Composite Structures 271 (2021) 114129

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Fabrication and mechanical behaviors of quartz fiber composite honeycomb

with extremely low permittivity
Zhengxian Liu a, Weikai Zhao a, Guocai Yu a,b,⇑, Linzhi Wu a,b,c,⇑
a
Key Laboratory of Advanced Ship Materials and Mechanics, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, PR China
b
Department of Engineering Mechanics, College of Aerospace and Civil Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, PR China
c
Center for Composite Materials, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, PR China

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

Keywords: The mechanical properties and electromagnetic parameter of quartz fiber composite honeycombs (QFCH) with
Quartz fiber composite honeycomb different equivalent densities were studied. Equivalent permittivity of the QFCH was inversed according to the
Permittivity transmission efficiency, which was tested by the Naval Research Laboratory Arch (NRL‐arc) method. The
Compressive properties strengths of QFCH under out‐of‐plane compressive and in‐plane shear loading were predicted and measured.
Shear properties
The failure mechanism map was established to predict the main failure modes of QFCH. Meanwhile, the
Failure mechanism
numerical simulation was used to verify the accuracy of failure mechanism map. The QFCH designed in this
study has extremely low permittivity and excellent mechanical properties, which has immense potential to
be used as a 3‐D metamaterial mechanical framework and more competitive in the vigorous development of
new generation radomes.

1. Introduction few researches have focused on the composite honeycomb made by

In recent years, composite sandwich structures have attracted
extensive attention due to its high specific strength and high specific
stiffness [1,2]. With the development of manufacturing, many novel
topologies have been devised, including grid structure [3,4], lattice
structure [5,6] and honeycomb structure [7–10]. Among them, the
honeycomb structure has been extensively investigated because of its
simple forming and high energy absorption, and has been widely used
in aircraft industry, such as wings, inlets, and radomes [11–13].
According to practical condition, composite materials, such as pheno-
lic resin impregnated aramid paper, glass fiber reinforced polymer and
carbon fiber reinforced polymer, are commonly used as raw materials
to design lightweight honeycomb core [14–16]. However, there are
still many limitations in the current design of cellular structures. As
far as we know, carbon fiber can't be used as a transparent material
because of its high conductivity. Nomex honeycomb has favorable
dielectric properties and low density, but its mechanical properties still
need to be improved. Glass fiber honeycomb has high density and infe-
rior mechanical properties. Moreover, its high permittivity leads a low
transmission efficiency of electromagnetic wave. Hence, quartz fiber
reinforced polymer (QFRP) has attracted extensive attention due to
its low permittivity, high strength and low density [17,18]. At present,
QFRP, which has immense commercial potential to be used in the vig-
orous development of new generation radomes.
The configuration design has a significant influence on the mechan-
ical properties of the honeycomb core. Russell et al. [19] studied the
out‐of‐plane compression and in‐plane shear response of composite
square honeycomb core. It is considered that the out‐of‐plane compres-
sion and in‐plane shear response of the structure are functions of rela-
tive density, ratio of the cell height to width and the number of cells in
the specimen. Levent Pehlivan et al. [20] carried out experimental
research on the mechanical properties of various honeycomb struc-
tures. It is observed that the hexagonal specimen groups have gener-
ally superior crushing performance in comparison with the square
and circular counterparts. Luche [21] carried out quasi‐static compres-
sion and shear tests on octahedral composite sandwich panels and
proved that the octahedral stitched composite sandwich panels have
a high specific shear strength/stiffness and compressive strength
exceeding conventional cellular materials, including aramid fiber rein-
forced honeycomb and aluminum honeycomb.
Although many researches on the composite honeycomb structures
have been in progress, there are only few works carried out on the
quartz fiber composite honeycomb. Therefore, the QFCH is designed
and fabricated in this paper, whose mechanical properties are

