Thin–Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111134

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: [Link]/locate/tws

Full length article

Analyzing in-plane mechanics of a novel honeycomb structure with zero

Poisson’s ratio
Wangyu Liu , Yulong Zhang , Zhengqiang Guo , Dongxun Li , Sheng Zhao , Weigui Xie *
School of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering, South China University of Technology, Wushan Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou City 510641, PR China

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

Keywords: The superior performance of honeycomb structure has facilitated its extensive application in various fields. In
Honeycomb structure this paper, a novel honeycomb structure is proposed, which exhibits zero Poisson’s ratio behavior. Firstly, the in-
Zero poisson’s ratio plane mechanical properties are analyzed based on the classical Castigliano’s theorem to obtain expressions
Elastic constants
connecting the three elastic constants of the structure and geometric parameters. Then, the theoretical expres­
Mechanical properties
sions are verified by homogenized finite element methods and 3D-printed experimental models, which help to
determine the relationship between the in-plane mechanical properties and the geometric parameters. The re­
sults show that the mechanical properties of the honeycomb structure can be tailored by changing the geometric
parameters, while ensuring that the zero Poisson’s ratio property is maintained within a relatively small fluc­
tuation range. This study reveals that the mechanical properties of the novel honeycomb structure are tunable,
which has outperformed some honeycomb structures on adjusting range.

1. Introduction hybrid honeycomb unit structures composed of traditional honeycombs

and expandable honeycombs. They developed theoretical formulas for
Honeycomb structure is an interconnected network with pores the elastic modulus and ultimate strength of the structure. Experimental
enclosed by prismatic edges and cell walls. According to their physical, validation of the theoretical predictions was performed by fabricating
mechanical and thermal properties, honeycomb structures serve wide hybrid honeycomb unit structures using selective laser melting (SLM)
applications in insulation [1,2], packaging [3,4], construction [5,6] and with 304 stainless steel. Ashab et al. [20] studied the mechanical
other fields. With the continuous development of related technologies, properties of aluminum hexagonal honeycombs with different sizes and
almost all substance can be fabricated into honeycomb structures, such cell wall thicknesses under various loading conditions. They established
as metals [7–10], paper [11–13], ceramics [14,15], composites [16,17], empirical formulas relating the applied stress to the loading angle.
and so on. The properties of a honeycomb structure, made from a given With the advancement of scientific research, novel honeycomb
material, depend mainly on the geometric configuration parameters, structures with more complex composite topology structures [21,22]
such as the distribution of the individual cell walls and the size of the have been proposed, showing outstanding mechanical properties and
pores. Different types of honeycombs exhibit significant variations in designability compared to the conventional honeycomb structures. The
mechanical performance. Therefore, many researchers have started excellent designability of honeycomb structures allows them to be used
studying the influence of geometric parameters such as cell wall thick­ in fields with special requirements, such as morphing aircraft skin
ness, cell size, and inclination angle on the mechanical properties, [23–25], automobile crash energy absorbing device [26–28] and soft
impact resistance, and energy absorption capacity of honeycomb matter sensors [29–31].
structures. Rapaka et al. [18] conducted a study on the dynamic The mechanical properties of honeycomb structures are influenced
compression characteristics of four different morphologies of hexagonal by the material properties and the topology of the structure. Different
honeycomb structures under various impact velocities. They validated honeycomb configurations exhibit different values of Poisson’s ratio.
the predicted results through finite element simulations and proposed a The conventional hexagonal honeycomb is a typical structure with
new method to characterize the energy absorption capacity of honey­ positive Poisson’s ratio (PPR). The PPR honeycomb represents the fact
combs. Xu et al. [19] investigated the in-plane mechanical properties of that when the structure is pulled along its axial direction, a contraction

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: scutxwg@[Link] (W. Xie).

[Link]
Received 7 March 2023; Received in revised form 25 July 2023; Accepted 19 August 2023
Available online 26 August 2023
0263-8231/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Liu et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111134

