137 1

In-Plane Stiffness and Yield
Strength of Periodic Metal

A.-J. Wang Honeycombs
D. L. McDowell
In-plane mechanical properties of periodic honeycomb structures with seven different cell
GWW School of Mechanical Engineering, types are investigated in this paper. Emphasis is placed on honeycombs with relative
Georgia Institute of Technology, density between 0.1 and 0.3, such that initial yield is associated with short column com-
Atlanta, GA 30332-0405, USA pression or bending, occurring prior to elastic buckling. Effective elastic stiffness and
initial yield strength of these metal honeycombs under in-plane compression, shear, and
diagonal compression (for cell structures that manifest in-plane anisotropy) are reported
as functions of relative density. Comparison among different honeycomb structures dem-
onstrates that the diamond cells, hexagonal periodic supercells composed of six equilat-
eral triangles and the Kagome cells have superior in-plane mechanical properties among
the set considered. DOI: 10.1115/1.1646165
1 Introduction viable failure mode. Both theoretical analysis and experimental

studies have performed on hexagonal cell honeycombs. The works
Two-dimensional, prismatic cellular materials with a regular
of Kelsey et al. 4 and Grediac 5 have addressed the effective
and periodic microstructure are called honeycombs. Because hon-
elastic shear modulus of certain hexagonal honeycombs. Regard-
eycombs are attractive for use in lightweight structural sandwich
ing the initial plastic collapse and subsequent post-buckling of
beams, panels, or in energy-absorbing and heat transfer devices,
hexagonal cell aluminum honeycombs, Papka and Kyriakides 6
various aspects of the mechanical behavior of honeycombs have
have performed experiments and conducted finite element solu-
received significant attention.
tions for in-plane loading conditions. The onset of failure of a
Generally, honeycombs are stiffest and strongest under out-of-
metal hexagonal cell honeycomb was considered by Triantafylli-
plane loading along longitudinal cell axes because the cell walls
dis and Schraad 7. Onck et al. 8 and Andrews et al. 9 have
are subjected only to axial stresses; in-plane loading potentially
investigated specimen size effects on the mechanical properties of
subjects the cell walls to compression/extension and bending fail-
the hexagonal honeycomb. The elastic buckling of hexagonal cell
ure, which is promoted by the relatively low density honeycomb
honeycomb material has been studied by Gibson and Ashby 3
structure. For this reason, mechanical properties for in-plane load-
and Zhang and Ashby 10. In addition, research concerning out-
ing transverse to cell axes of honeycombs are thought to be most
application-limiting, including elastic stiffness and phenomena of of-plane mechanical properties was also pursued. The mechanical
elastic buckling and initial yielding that serve as precursors to properties of other types of honeycomb cells have received less
plastic buckling/collapse. Metal honeycomb structures have re- attention.
ceived some attention for aerospace applications such as sandwich Other honeycomb cell shapes may be preferred for structural
panels cf. 1, although not to the extent of polymeric honey- applications, or for applications involving multifunctional perfor-
combs. mance such as heat exchange, energy absorption and so on. Mul-
Conventional forming processes for metal honeycombs typi- tifunctional applications often require not only strength or stiff-
cally include several steps of laying up cut sheets, bonding and ness but another class of properties such as thermal conductivity,
stretching, limiting the types of cells to shapes such as regular heat convection, fluid transport, etc. Hence, we are drawn to pe-
hexagonal or square. Here we consider a practical class of ex- riodic structures that are more complex than the regular hexagonal
truded cell structures that can take on a very broad range of cell honeycomb for many applications. Figure 1 shows cross sections
shapes and morphologies, not limited by conventional honeycomb of periodic square and rectangular cell metal honeycombs which
fabrication methods. We term this class of materials as Linear can also be fabricated with conventional metal bending technol-
Cellular Alloys LCAs, based on powder processing technology ogy and a range of triangular cell-based honeycombs which can-
developed within the Lightweight Structures Group at Georgia not be fabricated with conventional means slitting or bending
Tech 2. For such honeycombs, we can consider yielding and sheets, in addition to the simple regular hexagonal cell structure in
plastic flow as an important mechanism of failure, in contrast to Fig. 1(c). These cells are specifically labeled as (a) square cell,
brittle honeycombs made from ceramics or thermosets. It is also (b) hexagonal supercell comprised of equilateral triangles, (d)
possible to distinguish elastic buckling of cell walls from plastic square supercell constructed from triangles sometimes referred to
cell wall buckling, the latter being a dominant mode at relative herein as mixed square/triangular cell, (e) Kagome cell, (f) rect-
densities above about 0.1 that can be extruded for structural angular cell, and (g) diamond cell. We use the term supercell to
metals. denote a repeating unit cell comprised of multiple cell types or
Previous studies of metal honeycombs have mainly focused on sizes. Clearly, the Kagome is also a supercell constructed from a
the hexagonal cell structure for which standard sheet metal fabri- combination of hexagons and triangles.
cation methods have been developed. Gibson and Ashby 3 Hexagonal 11 and rectangular cells are desirable for forced
present basic results about ideal and commercial hexagonal metal convection heat transfer, while triangular cells are superior for
honeycombs. Such honeycombs often have much lower relative in-plane structural stiffness and strength over a wide range of
densities, on the order of less than 0.07, and elastic buckling is a loading conditions. Torquato et al. 12 have investigated the ef-
fective linear elastic properties of square, hexagonal and triangu-
lar cell honeycombs by two different approaches, obtaining the
Contributed by the Materials Division for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGI-
NEERING MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received by the Materials
cross-properties bounds relating the bulk modulus and other elas-
Division July 24, 2002; revision received October 16, 2003. Associate Editor: A. tic moduli to the thermal conductivity. Christensen 13 derived
Sastry. the effective elastic moduli for low density cellular materials us-
Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology APRIL 2004, Vol. 126 137
Copyright 2004 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

Fig. 2 Schematic mechanical response of metallic honey-
combs under in-plane compression
Fig. 1 Periodic honeycombs with different cell shapes: a

Under different in-plane loading conditions, three types of
square cell; b hexagonal supercell comprised of equilateral stress states may exist in the cell walls of the honeycomb struc-
triangles; c regular hexagonal cell; d square supercell con- ture: bending, axial, and shear stress. For uniaxial loading, the cell
structed from mix of squares and triangles; e Kagome cell; f walls of certain rigid honeycombs are dominantly subjected to
rectangular cell; and g diamond cell. axial stress, producing a dominant extensional mode of deforma-
tion. The triangular cell, Kagome cell, mixed square/triangular
cell, and diamond cell honeycombs belong to this case, because
the in-plane honeycomb cell structures are rigid either statically
ing composite micromechanics approaches. Hunt 14 studied the determinate or indeterminate, the latter with the capability to sus-
mechanical properties of simple triangular cell honeycombs for tain initial states of self-stress if replaced by rigid truss elements
catalysis applications. Santosa and Wierzbicki 15 contributed to with pin joints, resisting collapse initially by extensional deforma-
understanding the plastic collapse in bending of thin-walled pris- tion 17. On the other hand, the cell walls of certain honeycombs
matic columns, relevant to out-of-plane loading conditions. The behave as mechanisms when replaced by rigid cell walls con-
effective Youngs modulus of triangular cell honeycombs was nected by pin joints, such as conventional hexagonal cells or
studied by Gulati 16 with reference to thermal shock resistance. square cell structures loaded diagonally or in shear; such frames
Deshpande et al. 17 have investigated kinematical criteria of experience significant bending stress from the outset when the
two-dimensional and three-dimensional cellular solids and re- walls are connected by rigid joints and are much more compliant
viewed the details of identifying rigid structures versus mecha- and have a lower collapse strength.
nisms, and the corresponding dominance of stretching versus Like stochastic foams 3, the in-plane compressive stress-strain
bending mechanisms for frames and periodic cell structures. behavior of honeycombs is characterized by three regimes: an
In this paper, we investigate the in-plane mechanical properties initial relatively stiff and essentially elastic regime, a relatively
of the various periodic honeycomb structures shown in Fig. 1. flat extended stress plateau regime, and the densification regime
In-plane mechanical properties presented include the effective that follows significant crushing. Figure 2 shows these three re-
Youngs modulus, the effective elastic shear modulus, the effec- gimes for in-plane compression. Initially, the cell-walls elastically
tive Poissons ratio, the effective initial yield strength in shear and compress or bend. Then, beyond a critical strain, the cells collapse
the effective initial yield strength under uniaxial loading. For by yielding/plastic buckling or elastic buckling, creep or brittle
cases of in-plane anisotropy, these values are determined for the fracture, depending on the nature of the cell wall material and
principal axes of orthotropy for each cell. For cases in which homologous temperature. In Fig. 2, point A indicates that the ini-
properties are the same in two orthogonal directions e.g., Figs. tial instability occurs in a metal honeycomb. Cell collapse ends
1(a) and 1(d)), the effective Youngs modulus and initial yield once the opposing cell walls begin to touch each other, often in a
strength in a direction intermediate e.g., 45 deg or along the cell non-uniform manner within the cellular structure. The plateau be-
diagonal to the in-plane principal axes of orthotropy are also havior corresponds to successive events of plastic cell collapse
determined. and contact, leading up to the point D where all cell walls have
effectively collapsed and densification incurs rapid stiffness in-
crease. The effective elastic stiffness and effective initial yield
2 General Mechanical Properties and Description strength of the honeycomb are important in-plane mechanical
Most commercial metal honeycombs are made by expanding properties, in addition to densification strain. Because the plateau
strip-glued sheets or by a stamping and/or metal bending process stress work hardening and densification behaviors must be ob-
that result in a two-dimensional structure, limiting in-plane cell tained from post-buckling analyses, we do not consider these here.
shape and morphology to rather elementary forms. Extruded metal We also restrict to consideration of lower homologous tempera-
honeycombs permit a wider range of periodic unit cell shapes as tures where creep is insignificant and do not consider brittle fail-
well as graded morphologies of honeycomb cross sections. The ure modes.
cell walls of these metal honeycombs are relatively thin, but a In this work, in-plane shear properties are evaluated in addition
practical lower limit on the ratio of cell wall thickness to length to effective Youngs moduli and compressive yield strengths;
between joints for the powder metal oxide extrusion process is shear properties have not been considered in most previous re-
about 0.1, with a corresponding relative density between about 0.1 search, but are relevant to performance under combined stress
and 0.3, depending on cell type. Accordingly, our analyses focus states.
on cell wall yielding. The thin cell wall struts can be treated as We consider the cell wall behavior of metal honeycombs to be
beam or column/truss elements. Hence, simple beam/column represented by the elastic-perfectly plastic model shown in Fig. 3.
theory can be used to derive to first order the mechanical proper- Infinitely long, regular periodic honeycombs are modeled, with
ties of honeycombs with periodic cells. In this paper, Timoshen- emphasis on in-plane properties. For cell walls with a thickness to
kos beam and column theories 18,19 are used with consider- length ratio of t/l0.1 to 0.15, in bending-dominated cases such
ation of shear, axial stress, and rotation, including consideration of as the regular hexagonal honeycomb or square/rectangular sub-
bending. jected to shear or off-axis compression, the cell walls are treated
138 Vol. 126, APRIL 2004 Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 3 Stress-strain curve for elastic-perfectly plastic cell wall Fig. 5 Unit cell under uniaxial compressive loading
behavior
as beams of length l thickness t width b, possessing fully dense Accordingly, we use a superscript asterisk to denote these proper-
properties of Youngs modulus E s ( ys / ys ) and yield stress ties of the honeycomb. Stress quantities are also understood to
ys . Simple beam theory is used to calculate effective elastic represent nominal averages over the unit cell rather than pertain-
stiffness. Initial yield strength is based on the first cell walls to ing to specific cell walls, unless otherwise noted.
reach the fully plastic limit moment of the cell walls, representing The effective elastic stiffness Youngs modulus of a square
complete loss of its capacity to carry further load. honeycomb with uniform wall thickness for loading in either di-
For periodic cell structures that are stretch-dominated, such as rection parallel to the cell walls is given by 3,12,14,15
the equilateral triangle, mixed cell, Kagome, or the diamond cell,
the cell walls are treated as simple truss elements for purposes of E 1* E*
2 t 1
structural analysis. In such cases, for t/l0.1 to 0.15, the cell r (1)
Es Es l 2
walls may be considered as short columns and plastic collapse is
essentially coincident with initial yield for perfectly plastic cell where the relative density r * / s 2t/l valid for small to
walls. Initial yield strength of the periodic structure is based on moderate relative densities, omitting second order term in t/l) and
the first cell walls to yield. the Youngs modulus of the fully dense cell wall material is given
by E s . The effective elastic stiffness for loading along the square
3 In-Plane Mechanical Properties of Periodic Honey- diagonal direction, E *
45 , is not linear in relative density due to cell
combs With Various Unit Cells wall bending cf. 3, i.e.,
3.1 Square Cell Honeycomb. Owing to high specific
strength and stiffness in certain directions, combined with low
frictional resistance to fluid flow compared to triangular cell hon-
*
E 45
Es
2
t
l
3
(2)
eycombs, square cell metal honeycombs offer potential for multi- We will derive the initial yield strength for loading in the diagonal
functional heat exchange/structural elements. Under loading par- direction as well in a later section.
allel to the cell edges, square cell walls deform by axial extension The effective elastic shear modulus is given by 11,20