⇑ 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.2021.114129
Received 15 February 2021; Revised 12 April 2021; Accepted 17 May 2021
Available online 20 May 2021
0263-8223/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Liu et al. Composite Structures 271 (2021) 114129

strengthened with curved wall topology. Compared with the tradi- (e) The upper facesheet, honeycomb core and bottom facesheet are
tional honeycomb, QFCH is not only easy to manufacture, but also combined to form a complete QFCH sandwich structure.
has low permittivity and excellent mechanical properties. The fabrica-
tion process is presented in Section 2. Method of calculating the equiv- 3. Analytical models
alent permittivity and analytical models to predict the mechanical
properties of QFCH are studied in Section 3. The measurement and The equivalent permittivity and permeability of the QFCH are cal-
numerical simulation method are shown in Section 4. In Section 5, culated according to the measured transmittance. When the electro-
the equivalent permittivity of the QFCH is inversed. Furthermore, magnetic wave is incident on a uniform material with thicknessH,
the comparisons of out‐of‐plane compressive strength and in‐plane the relationship among scattering parameter (S11 ,S21 ), refractive index
shear strength among the experimental measurement, numerical sim- n and impedance Z can be expressed as [22]:
ulation and analytical prediction are analyzed and discussed. Conclu-


sions are drawn in Section 6. R01 1
ei2nk0 H 1
R201 eink0 H
S11 ¼ ; S21 ¼ ð2Þ
1
R201 ei2nk0 H 1
R201 ei2nk0 H
2. Materials and fabrication whereR01 ¼ ðZ
1Þ=ðZ þ 1Þ, k0 is the vacuum wave number, S11 is
the transmission coefficient measured in test, and S21 is the reflection
2.1. Materials coefficient. As the QFCH is a lossless structure, S21 can be calculated as
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

ffi
S21 ¼ 1
S211
Quartz fiber is provided by Hubei Feilihua Quartz Glass Co., Ltd.
and processed into prepreg by China Weihai Carbon New Material Hence, the refractive index n and impedance Z can be calculated
Co., Ltd. The adhesive film is provided by Institute of Petrochemistry, sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð1 þ S11 Þ2
S221
Heilongjiang Academy of Sciences. Table 1 shows the properties of Z¼ ;n
Quartz fiber composite used in this paper. ð1
S11 Þ2
S221
1 
ink0 d   

¼ ln e þ 2mπ
i ln eink0 d ð3Þ
2.2. Fabrication k0 d
Here, m is a positive integer related to the real part of the refractive
The geometric parameters are the essential ingredient to the index. The equivalent permittivity and permeability of the QFCH can
mechanical performance of honeycomb. Fig. 1 a) shows a cross‐ be expressed as
sectional dimension of a curved wall honeycomb unit. The geometric
characteristics of QFCH are height H, center angle θ, radius r, thickness μ ¼ nZ; ɛ ¼ n=Z ð4Þ
t, and platform width h. Therefore, the relative density ρ of unit cell is The strength of honeycombs depends on the cell geometry and
determined by: material properties. Compression buckling and crushing are consid-



ered in the out‐of‐plane compressive test. Shear buckling, fracture
ρ ¼ ρ1 þ ρ2 ð1Þ
and interfacial debonding between the facesheet and cores are consid-
where ered in the in‐plane shear test.

 In this paper, although the curved wall of QFCH has a wavy shape,

ht
πrt θ
arcsin 2rh
ρ1 ¼ nh
2 i o ; ρ2 ¼ n h
2 o
i we assume that it is an anisotropic plate due to its small curvature.
r 2
2h tanθ 90 r 2
2h tanθ According to the classic theory of composite honeycombs, the corre-