deformation occurs in the transverse direction. Gibson et al. [32] were design guidance and facilitate better mechanical property. Subse­
the first to analyze the static mechanical properties of hexagonal hon­ quently, the finite element analysis and experimental tests are carried
eycomb structures and explore the theoretical expressions of their me­ out to evaluate the novel structure. To ensure a more objective com­
chanical performance parameters under loading conditions. Structures parison, all parameters are transformed into dimensionless value. The
with a negative Poisson’s ratio (NPR) exhibit expansion behavior in the results indicate that the novel ZPR honeycomb structure proposed in this
transverse direction when tensioned. Typical NPR honeycomb struc­ paper exhibits superior mechanical properties compared to some ZPR
tures include auxetic honeycomb [33], hollow shell cuboctahedron structures.
[34], chiral honeycomb [35] and anti-tetrachiral honeycomb [36].
Aniket et al. [33] investigated the deformation and failure modes of 2. Models and experimental tests
auxetic honeycomb, as well as their mechanical properties under
in-plane loading. Zhou et al. [34] conducted finite element simulations 2.1. Geometry of the novel honeycomb structure
and experiments on a proposed negative Poisson’s ratio hollow shell
cuboctahedron, systematically studying the mechanical properties such The unit cell of the novel ZPR honeycomb structure is presented in
as stress, strain, and Poisson’s ratio at various volume fractions. Alder­ Fig. 1. It consists of four unilateral concave hexagonal structures and
son et al. [35] studied the mechanical performance of chiral honey­ square connecting walls, characterized by horizontal, vertical and cen­
combs under in-plane uniaxial loading for different parameter tral symmetry. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the parameter l is the length of the
configurations, and discussed the negative Poisson’s ratio effect inclined wall, h is the length of the vertical wall, and θ is the tilt angle of
exhibited by this structure. Chen et al. [36] described the theoretical, the inclined wall. The thickness of cell wall and the whole honeycomb
numerical, and experimental in-plane and out-of-plane elastic behavior are represented by t and b. For the convenience of the subsequent
of a class of anti-tetrachiral honeycomb with in-plane negative Poisson’s theoretical study, the geometry of the unit cell is redefined by non-
ratio and anisotropic behavior. In certain applications, such as aircraft dimensional parameters such as α and β, where α=h/l, β=t/l. The geo­
skin design, it is desirable for the structure to exhibit no deformation in metric parameter of the unit cell needs to satisfy Eq. (1) to avoid in­
the vertical direction when subjected to unidirectional loading, and thus tersections of the walls and ensure the state of the configuration. Fig. 2
zero Poisson’s ratio honeycomb (ZPR) structures are preferred. Wu et al. shows the geometric configuration diagram of the unit cells with
[37] proposed a novel cross-circular honeycomb structure based on different parameters θ. It shows that when the parameter θ is 45◦ and
circular cells and folding panels. They established the relationship 90◦ , the structure is no longer configured as pre-designed. Therefore,
equation between the geometric parameters and stress through theo­ they are removed from the samples.
retical analysis and numerical simulations. Additionally, this model
45∘ < θ < 90∘ (1)
exhibited a good zero Poisson’s ratio effect and high energy absorption
capacity under in-plane impact loading. Huang et al. [38,39] introduced
a hexagonal honeycomb structure with thin plates and investigated the 2.2. Analytical model
influence of geometric parameters on the in-plane mechanical properties
of this zero Poisson’s ratio honeycomb structure. They validated the zero Before conducting theoretical analysis, some assumptions are made,
Poisson’s ratio effect through simulations and experiments and per­ which include:
formed multi-stiffness topology optimization of the proposed structure.
Gaal et al. [40] designed a spring-like honeycomb structure, where the (1) Since the thickness of cell wall is t, the coplanar properties of the
single cell was composed of two bars connected by springs in a model are defined as isotropic, i.e., the deformation of the cell
two-dimensional topology model. Gong et al. [41] also designed a zero wall is direction-independent when subjected to an out-of-plane
Poisson’s ratio honeycomb structure capable of two-dimensional force.
deformation. They derived and validated the analytical models for (2) The deformation of the cell wall thickness is ignored when
in-plane and out-of-plane shear stiffness boundaries of the structure analyzing the cell wall deformation, i.e., the thickness of the cell
through finite element analysis. Chen et al. [42] explored the influence is defined as constant.
of geometric configurations of semi-centroidal honeycomb structures on
in-plane mechanical properties and verified the theoretical expressions Based on the above assumptions and the structural characteristics,
using three-dimensional beam models and solid models. the unit cell is taken as a typical example in the following study of in-
Most of the current research on ZPR honeycomb structures focuses plane mechanical properties of the novel honeycomb structure. The
on combinatorial innovations, such as hexagonal honeycomb structure purpose of the theoretical analysis is to calculate the deformation of the
with thin plates [38]. For the honeycomb structures mentioned above, structure based on the application of Castigliano’s second theorem. This
ZPR behavior is achieved only in one direction, which means that if the theorem primarily establishes the relationship between deformation
force direction is changed, the structure loses the ZPR effect. At present,
the influence of geometric parameters on Poisson’s ratio is rarely
considered in the design of ZPR structures. In this work, we present a
novel honeycomb structure that possesses both axisymmetry and cen­
trosymmetry, resulting in identical mechanical properties in orthogonal
directions. As a unit cell of a lattice structure, the connections in our
honeycomb design are face-to-face. From a mechanical performance
perspective, face-to-face connections can provide higher structural
strength and stiffness, as the contact area is larger and can more effec­
tively transmit loads. Compared to honeycomb structures with
dot-to-dot connections, some other types of connections may result in
stress concentration and structural weaknesses in certain situations.
Furthermore, the square connecting walls used in our design provide
better connection stability, thus increasing the overall stability and
reliability of the structure. The relationships between the three elastic
constants and geometric parameters of this novel honeycomb structure
are established using theoretical and numerical methods, which provide Fig. 1. Geometry of the novel ZPR honeycomb structured unit cell.

2
W. Liu et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111134

Fig. 2. Geometry of the unit cells with different parameters θ. θ varies from 45◦ to 90◦ in steps of 5◦ for α=0.5, β=0.1.

energy, forces and deformations from an energy point of view using

calculus. Displacements are determined using the principles of beam
theory, which takes into account the effects of bending moments, axial
forces, and shear forces on the resulting displacements.
The theorem states that the partial derivative of the strain energy U
with respect to generalized load Fi equals to the generalized displace­
ment δi at the point i, where the force acts as:
∂U
= δi (2)
∂ Fi
Fig. 3 shows the top view of the novel ZPR structural unit cell under
pressure in the x-direction. The deformation of the unit cell wall is Fig. 4. Top view of the walls with the in-plane force loading.
mainly caused by bending load, axial load and shear load. The unit cell is
both axisymmetric and centrosymmetric. The wall deformation of the beam, F is axial force on the square connecting beam, Es is the intrinsic
unit cell also has the same symmetry when subjected to an out-of-plane Young’s modulus of the honeycomb material. I is the second moment of
force. Separating one part of the unit cell wall is reasonable in analysis. It inertia of the inclined beam, and A is the area of acting force. According
is assumed that the inclined beams along the y-axis do not contribute to the assumptions, the deformation caused by the wall thickness is
significantly to the deformation along the x-axis direction. The force ignored when the cell walls are deformed. Therefore, after deformation,
analysis diagram of the deformed wall is shown in Fig. 4. the cell wall can still be regarded as a cantilever beam with thickness t
The honeycomb walls can be equivalized into two cantilever beams. and elastic modulus Es. As shown in Fig. 4, the square connecting wall is
In the case of beams undergoing bending and axial loading, the strain deformed under axial load while the inclined cell wall is subjected to
energy U can be obtained: bending load. For a cantilever beam, the bending moment can be
∫l 2 ∫l 2 ∫ αl 2 expressed as follows:
M (x) FN (x) F (x)
U= dx + dx + dx (3)
0 2ES I 0 2ES A 0 2ES A 1
M = Flcosθ (4)
2
Where M(x) is the bending moment, FN is axial force on the inclined

Fig. 3. Top view of unit cell model undergoing stress in x-direction.