or compression, in the absence of elastic buckling. In this case,
* 3
there are no bending moments on the cell walls in the periodic G 12 1 t
structure. Since the periodic square cell honeycomb is a mecha- (3)
Es 2 l
nism rather than a rigid structure 17, cell wall bending under
off-axis or shear loading dramatically reduces the elastic stiffness. This cubic dependence on relative density points to a limiting
Consider an infinitely long, regular periodic square metallic characteristic of square cell honeycombs under combined stress
honeycomb structure shown in Fig. 4. The unit cells bracketed by states.
the dashed lines will be subjected to periodic analysis under dif- The effective Poissons ratio for applied loading in the direction
ferent loading conditions. of either of the cell walls is obtained from analysis of one of the
unit cells in Fig. 4, shown in Fig. 5. The force in vertical cell wall
3.1.1 Linear Elastic Properties. It is emphasized that all the is
elastic properties and strengths are effective quantities associated
with the response of a structure rather than a fully dense material. T 1 lb (4)
On the other hand, the axial force in the horizontal cell walls is
zero. Hence, the strain of the unit cell is equal to strain of the
vertical column, i.e.,
T/bt T
1 (5)
Es btE s
Instead of using additional figures to represent free body dia-
grams of individual cell wall struts, we will simply label forces
that act in each member, keeping track of its sense in the analysis,
as shown in Fig. 5. The transverse strain in the vertical column is
given by
2 s 1 (6)
Transverse deformation of the unit cell is caused only by expan-
Fig. 4 An infinitely periodic square cell honeycomb, with X 1 sion of the vertical wall. Accordingly, the horizontal strain of the
and X 2 axes along cell wall directions unit cell is

Fig. 7 Unit cell deformation leading to plastic collapse under
shear loading: a deformation mode; and b cell walls acting
as cantilever beams.
Fig. 6 Cell deformation by initial yieldingshort column plastic

collapse or elastic buckling. Cell walls are treated as fixed-end When the cell wall is very slender, elastic buckling may pre-
columns. cede plastic yielding and collapse of cell walls under the axial
compressive loading in either the X 1 or X 2 directions 3, as dis-
cussed in Appendix 1.
In actual honeycombs, imperfections of geometry and material
l t 2 t diminish the initial buckling load relative to the ideal case, giving
2 s 1 (7) rise to influence of cell wall bending even in this case.
l l l
3.1.2.2 Shear loading. The periodic honeycomb in Fig. 4 is
where l and l , respectively, represent the total increment of subjected to simple shear loading in the X 1 X 2 plane, as shown
length and original length in transverse direction. The effective as Fig. 7. We first derive the effective elastic shear modulus in Eq.
Poissons ratio 12
* is given by 3, and then analyze the shear yield strength of a periodic square
cell honeycomb.
2 t 1 Recall that the square cell is not a rigid structure, and hence is
12
* s sr (8)
1 l 2 dominated by cell wall bending under general stress states, includ-
ing shear. Under shear loading, the ends of each cell wall are
For loading in the transverse direction, we derive the same value constrained against rotation by virtue of the periodicity of the cell
of effective Poissons ratio, i.e., *
12 *
21 . The effective properties structure. As a result, the cell walls undergo beam bending as the
do not satisfy the relationship G * E * /2(1 * ) , because of primary deformation mode. The axial compressive stress is negli-
square symmetry. gible. A periodic unit cell is shown Fig. 7. Each half cell wall is
treated as a cantilever beam.
3.1.2 Initial Yield Strength. The following sections concern The shear force on each cell wall is
the analysis of the initial yield collapse strength under different
uniaxial loading conditions. Infinitesimal deformations are as- T 12bl (11)
sumed, as in the elastic analyses.
For an equilibrium system of shear forces, the total shear strain
3.1.2.1 Axial compression. For in-plane compression of can be written as
square cell honeycombs parallel to the cell walls, the cell walls act
4 T l/2 3 2 12l 3
as columns, as shown in Fig. 6. For a range of relative density 4 (12)
from about 0.10 to 0.3, the walls behave as short columns with l l 3E s I E st 3
negligible slenderness ratio correction on reduction of compres- where I 1/12 bt 3 . Hence, the in-plane shear modulus for the
sive strength. The effect of axial compression on shift of the neu- X 1 X 2 orientation shown in Fig. 7 is given by
tral axis exacerbates the instability. Hence, cell wall yielding un-
der simple compression is the descriptor of the onset of plastic 12
buckling. In this paper we determine initial yield of the honey- *
G 12 (13)

comb corresponding to the yielding within the first wall of a pe-
riodic cell structure, recognizing that the overall flow stress there- Normalizing by the Youngs modulus of the cell wall material and
after depends on the sequence of cell wall yielding/collapse using the expression for shear strain gives the in-plane effective
events. For unit cells analyzed here there is not much redundant shear modulus as
elastic behavior prior to yielding/collapse of secondary truss
elements.
Due to square symmetry, only one direction of loading is con-
*
G 12
Es

1 t
2 l
3
(14)
sidered. The cell wall is treated as a column of width b and thick- as previously stated in Eq. 3. This result was previously reported
ness t. It is assumed that the ends are fixed up to the point of by Evans et al. 20, Gu et al. 11, and Torquato et al. 12.
initial yielding. With regarding to the initial yield strength of square honey-
The force in a vertical cell wall, T, is given in Eq. 4. The comb in shear, four plastic hinges A, B, C, and D are formed in a
yield condition is unit cell shown in Fig. 7, each with plastic rotation . Then, the
upper bound on the plastic collapse stress is given by equating the
T work done by the shear forces in Fig. 7(a) with the work done by
ys (9)
bt bending the plastic hinges, i.e.,
Since the stress on the unit cell at initial yield is given by 4M p 2 12bl 2 (15)
(*
pl ) 1 T/(bl), the initial yield strength of the LCA is given by Since M p is the fully plastic moment of the cell wall by bending,
*
pl 1
ys

t
l
(10)
1
M p ys bt 2
4
(16)

With increasing compressive load, plastic hinges with rotation
will form at the ends of each cell wall in Fig. 8(c); the upper
bound on the plastic collapse stress is given by equating the work
done by the forces, i.e.,
2M p F 45l cos 45 deg (25)
Here, M p is the fully plastic moment of the cell wall in bending,
given by Eq. 16. The effect of the shift of the neutral axis in the
M p expression due to axial stress within the cell wall 1 is not
considered because it is a second order effect changes M p by
only a few percent for relative densities less than 0.3 for this
Fig. 8 Deformation under diagonal loading: a compression particular case of square cell honeycombs under uniaxial loading
along the 45 deg direction; b a unit cell; and c deformation at 45 deg. It follows that

of a representative cell wall.
*
pl 45 t 2
. (26)
ys l
From Eqs. 15 and 16, it follows that: The lower bound is achieved by equating the maximum mo-

ment to the fully plastic moment M p , i.e.,
*
pl 12 1 t 2
(17)
ys 2 l l 1
M maxF 45 cos 45 deg 45bl 2 M p (27)
The lower bound follows by equating the maximum moment of 2 4
unit cell walls to the fully plastic moment M p for each cell wall, Since we arrive at the same result as Eq. 25, it follows that Eq.
i.e., 26 is exact to within the approximation of neglecting the effect
of axial stress on shifting the neutral axis of struts.
1
M max 12bl 2 M p (18) To summarize results in normalized form to facilitate direct
2 comparison of properties among various cell shapes, the relative
which is identical to the result in Eq. 15. Since the lower and density for the square cell honeycomb is defined as
upper bounds are equal, the result is exact.
3.1.2.3 Compression loading at 45 deg to axes of in-plane
r
*
s
t
2 1
l
1 t
2 l (28)
square symmetry. Since the square cell honeycomb has the same
At the relative densities of practical interest (r0.3), the qua-
elastic stiffness and strength properties in the X 1 and X 2 direc-
dratic item can be neglected, leading to
tions, it is instructive to consider an intermediate orientation. Con-
sider the stiffness and strength of the periodic square honeycomb * t
for loading in the direction of 45 deg to the cell walls. Figure 8 r 2 (29)
s l
shows the loading configuration. For this loading orientation, cell
wall bending is the primary deformation mode in the honeycombs. as stated previously. Then,
A square cell is described as Fig. 8(b). The joints at the ends of
each cell wall are constrained against rotation by symmetry. A E 1* E*
2 1
r (30)
force diagram is given in Fig. 8(c). Es Es 2
The total vertical force applied to each segment at the joint is
*
E 45 1
& r3 (31)
F 45 45bl (19) Es 4
2
G*
12 1 3
By equilibrium, the bending moment M is r (32)
Es 16
1
M F 45l cos 45 deg (20) *
pl 1 1
2 r (33)
ys 2
From standard beam theory,
*
pl 12 1
M l2 r2 (34)
(21) ys 8
6EI
where I is the second moment of inertia of the cell wall, I *
pl 45 1
r2 (35)
1/12 bt 3 . ys 4
Under compression, the strain of each cell wall in 45 deg
direction can be written as 3.2 Equilateral Triangular Cell Honeycomb. Triangular
cell honeycomb structures behave differently under in-plane load-
cos 45 deg 45bl 4 45l 3 ing than the hexagonal and square cell honeycombs. Consider an
(22)
l cos 45 deg 24E s I 2E s t 3 infinitely long, regular periodic honeycomb with hexagonal su-
percells arranged by juxtaposition of six equilateral triangular
The effective Youngs modulus is given by cells with a common vertex, as shown in Fig. 1(b). The cell wall
45 deformation of this honeycomb is stretch-dominated because it is
45
E* (23) a kinematically stable/determinate structure if the joints are con-

sidered as pinned; therefore, simple truss analysis suffices. More-
which can be rewritten in normalized form as 1,13 over, the analyses of elastic properties and initial yielding for this
3
pin-jointed frame are exact, owing to its statical and kinematical
E*
45 t determinacy. Figure 9 shows compressive loading cases in two
2 (24)
Es l orthogonal directions. The cell walls are assumed to be elastic-

