Composirr

Printed
ELSEVIER

Structures 35 (1996) 403-422

0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0263~8223/96/$15.00

Pll:SO263-8223(96)00054-2

Models for the elastic deformation of

honeycombs
I. G. Masters & K. E. Evans
Schoolof Engineeting,

Universityof Exeter; North Park Road, Exeter EX4 4QE UK

A theoretical model has been developed for predicting the elastic constants
of honeycombs
based on the deformation
of the honeycomb cells by
hexme, stretching and hinging. This is an extension of earlier work based
on flexure alone. The model has been used to derive expressions for the
tensile moduli, shear moduli and Poissons ratios. Examples are given of
structures with a negative Poissons ratio. It is shown how the properties
can be tailored by varying the relative magnitudes of the force constants for
the different deformation
mechanisms. Off-axis elastic constants are also
calculated and it is shown how the moduli and Poissons ratios vary with
applied loading direction. Depending on the geometry of the honeycomb
the properties
may be isotropic (for regular hexagons) or extremely
anisotropic. Again, the degree of anisotropy is also affected by the relative
magnitude of the force constants for the three deformation mechanisms. 0
1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

mined by the material properties of the cell wall

material.*
Honeycombs
can be envisaged to deform
when loaded in the plane by flexing and stretching of the cell walls and by hinging at the cell
wall junctions. Several workers have formulated
mathematical
models based on one or two of
these mechanisms for specific geometries. The
in-plane moduli of the hexagonal cell honeycomb
has been
successfully
modelled
by
assuming that the cell walls flex like beams.2%4
Using simple mechanics to calculate the deflections in each beam the strains induced in an
individual cell, and hence the whole network
can be determined; enabling expressions for the
moduli and Poissons ratios to be written for the
condition of uniaxial loading. This simple model
has been shown to give good agreement with
experimental results for both metal and silicon
rubber honeycombs.2*4 The flexure model was
extended4
to include stretching
and shear
deflections but these refinements were found to
provide negligible improvement
to the model.
Only in the particular case of a hexagonal cell
honeycomb subjected to biaxial loading was the
contribution of stretching considered significant.

INTRODUCTION
Honeycomb core materials are widely used in
the manufacture
of stiff, lightweight sandwich
panels mainly for use in aircraft. Commercial
honeycombs
are most commonly based on a
hexagonal cell shape which is simple to produce
and ideal for the manufacture of flat sandwich
panels. A disadvantage
of the hexagonal cell
honeycomb is that if it is bent out-of-plane it
produces an anticlastic or saddle-shaped curvature due to the effective in-plane Poissons ratio
being positive. With such a honeycomb doubly
curved structures, e.g. radomes can only be produced by forcing a sheet of honeycomb into the
desired shape, causing local crushing of the
cells, or by machining a block to the required
profile which is expensive. However, if the
effective Poissons ratio is made negative by
altering the cell shape the domed or synclastic
curvatures can be achieved naturally.
The value of the in-plane Poissons ratio is
determined by the cell geometry alone whereas
the stiffness in bending of the sheet of honeycomb is related to the mechanism by which the
individual cells deform, which in turn, is deter403

404

I. G. Masters, K. E. Evans

A related approach has been proposed for

predicting the in-plane properties of graphite by
assuming that deformation
of the cellular network occurred by stretching
of the atomic
bonds and changes in bond angle, i.e. hinging.
Other workers have used the flexure model to
determine
the Youngs moduli and Poissons
ratio of theoretical molecular structures, and
compared the results with those obtained by
molecular modelling and finite element analysis.
The simple flexure model was found to consistently overestimate
the values of E and 1
predicted by molecular modelling. This implies
that although flexure might be the dominant
mechanism there must be contributions
from
stretching, and or hinging. In molecular networks the stretching of molecular chains tends
to increase the longitudinal deformation at the
expense of transverse thus reducing the Poissons ratio. In cardboard honeycombs hinging
has been shown to be the dominant mechanism,77x the low forces required to operate the
materials
giving rise to
hinges
in these
extremely flexible honeycombs.
Stretching
and hinging mechanisms
have
been combined to develop a model for predicting the Poissons ratio of both hexagonal and
re-entrant
cell three-dimensional
(3D) strucform can
tures. which in a generalized
describe the Poissons ratio of polymer molecules. For the latter types of structure the cell
orientations are random unlike periodic honeycombs and hence produce very different results.
Flexing and stretching have also been combined* to describe the elasticity of rigid,
disordered 3D networks.
These mathematical
models show that for
regular hexagonal-celled
honeycomb structures
Poissons ratios in excess of +1 can easily be
achieved as a result of the open structure. The
re-entrant cell shape identified by various workers 4,0,3.4however, is shown to have a negative
Poissons ratio, which may also be much less
than -1.
In this paper all three mechanisms of flexing,
hinging and stretching
are combined.
New
expressions for shear moduli as well as Youngs
moduli and Poissons ratio are derived to
explore the off-axis properties of the honeytransformation
axis
using
the
combs
are
equations. Polar plots of properties
obtained that enable us to determine the combination of material properties that lead to an
auxetic honeycomb which is nearly isotropic, as

opposed to the highly anisotropic

behaviour
seen in honeycombs deforming by one mechanism alone.