3
W. Liu et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111134

The right end of the inclined cell wall is used as the pivot point to A top view of the deformation of the novel ZPR structural unit cell
obtain the distribution of bending load M(x) and the magnitude of axial under shear load is shown in Fig. 5. It can be found that the deformation
load FN on the inclined cantilever beam, which are: is mainly caused by bending and rotation of the unit cell wall when
( ) subjected to horizontal shear P. Considering the symmetry, the degree of
1
M(x) = l − x Fcosθ (5) deformation of cell walls AC and BC is small and can be neglected, so the
2
shear deflection w1 of the model can be expressed by the deformation
degree of CD rotating around C. Here, points C and D are connected by
FN = Fsinθ (6)
equivalent beam CD to simplify the analysis of the model as shown in
Substituting Eqs. (5) and (6) into Eq. (3), the strain energy of the wall Fig. 6, and considering the balance force, the cell walls AC, BC and CD
with bending load and axial load can be calculated from the following were separated from the unit cell.
equation: As illustrated in Fig. 6, the resultant moment at point C is the sum of
the moments acting on AC and BC, thus,
F2 l3 cos2 θ F2 lsin2 θ F2 αl
U= + + (7) PL
24Es I 2Es A 2Es A M= (19)
4
For a cell wall with uniform thickness t, I and A can be expressed as:
In Eq. (19), P is shear load. L is equivalent beam CD as L = 2l(sinθ −
I=
bt3 bβ3 l3
= (8) cosθ). The displacement at point D due to shear deformation solved by
12 12 Castigliano’s theorem with the normalization result can be expressed as:

A = tb = βlb (9) Ml2 PLl2

δ2 = = (20)
6Es I 24Es I
Substituting Eq. (7) into Castigliano’s theorem Eq. (2), the horizontal
displacement of cell wall deformationδ1 can be obtained, Subsequently, the rotation Angle φ of beam CD caused by shear
deformation can be given,
∂U Fl3 cos2 θ Flsin2 θ F αl
δ1 = = + + (10) δ2 PLl
∂F 12Es I Es A Es A φ= = (21)
l 24Es I
In the same time, the cell wall is also subjected to shear loading, and
the shear displacement δs of the cell wall can be expressed as: Based on the relationship between the shear deflection and the
rotation angle, the shear deflection w1 from the point C to the point D
δs =
Fl3 β2 cosθ
(2.4 + 1.5νs ) =
Fl3 kβ2 cosθ
(11) can be expressed as:
12Es I 12Es I ( )3
1 P L PL2
w1 = φL + = (l + 2L) (22)
where k = 2.4 + 1.5νs is the linear polynomial of Poisson’s ratio. 2 3Es I 2 48Es I
Therefore, the total displacement δx of the cell wall in the horizontal
After introducing a cantilever beam CD of length L, it is also neces­
direction under the external forces can be calculated as:
sary to consider the axial deformation w2 as follows,
( ) ( )
Fl3 cos2 θ 1 + kβ2 Fl α + sin2 θ
δx = δ1 + δs cosθ = + (12) PL2 ( )
12Es I Es A w2 = 2L(2.4 + 1.5νs )β2 (23)
48Es I
Using the projection relation, the displacement of the cell wall in the
Thus the total deflection w of the cantilever beam CD at point D can
vertical direction can be expressed as:
be calculated,
( )
Fl3 cosθ cosθ − kβ2 sinθ Flsin2 θ
δy = − (13) w = w1 + w 2 =
PL2 (
l + 2L + 2Lkβ2
)
(24)
12Es I Es A
48Es I
The stress σx in horizontal direction and strain εx , εy can be obtained,
The shear stress and shear strain in horizontal directions can be
F 2F obtained,
σx = = (14)
Ax bl(α + sinθ) 2P
τ= (25)
bl(α + sinθ)
δx
εx = (15)
αl + lsinθ w
γ= (26)
lsinθ
δy
εy = (16) The shear stress and shear strain are linearly related as τ = Gγ. The
2(αl + lsinθ)
macroscopic shear modulus can be obtained from the above equation,
Based on assumption, it is known that stress and strain are linearly
related as σ = Eε. The macroscopic elastic modulus along horizontal τ 2Es β3 sinθ
G= = 2[ ]
direction can be obtained from the above equation, γ (α + sinθ)(sinθ − cosθ) 1 + 4(sinθ − cosθ) + 4(sinθ − cosθ)kβ2
(27)
σ 2Es β3
E= = ( ) ( ) (17)
ε cos2 θ 1 + kβ2 + β2 α + sin2 θ Similarly, the in-plane mechanical properties of the honeycomb
structure are expressed in the form of the dimensionless equivalent shear
In order to make the results more general for subsequent research modulus. The ratio of the macroscopic shear modulus G to the intrinsic
and analysis, the in-plane mechanical properties of the honeycomb elastic modulus Es is chosen as a dimensionless index,
structure are expressed in the form of the dimensionless equivalent
elastic modulus. The ratio of the macroscopic elastic modulus E to the G 2β3 sinθ
= 2[ ]
intrinsic elastic modulus Es is chosen as a dimensionless index, Es (α + sinθ)(sinθ − cosθ) 1 + 4(sinθ − cosθ) + 4(sinθ − cosθ)kβ2

E 2β3 (28)
= ( ) ( ) (18)
Es cos θ 1 + kβ + β2 α + sin2 θ
2 2
According to Eqs. (15) and (16), the horizontal and vertical

4
W. Liu et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111134

Fig. 5. Top view of unit cell model undergoing shear load.

Fig. 6. Top view of equivalent model to calculate the theoretical shear modulus.

deformations of the unit cell are directly solved under uniaxial loading. 2.3. Finite element modeling
Then the Poisson’s ratio of the unit cell is obtained according to the
definition of Poisson’s ratio: In order to verify the theoretical calculation of in-plane elastic
( ) modulus, the mechanical properties and deformation behavior of the
cosθ cosθ − kβ2 sinθ − β2 sin2 θ
v= [ 2 ( ) ( )] (29) novel honeycomb structure are simulated by using the finite element
2 cos θ 1 + kβ + β sin2 θ + α
2 2
analysis software ANSYS (version ANSYS 19.2). The novel honeycomb
structure is supposed to be an ideal elastomer, i.e., the model is assumed

Fig. 7. Finite element model. (a) honeycomb block; (b) representative volume element; (c) finite element diagram of the deformation process; (d) deformation
process of the representative volume.