Fig. 10 Triangular cell honeycomb under shear loading
For slender struts the deflection of the structure is not signifi-

cantly influenced by the encasement of the joints, and hence axial
extension or compression in cell walls is the primary mode of
deformation under shear loading.
Consider the shear deformation of a representative equilateral
Fig. 9 Triangular cell honeycomb under two cases of com- triangle shown in Fig. 11. In Fig. 11, the change of length of the
pressive loading
left edge of triangle is l, and the horizontal displacement of top
joint is x. The stretched triangle and original, undeformed tri-
angle are related by
perfectly plastic and are treated as columns/trusses of length l
width b, thickness t Youngs modulus E s and yield stress ys . h 2 l
2
x 2
ll 2 (39)

First, the honeycomb is subjected to an applied in-plane com-
2
pressive stress 1 or 2 . The forces in the cell wall are shown as l
T 1 and T 2 . Because the two different compressive loading cases h 2 l 2
2
give rise to different forces within the cell walls, Cases a and b
are distinguished in Fig. 9. Ignoring terms of second order for small extension and compres-
It is straightforward to determine the values of T 1 and T 2 in the sion, we can obtain
two cases 14 see Table 1. The force T 1 is compressive and T 2 x2l (40)
is tensile in Case a, while T 2 is compressive in Case b.
Under shear loading, the change in length of the side of the
3.2.1 Linear Elastic Properties. The elastic behavior of the triangle is obtained from the strain, i.e.,
periodic triangular cell honeycomb is isotropic in the X 1 X 2
plane and hence the effective stiffness is the same for Cases a T 1 /bt bl l l2
, ll , (41)
and b 3,12,14,16, i.e., Es E s bt E s t E st
E 1* E 2* 2 t so the engineering shear strain is given by

(36)
Es Es ) l x 2l 4 l
(42)
To calculate the effective shear modulus, we must obtain the h h ) E st
forces T 1 , T 2 in the cell walls under shear loading, as shown in From Eq. 42, the in-plane effective shear modulus of triangular
Fig. 10. From the equilibrium equations cell honeycomb is given by 11,12,20
T 1 cos 60 degT 2 cos 60 deg 12blT 3 , (37a) G* ) t
12
(43)
T 1 sin 60 degT 2 sin 60 deg) 12bl, (37b) Es 4 l
where Eqs. 37a and 37b, respectively, represent the force bal- The Poissons ratio 12
* is determined next. The deformation of
ances in the X 1 and X 2 directions of the unit cell of triangular cell a unit cell is outlined in Fig. 12 for compression in the X 1 direc-
honeycombs. Since T 1 T 2 by symmetry, the corresponding tion. The compressed height of the triangle is hh. By using
forces are the Pythagorean theorem in Fig. 12(b),
T 1 T 2 12bl, and T 3 0 (38)
hh 2 l 2 l 2
2 2
l 1 l 1 2 (44)
Table 1 The forces within cell walls for two loading cases
Case a Case b
1
T1 1bl 0
)
)
1 bl
T2 1bl 2 2
2)
Fig. 11 Deformation of unit cell

and therefore the initial yield strength is given by
*
pl 1
ys
) t
l
(53)
For case (b), the force in the cell walls is T 2 )/2 2 bl, given
in Table 1. At initial yield,
Fig. 12 Deformation under compression in the X 1 direction )
bl
2 2
ys
bt
For the original triangle, h 2 (l/2) 2 l 2 . Ignoring terms of second
order for small extensions, we write and hence the initial yield strength under the compressive loading
of case (b) in Fig. 9 is given by
1
)h l 2 2l 1
2
(45)
where h, l 2 , l 1 are all positive quantities for the deformation

*
pl 2
ys

2 t
) l
(54)
shown in Fig. 12(b). This leads to

It is noticed that the initial yield strengths are not same in two
1 4 cases/directions. The in-plane elastic isotropy does not translate
l / (46) into in-plane isotropy of plastic collapse, unlike the case of hex-
3 3
agonal honeycombs that buckle via bending of cell walls.
where l , , and / are, respectively, the absolute magnitudes
of extensional strains within the vertical, horizontal and sloped 3.2.2.2 Shear loading. Under shear loading, the axial stress
cell walls. In this particular case, the tensile strain of the unit cell in cell walls is still the mechanism of initial yielding that serves as
triangular honeycomb in the X 2 direction is precursor to plastic collapse of the triangular cell honeycomb.
Unlike square cell or hexagonal cell honeycombs, initial yielding
T2 1 l is dominated by axial stresses in cell walls rather than the bending
2 (47) moment. So triangular cell honeycombs are superior in resisting
btE s 2) tE s
in-plane shear compared to these other honeycombs.
and the compressive unit cell strain in the X 1 direction is given by Based on prior results, the axial force in the cell walls is T 1

12bl, as shown in Fig. 10. At the point of initial yielding,
1 4 ) l
1 l / (48) T 1 12bl
3 3 2 tE s ys (55)
bt bt
The Poissons ratio 12
* can be obtained as
and therefore the initial shear yield strength of triangular cell hon-
2 1 eycomb is given by
*
12 (49)
1 3
*
pl 12 t
The triangular cell honeycomb with hexagonal configuration of (56)
triangles shown in Fig. 10 has an isotropic in-plane elastic behav- ys l
ior, so the effective shear modulus and Youngs modulus are re- It is instructive to present results for initial yield strength as a
lated by function of the relative density, r defined for equilateral triangular
E* honeycombs as
G * (50)
2 1 * * t
r 2) , (57)
Although we have considered the case of loading in the X 1 s l
direction, in-plane isotropy confers generality to the analysis.
where a quadratic term of higher order has been omitted as being
3.2.2 Initial Yield Strength. The following sections are for very small at low relative densities below about 0.3.
the analysis of yielding under uniaxial loading in different orien- Summarizing results for the triangular cell honeycomb in terms
tations. Initial yielding is considered since it serves as a precursor of relative density,
to plastic buckling instability of triangular cell honeycombs.
E 1* E*
2 1
3.2.2.1 Uniaxial compressive loading. Under uniaxial com- r (58)
Es Es 3
pressive loading, the cell walls of the triangular cell honeycomb
yield predominantly under axial stress. The bending moment con- G*
12 1
tributions to initial yield for case (a) in Fig. 9 are a second order r (59)
effect unless the cell walls are very slender, i.e., relative density Es 8
less than about 0.05. For case (b), initial plastic collapse is mainly *
pl 1 1
caused by the compression of cell walls. For case (a), the axial r (60)
force in the cell walls is T 1 1/) 1 bl, summarized in Table 1. ys 2
The magnitude of stress produced by axial force is
*
pl 2 1
r (61)
1 ys 3
1 bl
) 1 l
a 1 (51) *
pl 12 1
bt ) t r (62)
ys 2)
At initial yielding,
Regarding elastic buckling, the results are similar to the case of
a ys (52) a square cell honeycomb and are discussed in Appendix 1.

Table 2 In-plane mechanical properties of various periodic honeycomb cell structures
Note: The elastic buckling values are calculated in the directions of the lowest buckling load for each honeycomb, and are based on a ratio of yield strength to Youngs
modulus of 0.001 see Appendix 1. The rectangular cell has aspect ratio a/b, where a is the length in the X 2 direction, and b is the length in the X 1 direction, and the cell
wall thicknesses are t 1 and t 2 for cell edges of lengths b and a, respectively; typically, t 1 t 2 .
3.3 Hexagonal Cell Honeycomb. The mechanical proper- 3.4 Mixed Cell Honeycomb With Square Supercell. In
ties of regular hexagonal cell honeycombs have been widely stud- this section, the mechanical properties of a periodic supercell con-
ied due to their ease of manufacture using conventional methods sisting of triangular cells arranged as squares mixed square/
of joining sheets and stretching or joining pressed sheets. Results triangular cell honeycomb are explored. This periodic mixed
can be found in the literature for the effective Youngs modulus cell honeycomb has certain attributes of both the triangular cell
3,12 and shear modulus 35,12 of regular hexagonal cell hon- and square cell honeycombs. It is a statically indeterminate struc-
eycombs, as well as elastic buckling limits 3,10 and shear yield ture and is therefore capable of sustaining residual stresses with
strength 3. Those results are listed in Table 2 in terms of relative zero applied load, which are neglected assumed zero here for
density for comparison with other honeycombs. For regular hex- purposes of calculating the initial yield strength. Simple truss
agonal cell honeycombs, the relative density is defined in terms of analysis suffices as for the equilateral triangle periodic cell struc-
the ratio of cell wall thickness to characteristic cell length as ture.
* 2 t 3.4.1 Linear Elastic Properties. For calculation of the in-
r (63) plane effective elastic stiffness in the X 1 or X 2 directions, a set of
s ) l
representative cells are considered as shown in Fig. 13(a). Under
where again the quadratic term is neglected at low relative density. uniaxial compression, the compression and extension forces in the
The results 3 for hexagonal honeycombs are given by cell walls are labeled as T in the vertical cell wall, F 45 in the

45 deg cell wall, and F 2 in the horizontal cell wall. The forces T
3
E*
1 E*
2 4) t 3 and F 45 are compressive forces and the force F 2 is tensile.
r3 (64)
Es Es 3 l 2
Es
*
G 12

)
1t
l 3
3
r3
8
(65)
*
pl 1
ys

*
pl 2
ys

2 t
3 l 2
1
r2
2
(66)
*pl

1 t
ys 2) l 2

) 2
8
r (67)
It is worth noting that regular hexagonal cell honeycomb exhib-

its isotropic in-plane elastic properties with the effective Poissons
ratio 1.0 3. Since they are mechanisms rather than structures
cf. 17, periodic hexagonal honeycombs are bending-
dominated, leading to the dependence of properties on either the Fig. 13 Deformation under compression in the X 1 direction:
square strength or cube stiffness power of relative density. a group of cells; and b deformation of cell walls.