MODELS
To aid comparison of the models each can be
written in terms of a force constant Kj which
also facilitates combining the three mechanisms
to generate a general model.
Force constants
The elastic constants of a two-dimensional (2D)
honeycomb can be described by considering the
displacement of the single cell, from which the
honeycomb is produced by translational repetition, under appropriate loading conditions.
The force constants relate the displacement
of the cell walls of a honeycomb to the applied
force which causes it. For all three mechanisms
the force constant is defined by the general
relationship
F = K;6

(1

where F is the applied force, K, is the force

constant and 6 is the displacement. The force
constant contains details of the mechanical
properties of the cell wall material and the network structure
itself. For example,
in a
molecular network Kj can be related directly to
the atomic force constants. The conventional
case of macroscopic honeycombs
of cell wall
lengths I and h, thickness t and depth b (see Fig.
1) is considered here and it is assumed that the
elastic constants of the material forming the cell
walls are known; E,s being the Youngs modulus
and G, being the shear modulus. Explicit relationships between Kj and the properties of the
cell wall can therefore be derived for each of
the deformation mechanisms of flexure, stretching and hinging.
Flexure force constant Kf
A cell wall of length 1 deforming by flexing can
be likened to a cantilever beam loaded and
guided at one end and fixed at the other. The
deflection of the guided end due to flexingI is
given by

405

Models for the elastic deformation of honeycombs

Hinging force constant Kh

(a)

h + 1 sin0

Finally, for a cell deforming by hinging, we

assume that the cell wall is rigid along its length
and deflection occurs at the junction with other
cell walls by a change of angle AO. Hence for a
wall of length 1
(5=lsinAOzlA(I
if A0 is small. Substituting
mula (eqn (1)) gives

0))

/t+1 sin(-8)

Ml2

12E.J

(2)

E,Tbt

Comparing
K

this with eqn (1) gives

E.&t

.f

(3)

(4)

(8)

The actual mechanism by which hinging occurs

can be envisaged as one of two processes;
global shear or local bending.
In global shear the relationship
of Kh to
material parameters
is obtained by assuming
that hinging occurs by shearing of the material
at the cell wall junction (Fig. 2). Using the
standard definition of shear modulus we can say

Gs=

where M is the applied moment=t;l,

I is the
second moment of area of the cell wall=bt/12.
Therefore

b=z_

into the general for-

F = KJAO

Fig. 1. Cell geometry and coordinate system used for (a)

hexagonal and (b) re-entrant cells.

a= -

(7)

F
btAO

(9)

where Gs is the shear modulus of the cell wall

material and F is the force applied perpendicular to the beam. Comparing with eqn (8) gives
G,bt
K,, = 1

(10)

The shear mechanism is important when considering

small-celled
foams and molecular
networks but is unrealistic for the macro-networks, like honeycombs,
where hinging is

Stretching force constant KS

The extension of a cell wall, length I, due to the
axial force F acting along it, is
6=

Fl
bt Es

Comparing
&=

btE,
1

(5)
this with eqn (1) gives

Fig. 2. Schematic

diagram of hinging due to shearing

the cell wall material.

of

406

I. G. Masters, K. E. Evans

Hence

?i!-

A()=

(15)

2EJ

Comparing this with eqn (8) and substituting

for I we obtain
E,ybt
Kh= 612q
Fig. 3. Schematic

diagram of hinging due to local bending

of the cell wall.

obviously a local effect. To model the latter

type of behaviour we can imagine the hinge to
be a short, curved beam, of axial length q, in the
vicinity of the cell node (Fig. 3).
Assuming that a curved beam behaves in
accordance with simple bending theory16 then
the change in angle II/ to I+Vdue to an applied
moment M is given by

(11)
i.e.

(16)

Note that when q tends to I we do not achieve

the flexure expression (eqn (4)) due to the different boundary conditions; simply supported
beam as opposed to the beam end being guided.
Flexure model
Using the geometric configuration and coordinate system of Fig. 1, Gibson et aL2 assumed
that deformation occurred by flexing of the cell
walls when an external load was applied. Treating the cell walls as beams and using simple
mechanics they were able to derive the following equations
for the elastic properties
of
honeycombs which are rewritten here in terms
of Kf
E, =

(12)

Kf(h/l+sin

6)

(17)

b cos30
Kf cos 0

E,=

(18)

b(h/l+sinQ)sin2Q
But as can be seen from Fig. 3, II/ = 90 - 0 and
rl/ = 90-O--A(!). Hence we can say

sin @(h/l+sin 0)
VI2

Aij=Ao=

E.J

(1%

=
cos2tl

(13)

where 19 is the cell angle. If q <1 then the

moment
(M) acting on the hinge can be
assumed to be approximately
equal to the
length of the cell wall multiplied by the applied
force

cos28

(20)

v2 = (h/Z+sin 0)sin 8
K,(h/l+sin
(312

0)

b(h/l)2(1+2h/f)cos

(21)

407

Models for the elastic deformation of honeycombs

v12, v21 and G,, are the elastic
constants for the honeycomb. This model has
been shown to be very successful for modelling
a great variety of conventional honeycombs and
reticulated foams.4 If 8 is made negative (Fig.
1) then the Poissons ratio of the cell becomes
negative in value; a condition known as auxetic. The Youngs moduli and Poissons ratio
expressions for the flexure model comply with
the reciprocal relation E,v,, = E2~,2 as required
for a symmetric stiffness matrix.

where El, E,,

6 = b rr2cos O(I sinO+h)

(23)

I
KS

The strain 6, in the 2-direction

extension 6, is

c2 =

b c2 cos 0 (h/l+sin

caused by the

0)

(24)

K,
Therefore

the modulus in direction 2 is

Stretching
This model assumes that the cell walls are only
able to deform by stretching along their axes
with no change in angle. This is akin to a set of
connected shock absorbers.
Consider a hexagonal cell (Fig. 4(a)) subjected to a tensile load g2 in the 2-direction.
The load acting on the unit cell due to the
applied stress c2 is w = b(Z sin 8 +h)o, and the
component P of w acting along the cell wall of
length 1 is

E, =

KS
(25)

b cos O(h/l+sin 0)

The strain in the l-direction

sion 6, is

c, =

due to the exten-

bo, cos0 sin0

(26)

K
The Poissons ratio is therefore

P = bcr,(Z sinO+h)cos

But P = K.,S, where K.:, is the force constant

stretching, therefore

(22)
for

v2,=

-( siz+;,lj

(27)

By considering the forces acting on the cell

edge when loaded in direction 1 (Fig. 4(b))
similar equations can be derived. However, in
this orientation it should be noted that the cell
walls of length h also extend. The force constant
(Kf) for these walls is
K$

0
-mm__

,I

On+:

\\
\

E,bt
h

Comparison with eqn (6) enables us to write Kt

in terms of K, the force constant for a wall
length 1, i.e.