5
W. Liu et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111134

to be homogeneous, continuous, isotropic, and linearly elastic. The displacement rate of the tensile machine was kept constant at 5 mm/
models were developed using 3D structural tetrahedrons defined by 4 min. The test was accompanied by a 5 megapixels CINRIS high-frame-
nodes and three degrees at each node. According to Joseph N. Grima rate camera and a computer with SmartTest software and RecSuite
et al. [43], when performing finite element analysis, the cells number of software, which can track and measure the target points on honeycomb
the model structure array should be greater than 10 in the length di­ sample. The tensile properties of the polyurethane composites were
rection to fulfill the aspect ratio convergence limit. Therefore, all the measured by testing 3 bone-shaped specimens (Fig. 8b). Markings were
proposed ZPR honeycomb structure models are consisted of 10 × 8 unit made at the ends of the marked distances on the bone specimens to
cells, as shown in Fig. 7a. In the simulation, the dimensionless param­ determine strain in both the loading and transverse directions. Prior to
eters α=0.5, β=0.1, the length of the tilted cell wall l = 10 mm, thickness the tensile test, the camera is calibrated using a standard calibration
of the cell wall b = 10 mm, and the tilt angle θ is set from 50◦ to 85◦ with plate to ensure the accuracy and precision of the image (Fig. 8a). A
a uniform interval of 5◦ Boundary conditions for the models are given in representative stress-strain curve of bone-shaped tensile specimen was
details. presented in Fig. 8c. The mechanical parameters of the substrate ma­
In the numerical simulation of elastic modulus, surface X1 was terial were obtained as Es=3 MPa, vs=0.2. The material parameters of
defined as a fixed support, and surface X2 was set differently for the finite element model are then set accordingly.
different calculations, as shown in Fig. 7b. For elastic modulus calcu­ Four specimens of the new honeycomb in Fig. 9 were fabricated
lation, surface X2 was given a displacement condition in the Y direction using the same manufacturing techniques and polyurethane composites.
to move 3 mm. The surfaces Y1 and Y2 were set as free boundary con­ The novel ZPR honeycomb specimens were 6 × 5 unit cells, and the unit
ditions, and Force Reaction was set at the X2 end face to record the force cell geometric parameters were determined as l = 10 mm, α=0.5, β=0.1,
F corresponding to each deformation. The total reaction force F on the and b = 10 mm. Angle θ of the four specimens varies from 50◦ to 80◦ in
X2 can be obtained by the commercial software ANSYS directly. The steps of 10◦ The images were processed using machine vision tech­
total length H of honeycomb structure and the effective area A1 of the niques, and the four top corners of two unit cells in the middle of the
end face X1 were measured. The total length H represents the length of model were calibrated before tensile testing. The strains in the X and Y
the honeycomb structure in the direction of deformation, which is the directions at the four top corners can be measured, and then substituted
original length before deformation. The equivalent area A1 refers to the into Eq. (32) to obtain the experimentally determined Poisson’s ratio
projected area perpendicular to the force-bearing surface. For the value of the structure. Considering the process influence of rapid pro­
deformation of the structure in the elastic range, the elongation of the totyping printing technology, the overall dimensions and the primary
structure is proportional to the applied axial load, and the relationship dimensions of the honeycomb specimen were measured using digital
can be expressed as follows, vernier calipers before tensile testing. The overall dimensions of the
specimens is 161.32 × 134.36 × 10 mm(θ = 50◦ ), 173.32 × 142.76 × 10
FH
ΔH = ± (30) mm(θ = 60◦ ), 178.15 × 148.88 × 10 mm(θ = 70◦ ), and 182.24 ×
EA1
152.13 × 10 mm(θ = 80◦ ), respectively.
Substituting the measured data into the Eq. (30), the macroscopic
elastic modulus E of the structure can be calculated. For the in-plane 3. Results and discussions
shear simulation, the boundary conditions were applied following
[44]. X1 was a fixed support surface, and X2 was applied with Table 1 shows the comparison between the analytical model, FEM
displacement load in the X axis direction to calculate the shear stress and value and the experimental results. In the FE simulation, tension and
shear strain. The total reaction force P on the X2 can be obtained by the bending are the main deformation modes of the honeycomb structure.
commercial software ANSYS directly. Y1 and Y2 were subjected to First, we will discuss the equivalent elastic modulus of the structures
anti-symmetrical boundary conditions mimicking a continuous honey­ from Table 1. For a honeycomb structure with θ = 60◦ , the analytical
comb along the Y axis direction and the in-plane shear modulus was result shows 14.3% and 20.11% lower than the experimental result and
calculated as following, FE simulation result, respectively. A discrepancy of 8.67% can be found
P between the experimental result and FE simulation result. For a hon­
G= (31) eycomb structure with θ = 70◦ , the analytical result shows discrepancy
γA1
of 7.19% with the FE simulation result, and 2.25% stiffer than the
Fig. 7c represents the finite element diagram illustrating the defor­ experimental result, the latter being 9.23% lower than the FE simula­
mation process of the array structure, while Fig. 7d represents the finite tion. For a honeycomb structure with θ = 80◦ , the analytical result shows
element diagram depicting the deformation process of the representa­ 15.48% and 4.24% stiffer than the experimental result and FE simula­
tive volume. In the simulation calculation of the structure’s Poisson’s tion result, respectively. The experimental result shows a difference of
ratio, the central cell was chosen as the representative unit. The four 9.74% over the FE simulation result. However, For a honeycomb
vertex edges of the cell were selected as the objects of study, and the structure with θ = 50◦ , there is significant difference in the result ob­
analysis was conducted in the "Strain"-"Normal" direction. The strain tained from the analytical formulae with the experimental result and FE
calculations were performed in the X and Y directions, and the obtained simulation result, and the experimental result is very close to the FE
results were substituted into the following equation to calculate the simulation result. It can also be seen from Table 1 that the Poisson’s ratio
simulated value of the Poisson’s ratio, values of the specimens are close to 0 for both the FE simulation results
εx and the experimental results. The small non-zero value of the Poisson’s
v=− (32) ratio can be explained as shown in Fig. 10. When the honeycomb block is
εy
subjected to forces, the unit cells are deformed. The parts that under­
going major deformation are inclined walls B. Inclined walls A are also
2.4. Manufacturing and experimental tests deformed slightly, and lead to a small non-zero deformation on the
transverse direction. This is consistent with the results observed in the
In this paper, the fused deposition rapid prototyping 3D printing experiments.
technology was adopted to manufacture model structures based on The results of the analysis are in general agreement with the FE
polyurethane composite. Polyurethane composites are excellent printing simulation results and the experimental results, but there are still non-
material, which are tough, fast curing, environmentally friendly, and negligible differences. The influencing factors can be ascribed to a va­
nonvolatile. The metal tensile tester selected was manufactured by Fine riety of reasons. As shown in Fig. 2, this is because when the angle is
with a maximum force range of 100 N. In the following test, the small, the internal inclined walls associate to form joint blocks, and the

6
W. Liu et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111134

Fig. 8. (a) Calibration plate for camera; (b) Bone-shaped tensile specimens; (c) A uniaxial tensile stress-strain curve of specimens.

Fig. 9. Tensile testing of honeycomb structure specimens: (a) Before deformation; (b) During deformation.

