 53.36 47.36 ± 1.29
0.49 14.92 19.90 ± 0.79 25.00% 108.71 101.44 86.98 ± 3.35
7 0.21 3.84 4.63 ± 0.38 17.06% 16.87 11.46 11.01 ± 0.43
0.49 10.87 14.30 ± 1.62 24.03% 79.15 57.17 48.57 ± 1.89

Fig. 3. The out-of-plane compressive strengths of the laminated CCCHs.

unchanged, the values of compressive modulus and strength of the

laminated CCCHs are close. It is worth noting that when
ρ = 0.153 g/cm3, the failure mode predicted by the theory is crushing
failure, but the buckling strength and the crushing strength are close. It
is also observed that the overall crushing failure is accompanied by
local buckling failure in the experiment, which is consistent with the
theoretical prediction.
According to the comparison between prediction and measurement
in Table 4, the simulation has a good accuracy in predicting the
strength of the CCCHs. Because the damage process and stress distribu-
tion of the CCCHs are not easy to observe during the experimental test,
this paper uses numerical simulation software (Abaqus/Explicit) to
help explain the damage process and mechanism of the structure.
Comparing the stress distribution of the laminated CCCHs with the
simulation, a stress concentration can be found in Fig. 4 when the
strain ε = 0.0027. In the stress concentration areas, the displacement
changes like a flexing wave. And when the CCCHs is damaged, the
maximum stress of the carbon fiber composite is up to 811 MPa, which
has not reached the ultimate stress of the material. All of the above
analyses demonstrate that the main failure mode of the CCCHs is buck-
Fig. 4. Failure mode of the laminated CCCHs under the out-of-plane
ling when the structure density is low (ρ < 0.17 g/cm3).
compressive load.

5
X. Chen et al.
Fig. 5. Comparison of compressive strength and specific strength between the laminated CCCHs and other materials honeycomb structure.
5. Comparison of the CCCHs and other materials honeycomb
structure
The comparison of compressive strength and specific strength
between the laminated CCCHs and other materials honeycomb struc-
ture are plotted in Fig. 5. The red five‐pointed star represents the lam-
inated CCCHs manufactured herein, and the other color squares
represent the other materials honeycomb structure. It can be clearly
seen from Fig. 5 that the laminated CCCHs has a great advantage in
strength and specific strength, and when the density (ρ > 0.15 g/c
m3) of honeycomb is relatively high, the advantage of the laminated
CCCHs is even more pronounced. In terms of strength, the laminated
CCCHs is about four times that of other same density honeycomb struc-
tures in high density area, and the specific strength reaches
400 × 103 m2/s2. The comparison results show that the configuration
of curved wall honeycomb can more effectively exert the advantages of
materials, and the combination of the curved wall configuration and
the composite material can produce a lighter and higher strength
structure.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, a carbon fiber composite curved wall honeycomb
structure, namely CCCHs, is designed and manufactured. Two vari-
ables affecting the buckling strength of the CCCHs are investigated
in the out‐of‐plane compression experiments. Main conclusions are
summarized and listed as follows.
(1) The design of curved wall topology strengthens the buckling
resistance of composite honeycomb walls and enhances the
out‐of‐plane compressive strength of the CCCHs. Compared to
other materials honeycomb structures, the measured out‐of‐
plane compressive strength of the CCCHs improves to approxi-
mately 200%‐400% and the specific out‐of‐plane compressive
strength improves to approximately 300%‐400% (0.15 g/
cm3 < ρ < 0.22 g/cm3).
(2) The failure mode of the laminated CCCHs is buckling of the
honeycomb wall when the core density is low. And when only
the curvature radius decreases or the wall thickness increases,
the out‐of‐plane compressive strengths of the laminated CCCHs
increase. In addition, the predictions are in good agreement
with the measurements
(3) The curved wall configuration proposed in this paper not only
improve the buckling resistance of thin‐walled structures, but
also provide a practical and feasible way for the forming of com-
posite material. And owing to the excellent specific out‐of‐plane
compression strength of the CCCHs, it is foreseeable that the
6
Composite Structures 255 (2021) 112984
CCCHs will have broad application prospects in weight sensitive
fields, such as advanced aircraft, deep sea and deep space explo-
ration. And it will play a key role in the exploration device, such
as load bearing, anti‐collision and so on.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
The present work is supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China under Grant No. 11902094, 11772097, Chinese
Postdoctoral Science Foundation funded project under Grant No.
2017M611352 and Heilongjiang Touyan Innovation Team Program.
References
[1] Zhang Y, Liu T, Tizani W. Experimental and numerical analysis of dynamic
compressive response of Nomex honeycombs. Compos: Part B Eng
2018;148:27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.04.025.
[2] Pehlivan L, Baykasoğlu C. An experimental study on the compressive response of
CFRP honeycombs with various cell configurations. Compos B Eng
2019;162:653–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.01.044.
[3] Lu C, Zhao M, Jie L, Wang J, Gao Y, Cui X, et al. Stress distribution on composite
honeycomb sandwich structure suffered from bending load. Procedia Eng
2015;99:405–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.554.
[4] Zhang Q, Yang X, Li P, Huang G, Feng S, Shen C, et al. Bioinspired engineering of
honeycomb structure – using nature to inspire human innovation. Prog Mater Sci
2015;74:332–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2015.05.001.
[5] Chen HJ, Tsai SW. Analysis and optimum design of composite grid structures. J
Compos Mater 1996;30:503–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/002199839603000405.
[6] Huybrechtsa S, Tsaib SW. Analysis and behavior of grid structures. Compos Sci
Technol 1996;56:1001–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266- 3538(96)00063-2.
[7] Hohe J, Becker W. Effective elastic properties of triangular grid structures. Compos
Struct 1999;45:131–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263- 8223(99)00016-1.
[8] Hohe J, Beschorner C, Becker W. Effective elastic properties of hexagonal and
quadrilateral grid structures. Compos Struct 1999;46:73–89. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0263-8223(99)00048-3.
[9] Qiao P, Wang J. Mechanics of composite sinusoidal honeycomb cores. J Aerosp
Eng 2005;18:42–50. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0893- 1321(2005)18:1(42).
[10] He MF, Hu WB. A study on composite honeycomb sandwich panel structure. Mater
Des 2008;29:709–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2007.03.003.
[11] Liu JL, Liu JY, Mei J, Huang W. Investigation on manufacturing and mechanical
behavior of all-composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores. Compos Sci
Technol 2018;159:87–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2018.01.026.
[12] Russell BP, Deshpande VS, Wadley HNG. Quasistatic deformation and failure
modes of composite square honeycombs. J Mech Mater Struct 2008;3:1315–40.
https://doi.org/10.2140/jomms.2008.3.1315.
[13] Lakes R. Materials with structural hierarchy. Nature 1993;361:511–5. https://doi.
org/10.1038/361511a0.
X. Chen et al. Composite Structures 255 (2021) 112984