\
\
\

\
,

I
\ -____ 8

and thus the strain in direction

1 is given by

(b)

Fig. 4. Hexagonal cell deforming by stretching of the cell

walls due to tensile load applied in (a) direction 2 and (b)
direction 1. Forces acting on the walls length 1 are shown
on the right.

2ba,h

cos0

= IK,(h/l+sinO)

(bo,f cos0 sinO)sinO

lKJhll+sin0

408

I:, =

I. G. Masters, K. E. Evans

bo, cosU(2h/l+sin*U)
&(h/f+sin

and the strain in the 2-direction

c2 =

bo,cosO

(28)

0)

t/2
\i

is

sin0
(29)

KS
The modulus in the l-direction

E, =

K,(h/l+sin

is therefore
t/2

0)

b cos 0(2h/l+sin*U)

(30)

1
\t-

Fig. 5.

and the Poissons ratio is

v,* =

-sin

(31)

F,(h +Z sin 0)

If we let F2 = F then the component

acting along member AC is given by

p* =

F, cos 6,

F cos0

Note that when 0 is positive, i.e. the cell is

hexagonal in shape, both v,* and v2, are negative in value. Substituting
(-0)
into these
equations produces the equivalent expressions
for the re-entrant cell. It should also be noted
that in the re-entrant case the direction of the
forces in the walls of length 1 is reversed whilst
the forces in the other walls remain unchanged.
Youngs moduli and Poissons ratio expressions have been derived4 for a hexagonal cell
honeycomb subjected to a biaxial stress deforming by both flexure and stretching of the cell
walls. It can be shown that for the conditions of
a uniaxial applied stress and deformation only
occurring by stretching that these equations
reduce to eqns (25) (30) (27) and (31) respectively.
The in-plane shear modulus can be obtained
by considering the shear stresses acting on the
cell node shown in Fig. 5. The shear stress 5
acting on the unit cell is given by the expression
where F, and F, are the forces acting in the land 2-directions, respectively. Rearranging this
equation enables F, to be written in terms of
F2, i.e.

21 cos 0

at a cell node due to

of the cell walls.

stretching

O(h/l+sin 0)

2h/1+sin20

F, =

In-plane shear deformation

(32)

P* of F,

(33)

P* * of F, acting along AC

and the component

is

P** = F, sin6 =

F(h +I sin B)sin 0

21 cos 0

(34)

The total force P acting along AC is therefore

P=P**+P*

P=

(35)

F cos6

F(h +I sin 0) sin 0

21 cos 0

(36)

The point A moves an amount 6,c to A due to

the force P. This extension is obtained from the
expression for the stretching constant K, (eqn
(6))
6

P
-AC - K,y

Substituting

(37)

for P gives
F

- AC - 26,

cos o+

(h+l sinO)sin0

The horizontal deflection

sion 6A, is given by

1 case

1 (38)

L& due to the exten-

Models for the elastic deformation

0,

6, = GA&OS0

2Ks

6,=

409

of honeycombs

cos2 0 +

1 1 (39)

(h +I sin 0) sin 0

The vertical deflection

s
1

6, across the unit cell is

6, = 2bAV sin 0

The factor of two arises because the member

CB shortens as much as AC extends. Therefore

;,+f

21 cos 0

i = -

cosU+

(cosU)

62

(42)

h+l sinU

(h+l sinU)sinU

+ (sin 0)

h+l sinU

1 cos U

(43)

The shear modulus G is the ratio of the shear

stress and the shear strain, i.e.
G = z/l

(44)

Therefore
G,*=

K,
h

1 cosU(h+l
(1 cos*U+(h+l

sinU)

Hinging
The hinging model relies on the cell walls being
stiff in both the axial and transverse directions.
Elastic hinges at the joints enable the cell to
deform when a load is applied and restore the
cell to its original shape when the load is
removed. The cell deforms by changes in the
cell angle alone. Consider a hexagonal cell as
shown in Fig. 7. If we assume that the material
from which the cell is manufactured has a force
constant K,, which determines the deflection 8,
caused when a load is applied to the cell wall
(Fig. 7) we can say that
P=K,J

(46)

where P is the applied load and 6 is the deflection. If the cell is subjected to a compressive o2
in direction 2, then the forces acting on the cell
edge of length 1 are given by

1(45)

P = cr2(h +I sin U)b sin U

sinU)sinU)*

where h is the honeycomb

ing for P gives

n=

(47)
thickness.

The strain in direction 2 is therefore

Simple

shear

Fig. 6. Schematic diagram showing the assumed relationship between pure shear and simple shear.

+ =

Substitut-

o&l sin U(h/l+sin U)

K,,

Pure shear

A6

Fig. 7. Hexagonal cell deforming by hinging due to a

compressive stress applied in direction 2 also showing the
forces acting on a wall length 1.