Table. 1 structure also shows an increase. The aforementioned findings are in

Comparison of the analytical, FEM, and experimental results. alignment with the results obtained from the current experimental ob­
Specimen Parameter Analytical FEM Experimental servations. Therefore, the simulated and experimental results of the
elastic modulus are both greater than the theoretical results. The spec­
50◦ E/Es 0.004549 0.0122 0.0125
v / 0.014 0.07 imens are made by a rapid prototyping fused deposition technology, so
60◦ E/Es 0.007645 0.00957 0.00874 there may be small holes in the printing that affect the experimental
v / 0.008 0.04 results, and the thickness of the cell wall is not uniform during 3D
70◦ E/Es 0.015379 0.01657 0.01504 printing. Meanwhile, the theoretical calculation mentioned above has
v / 0.006 0.02
80◦ E/Es 0.046979 0.04507 0.04068
certain limitations. The tensile and shear deformations within the wall
v / 0.02 0.05 are ignored when analyzing the cell wall deformation.

4. Parametric analysis
structure is not prone to deform when subjected to forces. Existing
studies have demonstrated that the relative thickness and corner radius Based on Eq. (18), the relationship between equivalent elastic
of the honeycomb walls play a significant role in influencing the me­ modulus E/Es and geometric parameters can be plotted, as shown in
chanical properties and Poisson’s ratio of the honeycomb structure [45]. Figs. 11, 12. Considering that the Poisson’s ratio vs of the matrix ma­
As the corner radius increases, which corresponds to a reduction in the terial is included in Eq. (18) and the linear polynomial k representing
honeycomb structure’s θ as proposed in this paper, the Poisson’s ratio of Poisson’s ratio is inseparably followed by thickness ratio β, Fig. 11
the structure tends to increase. Additionally, the elastic modulus of the shows the analytical predictions of the equivalent elastic modulus E/Es

7
W. Liu et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111134

Fig. 10. Representative unit deformation analysis.

to 0.5. When the value of material Poisson’s ratio is determined, the

increase of β causes a boost in the equivalent elastic modulus of hon­
eycomb structure. Adjusting the value of parameter β can effectively
facilitate the design of the equivalent elastic modulus of the honeycomb
structure, which is also consistent with literature [38]. What can be
found is that an increasing β leads to larger influence of material Pois­
son’s ratio on the equivalent elastic modulus. When β=0.2, the change
rate of equivalent elastic modulus is 4.52%, and while β=0.15, the
change rate is reduced to 2.85%. The range of thickness ratio parameter
β given in the literature [38] is only from 0.05 to 0.15. The analysis of
this spatial configuration shows that when the parameter β is larger, the
cell wall thickness t of the novel honeycomb structure becomes larger.
Therefore, in the calculation of the equivalent elastic modulus, the
change of the wall thickness should not be ignored when the model is
loaded by external forces. Thus the assumptions in Section 2.2 are
invalid and the continuity assumption is not satisfied. The parameter β
should be given less than 0.15 so that the effect of material Poisson’s
ratio on the equivalent elastic modulus is relatively small, which can be
ignored.
Fig. 12 shows the variation of the equivalent elastic modulus E/Es of
Fig. 11. Equivalent elastic modulus versus material Poisson’s ratio and β, for
the novel honeycomb structure versus the different geometrical pa­
α=0.5, θ=60◦
rameters. The results are calculated by FE simulation and compared with
the analytical prediction results. The anti-deformation ability of novel
versus the material Poisson’s ratio vs for various parameters β, while honeycomb structure to is determined by its geometric parameters, and
α=0.5, θ=60◦ According to the literature [46], it is known that Poisson’s the deformation is mainly caused by the inclined walls. When the angle
ratio of isotropic materials is within the range of − 1 to 0.5. The material is small, the internal inclined walls associate to form joint blocks, and
Poisson’s ratio in Fig. 11 ranges from − 0.5 to 0.5 ramped by 0.1, and β the foldability of the structure becomes more apparent as internal angle
varies from 0.05 to 0.2 with interval of 0.05. With a determined β, the gets closer to 45◦ as shown in Fig. 2. There are bonds among the cell
equivalent elastic modulus of the novel honeycomb structure remained walls, which has enhanced the deformation resistance of the honey­
almost unchanged when material Poisson’s ratio was varied from − 0.5 comb. The sudden change in wall thickness at the structural bond is not

Fig. 12. Analytical predictions and FE simulation of the equivalent elastic modulus versus the cell angles: (a) with various parameters α at β=0.1, vs=0.2. (b) with
various parameters β at α=0.5, vs=0.2.