To satisfy the periodic boundary conditions in the vertical di-
rection,
F 45 cos 45 degT 1 bl (68)
In the horizontal direction,
F 45 sin 45 degF 2 0 (69)
In addition, the deformed geometry shown in Fig. 13(b) leads to
&ll 45 2 lh 2 2ll
2 2
(70)
Fig. 14 Deformation under in-plane shear loading: a group of
Neglecting terms of second order for small extensions, we arrive cells; and b deformation of unit cell.
at
1
&l 45h l (71)
2 Under the shear deformation shown in Fig. 14(b), the stretched
As before, l , , and / are, respectively, the absolute magni- length of one diagonal cell wall is l and the horizontal displace-
tudes of strains within the vertical, horizontal, and sloped cell ment is x, related as
walls, related for this loading case by virtue of periodicity as xl/cos 45 deg (81)
l 2 / (72) The displacement in the diagonal cell wall is given by
The extensional strains within cell walls aligned in the X 1 , X 2 , F 45 12l 2
and 45 deg directions are, respectively, l 45 &l &l2 , (82)
btE s E st
T F2 F 45
1 l , 2 , 45 / and, therefore, the horizontal displacement is
btE s btE s btE s
(73) 12l 2
x2& (83)
Substituting these three relations into Eq. 72, we get btE s
T2F 45F 2 (74) The shear strain is determined as
Combining Eqs. 68, 69, and 74, these forces are determined x 12l
as 2& . (84)
l E st
2&1 1 1 From Eq. 84, the effective shear modulus of the mixed cell
T 1 bl, F 2 1 bl, F 45 1 bl honeycomb is
2 &1 2 &1 2&
(75) 12
*
G 12 , (85)
Therefore, the effective Youngs modulus of the mixed honey-
comb in the X 1 direction is
and can be written in normalized form as
1 2 &1 t
E 1* Es (76) *
G 12 1 t
l 2&1 l . (86)

Es 2& l
E*
1 1t
or 1 (77) The elastic behavior of the periodic mixed honeycomb under
Es 2&1 l uniaxial compression is next determined for the compressive load-
ing orientation shown in Fig. 15. Clearly, the triangles are not
Poissons ratio 12
* can be calculated as equilateral and the in-plane response is expected to be anisotropic.
In the vertical loading direction, equilibrium demands
2 1
12
* 0.261 (78)
1 2&1
Next we calculate the shear modulus of this mixed cell honey-
comb in the X 1 X 2 orientation. Under shear loading, the struc-
ture of mixed cell wall deforms as shown in Fig. 14. Cell wall
extension dominates, with stiffness provided essentially by 45 deg
direction diagonal cell walls. Otherwise, the vertical cell wall de-
forms as beam bending, which offers only a second order contri-
bution to the shear modulus and shear strength of the honeycomb
structure and can therefore be ignored. The cell wall forces are
shown as F 45 in the 45 deg slanted cell walls. The forces in the
two diagonal cell walls are equal but one is compressive and the
other tensile. The horizontal and vertical cell walls carry no
forces. Accordingly,
2F 45 cos 45 deg2 12bl, (79)
which leads to Fig. 15 Deformation under diagonal compression: a loading
at 45 deg, and b deformation of a group of representative cell
F 45& 12bl. (80) walls.

T2F 45 sin 45 deg& 45bl (87) Under shear loading, the yield first occurs in the 45 deg diago-
nal cell walls shown in Fig. 14. Let
F 45
2F 45 cos 45 degF 2 0 (88) ys (100)
bt
Now consider one of the deformed triangular cells, as shown in
Fig. 15(b), i.e., The initial yield strength under shear loading can therefore be

obtained as
&lx 2
&lh 2
ll 45 2 (89) *pl 1 t
2 2 (101)
ys & l
where l 45 is the change of length of one of the slanted cell wall
segments. Ignoring terms of second order for small extensions, we For uniaxial compression in the 45 deg diagonal direction, shown
write in Fig. 15, the vertical cell walls yield first. Recognizing that
T/bt ys , the initial yield strength in this direction is given by
l 45 x h
which leads to
2
l

&l &l
(90) *
pl 45
ys

t
l
(102)
For the mixed honeycomb, the relative density is defined as

l 2 / (91)
* t
Again, l , , and / are, respectively, the absolute magnitudes r 2& (103)
of extensional strains within the vertical, horizontal and sloped s l
cell walls. In this case, the vertical strain, horizontal strain and where a higher order quadratic term is omitted for low relative
45 deg strain are respectively given by density. Normalized effective properties for the mixed honeycomb
T F2 F 45 are written in terms of relative density as
1 l , 2 , 45 /
btE s btE s btE s E*
1 E*
2 &
(92) r (104)
Es Es 2&1
Substituting these three relations into Eq. 91, we get
*
G 12 1
T2F 45F 2 (93) r (105)
Es 4 1&
Combining Eqs. 87, 88, and 93 leads to
1 & E*
45 1
T 45bl, F 2 45bl, F 45 45bl r (106)
Es 2&
&1 2 1&
(94)
*
pl 1 *
pl 2 &
Recall that under uniaxial compression in the X 45 direction, the r (107)
ys ys 2&1
strain of the mixed honeycomb in the X 45 direction can be written
as
*pl 1
T 45l r (108)
l (95) ys 22&
btE s tE s
which leads to *
pl 45 1
r (109)
ys

2&
45 tE s E*
45 t
45
E* , or (96)
l l Es l 3.5 Kagome Honeycomb Structure. The Kagome honey-
comb structure 21,22 has mixed triangular and hexagonal cells,
Similarly, we can calculate the Poissons ratio in this direction. as shown in Fig. 1(e). This structure shares with the regular hex-
The horizontal strain is agonal structure the characteristic of being a mechanism i.e., non-
rigid at the unit cell level. However, the arrangement of Kagome
F2 1 45l
2 (97) unit cells into a periodic structure with connected triangular re-
btE s &1 tE s gions and associated periodic boundary conditions confers rigid-
ity, so that both elastic stiffness and yield strength are linear in
and therefore the Poissons ratio *
12 can be obtained as relative density. Accordingly, we use simple truss theory to derive
in-plane properties for this stretch-dominated periodic structure.
2 1
12
* 0.414 (98)
1 &1 3.5.1 Linear Elastic Properties. We first determine the effec-
tive Youngs modulus under the uniaxial compression in the X 1
Clearly, the stiffness is significantly lower about 0.3 than for the direction. One group of representative cells is extracted from the
case of loading shown in Fig. 13, while the Poissons ratio is infinite Kagome honeycomb in Fig. 16. The length of each side of
substantially higher. each triangle is designated as l. Under uniaxial compression, the
cell wall force distributions are shown as T in the diagonal cell
3.4.2 Initial Yield Strength. We first consider the case of
wall and F 2 in the horizontal cell wall; force T is compressive
uniaxial compression in the X 1 direction, shown in Fig. 13. Since
while F 2 is tensile. In the vertical direction,
Tbt ys , the vertical cell wall is the first to yield, establishing
the initial yield strength of the honeycomb structure as 2T sin 60 deg2 1 bl (110)
*
pl 1
ys
1
t
2&1 l
1
(99)
T cos 60 degF 2 0 (111)

Fig. 17 Deformation under compression in the X 2 direction:
a group of cells; and b deformation of a unit cell.
Fig. 16 Deformation under compression in the X 1 direction:
a group of cells; and b deformation of a unit cell.
For calculation of the effective strain, we consider the deformed
geometry of one unit triangular cell, as described in Fig. 17(b).
The length of diagonal cell walls is constant.

Hence, the forces in the cell walls are given by
) 2
ll 2 2
2 l 2 lh (122)
T 1 bl (112) 2 2
) Neglecting terms of second order for small strain, we find
1 1
F 2 1 bl (113) 0)h l 2 (123)
) 2
To calculate the effective strain, we consider the deformed ge- which leads to
ometry of a triangular cell shown in Fig. 16(b). The displace- 1
ments of the joints are also shown in Fig. 16(b). l (124)

3
) 2
ll 2 2
ll 2 lh (114) Hence, the strains in the X 2 and X 1 directions are given by
2 2
F ) 2l ) 2l
Ignoring terms of second order for small strains, we may write 2 , 1 (125)
btE s tE s 3tE s
1
2l)h l 2 (115) Therefore, the effective Youngs modulus in the X 2 direction is
2
2 1 t E*
2 1 t 1 1
which leads to E 2* E or r0.333r
) l s Es ) l ) )
1 4 (126)
l / , (116)
3 3
Similarly, the Poissons ratio is
each term having the meaning of absolute strain magnitude as
1 1
employed in prior sections. The vertical strain of the honeycomb 21
* 0.333 (127)
is given by 2 3
4 T 1 F2 1l As a result of in-plane elastic isotropy of the Kagome structure,
1 l ) (117) the Youngs modulus is the same in the X 1 direction as in the X 2
3 btE s 3 btE s tE s direction.
and the transverse tensile strain of the honeycomb is The unit cell used to calculate the shear modulus of the
Kagome honeycomb is shown in Fig. 18. One of the diagonal cell
F2 1l walls is in tension and the other is in compression, with the dis-
2 (118) tance H in Fig. 18(b) being constant for small relative displace-
btE s )tE s
ments.
Therefore, the effective Youngs modulus of Kagome honeycomb The forces in the horizontal direction are related by equilibrium
in the X 1 direction is 22 according to
1 1 t E 1* 1 t 1 T 1 cos 60 degT 2 cos 60 deg2 12blT 3 (128)
1
E* E or r0.333r (119)
l ) l s Es ) l 3
The Poissons ratio is determined as
2 1
*
12 0.333 (120)
1 3
For uniaxial compression in the X 2 direction, a set of represen-
tative cells is extracted from the infinite domain as shown in Fig.
17. The forces in the cell walls are labeled as T in the diagonal
cell wall, and F in the horizontal cell wall. It must be pointed out
that T0 for the periodic honeycomb and the force F is compres-
sive, i.e.,
Fig. 18 Deformation under in-plane shear loading: a group of
F) 2 bl, T0 (121) cells; and b deformation of a unit cell.