LCOSU

KS

0
\

sinU)sinU

If the unit cell is considered

to deform by
simple shear then, as can be seen from Fig. 6,
the shear strain 7 is given by

HINGE

1cos
0 1 (41)

fh+l
F sinU
ti, = ___
cosU+
i
K

4t

,I

:
;I3

(40)

A,

8
,

-o,b

(48)
given by

sin2U(h/l+sinU)
K,, cos U

(4%

410

I. G. Masters. K. E. Evans

and the modulus in direction

2 by

K,zcos 0

E, =

b sin*O(h/l+sin
The strain in direction

0)

(50)

1 is

g2b sin 0 cos 0

c, =

(51)

K/1

and hence the Poissons ratio in the 2-direction

is

12,= -

--El

Fig. 8. In-plane

62

cos*
0
= (h/l+sinO)sin

(52)

If the honeycomb is compressed in direction 1

then by a similar method we can determine that

c2 =

c,b cos0 sin0

(53)

Kh

Cl =

-o,b

cos0

Kh (h/l+sin

(54)

0)

shear deformation
hinging.

at a cell node due to

the unit cell in both the 1 and 2 directions (Fig.

8). The cell walls are rigid so that no flexing or
stretching occurs. All the movement occurs due
to the hinging at point C.
The point A is subjected to a force F, acting
in direction 1 and a force F2 acting in direction
2. As previously shown if
F,=F
then
F(h+l sin0)
F1

E _ K,(h/l+sin 0)
Ib cos 0

(55)

The component P* of F2 acting perpendicular

to the member AC is given by

sin O(h/l+sin 0)
12

(56)
cos2

Comparing this result with the expression

v2, we can see that

for

p*=

F sin0

(58)

The component P** of F, acting perpendicular

to AC is given by

1
I2

(57)

21 cos 0

=
21

Again by substituting
we obtain expressions
of a re-entrant cell.
As in the stretching
modulus is obtained
of the shear stresses

(- 0) into these equations

to describe the behaviour
model the in-plane shear
by considering the effects
z acting aIong the sides of

P+* = -F,

cos8 = -

F(h +I sin 0)
21

(59)

Note that this expression is negative because

rotation of the
P ** causes counter-clockwise

411

Models for the elastic deformation of honeycombs

member AC. The total force P acting perpendicular to the member AC is therefore

6, =

Fh cos 0

2P cos 0
K,

=-

(65)

K,,l

P = P+P*

P=

sin0)

(h+l

-$ sin&

If we assume that the unit cell shown in Fig. 8

deforms by simple shear then the shear strain y
is given by

P-5
The
force

(60)

6 AC- --

(61)

&I

The displacement

in direction 2 due to 6,,

Psin8
&

6*,=6,,sinQ=

and the horizontal

to the force F, is
F

K;

K/,C

((j**=_=_

is

(62)

displacement

of point D due

21cosUh+lsinO
F

PsinO

+-=K/Z
K4

&I

and the total displacement

-Ch

sirit)+
2Cl

in direction

(64)

1 is

21-Ch

sin0

C(h +I sin0) -7

21K,

(66)

The negative sign in eqn (65) can be ignored

since we are only interested in the length 6,.
The remote shear stress z is given by

z=

(67)

21b cos 0

Hence the shear modulus is

F

G*=

21b COSU

(63)

where C is a constant, enabling Ki, the force

constant for a cell wall of length h, to be written
in terms of Kh, the force constant for a wall
length 1. For the shear model (eqn (10)) C=l/h
and for bending model (eqn (16)) C=(l/h)2. The
total deflection in direction 2 is therefore

6,=-

P rotates

AC through an angle A8
such that the point A is deflected an amount
6 AC* From eqn (1) we know that

62

I
1=

X-

21K,
F
Cl(h +1 sin8)

Ch(h+lsin8)+1(21-Ch

sin0)

1
(68)

K/l

G,2=-

b cosU

Cl(h +f sin0)
Ch(h+Isin0)+1(21-Ch

sin0)

1
(69)

A general model
By summing the deflections in directions 1 and 2, we can combine the three models to obtain a
._
general expression. For example, if we consider a honeycomb loaded in direction 1 then the strains
in direction 1 arising from deformation by stretching and hinging are given by eqns (28) and (54).
The strain in direction 1 caused by flexure of the cell walls has been shown34 to be

412

I. G. Masters, K. E. Evans

o,h14cosu
I= 12E,,I(h+f

sin(I)

where I is the second moment

for flexure F$ (eqn (4)) gives
I _

>-

of area of the cell wall. Rewriting

this in terms of the force constant

o,hcos3u

(70)

K,(h/f + sin 0)

The total strain in direction

1, obtained

by summing eqns (28) (56) and (72) is thus

(71)
The modulus in direction

1 is then given by

hence
1

cos2U + (2h/I+sin*h)
-+-

The strain in direction

Cz=

K,,

KY

(72)

2, due to flexing, arising from the applied stress o-, is given by the expression

6, bl-3cos 0 sin 0

(73)

12E,,I
Writing in terms of the force constant this becomes

C2=

o,bcosOsinU

(74)

K,
Summing this expression with (29) and (53) g ives the total strain in direction 2

I;pta=o,b

cos(,I sin0

1
1
------+y
Kf K,,

1
s

Dividing this expression by (71) gives the Poissons ratio

(75)

413

Models for the elastic deformation of honeycombs

(76)

Using a similar method the following general expressions can be obtained for E2 and r2,
1

E,=

b (h /I + sin 0)

+-

Kfcos
cos0 0
sin2 00 + K,,
sin

-sinO.cosO

1
1
K~F-K
.f

I1

21=

(h/Z+sinO)

Kr
cos00 + K/,
cos0 0
sin*
sin

(78)

IY,0
cos

+-

(77)

K,s0
cos

Gibsons expression for the shear strain written in terms of the flexure force constant is

r=

Fh2(f +2h)

(79)

2K,Z(h +I sin0)

Summing this with expressions

(45) and (69) the general shear modulus expression

is obtained

G,2=

1 L
+-

Ch2+212

Kb2(h +I sin0
bh(l+2h)cosO
K,,
1
Cl(h +I sin 0) 1
b(f cosZO+(h+ZsinO)sinO
cos 0

h cos 0
1

sin 0

(h +fsinO)

KS

cos0

If, for example, we put K,=K,y= rx, the above equations

DISCUSSION

reduce to those for the flexure model.