8
W. Liu et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111134

taken into account in the theoretical calculation, resulting in a large

deviation of the equivalent elastic modulus between FEM and the
analytical value, so the FE simulation results are greater than the
theoretical results. When the cell angle is large, the curves obtained by
FE simulation are very close to the theory ones. For example, the
analytical result shows 4.24% stiffer modulus than the FE simulation
result, with θ = 80◦ , α=0.5, and β=0.1. Fig. 12(a) shows the variation of
the equivalent elastic modulus E/Es of the novel honeycomb structure
versus the cell angles θ with respect to different α values, where β=0.1,
material Poisson’s ratio vs=0.2. In general, the equivalent elastic
modulus of the structure increases as the cell angle θ increases. For the
same parameter θ, one can observe the equivalent elastic modulus of the
structure increases as the parameter α decreases. The simulation results
are in good agreement with the earlier studies [45], indicating that an
increase in the relative wall thickness of the honeycomb structure leads
to a corresponding increase in the elastic modulus. Moreover, a more
substantial change in the elastic modulus can be noticed when both the
relative wall thickness and corner radius are larger. It provides guidance
for designing the in-plane tensile modulus by adjusting the parameter α.
Fig. 12(b) describes the relationship between the equivalent elastic Fig. 13. Equivalent shear modulus versus material Poisson’s ratio and β, for
modulus E/Es of the novel honeycomb structure and the cell angles θ α=0.5, θ=60◦
with respect to different β values and constant α=0.5, material Poisson’s
ratio vs=0.2. An increase in the parameter β can cause a boost in the
modulus. Fig. 14(b) describes the relationship between the equivalent
equivalent elastic modulus. For example, the equivalent elastic modulus
shear modulus G/Es of the novel honeycomb structure and the cell an­
E/Es of the novel honeycomb structure shows a very great increase
gles θ for different β values while α=0.5, material Poisson’s ratio vs=0.2.
(619%, θ = 70◦ ) when the parameter β varies from 0.05 to 0.10. It
Increasing the parameter β can contribute to a boost in the equivalent
provides a good way to tune the in-plane tensile modulus by altering the
shear modulus. It provides a feasible method to design the in-plane shear
parameter β as well. The trend of theoretical analysis and FE simulation
modulus by adjusting the parameter β as well. Similar to the analysis of
results can be explained as follows. When the inner angle of the unit cell
the equivalent elastic modulus, the folding of novel honeycomb struc­
is close to 45◦ , the folding of the novel honeycomb structure is more
ture is more obvious when the inner angle is close to 45◦ , and the tilt of
obvious, resulting in the weaker ability to resist deformation when
cell wall is greater at this time, resulting in the stronger ability to resist
honeycomb is subjected to tensile forces. When the inner angle of the
shear deformation. When the inner angle is close to 90◦ , the stretching of
unit cell is close to 90◦ , the stretching of the novel honeycomb structure
the novel honeycomb structure is more obvious, enhancing the ability to
is more obvious, resulting in stronger ability to resist deformation. It is
resist shear deformation is relatively weaker. The simulation data con­
worth noting that although the simulated results agree well with the
firms this conclusion.
theoretical results, the simulated results are slightly higher than the
In summary, it is revealed that the equivalent elastic modulus E/Es
theoretical results in general. In the theoretical calculation, the defor­
and equivalent shear modulus G/Es of the novel ZPR honeycomb
mation of the wall thickness is ignored when loaded by external forces.
structure can be regulated by parameters α, β and θ. To investigate the
But in the FE simulation, the software takes the deformation of the cell
influence of material Poisson’s ratio on the in-plane mechanical prop­
wall thickness into account.
erties of the novel honeycomb structure, the equivalent elastic modulus
Based on Eq. (28), the relationship between equivalent shear
E/Es and the equivalent shear modulus G/Es of the novel honeycomb
modulus G/Es and geometric parameters can be plotted, as shown in
structure versus the cell angles θ for different material Poisson’s ratio vs
Figs. 13, 14. Fig. 13 shows the analytical predictions of the equivalent
while α=0.5, β=0.1 are shown in Fig. 15. It reflects that the Poisson’s
shear modulus G/Es and the material Poisson’s ratio vs for various pa­
ratio of the matrix material has a negligible effect on the in-plane me­
rameters β and α=0.5, θ=60◦ When β is determined, the equivalent
chanical properties.
shear modulus of the novel honeycomb structure is barely affected by
From Eq. (29), the relationship between the structural Poisson’s ratio
material Poisson’s ratio. When the value of material Poisson’s ratio is
v and other parameters can be obtained. The value of the Poisson’s ratio
determined, the increase of β causes a lift in the equivalent shear
is derived from basic definition of strains. Fig. 16 demonstrates the novel
modulus of honeycomb structure. Adjusting the value of parameter β can
honeycomb structure Poisson’s ratio versus parameters α, β and θ while
also effectively facilitate the design of the equivalent shear modulus of
vs =0.2, which is a scatter plot consisting of three variables. The color
the honeycomb structure. Similarly, in the shear modulus analysis of the
legend in the figure represents the theoretical derived values of the
novel ZPR honeycomb structure, the value of parameter β is taken less
structure’s Poisson’s ratio for different parameter combinations.
than 0.2.
Restricting the expected value of Poisson’s ratio for the novel honey­
Fig. 14 shows the variation of the equivalent shear modulus G/Es of
comb structure can identify the corresponding parameters that match
the novel honeycomb structure versus the different geometrical pa­
the value of this Poisson’s ratio. When the range of expected values is
rameters. The results are calculated by FE simulation and compared with
narrowed, the scattered points of Poisson’s ratio are reduced accord­
the analytical prediction results. When the value of the cell angle is large
ingly. From the Fig. 16, it can be observed that as θ increases, the
than 60◦ , the analytical results is close to the results of the FE simulation.
Poisson’s ratio of the structure gradually approaches zero, and as θ de­
Fig. 14(a) demonstrates the relationship between the equivalent shear
creases, the Poisson’s ratio increases. Analyzing the colors of the scatter
modulus G/Es of the novel honeycomb structure and the cell angles θ
points in Fig. 16 reveals that as θ increases, the theoretical values of the
with respect to different α values and constant β=0.1, material Poisson’s
structure’s Poisson’s ratio gradually approach zero, while decreasing θ
ratio vs=0.2. The equivalent shear modulus of the structure grows
leads to an increase in the Poisson’s ratio. In this study, we used 3D
gradually as the cell angle θ changes from 45◦ to 90◦ For the same
printing technology to manufacture honeycomb structures with
parameter θ, the equivalent shear modulus of the structure increases
different tilt angles. Both experimental and theoretical results demon­
with the parameter α decreases. It indicates that the parameter α has the
strate the same trend, where the Poisson’s ratio tends to stabilize as the
same effect on the equivalent shear modulus as the equivalent elastic

9
W. Liu et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111134

Fig. 14. Analytical predictions and FE simulation of the equivalent shear modulus versus the cell angles: (a) with various parameters α at β=0.1, vs=0.2. (b) with
various parameters β at α=0.5, vs=0.2.

Poisson’s ratio is defined as the ratio of lateral strain to longitudinal

strain. Generally, materials with Poisson’s ratio close to zero are
considered zero Poisson’s ratio materials. However, the specific range of
values close to zero depends on factors such as the type of material,
structure, and application, so there is no standard value that can be
applied to all materials. Huang et al. [38] designed a zero Poisson’s ratio
honeycomb structure and measured the Poisson’s ratio of the new
honeycomb structure through tensile experiments, which fluctuated
within a larger range and finally stabilized at − 0.02, which is considered
as credible zero Poisson’s ratio effect. Chen et al. [42] designed a semi
re-entrant honeycomb and calculated a Poisson’s ratio value of 0.08 in
one direction through compression experiments, which can also be seen
as good zero Poisson’s ratio effect. In this study, honeycomb structure
samples with multiple angles were prepared, and their Poisson’s ratio
values were measured to be close to 0 through tensile experiments.
Therefore, the zero Poisson’s ratio honeycomb structure designed in this
study exhibits good zero Poisson’s ratio effect.
Figs. 12 and 14 illustrate the adjustable range of equivalent elastic
modulus and equivalent shear modulus. When a structure with a sig­
Fig. 15. Equivalent modulus versus the cell angles with various material nificant zero Poisson’s ratio effect is required, the maximum modulation
Poisson’s ratio vs at α = 0.5 and β = 0.1. of elastic modulus E is 0.12Es and the maximum modulation of shear
modulus G is 0.26Es. For the conventional non-re-entrant and the auxetic
tilt angle increases. The research findings highlight the importance of tilt re-entrant honeycomb structures proposed by Gibson and Ashby et al.
angle θ in determining the mechanical performance of honeycomb [32], the maximum modulus of elastic modulus is calculated as 0.0011Es
structures, and confirm the consistent trend observed in previous and 0.0022Es respectively by theoretical equations. Joseph N. Grima
studies. When the angle radius of the connecting block is small, the zero et al. [43]. proposed a semi re-entrant honeycomb structure that exhibits
Poisson’s ratio effect of the structure is significant. Therefore, through a zero Poisson’s ratio effect in one direction and a higher elastic modulus
the analysis of the theoretical formula for Poisson’s ratio, it can be when loaded with a maximum modulation of 0.01Es in orthogonal di­
concluded that the structure exhibits a zero Poisson’s ratio effect under rection with the relative thickness ratio 0.02. Chen et al. [42]. proposed
certain parameter conditions. a honeycomb in which a rib is embedded in a semi re-entrant

Fig. 16. Honeycomb Poisson’s ratio versus parameters α, β and θ.