sponding elastic buckling strength of out‐of‐plane compressive and
In equation (1), ρ1 and ρ2 are the relative densities of platform and
in‐plane shear of the curved wall are given [19,23].
curved wall, respectively. qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
The QFCH sandwich structure is prepared by hot‐press molding pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi π 2 4 D1 D32
π 2 D1 D2
method. The honeycomb cores are made of 1 layer, 2 layers and 4 lay- σ ¼ Kc ; τ ¼ Ks ð5Þ
tl2 tl2
ers woven quartz/ epoxy prepreg, respectively. The top and bottom
face sheets are made of 5 layers woven quartz/ epoxy prepreg. The Here, t is the wall thickness and l is the effective length of curved
manufacturing process is shown in Fig. 2. As an example, the QFCH wall. The bending stiffness D1 and D2 are given as:
sandwich structure fabricated by 4 layers of woven quartz /epoxy pre- E1 I 1 E2 I 2
preg is described in detail as below: (a) 4 layers quartz/ epoxy prepreg D1 ¼ ; D2 ¼ ; D3
ð1
v12 v21 Þ ð1
v12 v21 Þ
are assembled according to the predetermined laying sequence, and pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
¼ v12 D2 þ 2G12 ð1
v12 v21 Þ I 1 I 2 ð6Þ
then the mold is used to manufacture the corrugated plate. (b) The
convex parts of two corrugated plates are bonded together using adhe- where E 1 , E 2 are the Young's modulus. I 1 , I 2 are the unit moment of
sive film. Hot‐press molding method is used to make a composite struc- inertia of the composite curved wall. v12 and v21 denote the Poisson's
ture with the two‐dimensional periodic honeycomb shape. In both step ratios. G12 is the shear modulus of the composite sheet.
1 and step 2, molds are tightly clamped, and the preformed structure is For the compressive strength of the QFCH, the unit moment of iner-
curved at 130 ℃ for 1.5 h. (c) The specimen is cut into pieces of the tia plays a decisive role. For the designed curved wall honeycomb, I 1 is
required dimensions. (d) In order to build honeycomb specimens, significantly increased compared with the common straight wall hon-
the multiple honeycomb cores are glued together using adhesive film. eycomb, which will result in a significant increase in structural
strength. In equations (7), I 1 and I 2 can be expressed as:
8 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
> R rsinθ
2h R r2
ðh=2Þ2
rcosθ 2
>
> y dzdy
>
> I ¼ 0 0
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
>
>
z l
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
< R rsinθ
2h R r2
ðh=2Þ2
rcosθ 2 Iz þ Iy Iz
Iy
2
t3
Table 1 z dzdy ; I 1 ¼
þ I 2yz ; I 2 ¼ ð7Þ
Properties of Quartz fiber composite. > Iy ¼
> 0 0
2 2 12
>
>
l
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
>
> R rsinθ
2h R r2
ðh=2Þ2
rcosθ
Density (g/cm3) 1.6 Permittivity 3.8 >
: yzdzdy
I yz ¼ 0 0
l
Young's modulus E (GPa) 19 Fiber Compressive strength σ (MPa) 350
Poisson's ratio v 0.1 Shear modulus G12 (GPa) 4.2 Here, the formula for the compressive buckling coefficientK c is def-
Fiber Tensile strength σ (MPa) 519 Shear strength τ (MPa) 65 initely described by Wadley et al. [19].

2
Z. Liu et al. Composite Structures 271 (2021) 114129

Fig. 1. Geometric parameters of QFCH. a) Top view. b) Side view.

Fig. 2. Fabrication process of QFCH sandwich structure based on the hot-press molding method.
rffiffiffiffiffi
2
rffiffiffiffiffi
3h E1 41l2 E 2 The shear buckling strengthτWbu , shear fracture strength τWfr and
Kc ¼ 2 þ 2β þ 2 ð8Þ
4l E2 5h E1 interfacial debonding strength τWa of the QFCH along W direction can
be expressed as
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
whereβ ¼ 1
v12 v21 E 1 v21
þ 2G12 . In this study, the value of K c is
E1 E2 1
v12 v21 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

7.6 according to the material and geometric parameters of QFCH. ρ2 ks π 2 4 D1 D32 sin θ