In the vertical direction,
T 1 T 2 sin 60 deg2b 12
)
2
l (129)
Under shear loading, the top and bottom cell walls remain paral-
lel, so we get
T 1 T 2 (130)
Since the periodic honeycomb has no horizontal traction in the X 2 Fig. 19 An infinitely periodic rectangular cell honeycomb
direction,
T 3 0 (131)
The forces within the cell walls are *pl 1 t
(141)
ys 2 l
T 1 T 2 2 12bl (132)
In terms of relative density,
In Fig. 18(b), we consider the deformation of bottom triangle.
Suppose the horizontal displacement of top joint is x. The ge- * t
ometry of the deformed and original triangles is related according r ) , (142)
s l
to
2 the first order normalized elastic properties for the Kagome cell
l honeycomb are given by
h 2 x ll 2 (133)
2
E 1* E*

2 1
l 2 r (143)
h 2 l 2
(134) Es Es 3
2
G*
12 1
where second order terms have been neglected. Clearly, r (144)
Es 8
x2l (135)
*
pl 1 1 *
pl 2 1
Under shear loading, the deformation l of the sides of the r, r (145)
triangle is found as ys 2 ys 3
T 1 /bt 2 12bl 2 12l 2 12l 2 *pl 1

, ll (136) r (146)
Es E s bt E st E st ys 2)
So the shear displacement is As was the case for the triangular hexagonal supercell, these re-
sults also highlight that the in-plane uniaxial compressive strength
x 2l 2l 8 12l is anisotropic, even though the in-plane elastic behavior is isotro-
(137)
h h H/2 ) E s t pic.
12 12 / , the in-plane shear modulus of

From Eq. 137 and G * 3.6 Rectangular Cell Honeycomb. For heat exchanger ap-
the Kagome honeycomb as 22 plications, the rectangular cell honeycombs are superior to other
unit cells under laminar flow conditions in terms of the convective
*
G 12 ) t heat transfer coefficient, with a tradeoff on the pressure drop.
(138) Square cell honeycombs represent a special case of rectangular
Es 8 l
cell honeycomb, and the same comments regarding stress-state
Because the in-plane effective elastic stiffness is isotropic in the dependence of bending versus stretch-dominated cell wall behav-
X 1 X 2 plane, the moduli are related by G * E * /2(1 * ) , ior apply to each. Consider an infinitely long, regular periodic
which is verified by considering the results just derived for com- rectangular metal honeycomb with orthogonal symmetry. The ge-
pression and shear. ometry is shown in Fig. 19; it is noted that the cell walls in
horizontal and vertical orientations have different thicknesses in
3.5.2 Initial Yield Strength. Consider uniaxial compressive
order to tailor strength and stiffness in these respective directions.
loading in the X 1 direction, as shown in Fig. 16. The diagonal cell
Due to slender cell walls relative density of honeycombs is in the
walls have the highest stress and are first to yield. Since T
range of 0.1 to 0.3, the in-plane cell walls are assumed to be
2/) 1 bl, the initial yield strength of the honeycomb structure
elastic-perfectly plastic and are treated as beams with length a and
is given by
b (ab), thickness t 1 and t 2 (t 1 t 2 ), depth c in the X 3 direction,
*
pl 1 ) t moment of inertia I i (i1,2 for the cell walls in X 1 and X 2 direc-
(139) tions, respectively, Youngs modulus E s , and yield stress ys .
ys 2 l
Under uniaxial compressive loading in the X 2 direction, shown 3.6.1 Linear Elastic Properties. Consider uniaxial compres-
in Fig. 17, only the transverse cell walls support load. In the sion in the X 1 direction. In-plane, the cell structure is treated as
horizontal cell walls, F 2 ) 1 bl. The initial yield strength of composed of beams of depth c. As described by Fig. 5, the unit
this honeycomb structure for uniaxial loading in the X 2 direction cell wall deforms like a fixed-end column. F 1 denotes the actual
is given by force in one vertical cell wall, i.e.,
F 1 1 ac (147)
*
pl 2 1 t
(140) where c is the length of the honeycomb in the X 3 direction. The
ys ) l axial stress in vertical cell wall is
Under shear loading, as shown in Fig. 18, the initial shear yield
F 1 1 ac a
strength is determined by recognizing that T 1 /bt ys or T 2 /bt ax 1 (148)
ys , leading to A t 1c t1

Fig. 20 Unit cell deformation under in-plane shear loading: a
deformation mode; and b treating half of a cell wall like a
cantilever beam.
The strain of vertical cell wall in the X 1 direction is Fig. 21 Diagonal compression: a loading in diagonal direc-
tion; and b deformation of a representative cell wall.
ax 1a
1 ax (149)
Es E st 1
The effective Youngs modulus in the X 1 direction is and therefore half of the vertical cell wall deflection is determined
as
1 t1
1
E* E s (150) T 2 b/2 3 1 12ab 3
ax a 2 (160)
3E s I 1 2 E s t 31
or
where I 1 1/12 ct 31 . The shear strain of the entire unit cell under
E 1* t1 shear loading is composed of the following two parts:
(151)

Es a
2 2 2 1 12 ab 2 ba 2
The deformation of a vertical cell wall in the transverse direction 12 1 2 3 (161)
b a E s t 31 t2
X 2 is
Hence, the in-plane shear modulus is given by
tr s ax (152)
Then the transverse X 2 direction strain of the unit cell is given by 12 E s t 31 t 32
*
G 12 (162)
12 ab at 31 bt 32
tr t 1 s 1t 1
2 (153) or
a a
So the effective Poissons ratio is G*
12 t 31 t 32
(163)
Es ab at 31 bt 32
2 t1
12
* s (154) Next we consider the mechanical properties of the rectangular
1 a
cell honeycomb loaded diagonally. This is relevant to stiffness
Similarly, the results for uniaxial compressive loading in the X 2 reduction for off-diagonal loading for the orthotropic structure.
direction are summarized as Figure 21 shows uniform compressive stress dia along the diag-
E* t2 onal direction in the X 1 X 2 plane. Under diagonal compression,
2
(155) cell wall bending is the primary deformation mode. A unit cell is
Es b shown in Fig. 21(b), subject to periodic constraints.
1 t2 In the cell wall AO, the resultant force P a at point A is given by
21
* s (156) see Fig. 22
2 b
Figure 20 shows an exaggerated deformation of a unit cell of a ab
P a diac (164)
periodic rectangular cell honeycomb subjected to a simple shear a 2 b 2
loading in the X 1 X 2 orientation. Under shear loading, cell wall
bending is the primary deformation mode for rectangular cell hon- where ab/ a 2 b 2 is the length of OD. Because the two ends of
eycombs. Under shear loading, the ends of each cell wall are beam AO are constrained by joints against rotation as for the
constrained against rotation by virtue of the periodicity of the cell square cell in Fig. 8(c), the moment in the cell wall is given by
structure. As a result, the cell walls undergo beam bending as the
primary deformation mode. It must be pointed out that the shear
deformation is different in the X 1 and X 2 directions because of the
M a
1
2Pa 2
b
a b 2
1
a P a 2
2
ab
a b 2
(165)
different cell wall thicknesses.
From standard beam theory, the deflection of AO is obtained as
The shear force on horizontal cell wall is given by
T 1 12bc (157)
so that half of the horizontal cell wall deflection is
T 1 a/2 3 1 12ba 3
1 (158)
3E s I 2 2 E s t 32
Here, I 2 is the second moment of inertia of the horizontal cell
wall, i.e., I 2 1/12 ct 32 .
The shear force on vertical cell wall is
T 2 12ac (159) Fig. 22 Deflection of unit cell walls

M aa 2 P aa 3b T crit *
pl 1 a
a (166) ys (176)
6E s I 2 E s ct 32 a 2 b 2 t 1c t1
This of course provides a lower bound on the stress required for
Similarly, the beam of BO is given by
plastic buckling. The initial yield strength of the honeycomb for
M bb 2 P b ab 3 uniaxial compression in the X 1 direction is given by

b (167)
6E s I 1 E s ct 31 a 2 b 2 *
pl 1 t1
(177)
ys a
From equilibrium under imposed uniform uniaxial stress and
small deformation, P P a P b . Since the deflections of a and Similarly, we can obtain the initial yield strength for uniaxial
a are, respectively, perpendicular to segments AO and BO, the compression in the X 2 direction as

total displacement in diagonal direction is
*
pl 2 t2

(178)
b Pa b a a b 2 2
ys b
dia a 2 2 b 2 2 3 3
a b a b E s c a 2
b 2
t2 t1 3.6.2.2 Shear. With regard to the in-plane shear yield
(168) strength of rectangular cell honeycomb, Fig. 20(a) shows four
So strain of the unit cell is plastic hinges A, B, C, and D formed in a unit cell. The plastic
rotation for horizontal and vertical cell walls are given as 1 and
dia
dia
a 2 b 2

Pa 2 b 2 a
b
E s c a 2 b 2 3/2 t 32 t 31 (169)
2 , respectively note that these differ from deformed angles 1
and 2 in the elastic stiffness calculation. Consider the plastic
hinges formed in the vertical cell walls at points A and C. The
upper bound on the plastic collapse stress is given by equating the
The Youngs modulus in this direction is
work done by the two shear forces with plastic hinge rotation, i.e.,
dia E s a 2 b 2 2 2 M p 1 1 12cab 1

*
E dia (170) (179)
dia a b
a 3b 3 3 3 where (M p ) 1 is the fully plastic moment of the cell wall in bend-
t2 t1 ing, i.e.,
which can be rewritten as 1
M p 1 ys ct 21 (180)
*
E dia a 2 b 2 2 a 2 b 2 2 t 32 t 31 4

3 3 3 (171) From Eqs. 179 and 180, it follows that
Es a b a b at 1 bt 32
a 3b 3 3 3
t2 t1 *
pl 1 1 t 21
(181)
The Poissons ratio is determined by considering the transverse ys 2 ab
displacement, i.e., The lower bound follows by equating the maximum moment of

3 3 vertical cell walls to the fully plastic moment (M p ) 1 ; the maxi-
a b Pab a b mum moment of the each vertical cell wall is given by
tr a b 3
a 2 b 2 a 2 b 2 E s c a 2 b 2 t 32 t1
1
(172) M max 1 12abc (182)
2
The transverse strain is given by
which is equivalent to Eq. 179. Hence, the lower bound is equal
tr
tr
ab/ a 2 b 2

P
E s c a 2 b 2 t 2
3 a3

b3
t 31 (173)
to the upper bound.
Consider the horizontal cell wall forming the plastic hinges at
points B and D. The shear yield strength at this case is
Hence, the Poissons ratio under diagonal compression is given by *
pl 2 1 t 22

(183)
a3 b3 ys 2 ab

tr a 2 b 2 t 32 t 31 Because the cell wall thicknesses have the relationship t 1 t 2 ,

dia 2 2 (174) the thinner horizontal cell walls will yield first under shear load-
dia a b a b
ing. Hence, the initial shear yield strength is
t 32 t 31
*pl 1 t 22
3.6.2 Initial Yield Strength Under Compression and Shear. (184)
ys 2 ab
3.6.2.1 Uniaxial compression. Under uniaxial compression,
3.6.2.2 Loading in the diagonal direction. Under uniaxial
a rectangular cell honeycomb of sufficiently high density typical
compression, plastic hinges will form at the ends of each cell wall
of metal honeycombs will undergo plastic yielding and collapse
shown in Fig. 23; the plastic rotations of long cell wall and short
prior to elastic buckling. When the relative density is very low, or
cell wall are a and b , respectively. The upper bound on the
cell wall is too slender, elastic buckling may precede plastic col-
plastic collapse stress is given by equating the work done by the
lapse of cell walls see appendix 1.
forces with that of the kinematical mode of deformation via hinge
Consider uniaxial compressive loading of a periodic rectangular
rotation, i.e.,

cell honeycomb, as shown in Fig. 6. For loading in the vertical
(X 1 ) direction, the force at yield is given by b
2 M p a a P aa (185)
T critF 1 *
pl 1 ac (175) a 2 b 2
Setting the corresponding stress in the cell wall to correspond to The force P was given by Eq. 164 as P
the yield strength, diacab/ a 2 b 2 .