(10)). In reality to evaluate this shear model for

of
the material in the hinge, which is not necessarily the same as G, and is likely to be
considerably lower due to the material being
damaged. Using the local shear model, Kh (eqn
(16)) is obtained directly from E,s. 1/10 may at
first appear to be rather large as an estimate for
the effective length (q) of the hinge, but for the
0*21-mm thick card honeycombs
used in the
experiment8
the folds were typically 1 mm in
width and 1 was a constant length of 10 mm. It
is apparent from the three models discussed
here that if the force constant K, is high in value
K,, we need to know G/,, the shear modulus

The force constants

of the force constants Kf KS and
in Fig. 9 having evaluated the
eqns (4) (6) (10) and (16) for the conditions

The properties

Kh are compared

E,s=l=b=l,

G,YzE,J3=1/3,

q=Z/lO

The shear modulus

of the bulk cell wall
material G, z EJ3 is a general assumption for
an elastic material and using this value we can
evaluate the global shear model for K/* (eqn

(80)

I. G. Masters, K. E. Evans

KS = 0.1. The discontinuities

at 0 = 0 occur
because of the change in the value of h.
The E versus 0 plots (Figs 10 and 11) for the
flexure and hinging models are of identical
shape as expected from comparing eqns (17)
and (55) for E,, and (18) and (50) for E2. The
difference in numerical values is determined by

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

t/1

Fig. 9. Plot of K, versus t/l showing the relative behaviour

of the flexing, stretching and hinging force constants. The
constant with the lowest value determines the dominant
mechanism.

0.06
E
0.04

0.02

then the contribution of that particular mechanism to the overall deformation

will be small.
For the honeycombs
used in these tests the
value of t/l is in the range 0.01 to 0.02 so that K,
(eqn (6)) is large compared to Kf (eqn (4)) and
Kh (eqns (10) and (16)) and stretching can be
ignored (Fig. 9). Stretching only becomes a significant
mechanism
when t/l > 1 which is
obviously unrealistic for an open honeycomb
structure, or unless KS is decoupled from Kh and
Z$ as in molecular structures. Kf (eqn (4)) has
the lowest value and thus explains why the flexure model has been so successful. However, as
already stated the properties of the material
operating as the hinge can be significantly different from those of the bulk cell wall material.
If they are lower, as might be expected, due to
local damage from the folding of the card then
Kh <Kf and hinging, for example, will dominate
as shown with the card honeycombs. Of the two
proposed
hinging mechanisms
local hinging
(eqn (16)) predominates
over global shear
deformation (eqn (10)) when t/l < 0.2.

0.00

Two cell geometries are considered here h = 1,

8 > 0 and h = 21, 0 < 0 enabling a conventional
hexagonal cell honeycomb to be compared, on
the same plot, with an auxetic honeycomb containing cells of approximately
the same area.
The density of the auxetic honeycomb is higher
than the conventional structure. Figures lo-12
show the elastic properties E, v and G vary with
the cell angle 0 for each model. In each case
E,Y= I = b = 1, t = 0.1. The respective force constants are & = O-001, Kh = 0.03 (shear) and

-60

-30

30

60

90

0 (Deg)

8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
v

-90

-60

-30

30

60

0 (Deg)

0.010

Effect of geometry on properties

-90

---~._--..~

__._

_I_

0.008

0.006

G 12
0.004

0.002

o.ooo2

-90

-60

-30

30

60

0 (De13
Fig. 10. Plot of E, v and G versus 0 for the flexure model
(E=l=b=l,
t=O+l, K.=O.OOl, h=2
for 0<0 and
h = {for e>O).

415

Models for the elastic deformation of honeycombs

the respective values of Kj. Square symmetry is

obtained when 0 = -30 for the re-entrant cells
and when 8 = +30 for the hexagonal cells.
Higher modulus values are obtained for the reentrant than the corresponding
hexagonal cells
of positive angle. It must be remembered however that in the case of honeycombs
this

increase in modulus is achieved at the expense

of increased weight due to the higher density of
the re-entrant cell honeycomb.
The Poissons ratios for the flexure and hinging models are identical as can be seen from
eqns (19) and (56) (20) and (52). The re-

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

E,
0.4

0.4

0.2
n.n
-._

_.

0.a

__i__I~

-90

-60

-30

30

r--90

l-O--._
8.0

0.8

6.0

0.6

4.0

0.4

.\

0.2
V

V 12

.~

v2,
-v,*

..

l.

0.0

-0.2
-0.4
-6.0.

12

-0.6
-0.8

-60

-30

30

60

90

_,.o_-b
-90

~l.m-..i-___i
-60

-30

0 (Deg)

mmml__ 30

60

90

8 (De&

1.00
0.80

0.60

0.40

0.00

-90

-60

-30

30

60

90

0 (Deg)

Fig. 11. Plot of E, v and G versus 6 for the hinging model

(E=l=b=1,t=~1,K,,=0-03,h=2forO<0andh=1
for O>O).

o.ot

-60

-30

30

60

90

fl (Deg)
Fig. 12. Plot of E, v and G versus 0 for the stretching
model (E = 1= b = 1, t = O-1, K-= 0.1, h = 2 for O-COand
h = 1 for $>O).