The shear buckling coefficientK s is determined by an implicit func- τWbu ¼ ; τWfr ¼ τρ2 sin θ; τWa ¼ ρb þ ρ τa ð12Þ
qffiffiffiffi tl 2

tion connected with hl 4 DD13 andpffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

D3 ffi
D1 D2
[23]. For the QFCH, the shear

Here, θ is the effective angle between the platform and the neutral
buckling coefficient is mainly controlled by the geometric dimension

l axis. ρb is the relative density of bond coat.τa is the bonding strength of
and bending stiffness. In this study, the value of the shear buckling
h
adhesive film.
coefficient K s ¼ 9:6.
The predicted formulas of in‐plane shear strengths along L and W
The out‐of‐plane and in‐shear strengths of the QFCH are provided
directions of QFCH are summarized as:
by the platform and the curved wall. In the compression test, we


assume the platform wall will maintain the same load after reaching τLeq ¼ min τLbu ; τLfr ; τLa ; τWeq ¼ min τWbu ; τWfr ; τWa ð13Þ
its initial collapse load until the curved wall reaches its collapse load
From the above discussions, it is clear that the types of failure
eventually [24]. So the compressive buckling strength σ bu and com-
modes under out‐of‐plane compressive and in‐plane shear loading
pressive crushing strength σ cr of the QFCH can be expressed as:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi depend on the geometry of QFCH. The failure mechanism maps are
π 2 ρ2 kc1 D1 D2 16ρ1 D2
constructed in Fig. 3 using the preceding theoretical model to study
σ bu ¼ þ ; σ cr ¼ ρ σ ð9Þ
t l2 H2 the connection between failure mechanisms and the geometrical con-
figuration. Both compressive buckling and compressive crushing are
The predicted formula of out‐of‐plane compression is summarized
considered in the out‐of‐plane compressive failure mechanism maps,
as:
while sheer buckling, sheer fracture and interfacial debonding are con-
σ eq ¼ minðσ bu ; σ cr Þ ð10Þ sidered in the in‐plane shear failure mechanism maps. Taking h ¼ 0
into account as an ideal model, three independent geometrical param-
In the shear test, the bending of the platform is ignored [25]. Mean-
eters ðt; r; θÞ are related to the mechanical properties of the QFCH.
while, we find that the adhesive film used to connect the facesheet and
Introducing a dimensionless variation t=r, a 2‐D failure mechanism
honeycomb cores form a bond coat around the honeycomb wall, which
map can be constructed in relation to the ratio of t=r and θ. The
increases the bonding area. So the shear buckling strengthτLbu , shear
domain boundary of the failure mechanism map is obtained by equat-
fracture strength τLfr and interfacial debonding strength τLa of the
ing the failure stress for different failure modes. The contours of
QFCH along L direction can be expressed as
strengths have also been added. In order to validate the failure mech-
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

ρ2 ks π 2 4 D1 D32 cos θ anism map, three types of QFCH specimens with different relative den-
τLbu ¼ τρ1 þ ; τLfr ¼ τρ1 sities by regulating the wall thickness t are designed, and they are
tl2 denoted by points marked in the failure mechanism map.