[14] Fan HL, Jin FN, Fang DN. Mechanical properties of hierarchical cellular materials.
Part I: analysis. Compos Sci Technol 2008;68:3380–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compscitech.2008.09.022.
[15] Sun G, Jiang H, Fang J, Li G, Li Q. Crashworthiness of vertex based hierarchical
honeycombs in out-of-plane impact. Mater Des 2016;110:705–19. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matdes.2016.08.032.
[16] Còté F, Russell BP, Deshpande VS, Fleck NA. The through-thickness compressive
strength of a composite sandwich panel with a hierarchical square honeycomb
sandwich core. J Appl Mech 2009;76. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3086436.
061004(061001-061008).
[17] Feng L-J, Yang Z-T, Yu G-C, Chen X-J, Wu L-Z. Compressive and shear properties of
carbon fiber composite square honeycombs with optimized highmodulus
hierarchical phases. Compos Struct 2018;201:845–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compstruct.2018.06.080.
[18] Zheng J, Zhao L, Fan H. Energy absorption mechanisms of hierarchical woven
lattice composites. Compos B Eng 2012;43:1516–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compositesb.2011.08.034.
[19] Zhao L, Zheng Q, Fan H, Jin F. Hierarchical composite honeycombs. Mater Des
2012;40:124–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.03.009.
[20] Chen L, Zhang J, Du B, Zhou H, Liu H, Guo Y, et al. Dynamic crushing behavior and
energy absorption of graded lattice cylindrical structure under axial impact load.
Thin-Walled Struct 2018;127:333–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tws.2017.10.048.
[21] Ashby MF, Bréchet YJM. Designing hybrid materials. Acta Mater
2003;51:5801–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6454(03)00441-5.
[22] Han B, Qin K, Yu B, Wang B, Zhang Q, Lu TJ. Honeycomb–corrugation hybrid as a
novel sandwich core for significantly enhanced compressive performance. Mater
Des 2016;93:271–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.12.158.
[23] Yin S, Li J, Liu B, Meng K, Huan Y, Nutt SR, et al. Honeytubes: Hollow lattice truss
reinforced honeycombs for crushing protection. Compos Struct
2017;160:1147–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.11.007.
[24] Liu Q, Mo Z, Wu Y, Ma J, Pong Tsui GC, Hui D. Crush response of CFRP square tube
filled with aluminum honeycomb. Compos B Eng 2016;98:406–14. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.05.048.
[25] Xiao Y, Hu Y, Zhang J, Song C, Liu Z, Yu J. Dynamic bending responses of CFRP
thin-walled square beams filled with aluminum honeycomb. Thin-Walled Struct
2018;132:494–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2018.09.023.
[26] Wang Z, Liu J. Mechanical performance of honeycomb filled with circular CFRP
tubes. Compos: Part B Eng 2018;135:232–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compositesb.2017.09.048.
[27] Zhang J, Ye Y, Qin Q, Wang T. Low-velocity impact of sandwich beams with fibre-
metal laminate face-sheets. Compos Sci Technol 2018;168:152–9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compscitech.2018.09.018.
[28] Lei H, Yao K, Wen W, Zhou H, Fang D. Experimental and numerical investigation
on the crushing behavior of sandwich composite under edgewise compression
loading. Compos B Eng 2016;94:34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compositesb.2016.03.049.
[29] Timoshenko SP, Gere JM. Theory of Elastic Stability. Mcgraw-hill book company
inc.; 1961.