416

1. G. Masters, K. E. Evans

entrant cells have a negative Poissons ratio and

square symmetry is again apparent at +30.
Unlike the Youngs modulus and Poissons
ratio the expressions for shear modulus in the
flexure and hinging models are not identical.
This is because in the Gibson model the shear
displacement is entirely due to the flexing of the
walls length h and rotation of the cell wall junction. The walls of length 1 do not bend and their
relative positions do not change. In the hinging
model each cell wall deflects under the applied

shear force so we need to introduce the constant C so the hinging constant (Ki for a wall
length h can be written in terms K,,I) for a wall
length 1. However for the case of a regular
hexagon (0=30, h/1=1) eqns (21) and (68) both
reduce to

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4

WKJ,

0.2

0.0
0. 2

,!

0 . 4 / .
0.6
0.8
1.0

1.0

1.0

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.4

0.6

0.6

0.8

0.8

1.0

1.0

( -ve

values)

0.1

I,

0.2

Fig.

13. Polar plots for a regular

hexagon (h = I= 1,
0 = 30) deforming by flexure or hinging showing the variation of elastic properties
with orientation
in the
1,2-plane. E, 1 and G are isotropic.

Fig.

14.

Polar

plots for a regular hexagon (A = I= 1,

by stretching showing the variation of
elastic properties with orientation
in the I,Zplane. E, v
and G are isotropic.
f1 = 30) deforming

Models for the elastic deformation of hontycomhs

This incidently
is the same result as that
obtained from the Gillis graphite model when
only hinging occurs, i.e. K, = 30. In both the
flexure and hinging models the shear modulus is
lowered by adopting the re-entrant cell shape.
The value of G is particularly low and insensitive to cell angle in the range 0 > 0 > - 60.
For the stretching model (Fig. 12) the modulus E, is reduced for the re-entrant cell but E,
remains higher than that obtained from the

417

corresponding
hexagonal cells when - 60 < 0
< -90. Square symmetry occurs at 0 and
+30. This occurs because the walls of length h
have no effect when the cell is loaded in direction 2.
The significant feature
of the stretching
model is that the Poissons ratio is negative
(11 = -l/3) for th e regular hexagonal cell and
positive (V = +3/17) for the re-entrant cell (h/

2.0

1.5
1
I

1.0
0.5

[EKJ,

0.0

i,(AiL : !+-;j$
.,i,:

WK,l+
:

0.5
1.0

1.5
2.0.

1.0

..I.,

0.5

id
1~

i::

1.0
1.5

2.0

2.5

2.5

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0

N;, ,K,I+

1::
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5

-ve

1.01

Fig. 15. Polar plots for a re-entrant

cell (h = I= 2,
U = -30) deforming by flexure showing the variation of
elastic properties with orientation
in the 1,2-plane. Note
that v is negative in value along the principle axes but
positive between them.

Fig. 16. Polar plots for a re-entrant

0 = -30) deforming
by hinging (shear) showing the variation of elastic
orientation
in the 1,Zplane. Note that
value along the principle axes but positive

cell

(/I =l= 2,
bending,
...
properties with
11is negative in
between them.

418

I. G. Masters, K. E. Evans

I= 2, 0 = -30). Again square symmetry is

achieved when h/l = 1, 0 = 30 and hll = 2,
0 = o, and unlike the other models, it is only
for these specific conditions that the relationship
1
v 12=-

V2I

Table 1. Cell geometries necessary for square symmetry in

the flexure stretching and hinging models

hi1
Cell

angle 0

Flexure/
hinging

-30
-40
-50
-60
-70

2.00
1.56
1.31
1.16
1.06

Stretching
3.00
3.29
353
3.73
3.88

applies. The reciprocal relation v,& = v,,E,

however, holds true for all cell geometries. The
shear modulus for the stretching
model is
increased when the cell is re-entrant although
the maximum at -30 is difficult to explain.

1.6,
1.2
0.8
0.4
[EKJ,

Off-axis properties-near

0.0
0.4

isotropic honeycombs

To determine the effect of the load orientation

(4) in the 1,2-plane the elastic properties were
calculated using the transformation
equations15
derived for an orthotropic material. Assuming
that a thin sheet of honeycomb behaves as if
under plane stress conditions, and that the compliances s12 and s2, are equal, then the
transformation equations are simplified to

0.8
1.2
1.6(

5.0
4.0
3.0

2.0

1.0
W,

*KS],0.0
1.0

cos44

=-+cos2~
4
E,

sin24

[&-?I

sin4 4

2.0

3.0

(81)

~52

4.0

5.0

=2cos2~ sin24
=z @

1.2
0.9

0.6

cos44 +sin44

(84

+
712
0.6
0.9
1.2

Fig. 17.
0 = -30)
of elastic
Note that

Polar plots for a re-entrant

cell (h = I= 2,
deforming by stretching showing the variation
properties with orientation
in the 1,2-plane.
v is positive in value
along the principle axes
.
but negative between them.