þ τρ2 cos θ; τLa ¼ ρb þ ρ τa ð11Þ

3
Z. Liu et al.
Fig. 3. Failure mechanism maps of QFCH. a) Out-of-plane compression. b) In-plane shear along L direction. c) In-plane shear along W direction.
4. Experiment and numerical simulation
Fig. 4 shows the sketch of QFCH for transmission efficiency, out‐of‐
plane compression and in‐plane shear tests. Table 2 shows the detailed
parameters of the samples used for tests. The transmission efficiency of
QFCH is measured in the frequency range of 0–18 GHz. As a demon-
stration of the properties of this QFCH, the transmission efficiency is
simulated using 3D finite element modeling CST (Computer Simula-
tion Technology) Microwave Studio. The QFCH is simulated in one
unit cell of the array with periodic boundary conditions, and illumi-
nated with a normal incident plane wave.
The out‐of‐plane compression and in‐plane shear tests are con-
ducted using an Instron® 5569 screw driven testing machine with a
50 KN load cell. In out‐of‐plane compression tests, the specimens are
compressed at a preload displacement rate of 0.5 mm / min in the Z
direction in order to ensure the quasi‐static compression process. In
in‐plane shear tests, the QFCH specimens are firmly connected to the
tension shear steel plate. All digital images of each sample are acquired
Fig. 4. Experimental and numerical sketch of QFCH. a) Transmission efficiency. b) Out-of-plane compression. c) In-plane shear.
4
Composite Structures 271 (2021) 114129
by a camera to investigate the deformation mode and failure mecha-
nism. The out‐of‐plane compressive and in‐plane shear properties of
QFCH are simulated by ABAQUS/Explicit using the same parameters
with the tested specimens. In addition, the secondary development
function is used in the numerical simulation process to establish the
failure criteria of composites. The specimen in the numerical model
of out‐of‐plane compression is compressed between two facesheets.
The bottom plate is fixed, and the top plate can only move along the
z‐direction. In the numerical model of the in‐plane shear, the fixture
connected with the bottom surface of the sample is fixed and the upper
fixture is applied with displacement load.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Permittivity
This section provides the electromagnetic parameters obtained by
inversion. The equivalent permeability is equal to 1 since there is no
Z. Liu et al. Composite Structures 271 (2021) 114129

Table 2
Size and density of QFCH specimen.

Measurement θ r h Unit cell t L W H ρ

° mm mm mm mm mm mm g/cm3

Transmittance test 60 5 2 17 × 31 0.09 289.4 271.6 10.2 0.053

0.18 285.3 287.6 10 0.092
0.36 295.5 301.5 10.1 0.169
Compression test 3×4 0.09 49.5 34.2 10.1 0.053
0.18 48.6 36.5 9.6 0.092
0.36 50.4 38.6 9.7 0.169
Shear test L 7×4 0.09 121.1 33.7 10.1 0.053
0.18 122 36 10 0.092
0.36 117.6 38.6 9.9 0.169
W 3 × 12 0.09 50.5 108.7 9.9 0.053
0.18 48.8 111.6 9.8 0.092
0.36 50.4 115.4 10.1 0.169

Fig. 5. Equivalent permittivity of QFCH at different relative densities. a) TM. b) TE.

Table 3
Comparison of equivalent permittivity between experimental and numerical results.


ρ TM TE
Experiment Simulation error Experiment Simulation error

2.26% 1.16 1.06 8.6% 1.12 1.04 7.1%

4.53% 1.22 1.11 9.0% 1.13 1.07 5.3%
9.04% 1.23 1.21 1.6% 1.16 1.14 1.7%

Fig. 6. Comparison among the experimental, numerical and analytical results. a) Compressive strength. b) Specific compressive strength.

magnetic material in the specimen. The equivalent permittivity in TM permittivity between the TE and TM modes of incident wave is due
and TE modes is shown in Fig. 5. It is obvious that the equivalent per- to the anisotropy of QFCH.
mittivity increases from 11 GHz to 14 GHz, which is caused by the Table 3 shows the comparison of average permittivity between the
characteristic size of the specimens. The difference of the equivalent experimental and numerical results. The difference of the results is

5
Z. Liu et al. Composite Structures 271 (2021) 114129

Fig. 7. Stress-Strain Curve, failure progress and simulation failure cloud chart of specimens under out-of-plane compression loading with a) ρ ¼ 2:26%,



b)ρ ¼ 4:53%, c) ρ ¼ 9:04%.

Fig. 8. Comparison of shear strength and peak strength among the experimental, numerical and analytical results. a) L direction. b) W direction.

mainly caused by the measurement error because the high transmis-

sion efficiency of the specimen is close to the limit of the test condi-
tion. The use of adhesive film also has a certain impact on the
results. In any case, the specimens have extremely low equivalent per-
mittivity in both TM and TE modes.