Kagome cell honeycomb structure in section 3.5. The basic unit
cell has two equilateral triangles. This unit cell satisfies Maxwells
condition for both statical and kinematical determinacy 17, so
deformation is stretch dominated and we can adopt simple truss
theory to derive exact in-plane properties.
3.7.1 Linear Elastic Properties. Following directly the
methods used for equilateral triangular hexagonal supercells and
Kagome cells outlined in detail in previous sections, the effective
Youngs moduli the X 1 and X 2 directions for the unit cell shown
in Fig. 24(a) are given by
E*
1 2 t 2 E*
2 1 t 1
Fig. 23 Deformation under diagonal compressive loading r0.4r and r0.2r
Es ) l 5 Es ) l 5
(191)
Cell wall bending controls the initial yield of the structure un- where r 5/)t/l . The Poissons ratios are determined as
der diagonal loading. The fully plastic moment of the long cell
2 1 1 1
wall in bending is given by *
12 0.333 and 21
* 0.333
1 3 2 3
1 (192)
M p a ys ct 22 (186)
4 The shear modulus is given by
It follows that *
G 12 ) t 3
* 1 t 22 a 2 b 2 r (193)
pl dia Es 4 l 20
(187)
ys 2 a 2b 2
3.7.2 Initial Yield Strength. For uniaxial compression in ei-
The lower bound is determined by equating the maximum mo- ther the X 1 or X 2 directions, the initial yield strength of a periodic
ment to the fully plastic moment (M p ) a ; the maximum moment honeycomb with the simple diamond cell shown in Fig. 24(a) is
in the long cell wall is given by given for each direction as
b *
pl 1 t *
pl 2 1 t
M max a Pa (188) ) 0.6 r, and 0.2r (194)
a 2
b 2 ys l ys ) l
Letting (M p ) a (M max)b , we get the same result as Eq. 186. So Under in-plane shear loading, the initial shear yield strength is
the lower bound is equal to the upper bound. determined as
For bending of the short, thick cell wall, we arrive at
*pl t )
*
pl dia 1 t 21 a 2 b 2 r (195)
(189) ys l 5
ys 2 a 2b 2
It is apparent that the diamond cell honeycomb is competitive
Because t 2 t 1 , the longer and thinner cell walls in rectangular with both the hexagonal supercell built up from six equilateral
cell honeycombs are more susceptible to yielding. The initial yield triangles as well as the Kagome cell type, with higher compres-
strength is therefore described in Eq. 187. sive stiffness and strength in the X 1 direction, lower in the X 2
For the rectangular cell honeycomb, the relative density is de- direction. The shear stiffness and strength are superior to both the
fined as hexagonal supercell and Kagome cell structures. Unlike these two
* at 2 bt 1 latter cell types, however, the diamond cell is significantly aniso-
r (190) tropic in-plane. It has improved in-plane shear stiffness and yield
s ab strength relative to either the hexagonal arrangement of equilateral
where a quadratic term has been omitted for low relative density. triangles or the Kagome cell, as well as higher stiffness and yield
If we let abl, and t 1 t 2 t, all the previous results reduce to strength in the X 1 direction.
the formulas of square honeycombs obtained in section 3.1.
3.7 Diamond Honeycomb Structure. This structure,
shown in Fig. 24, is similar to that of both the hexagonal supercell 4 Comparisons and Concluding Remarks
built up from equilateral triangles in section 3.2 as well as the Results for the in-plane mechanical properties of various peri-
odic honeycomb cells are listed in Table 2. With the exception of
the effective elastic properties of the periodic square, hexagonal,
equilateral triangular and Kagome cell structures, and initial yield
strength and elastic buckling loads for the hexagonal honeycomb,
the majority of the results are presented here for the first time,
e.g., elastic properties for mixed, rectangular and diamond cells,
and initial yield strengths in compression and shear for all cell
structures other than hexagonal. Detailed derivations are given for
all cell structures except the oft-studied hexagonal honeycomb.
The elastic stiffness, initial yield strength and elastic buckling
stress are expressed in terms of relative density to facilitate direct
comparison. Seven types of honeycomb cell structures were in-
vestigated in this study using simple beam or column/truss theory
Fig. 24 Diamond cell honeycomb structure: a simple dia- including linear and nonlinear theories to explore in-plane effec-
mond unit cell; and b periodic cell structure. tive elastic stiffness and initial yield strength. It has been demon-

strated that the cell geometry plays an important role in determin-
ing the in-plane mechanical properties of different honeycomb
structures.
In-plane honeycomb cell walls can be treated as beam/column
elements. For hexagonal honeycomb cells, cell wall bending
dominates cell wall stretching over a practical range of relative
densities since the joints must resist bending in order for these
honeycombs to remain stable. Joint rotation is significant during
deformation. In contrast, the triangular cell honeycombs are kine-
matically stable if the joints are replaced by pin joints, and are
therefore dominated by cell wall stretching; these include the hex-
agonal supercell built up from equilateral triangles, the square
supercell built up from triangles, the Kagome cell, and the dia-
mond cell. For the orthotropic square or rectangular cell honey- Fig. 25 Effective Youngs modulus comparison
combs, axial stress is dominant under axial loading in the direc-
tions of cell walls, but the bending stress dominates under off-axis
relative to principal axes of in-plane orthotropy or shear loading
conditions. in compression of the square and mixed square/triangular cell
When the cell walls are too slender or thin, elastic buckling will honeycombs are presented only for the directions where they are
occur. The critical values of relative density are calculated when highest, i.e., the X 1 and X 2 directions.
initial plastic collapse and elastic buckling occur simultaneously. Considering Fig. 25, it is obvious that for a given relative den-
When the relative density r0.06 or so, elastic buckling may sity the square/rectangle honeycomb loaded in the direction of cell
compete with plastic collapse. For most of the metal honeycomb walls has the highest effective Youngs modulus. The diamond
cell structures considered in this work, the relative density is sig- cell structure loaded in the X 1 direction falls just below the square
nificantly higher than that roughly double of a regular hexagonal cell stiffness. The triangular cell, Kagome cell and mixed cell
cell structure for a given wall thickness to length ratio, t/l, so honeycombs have similar moduli. The hexagonal cell honeycomb
elastic buckling is not a significant failure mode. For example, for has the lowest Youngs modulus for a given relative density.
a t/l ratio of 0.1 the relative densities are as follows: hexagonal: Figure 26 compares effective elastic shear moduli as a function
of the relative density. The diamond cell structure has the highest
0.115, square: 0.20, mixed: 0.341, Kagome: 0.173, and diamond:
effective shear modulus, followed by the triangular cell and
0.289. Moreover, such columns are considered short enough for
Kagome cell honeycombs. The mixed cell honeycombs shear
short column behavior to apply without significant correction of modulus is little lower than the previous two. The hexagonal hon-
failure load for slenderness ratio; hence, it is only necessary to eycomb and the square/rectangle honeycomb have the lowest ef-
evaluate initial yield in compression. The critical points on rela- fective shear modulus for a given relative density.
tive density for transition from elastic buckling to plastic collapse- Figure 27 shows the initial yield strength as a function of the
dominated behavior are derived in appendix 1, and are presented relative density for various cell shapes. The diamond cell honey-
in Table 2. comb has the highest yield strength (X 1 direction, followed by
Appendix 1 shows that the Kagome honeycomb has a lower mixed square/rectangle supercell, the hexagonal supercell ar-
threshold of relative density above which yielding dominates elas- ranged from six equilateral triangles, and the Kagome cell honey-
tic buckling than other triangular cell structures. The diamond cell combs. There is orthotropy of the yield strength for the diamond
structure has a threshold value somewhat higher than the Kagome cell, triangular cell arranged hexagonally, and Kagome honey-
cell structure, but below the others. combs. The hexagonal honeycomb has the lowest yield strength
In Table 2 we can see that the triangular cell and Kagome cell for a given relative density.
honeycombs exhibit the highest elastic stiffness-to-weight ratio Figure 28 indicates the relationship of shear yield strength as a
and highest initial yield strength-to-weight ratio of cell structures function of relative density for various cell shapes. The diamond
considered that have in-plane elastic isotropy. The hexagonal cell cell honeycomb has the highest initial shear yield strength. The
honeycomb exhibits the lowest in-plane effective elastic stiffness triangular cell and Kagome cell honeycombs have the highest
per unit mass and has the lowest synthetic properties of the cells shear strengths among the cells that exhibit isotropic in-plane
considered. Square cell honeycomb and rectangle honeycomb are elastic behavior. The mixed square/triangle cell honeycombs
superior only for loading aligned with cell walls, but exhibit very shear strength is little lower than these two. The hexagonal hon-
low stiffness under shear loading or diagonal compressive load- eycomb and the square/rectangle honeycomb have the lowest ef-
ing. However, there are advantages of rectangular cell honey-
combs for purposes of high convective heat transfer coefficients
23 in multifunctional applications demanding strength, stiffness
and heat transfer. The mixed cell honeycomb that combine
squares with triangles exhibit stiffness and yield strengths that are
similar to the case of simple equilateral triangular cell honey-
comb, but the former cells are elastically orthotropic. The dia-
mond cell honeycomb is competitive with both the hexagonal su-
percell and Kagome cell honeycombs except that it is significantly
anisotropic with regard to in-plane elasticity as well as strength.
For visual comparison of in-plane properties, elastic stiffness
and initial yield strength are plotted for various cells in Figs.
2528. In these figures, the highest stiffness or yield strength in
the X 1 direction is plotted for the diamond cell structure. For
initial yield strength, values for compression in each of the X 1 and
X 2 directions are plotted for the Kagome e.g., Kagome1 and
Kagome2 and triangular cell structures. The stiffness and strength Fig. 26 Effective shear modulus comparison