(cos4~+sin4$)v,,
b121+=Kp

-cos24sin24

E,

++_-1

E2

(312

)I (83)

Models for the elastic deformation of honeycombs

As can be seen from Figs 13 and 14, for the

flexure, hinging and stretching
models, the
regular hexagon (h = I, 0 = 30) generates
a
material which is truly isotropic in the plane.
For the re-entrant cases (h = 21, 0 = -30)
deforming by flexing and hinging (Figs 15 and
16) the honeycomb is clearly square symmetric,
not isotropic. For the stretching case (Fig. 17)

WKJ,
0.41
0.6
0.8
1.0

0.8,

0.6
0.4
0.2

lG,$J,o.ol
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

Iyl,

0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

Fig. 18. Polar plots for square symmetric, re-entrant cells

(of the geometries listed in Table 1) deforming by stretching showing the variation
of elastic properties
with
orientation in the 1,Zplane. Near isotropy is achieved at
8 = -6O, h/l = 3.73. (e = -5O, h/l = 3.53. - - 0 = -6O, h/l = 3.73. 0 = -7O, h/l = 3.88.)

419

the honeycomb is clearly not isotropic or square

symmetric.
For each mechanism
the maximum shear
modulus occurs when E is at minimum, i.e.
when 4 = 45 for flexure (Fig. 15(b)) and hinging (Fig. 16(b)) and when 4 = O, 90 for
stretching (Fig. 17(b)).
For flexure and hinging the Poissons ratio
(Figs 15(c) and 16(c)) is interesting in that it
only remains negative when the direction of the
load lies close to the principal axes. At 45 and
adjacent angles the Poissons ratio becomes
positive. This effect can be clearly seen when a
square specimen of material is stretched diagonally. Similarly
if a square
section
of
honeycomb is bent out-of-plane across the diagonals little or no secondary
curvature
is
observed
in the orthogonal
direction.
For
stretching the Poissons ratio is positive along
the principal axes becoming negative at 4 = 45
(Fig. 17(c)).
To investigate the possibility of obtaining a
re-entrant cell honeycomb which is more truly
isotropic E, G and v are plotted against the
orientation $ for the combinations of 0 and h/f
listed in Table 1. These values are simply
obtained by equating the v12 and v2, equations
for the appropriate model, which is the condition for square symmetry in the 1 and 2
directions.
For the hinging and flexure models E, G and
v remain highly anisotropic for all conditions.
However, for stretching we notice the symmetrical shape of the E plot (Fig. 18(a)) as a result
of using geometries which ensure square symmetry (Table 1). As 0 becomes increasingly
negative the peak value of E at 4 = -45
reduces while the minimum values at 4 = 0 and
4 = -90 increase until approximate isotropy is
achieved at 0 = - 60. At 0 = -70 the structure is no longer isotropic and has returned to a
square symmetry although the maximum values
now occur at 4 = 0 and 90 with the minimum
at 4 = 45.
The values of G (Fig. 18(b)) are reduced as 0
becomes
more
negative
again
achieving
approximate isotropy at at 0 = -60.
Similarly the Poissons ratio (Fig. 18(c))
reduce as 0 becomes
more negative until
approximate
isotropy is achieved at 0 = - 60
and v = +0*3.
It is apparent then that near isotropy can only
be achieved in a re-entrant cell deforming by a
single mechanism if that mechanism is stretch-

420

I. G. Masters, K. E. Evans

Table 2. Values of K,,IIC,for re-entrant

&.)
0
- 10
~ 20
- 30
-40
-50
- 60
- 70
-80
- 90

cells in hinging/stretching
model obtained
negative values can be ignored

rzir =

(R(L)

( 2,)

0~0000
- 0.1745
-0.3491
- 0.5236
~ 0.6981
- 0.8727
- 1.0472
~- 1.2217
- 1.3963
- I.5708

~ 1.oooo
-0.7041
- 0.4903
- 0.3333
-0.2174
-0.1325
-0.0718
~ 0.03 1 1
- 0.0077
0~0000

(h/Z+sin0)2sin20-cos40
cos20[(2h/l + sin()) -(h/l

( fk,)

.K
+ sin O)2]

(&

( &,

0.3333
0.3685
- 0.0558
3&15

- I$470
- 0.3793
0~0000
0.2762
05709
I.0415
2.2267
8.4072
73

ing. Is it possible to achieve isotropy if a

combination
of deformation
mechanisms
are
allowed to operate ? It has already been shown
that for the flexing and hinging models E,, E,,
I,~ and vzI are identical functions of & and &,
respectively. It is therefore unlikely that if these
mechanisms were combined that isotropy would
result since the deflections
caused by each
mechanism will be additive. We will therefore
consider the combination
of stretching
and
hinging although as we are working in terms of
Kj we could have equally well chosen flexure.
Taking the expressions for E and v from the
general model equations (72) (76) (77) and
(80) (assuming local hinging, i.e. C = l/4 in eqn
(SO)) and letting K~-+x we obtain a stretching/
hinging model. For square symmetry or isotropy
we know that 1~~= r2, and that E, =E, from
which we obtain the relationship
&=

from eqn (84). K,,/& must be positive so

0.1250
0.0778
- 0.1690
- 0.8333
-2.5716
-7.7155
- 27.2583
- 1462914
- 2405.6680
%

4.1815
6.1608
12.1016
44.8926
x

h/f we obtain Table 2. Since K,/K, must be positive we can ignore the negative values. These
then are the parameters we expect to produce
square symmetry or isotropy. Substituting these
values into the stretching/hinging
model equations and letting KS = 1 we obtain the values of
E and I? listed in Table 3. As expected v,? =
v2,, E,b/K, = E,b/K,. Substituting these values
listed in Table 3 into the transformation
equations we can generate polar plots like that
shown in Fig. 19(a-c). These show the plots for
E, 11and G, respectively for the following para0 = - 40, h/l = 2, E ,/K, = O-2710,
meters:
E,/K, = 0.2710, 1= -0.3497 and G/K,, = 0.0167.
As can be seen these plots are highly anisotropic although
square symmetry along the
principle axes. The other values listed in Table
3 produce similar degrees of anisotropy.