5.2. Out-of-plane compression

5.2.1. Strength
The experimental, numerical and analytical out‐of‐plane compres-
sive strengths and specific strengths of QFCH are shown in Fig. 6.
The strength and specific strength of the QFCH increase significantly
with the density. There are some differences between the analytical
and experimental results of the specimen, which are attributed to
the edge effect of the specimen. Nevertheless, the experimental,
numerical and analytical results show a good agreement, which veri-
fies the reliability and accuracy of the analytical and numerical
models.

5.2.2. Failure modes

Fig. 7 shows the measured quasi‐static out‐of‐plane compressive
response of the QFCH specimen for the nominal stress–strain curve,
as well as a series of photographs showing the deformation and dam-
age at different loadings. Numerical results show the failure mecha-
nism of the QFCH. There are three stages in the compression process


Fig. 9. Specimen with ρ ¼ 2:26%under in-plane shear loading along L and W
directions. a) Stress-Strain Curve. b) Comparison of failure progress and
numerical cloud chart along L direction. c) Comparison of failure progress and
numerical cloud chart along W direction.

6
Z. Liu et al.

peak strengths of the specimens are compared with the numerical sim-
Fig. 10. Specimen with ρ ¼ 4:53%under in-plane shear loading along L and W
directions. a) Stress-Strain Curve. b) Comparison of failure progress and
numerical cloud chart along L direction. c) Comparison of failure progress and
numerical cloud chart along W direction.


of specimen withρ ¼ 2:26%. The stress–strain curve grows almost lin-
early, which means the QFCH is in elastic response. With the increase
of applied loading, elastic buckling occurs on cell walls and the stress
presents a non‐linear growth process until reaching the peak stress. At
this moment, the buckling behavior of the QFCH becomes more obvi-
ous and leads to the fiber fracture of honeycombs. Cracks extend along
the fold line between the walls. Then the stress gradually decreases
with the increasing of the strain. Simulation failure cloud chart of
the moment before the QFCH appearing the peak strength shows the
compressive buckling obviously.


Specimen with ρ ¼ 4:53% has a shorter nonlinear stage after elastic
compression stage. When the stress is close to the peak value, a crack
appears along the wall and the QFCH makes sounds of snaps, which
indicate that some of the fibers have been broken. After reaching the
peak stress, the structure undergoes elastic buckling, which causes a
large number of fibers to break. Finally, the stress remains basically
unchanged. Simulation failure cloud chart shows the elastic buckling
firstly appears, and the fiber fractures at the next moment. This is
the same to the phenomenon of fiber fracture in the cores, which
explains the rapid decrease of stress in the curve.
Fig. 7 c) shows that only the linear elastic stage occurs in the QFCH



withρ ¼ 9:04%. The stress decreases rapidly after reaching the peak
stress and the bearing capacity is completely lost. At this point, the


Fig. 11. Specimen with ρ ¼ 9:04%under in-plane shear loading along L and W directions. a) Stress-Strain Curve. b) Failure progress of L direction. c) Failure
progress of W direction.
7
Composite Structures 271 (2021) 114129
structure is completely damaged. The cloud chart of numerical simula-
tion clearly shows that buckling does not occur in the outermost hon-
eycomb wall at the moment before the QFCH appearing the peak
strength. When the strain continues to increase, the fiber fracture
causes the element to be deleted, which shows that the compression
crushing is the cause of structural failure.
5.3. In-plane shear
5.3.1. Strength
Fig. 8 shows the in‐plane shear strengths of QFCH along L and W
directions obtained by experiment, numerical simulation and analyti-
cal prediction at different relative densities. In the in‐plane shear tests,
after the shear failure occurs, the stress will continue to increase due to
post buckling until reaching the peak strength. In this paper, the shear
strength of the specimen is regarded as the strength when failure of
one honeycomb wall occurs. The bright and shadow regions refer to
shear strength and peak strength of QFCH, respectively. The measured
shear strength is compared with the analytical one. The differences
between the analytical and experimental results of the specimen are
mainly caused by the edge effect of the specimens. Meanwhile, the
ulation results.
5.3.2. Failure modes