ties in the range of practical interest for the extrusion process
discussed earlier in section 1 above 0.1 or so. It is clear that the
yield function is anisotropic. In general, such cellular materials
exhibit different post-yield behavior of flow stress in tension or
compression for given nominal strain levels, depending on the
level of cell wall buckling involved. The initial yield surface has
tension-compression symmetry, according to the simple analyses
invoked here, but develops tension-compression asymmetry in the
post-yielding regime, which is strongly dependent upon the cell
structure. This corresponds to the regime of plateau stress in com-
pression of metal foams or honeycombs 3. In tension, cell wall
extensional yielding and rotation occurs in conjunction with buck-
ling of compressed segments. In compression, buckling dominates
and complex post bifurcation cell wall kinking and contact pre-
Fig. 27 Initial yield strength comparison vails. Moreover, different characteristic cell walls within the struc-
ture buckle under tensile and compressive loadings.
The yield behavior is stress state dependent and somewhat non-
intuitive. For square and rectangular cells, the yield strength de-
fective shear modulus for a given relative density. The hexagonal pends linearly on relative density for out-of-plane loading along
cell honeycomb has a shear yield strength that is a bit higher than
the long axis of cells, but on the 3 rd power of relative density for
that of square honeycomb.
in-plane shear. For all cell structures, the yield strength for simple
In the X 1 direction, the initial yield strength of the diamond cell
tension or compression along the honeycomb axis in the cell di-
honeycomb is clearly higher than that of the other honeycomb cell
rection is linear in relative density. In general, triangular cell
shapes. For this direction, only the square cell honeycomb, also
structures exhibit faceted yield surfaces, whereas the square and
orthotropic, has a higher Youngs modulus. Of course, the Youngs
rectangular cell structures exhibit nonlinear curvature and concav-
modulus falls off by a factor of two in the X 2 direction for the
ity due to the transition to nonlinear dependence on relative den-
diamond cell structure, and the yield strength by a factor of three,
sity for off-cell wall orientations of loading 3. For triangular cell
i.e., it is strongly orthotropic. The in-plane shear modulus of the
honeycombs for which the initial yield strength is linear in relative
diamond structure is the highest of all cells considered, and is
density for all in-plane stress states, a faceted initial yield surface
linear with relative density by virtue of the basic triangular cell
is manifested for a honeycomb of given relative density. It is
structure, which is a characteristic shared with the triangular cell
perhaps counter-intuitive that even the two cell shapes that offer
hexagonal supercells and the Kagome cell structure.
in-plane elastic isotropy three-dimensional transverse elastic isot-
Appendix 2 compares the in-plane elastic stiffness and yield
ropy, the equilateral triangular cells arranged as hexagons and the
strength of various honeycomb cells considered in this work with
Kagome cell, are significantly in-plane orthotropic with regard to
that of stochastic open and closed cell metal foams. Clearly there
initial yield strength.
is a marked advantage at low relative density of the ordered peri-
It is emphasized that scale effects have not been considered in
odic honeycomb materials. The strength advantage of the honey-
this work because we have focused on periodic honeycomb struc-
combs may become still more pronounced if effects of cell wall
tures. In particular, it is known from modeling and experiments on
contacts during in-plane buckling and cell wall work hardening
metal foams 8,9,24 that the strength and stiffness depend on
are taken into account, as the in-plane plateau strength of ductile
specimen size relative to the cell diameter. In particular, it is com-
metal honeycombs that work harden can be well above the values
monly observed that strength is lower for cases of small speci-
for initial yield strength reported here.
mens ratio of specimen dimension to cell size less than 57 due
Appendix 3 offers the discriminating reader insight into the
to the effects of partial cell walls and the dominance of contact
degree of approximation made in obtaining solutions based on
conditions with test fixtures/external constraints. Scatter is also
neglect of the three-dimensional stress state constraint effect in
typically somewhat higher for small specimens. The same is true
length direction of the honeycombs considered here. These ef-
for in-plane behavior of metal honeycombs. Another important
fects are shown to be small enough to be neglected for practical
type of size effect is the distribution of cell wall defects in as-
purposes, even for triangular cell honeycombs.
processed honeycombs, a matter that will also be addressed in
Further comments are directed to the combined stress state
forthcoming work.
yield criteria of these honeycomb cell structures. Supported by the
elastic buckling analyses in appendix 1, we assume that the loci of
points pertaining to elastic buckling are well outside the region of Acknowledgments
initial yielding of these honeycomb structures for relative densi- This work was sponsored by DSO of DARPA N00014-99-1-
1016 under Dr. Leo Christodoulou and by ONR N0014-99-1-
0852 under Dr. Steven Fishman. We deeply appreciate their sup-
port and guidance. We would like to thank Tony Evans of UCSB
for suggesting analysis of the diamond cell structure.
Appendix 1
Elastic Buckling for In-Plane Compression. Although
yielding of within cell walls of metal honeycombs is dominant
under loading the ranges of relative density 0.10 to 0.3, when the
relative density is very low and the cell walls are very slender,
elastic buckling may precede plastic buckling. Certain common
periodic honeycomb cell structures such as regular hexagonal cf.
Fig. 1(c)) have somewhat lower relative densities for a given
wall thickness to edge length, t/l, and may be more failure-
limited by elastic buckling. Here we analyze the deformation in
Fig. 28 Initial shear yield strength comparison cell walls under axial compressive load.

The following analyses are conducted for elastic buckling of
the cell wall that is most easy to buckle under compressive stress.
For the triangular cell honeycomb, the highest compressive force
in any cell wall corresponds to case b in Fig. 9(b). The force in
the cell wall is T)/2 2 bl; substituting into Eq. 196, we ar-
rive at
el
* 22 t

E s 3) l 3
0.0914r 3 (201)
For the mixed cell honeycomb, the highest compressive force in

any cell wall corresponds to the case of 45 deg compressive load-
Fig. 29 Elastic buckling and post yield deformation of cell ing as shown in Fig. 15. The force in the cell wall is T 45bl;
wall: a a single cell wall under axial stress; b fixed-free; and substituting into Eq. 196, with a column length of cell wall of
c fixed-fixed. &l, we get
Under compressive loading of honeycombs, membrane forces

el
*

2 t
E s 6& l 3
0.0292r 3 (202)
in the cell walls primarily affect the initial in-plane failure of For the Kagome cell honeycomb, the highest compressive force
honeycombs. A critical force T crit is assumed to exist in the cell in any cell wall corresponds to the case (b) shown in Fig. 17. The
wall which makes the elastic buckling and initial yielding equally force in the cell wall is T) 2 bl; substituting into Eq. 196,
likely to occur. When elastic buckling occurs, according to the we obtain
results of Timoshenko and Gere 18,
T crit
n 2 2E sI
l2
(196)
el
*

2 t
E s 3) l 3
0.366r 3 (203)
where n is the end constraint factor that depends on the degree of For the diamond cell honeycomb, the highest compressive force
constraint to rotation at the end nodes A, B as shown in Fig. 29. in any cell wall corresponds to the case of X 2 direction compres-
If rotation is freely allowed, e.g., pinned joints, n0.5; if rotation sion. The force in the cell wall is T) 2 bl; substituting into
is inhibited as in the case of fixed ends, n2. For a cell wall of a Eq. 196, we obtain

honeycomb loaded by axial force, the constraint on the wall by
el
* 2 t 3
neighboring joints lies between these limits, so 0.5n2. 0.0790r 3 (204)
For in-plane compressive loading parallel to the cell walls, the E s 3) l
vertical cell walls of square honeycombs elastically buckle as
shown in Fig. 29(b), which represents fixed-free boundary con- For the rectangular cell honeycomb, the elastic buckling mode
ditions on the column, so n1. The walls of cell wall extension- is similar to that of the square honeycomb. For loading in the X 1
dominated cell structures such as the triangular, mixed, Kagome, direction, the force in the vertical cell wall is T 1 ac; from Eq.
and diamond cell honeycombs buckle as shown in Fig. 29(c), 196 we get
with fixed-fixed boundary conditions for the column, i.e., n2. el
* 2 t 31
For the hexagonal cell honeycomb, Gibson and Ashby 3 used (205)
the value n0.69 because the joints can rotate. Es 12 ab 2
To evaluate the elastic buckling load of square honeycombs for For loading in the X 2 direction, the force in the vertical cell wall
loading along the cell wall directions, we substitute T 1 lb from is T 2 bc, which leads to
Eq. 4 into Eq. 196 to arrive at
el

* 2 t 32
el
* 2 t 3
(206)
0.103r 3 (197) Es 12 a 2 b
Es 12 l
With regard to the critical value when initial yielding corre-
If initial yielding and elastic buckling occur simultaneously, at sponding to plastic buckling for short columns and elastic buck-
the point of initial yielding, ling occur simultaneously for these four kinds of honeycomb cells
T critbt ys (198) dominated by extension, we define the force in the cell wall is
T crit , where T critbt ys . Using n2 and substituting into Eq.
Equating Eqs. 196 and 198, 196, we arrive at

t
l crit

12 ys
2E s
(199) t
l crit

3 ys
2E s
(207)
Assuming the typical ratio of yield strength to Youngs modulus

We again assume the characteristic ratio ys /E s 103 and use
for structural metallic alloys, ys /E s 103 , we arrive at the criti- Eq. 196 to write
cal relative density for square honeycombs, above which plastic
buckling dominates, as

t

0.003
0.0174

(208)
t 0.012 t l crit
2
0.0349, or r crit2 0.0698
l crit
2 l crit To express this last result as a function of the critical relative
(200) density for each type of cell, we use the respective relation of t/l
Below this critical relative density, elastic buckling dominates. to r for each to write:
Note that for certain high strength steel cell wall materials, for r crit0.0603 for triangular cells (209)
example, r crit might be as high as 0.15 or so for the square cell
honeycomb. r crit0.0594 for mixed square/triangular cells (210)