CONCLUSIONS

(84)
enabling K,, to be written in terms of K,. Evaluating this expression for various values of 0 and

Three mechanisms can be identified by which

honeycombs can deform, namely flexure, hinging and stretching. Using simple mechanics each
mechanism can be expressed mathematically in

Table 3. Elastic properties for re-entrant,

square symmetry cells in a hinging/stretching
model calculated using positive
values of K,& listed in Table 2. (Calculations assume hinging occurs by local bending i.e. C = l/4 in eqn (69))
0
(rad.)

hi1

~ 0.5236

-0.5236
- 0.5236
- 0.698 I
-0.6981
- 0.698 1
- 0.8727
~ 0.8727
- 0.8727
- I.0472
- I.0472
- I.0472

43
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4

c x;;,,

I11

2I

0~0000

- 1.oo

~ 140

OG99
0.2710
0.4688
0.5354
0.3615
0.5198
0.5896
0.4545
0.6285
0.7171

0:238
- 0.3497
0.1714
0.3662
-0.1338
0.1948
0.3279
0.0078
0.2276
0.3219

02238
- 0.3497
0.1714
0.3662
-0.1338
0.1948
0.3279
0.0078
0.2276
0.3219

cR k

(&

0~0000

0~0000

- oG333
0.2762
3.8815
-2.5716
0.5709
4.1815
-7.7155
1.0415
6.1068
- 272583

0.5799
0.2710
0.4688
0.5354
0.3615
05198
0.5896
0.4545
0.6285
0.7171

(X%
0~0000
- (I:;47 1
0.0406
0526 1
- 0.8549
0.0884
0.4267
0.6986
0.1660
0.3283
0.2678

Models for the elastic deformation

terms of the properties of the cell wall material

and the cell geometry. By writing in terms of
force constants the three mechanisms can be
combined to produce a general model.
Each model can be used to predict the elastic
properties
of both hexagonal and re-entrant
cells. Regular hexagonal cells are truly isotropic
in the 1,2-plane for all three deformation mechanisms. Re-entrant cells are highly anisotropic;

421

ofhoneycombs

even when square

symmetric
properties vary considerably.

the

off-axis

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Engineering
and Physical
Sciences Research Council of the UK. K. E.
Evans currently holds an EPSRC Advanced
Fellowship.

0.3

REFERENCES
0.2

I. Evans,

0.1

W,/KJ, 0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3

0.3
0.2
0.1
[G, ,/q,

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Id,

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5

Fig. 19. Polar plots for square symmetric, r-e-entrant cell

(0 = -4o, h/l = 2) deforming by hinging and stretching.
E, v and G are not isotropic.

K. E., Design of doubly-curved

sandwich
panels with honeycomb cores. Camp. Stmct., 1990, 17,
95.
2. Gibson, L. J., Ashby, M. F., Schajer, G. S. and
Robertson, C. I., The mechanics of two-dimensional
cellular materials. Proc. R. Sot. Land., 1982, A382, 25.
3. Abd El-Sayed, F. K., Jones, R. and Burgens, 1. W.,
The behaviour
of honeycomb
cores for sandwich
panels. Composites, 1979, 10, 209.
4. Gibson, L. J. and Ashby, M. F., Cellular Solids: Structure and Propetiies. Pergamon Press, London, 1988,
pp. 69-I 19.
the elastic constants
of
5. Gillis, P. P., Calculating
graphite. Carbon, 1992, 22, 387.
6. Nkansah, M. A., Evans, K. E. and Hutchinson, I. J.,
Modelling the mechanical properties of an auxeticmolecular network. Model. Simrd. Mater Sci. Engtzg.
1994, 2, 337.
7. Caddock, B. D., Evans, K. E. and Masters, 1. G..
Honeycomb cores with a negative Poissons ratio for
use in composite sandwich panels. Proceedings of the
8th International Corzference on Composite Materials,
Hawaii, 199 I.
8. Masters, I. G. and Evans, K. E.. Auxetic honeycombs
for composite sandwich panels. Proceedings qfthe 2nd
Canudian Conference on Composite Materials, cd. W.
Wallace, R. Gauvin and S. V. Hoa, 1993.
). Warren, W. E. and Kraynik, A. M., Foam mechanics:
the linear elastic response of two-dimensional
spatially periodic cellular materials. Me& Mater., lY87, 6,
27.
10. Warren, T. L., Negative Poisson ratio in a tranversely
isotropic foam structure. J. Appl. Phys, 1990, 67, 759 1.
11. Wci, G., Negative and conventional Poissons ratios of
polymeric networks with special microstructures.
1.
Chem. Phys, 1992, 96, 3226.
12. Jones, J. L. and Ball, R. C., Elasticity of rigid networks. Macromolecules, 199 1, 24, 6369.
struc13. Almgren, R. F., An isotropic three-dimensional
ture with Poissons ratio equal to minus one. J.
Elasticity, 198.5, 15, 427.
14. Evans, K. E., Tailoring the negative Poissons ratio.
Gem. Indust., 1990, 20, 654.
1.5. Hearmon, R. F., An Introduction to Applied Anisotropic Elasticity. Oxford University
Press, London,
1961, p. 12.
16. Roark, R. J. and Young, W. C., Formulas ji,r Stress
and Strain, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill.
London, 1976,
p. 96.

422

I. G. Masters, K d. Evans

17. Evans, K. E., Nkansah, M. A., Hutchinson, I. J. and

Rogers, S. C., Molecular network design. Nature,
1991,353, 124.

18. Rothenberg,
L., Berlin, A. A. and Bathurst, R. J.,
Microstructure
of isotropic materials with negative
Poissons ratio. Nature, 1991,354, 470.