In the shear test of specimen withρ ¼ 2:26%, the QFCH first passes
through the elastic stage as showed in Fig. 9. Then buckling occurs
gradually, and the bending and shear deformation of honeycomb wall
is observed. When the strain continues to increase, the slope of the
stress–strain curve gradually decreases until reaching the peak shear
strength and the wrinkling of cell walls occurs. Then the shear stress–-
strain curve declines slowly until the cores are completely destroyed.
The failure mode of buckling presented in numerical cloud chart
shows a good agreement on the experimental result.
Shear fracture is the main failure mode in the shear test of speci-


mens withρ ¼ 4:53%. The stress–strain curve show linear elastic
response when the shear loading are applied along both L and W direc-
tions, as showed in Fig. 10. Then the core close to the edge of the
QFCH is destroyed, which results in a slight loss of structural stiffness.
With the increasing of loading, the core damages continuously and the
deformation continue to increase. When the last honeycomb core col-
lapses, the structure reaches the peak shear stress. At this time, all the
cores are destroyed, resulting in a significant loss of structural
strength. The numerical cloud chart clearly shows that there is no
buckling in the first moment of structural failure, but the obvious shear
failure occurs in the next moment. Therefore, it is the shear failure that
causes the collapse of the QFCH.
Fig. 11 a) shows that the stiffness of the QFCH with ρ ¼ 9:04%
decreases rapidly after the elastic stage. From the morphology of the
Z. Liu et al.
damaged core, all the cores strip from the facesheet. There is no obvi-
ous destruction on the core material, but the bonding layer is dam-
aged. It indicates that interfacial debonding between the facesheet