Fig. 30 In-plane effective elastic modulus of triangular cell Fig. 31 In-plane yield strength of triangular cell honeycomb
honeycomb compared with stochastic foams compared with stochastic foams
r crit0.0301 for Kagome cells (211) eycomb has a similar effective elastic modulus to the stochastic
closed cell foam at low relative density (0.15), with open cell
r crit0.0502 for diamond cells (212) foams exhibiting much lower elastic stiffness.
Figure 31 shows the strength as a function of relative density
For the rectangular cell honeycomb, the cell walls in the X 2
for the triangular cell honeycomb loaded in the X 1 direction and
direction are thinner and more susceptible to elastic buckling than
stochastic foams. Clearly, the honeycomb material has a consid-
that those in the X 1 direction. We have the result
erably higher strength than either the open or closed cell stochas-
t 32 0.012 tic metal foams. Strength is a significant advantage of ordered
(213) honeycomb materials with cells that are dominated by cell wall
a 2b 2
extension rather than cell wall bending. Similarly, the effective
Gibson and Ashby 3 have previously presented the elastic shear moduli and shear strength of such cellular metal honey-
buckling results and critical value of relative density for regular combs are superior to those of stochastic metal foams.
hexagonal honeycombs above which plastic buckling dominates, It is worth noting that the in-plane effective elastic stiffness and
as reported in Table 2. strength of various periodic honeycomb cells presented in this
paper are substantially inferior to their out-of-plane properties.
The normalized effective elastic modulus and strength in the cell
direction are proportional to the relative density. In contrast to the
Appendix 2 honeycombs, stochastic foams often have isotropic properties in
Comparison of In-Plane Properties With Stochastic Foams. three dimensions, but they are shown here to be generally inferior
Clearly honeycombs that employ triangular cells exhibit superior to that of triangular cell-based honeycombs in any orientation for
in-plane stiffness and plastic collapse strength compared to hex- a given relative density. Hence, the properties of certain metal
agonal cell honeycombs. It is further useful to compare properties honeycombs are superior to stochastic foams in all directions of
for honeycombs that employ equilateral triangular cells arranged loading; it is not a case where properties in other directions are
in a hexagon Fig. 1b with those of stochastic metal foams, sacrificed relative to stochastic foams to achieve better response in
noting that the mechanical properties of the Kagome cell are a given direction. This is not true, of course, for conventional
nearly identical. For illustration, only the effective elastic modulus hexagonal cell honeycombs which have very low in-plane stiff-
and initial yield strength are compared. ness and strength properties.
The relative density of stochastic foams is also defined as r
* / s . The effective elastic modulus and plastic collapse stress
of foams can be described by the following equations, derived Appendix 3
using dimensional analysis 3. For open cell foams,
Error Estimation of In-Plane Properties as Affected by Out-
E* of-Plane Constraint. In this paper we have considered 13 * and
r 2 , (214)
Es 23
* to be negligibly small in determining the in-plane mechanical
properties for metal honeycombs with various cell shapes. For an
*pl orthotropic linear elastic material, the in-plane (X 1 X 2 ) elastic
c 1 r 3/2, (215)
ys relations have the simple form
where the coefficient is c 1 0.3. 1 1
For closed cell foams including the membrane stresses, 1 12 2 13 3 , 2 21 1 23 3
E 1* 1 E 2* 2
E* (218)
r 2 1 r, (216)
Es As shown by Gibson and Ashby 3, for a honeycomb the Pois-
sons ratios for out-of-plane strain due to in-plane deformation are
*pl governed by the solid material, i.e., *
0.3 r 3/20.4 1 r, (217) 31 32
* s , and the corre-
ys sponding relative Poissons ratios 13* and 23 * for the in-plane
where (1 ) is the fraction of solid that is contained in cell strain due to out-of-plane deformation are given by the reciprocal
faces. For most stochastic metal foams, 0.7. relations
Figure 30 shows the effective elastic modulus as a function of E 1* E*
2
the relative density for the triangular cell honeycomb in Fig. 1(b) *
13 s , *
23 s (219)
in-plane loading and stochastic foams. The triangular cell hon- E*
3 E*
3

where E 3* is the effective Youngs modulus of out-of-plane direc- References
3 r E s . The above equations are suitable for all the metal
tion, E * 1 Ashby, M. F., Evans, A., Fleck, N. A., Gibson, L. J., Hutchinson, J. W., and
honeycombs with various cell shapes discussed in this paper. As- Wadley, H. N. G., 2000, Metal Foams: A Design Guide, Butterworth-
Heinemann, Boston.
suming plane strain in the X 3 direction, we get 3 s ( 1 2 ) 2 Cochran, J., Lee, K. J., McDowell, D., Sanders, T, Church, B., Clark, J.,
from the out-of-plane orthotropic elastic relation, leading to Dempsey, B., Hayes, A., Hurysz, K., McCoy, T., Nadler, J., Oh, R., Seay, W.,
and Shapiro, B., 2000, Low Density Monolithic Metal Honeycombs by Ther-
mal Chemical Processing, Fourth Conference on Aerospace Materials, Pro-
1 cesses and Environmental Technology, Huntsville, Alabama, September 18
1 1 *
12 2 *
13 s 1 2 , 20, 2000.
E 1*
3 Gibson, L. J., and Ashby, M. F., 1997, Cellular Solids: Structure and Proper-
ties, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press.
4 Kelsey, S., Gellatly, R. A., and Clark, B. W., 1958, The Shear Modulus of
1
2 2 *
21 1 23
* s 1 2 (220) Foil Honeycombs Cores, Aircraft Eng., 30, pp. 294 302.
E* 5 Grediac, M., 1993, A Finite Element Study of the Transverse Shear in Hon-
2
eycomb Cores, Int. J. Solids Struct., 3013, pp. 17771788.
6 Papka, S. D., and Kyriakides, S., 1998, Experiments and Full-Scale Numeri-
For a compressive stress 1 acting in the X 1 direction, with 2 cal Simulations of In-Plane Crushing of a Honeycombs, Acta Mater., 468,
0, this leads to pp. 27652776.
7 Triantafyllidis, N., and Schraad, M. W., 1998, Onset of Failure in Aluminum
Honeycombs Under General In-Plane Loading, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 466,
1 1 pp. 10891124.
1 1 *
13 s , 2 * * (221) 8 Onck, P. R., Andrews, E. W., and Gibson, L. J., 2001, Size Effects in Ductile
E 1* E 2* 21 23 s Cellular Solids, Part I: Modeling, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 43, pp. 681 699.
9 Andrews, E. W., Gioux, G., Onck, P., and Gibson, L. J., 2001, Size Effects in
Ductile Cellular Solids. Part II: Experimental Results, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 43,
For hexagonal cell honeycombs, the in-plane elastic moduli E 1* pp. 701713.
2 are proportional to r see Table 2; Eq. 219 then shows
and E * 3 10 Zhang, J., and Ashby, M. F., 1992, Buckling of Honeycombs Under In-Plane
Biaxial Stresses, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 346, pp. 491509.
that 13
* and 23
* are negligibly small since E *3 r E s , leading to a 11 Gu, S., Lu, T. J., and Evans, A. G., 2001, On the Design of Two-Dimensional
purely in-plane uniaxial-type relation in Eq. 221 for the in-plane Cellular Metals for Combined Heat Dissipation and Structural Load Capacity,
loading case. No plane strain coupling correction arises for the Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 44, pp. 21632175.
12 Torquato, S., Gibiansky, L. V., Silva, M. J., and Gibson, L. J., 1998, Effective
in-plane elastic response. On the other hand, for cell types for Mechanical and Transport Properties of Cellular Solids, Int. J. Mech. Sci.,
which E 1* and E 2* are linear in relative density, there is a plane 401, pp. 71 82.
strain correction that depends on the in-plane Poissons ratios. For 13 Christensen, R. M., 1986, Mechanics of Low Density Materials, J. Mech.
Phys. Solids, 346, pp. 563578.
example, for the triangular or Kagome cell honeycombs, * 13 14 Hunt, H. E. M., 1993, The Mechanical Strength of Ceramic Honeycomb
0.333rE s /rE s s s /3, leading to Monoliths as Determined by Simple Experiments, Trans IChemE, 71, Part A,
pp. 257266.
15 Santosa, S., and Wierzbicki, T., 1999, Effect of an Ultralight Metal Filler on
1 the Bending Collapse Behavior of Thin-Walled Prismatic Columns, Int. J.
1 1 s2 /3 (222) Mech. Sci., 41, pp. 9951019.
E 1*
16 Gulati S. T., 1975, Effects of Cell Geometry on Thermal Shock Resistance of
Catalytic Monoliths, Automotive Engineering Congress and Exposition, So-
Hence, for typical values of s 0.3, the correction for out-of- ciety of Automotive Engineers, Detroit, MI.
17 Deshpande, V. S., Ashby, M. F., and Fleck, N. A., 2001, Foam Topology
plane constraint on the effective elastic stiffness is only about 3 Bending Versus Stretching Dominated Architectures, Acta Mater., 49, pp.
percent. This correction is small enough to be neglected compared 10351040.
to various other factors related to imperfections and nonuniformi- 18 Timoshenko, S. P., and Gere, J. M., 1961, Theory of Elastic Stability, 2nd ed.
ties in practical honeycombs. McGraw-Hill, New York.
19 Gere, J. M., and Timoshenko, S. P., 1984, Mechanics of Materials, 2nd Ed.
With regard to yield strength there are no significant effects of Wadsworth Inc.
out-of-plane constraint for triangular type cell structures because 20 Evans, A. G., Hutchinson, J. W., Fleck, N. A., Ashby, M. F., and Wadley, H. N.
each cell wall segment behaves like a uniaxial truss element in- G., 2001, The Topological Design of Multifunctional Cellular Metals, Prog.
plane. Accordingly, the out-of-plane stress 3 s , where is Mater. Sci., 46, pp. 309327.
21 Syozi, I., 1951, Statistics of Kagome Lattice, Prog. Theor. Phys., 63, pp.
the in-plane uniaxial stress in the segment. Since 3 is always of 306 308.
the same sign as and there is no in-plane stress normal to the 22 Hyun, S., and Torquato, S., 2002, Optimal and Manufacturable Two-
thin wall, the maximum shear stress Tresca criterion is unaf- Dimensional, Kagome-Like Cellular Solids, J. Mater. Res., 171, pp. 137
fected by the out-of-plane stress. Hence, there are no effects of 144.
23 Shah, R. K., and London, A. L., 1978, Laminar Flow Forced Convection in
out-of-plane constraint upon yielding. This also applies to cell Ducts, Academic Press, New York.
structures that behave as mechanisms rather than rigid structures, 24 Lim, T. J., Smith, B., and McDowell, D. L., 2002, Behavior of a Random
for which yield is dominated by bending. Hollow Sphere Metal Foam, Acta Mater., 5011, pp. 28672879.

137 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

137 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In-Plane Stiffness and Yield

Strength of Periodic Metal

1 Introduction viable failure mode. Both theoretical analysis and experimental

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

Fig. 1 Periodic honeycombs with different cell shapes: a

138 Vol. 126, APRIL 2004 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

Fig. 6 Cell deformation by initial yieldingshort column plastic

140 Vol. 126, APRIL 2004 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

For slender struts the deflection of the structure is not signifi-

E 1* E 2* 2 t so the engineering shear strain is given by

142 Vol. 126, APRIL 2004 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

where h, l 2 , l 1 are all positive quantities for the deformation

shown in Fig. 12(b). This leads to

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

It is worth noting that regular hexagonal cell honeycomb exhib-

144 Vol. 126, APRIL 2004 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

For the mixed honeycomb, the relative density is defined as

146 Vol. 126, APRIL 2004 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

T 1 /bt 2 12bl 2 12l 2 12l 2 *pl 1

12 12 / , the in-plane shear modulus of

148 Vol. 126, APRIL 2004 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

150 Vol. 126, APRIL 2004 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

152 Vol. 126, APRIL 2004 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

For the mixed cell honeycomb, the highest compressive force in

Under compressive loading of honeycombs, membrane forces

Assuming the typical ratio of yield strength to Youngs modulus

154 Vol. 126, APRIL 2004 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

156 Vol. 126, APRIL 2004 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jemta8/27057/ on 09/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-

You might also like