10
W. Liu et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111134

honeycomb. The purpose of embedding a rib is to increase the modulus [4] W. Shuai, E. Li, H. Wang, et al., Space mapping-assisted optimization of a thin-
walled honeycomb structure for battery packaging[J], Struct. Multidiscip. Optim.
of the structure. This literature [42] also makes a comparison to semi
62 (22) (2020) 937–955.
re-entrant honeycomb structure with the relative thickness ratio 0.02. [5] S. Chen, X. Tan, J. Hu, et al., A novel gradient negative stiffness honeycomb for
The results for the semi re-entrant honeycomb are calculated consis­ recoverable energy absorption[J], Compos. B 215 (2021), 108745.
tently, and the maximum equivalent modulus that can be adjusted by [6] W.H. Choi, C.G Kim, Broadband microwave-absorbing honeycomb structure with
novel design concept[J], Compos. B 83 (DEC) (2015) 14–20.
Chen [42] is 0.02 Es. By comparing the honeycomb structure proposed [7] X. Yang, Y. Sun, J. Yang, et al., Out-of-plane crashworthiness analysis of bio-
by Gibson et al., the novel honeycomb structure with zero Poisson’s ratio inspired aluminum honeycomb patterned with horseshoe mesostructure[J], Thin
proposed in this paper shows better mechanical designability. Walled Struct. 125 (APR) (2018) 1–11.
[8] J. Zhang, Y. Zhu, K. Li, et al., Dynamic response of sandwich plates with GLARE
face-sheets and honeycomb core under metal foam projectile impact: experimental
5. Conclusions and numerical investigations[J], Int. J. Impact Eng. 164 (2022), 104201.
[9] J. Zhang, Y. Sui, Y. Jiang, et al., Effect of honeycomb structure parameters on the
mechanical properties of ZTAp/HCCI composites[J], Mater. Res. Express 9 (2022)
In this paper, we propose a novel honeycomb structure with zero 056512.
Poisson’s ratio, which is axisymmetric and centrosymmetric. The [10] L. Zou, C. Hou, Q. Wang, et al., A honeycomb-like bulk superstructure of carbon
configuration of the novel honeycomb structure is designed to enhance nanosheets for electrocatalysis and energy storage[J], Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl.
59 (44) (2020) 19627–19632.
its in-plane mechanical properties. By varying the geometric parameters [11] Y.F. Guo, X.X. Han, X.N. Wang, et al., Static cushioning energy absorption of paper
of the unit cell, the novel honeycomb structure exhibits a larger range of composite sandwich structures with corrugation and honeycomb cores[J],
modulation in terms of the equivalent modulus while maintaining a J. Sandwich Struct. Mater. 23 (4) (2021) 1347–1365.
[12] M. Ji, Y. Guo, X. Han, et al., Dynamic cushioning energy absorption of paper
nearly zero Poisson’s ratio within a relatively small fluctuation range.
composite sandwich structures with corrugation and honeycomb cores under drop
Through theoretical analysis, the maximum modulation range of the impact:[J], J. Sandwich Struct. Mater. 24 (2) (2022) 1270–1286.
elastic modulus E is 0.12Es, and the maximum modulation range of the [13] N.K. Chandrasekaran, V. Arunachalam, State-of-the-art review on honeycomb
sandwich composite structures with an emphasis on filler materials[J], Polym.
shear modulus G is 0.26Es. Experimental and simulation results
Compos. 42 (10) (2021) 5011–5020.
demonstrate that the Poisson’s ratio of this structure closely approxi­ [14] A. Gz, B. Yl, A. Zl, et al., Research on impact resistance of ceramic matrix
mates zero. The mechanical property of the novel zero Poisson’s ratio composites[J], Compos. Struct. 268 (2021) 113977.
honeycomb structure has been theoretically calculated, simulated and [15] J. Maurath, N. Willenbacher, 3D printing of open-porous cellular ceramics with
high specific strength[J], J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 37 (15) (2017) 4833–4842.
tested, and its designability is further demonstrated through numerical [16] M. Zhou, Y. Sui, X. Chong, et al., Wear resistance mechanism of ZTAP/HCCI
analysis and verification. The theoretical equations and data graphs composites with a honeycomb structure[J], Met. Open Access Metall. J. 8 (8)
provided in this paper can assist researchers in conveniently selecting (2018) 588.
[17] G. Bi, J. Yin, Z. Wang, et al., Micro fracture behavior of composite honeycomb
appropriate geometric parameters when designing similar structure. sandwich structure[J], Materials 14 (1) (2020) 135 (Basel).
[18] S.D. Rapaka, M. Pandey, R.K Annabattula, Dynamic compressive behaviour of
CRediT authorship contribution statement auxetic and non-auxetic hexagonal honeycombs with entrapped gas[J], Int. J.
Impact Eng. 146 (2020), 103718.
[19] M. Xu, D. Liu, P. Wang, et al., In-plane compression behavior of hybrid honeycomb
Wangyu Liu: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project metastructures: theoretical and experimental studies[J], Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 106
administration, Funding acquisition. Yulong Zhang: Conceptualization, (2020), 106081.
[20] A.S.M. Ashab, D. Ruan, G. Lu, et al., Quasi-static and dynamic experiments of
Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, aluminum honeycombs under combined compression-shear loading[J], Mater. Des.
Visualization. Zhengqiang Guo: Data curation, Formal analysis. 97 (2016) 183–194.
Dongxun Li: Investigation, Validation. Sheng Zhao: Formal analysis, [21] A.P. Praveen, V. Rajamohan, A.B. Arumugam, et al., Assessment of dynamic
properties of hybrid ribbon reinforced multifunctional composite sandwich plates:
Validation. Weigui Xie: Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
numerical and experimental investigation[J], Thin Walled Struct. 145 (2019),
106365.
Declaration of Competing Interest [22] L. Boldrin, S. Hummel, F. Scarpa, et al., Dynamic behaviour of auxetic gradient
composite hexagonal honeycombs[J], Compos. Struct. 149 (2016) 114–124.
[23] E.A. Bubert, B.K.S. Woods, K. Lee, et al., Design and fabrication of a passive 1D
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial morphing aircraft skin[J], J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 21 (17) (2010) 1699–1717.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence [24] V. Mehta, M. Frecker, G. Lesieutre, et al., Contact-aided compliant mechanisms for
morphing aircraft skin[J], Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 6926 (2008) 87–98.
the work reported in this paper.
[25] R. Ruzek, R. Lohonka, J. Jiron, Ultrasonic C-Scan and shearography NDI
techniques evaluation of impact defects identification[J], NDT Int. 39 (2) (2006)
Data availability 132–142.
[26] G. Zhu, S. Li, G. Sun, et al., On design of graded honeycomb filler and tubal wall
thickness for multiple load cases, - ScienceDirect[J], Thin Walled Struct. 109
Data will be made available on request. (2016) 377–389.
[27] O.A. Ganilova, et al., Application of smart honeycomb structures for automotive
passive safety[J], Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. D 232 (6) (2018) 797–811.
[28] A.P. Meran, C. Baykasoglu, A. Mugan, et al., Development of a design for a crash
Acknowledgments energy management system for use in a railway passenger car[J], Proc. Inst. Mech.
Eng. F 230 (1) (2016) 206–219. Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit.
This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science [29] Y. Mao, Mei, et al., Honeycomb structured porous films from a platinum porphyrin-
grafted poly(styrene-co-4-vinylpyridine) copolymer as an optical oxygen sensor[J],
Foundation of China (Grant number 11972161), the National Natural Sens. Actuators B Chem. 257 (2018) 944–953.
Science Foundation of Guangdong, China (Grant number [30] J.T. Siivola, M. Shu, T. Mizutani, et al., Monitoring of dimple formation in
2021A1515011724 & 2023A1515012023) and the Project funded by honeycomb sandwich structures using distributed fiber optic sensors:[J],
J. Sandwich Struct. Mater. 23 (8) (2021) 3645–3668.
China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant number 2023M731131). [31] J. Li, Design and integrated analysis of a flexible support microstructure with a
honeycomb sandwich for the optical window of a hypersonic remote sensor[J],
References Sensors 21 (2021) 5919.
[32] L.J. Gibson, M.F. Ashby, G.S. Schajer, et al., The mechanics of two-dimensional
cellular materials[J], Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Math Phys. Sci. 382 (1782) (1982)
[1] F. Li, W. Yuan, C. Zhang, Free vibration and sound insulation of functionally
25–42.
graded honeycomb sandwich plates:[J], J. Sandwich Struct. Mater. 24 (1) (2022)
[33] A. Ingrole, A. Hao, R. Liang, Design and modeling of auxetic and hybrid
565–600.
honeycomb structures for in-plane property enhancement[J], Mater. Des. 117
[2] L. Zheng, D. Wu, A. Zhou, et al., Experimental and numerical study on heat transfer
(2017) 72–83.
characteristics of metallic honeycomb core structure in transient thermal shock
[34] L. Zhou, X. Zheng, K. Du, et al., Parametric and experiment studies of 3D auxetic
environments[J], Int. J. Thermophys. 35 (8) (2014) 1557–1576.
lattices based on hollow shell cuboctahedron[J], Smart Mater. Struct. 30 (2)
[3] Yu-C Chuang, L.C. Bao, et al., Buffering sandwiches made of thermoplastic
(2021), 025042.
polyurethane honeycomb grids: manufacturing technique and property evaluations
[J], J. Sandwich Struct. Mater. 21 (6) (2019) 1975–1990.