and cores is the failure mode of specimens with ρ ¼ 9:04% rather than
shear failure.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, the quartz fiber composite honeycomb is fabricated
with the proposed five‐step method including hot pressing, bonding,
cutting and assembling. The equivalent permittivity and mechanical
properties with different relative densities are studied. Main conclu-
sions of this paper are summarized and listed as follows.
(1) The QFCH has extremely low permittivity. It can be predicted
that the QFCH has great potential as a 3‐D metamaterial
mechanical framework and has a broad application prospect
in the new multifunctional radome.
(2) The QHCH shows remarkable mechanical properties in both
out‐of‐plane compression and in‐plane shear tests. It indicates
that the curved wall topology design strengthens the bending
stiffness of composite honeycomb walls and enhances the
mechanical properties of the QFCH at low density.
(3) The theoretical strength of the QFCH with different relative
densities shows great agreement on experimental and numeri-
cal results in both out‐of‐plane compression and in‐plane shear
tests. Meanwhile, the constructed failure mechanism maps are
verified by numerical and experimental results. It confirms that
the analytical models established in this paper have excellent
reliability and accuracy.
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 Science Foundation
of China under Grant No. 11902094, 11772097, China Postdoctoral
Science Foundation funded project under Grant No. 2017M611352
and Heilongjiang Touyan Innovation Team Program.
References
[1] Liu J, Liu J, 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.
Composite Structures 271 (2021) 114129
[2] Zhang Y, Liu T, Tizani W. Experimental and numerical analysis of dynamic
compressive response of Nomex honeycombs. Compos B Eng 2018;148:27–39.
[3] Sun Z, Shi S, Guo Xu, Hu X, Chen H. On compressive properties of composite
sandwich structures with grid reinforced honeycomb core. Compos B Eng
2016;94:245–52.
[4] Yin S, Wang H, Hu J, Wu Y, Wang Y, Wu S, et al. Fabrication and anti-crushing
performance of hollow honeytubes. Composites Part B: Engineering. 2019;179.
[5] Liu Y, Zhou C, Cen Bo, Zeng Z, Lu X, Zhu X. Compression property of a novel lattice
sandwich structure. Compos B Eng 2017;117:130–7.
[6] Zhang G, Ma Li, Wang B, Wu L. Mechanical behaviour of CFRP sandwich structures
with tetrahedral lattice truss cores. Compos B Eng 2012;43(2):471–6.
[7] CricrÙ G, Perrella M, CalÙ C. Honeycomb failure processes under in-plane loading.
Compos B Eng 2013;45(1):1079–90.
[8] Quan C, Han B, Hou Z, Zhang Q, Tian X, Lu TJ. 3d printed continuous fiber
reinforced composite auxetic honeycomb structures. Composites Part B:
Engineering. 2020;187.
[9] Chen X, Yu G, Wang Z, Feng L, Wu L. Enhancing out-of-plane compressive
performance of carbon fiber composite honeycombs. Compos Struct
2021;255:112984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112984.
[10] Wei X, Li D, Xiong JJCS, Technology. Fabrication and mechanical behaviors of an
all-composite sandwich structure with a hexagon honeycomb core based on the
tailor-folding approach. 2019;184:107878
[11] Liu W, Zhu H, Zhou S, Bai Y, Wang Y, Zhao C. In-plane corrugated cosine
honeycomb for 1D morphing skin and its application on variable camber wing.
Chin J Aeronaut 2013;26(4):935–42.
[12] Wang PY, Wang FS, Dong YP, Yue ZF. Stability design of honeycomb sandwich
radome with asymmetric shape. Mater Des 2011;32(3):1636–45.
[13] Wang R, Wang J. Modeling of honeycombs with laminated composite cell walls.
Compos Struct 2018;184:191–7.
[14] Du Y, Song C, Xiong J, Wu L. Fabrication and mechanical behaviors of carbon fiber
reinforced composite foldcore based on curved-crease origami. Compos Sci
Technol 2019;174:94–105.
[15] Umamheshwar rao RS, Mahender T. Mechanical properties and optimization of
processing parameters for epoxy/glass fiber reinforced composites. Mater Today:
Proc 2019;19:489–92.
[16] Xie S, Wang H, Yang C, Zhou H, Feng Z. Mechanical properties of combined
structures of stacked multilayer Nomex® honeycombs. Thin-Walled Structures.
2020;151:106729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2020.106729.
[17] De Luca HG, Anthony DB, Greenhalgh ES, Bismarck A, Shaffer MSP. Piezoresistive
structural composites reinforced by carbon nanotube-grafted quartz fibres.
Compos Sci Technol 2020;198:108275. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compscitech.2020.108275.
[18] Tao X, Zhang L, Ma X, Xu X, Guo A, Hou F, et al. Preparation of a flexible high
emissivity coating on quartz fiber fabric for thermal protection. Ceram Int 2017;43
(16):14292–300.
[19] Russell B, Deshpande V, Wadley H. Wadley HJJoMoM, Structures. Quasistatic
deformation and failure modes of composite square honeycombs. 2008;3
(7):1315–40.
[20] 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.
[21] Che L, Xu G-dong, Zeng T, Cheng S, Zhou X-wei, Yang S-cai. Zhou X-w, Yang S-c.
Compressive and shear characteristics of an octahedral stitched sandwich
composite. Compos Struct 2014;112:179–87.
[22] Smith DR, Vier DC, Koschny T, Soukoulis CM. Electromagnetic parameter retrieval
from inhomogeneous metamaterials. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys.
2005;71(3 Pt 2B):036617.
[23] Johns D, Kirkpatrick D. Shear buckling of isotropic and orthotropic plates: a
review. HM Stationery Office Richmond 1971.
[24] Zhang J, Ashby MF. Ashby MJIjoms. The out-of-plane properties of honeycombs.
1992;34(6):475–89.
[25] Gibson LJ, Ashby MF. Cellular solids: structure and properties. Cambridge
University Press; 1999.