11
W. Liu et al. Thin-Walled Structures 192 (2023) 111134

[35] A. Alderson, K.L. Alderson, D. Attard, et al., Elastic constants of 3-, 4- and 6-con­ [41] X. Gong, J. Huang, F. Scarpa, et al., Zero Poisson’s ratio cellular structure for two-
nected chiral and anti-chiral honeycombs subject to uniaxial in-plane loading[J], dimensional morphing applications[J], Compos. Struct. 134 (2015) 384–392.
Compos. Sci. Technol. 70 (7) (2010) 1042–1048. [42] Y. Chen, M.H Fu, Mechanical properties of a novel zero poisson’s ratio honeycomb
[36] Y.J. Chen, F. Scarpa, Y.J. Liu, et al., Elasticity of anti-tetrachiral anisotropic lattices [J], Adv. Eng. Mater. (2017), 1700452.
[J], Int. J. Solids Struct. 50 (6) (2013) 996–1004. [43] J.N. Grima, L. Oliveri, D. Attard, et al., Hexagonal honeycombs with zero poisson’s
[37] H. Wu, X. Zhang, Y. Liu, In-plane crushing behavior of density graded cross- ratios and enhanced stiffness[J], Adv. Eng. Mater. 12 (9) (2010) 855–862.
circular honeycombs with zero Poisson’s ratio[J], Thin Walled Struct. 151 (2020), [44] J. Singer, J. Arbocz, T. Weller, Buckling Experiments: Experimental Methods in
106767. Buckling of Thin-Walled structures, Volume 2: Shells, Built-up Structures,
[38] J. Huang, X. Gong, Q. Zhang, et al., In-plane mechanics of a novel zero Poisson’s Composites and Additional Topics[M], John Wiley & Sons, 2002.
ratio honeycomb core[J], Compos. B 89 (2015) 67–76. [45] J. Huang, W. Liu, A. Tang, Effects of fine-scale features on the elastic properties of
[39] J. Huang, Q. Zhang, F. Scarpa, et al., Multi-stiffness topology optimization of zero zero Poisson’s ratio honeycombs[J], Mater. Sci. Eng. B 236 (2018) 95–103.
Poisson’s ratio cellular structures[J], Compos. B: Eng. 140 (2018) 35–43. [46] G.N. Greaves, A.L. Greer, R.S. Lakes, et al., Poisson’s ratio and modern materials
[40] V. Gaal, V. Rodrigues, S.O. Dantas, et al., New zero poisson’s ratio structures[J], [J], Nat. Mater. 10 (2011) 823–836.
Phys. Status Solidi (RRL) Rapid Res. Lett. 14 (3) (2019) 1900564.

12