Thin-Walled Structures 187 (2023) 110721

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Full length article

The compressive responses and failure behaviors of composite graded

auxetic re-entrant honeycomb structure
Sheng Yu a , Zhikang Liu a , Xiaoming Cao c , Jiayi Liu a,b ,∗, Wei Huang a , Yangwei Wang d
a
School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
b
Hubei Key Laboratory of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering Hydrodynamics (HUST), Wuhan 430074, China
c
Wuhan Second Ship Design and Research Institute, Wuhan 430064, China
d
National Key Laboratory of Science and Technology on Materials under Shock and Impact, Beijing 100081, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper investigated the quasi-static compressive performances and failure behaviors of composite auxetic
Re-entrant honeycomb core re-entrant honeycomb sandwich structure. Three types of auxetic re-entrant honeycomb structures with
Quasi-static compression different gradient configurations were manufactured and tested. The carbon/epoxy prepreg was used to
Energy absorption
fabricated the auxetic re-entrant honeycomb sandwich structure. The reaction force and displacement of the
Negative Poisson’s ratio effect
test fixture were collected by the transducer of the universal testing machine. The compressive processes of
specimens were recorded by high-resolution camera. Combined with the stress–strain curves and deformation
processes of composite structures, the compressive responses and deformation mechanisms was analyzed.
The Poisson’s ratio, energy efficiency and plateau stress of re-entrant honeycomb sandwich structures were
defined and utilized to study the auxetic performance and energy absorption ability. Furthermore, a high-
fidelity numerical model was established and finite element software ABAQUS was used to analyzed the
compressive performances and failure behaviors of composite graded auxetic re-entrant honeycomb structure.
The compressive failure modes of the numerical simulation results were compared with that of the experimental
results, and the numerical simulation results agreed well with the experimental results. The results indicated
that average structure exhibited best energy absorption performance and bidirectionally graded auxetic
honeycomb structure had the best negative Poisson’s ratio performance.

1. Introduction
Due to the better specific modulus compared with metallic mate-
rial, composite was extensively used in various industries. Meanwhile,
sandwich structure was favored by many scholars owing to its better
load-bearing capacity and energy absorption ability compared with
monolithic plate. Therefore, composite sandwich structure was bound
to become an irresistible choice for special purpose. Sandwich structure
is a multi-layer structure composed of two high strength outer plates
and a light-weight core [1], and its diversity mainly depends on the
variety of material types of panels and cores and the wide range of
structural forms of cores. Sandwich structure showed similar mechani-
cal characteristics with I-beam when bearing bending and shear loads,
and it could excessively reduce the weight of the structure. Lattice [2–
4], hexagonal honeycomb [5,6], X-shaped [7–9], Y-shaped [10,11],
double-arrowed corrugated [12] and other cores sandwich structure
had been proposed and researched by researchers, and these types of
sandwich structures had its own advantages in terms of mechanical
properties. Recently, mechanical performance and energy absorption
of sandwich structure drawn more attention in aerospace industry, ma-
rine structure and auto industry. Among them, hexagonal honeycomb
sandwich structure was inspired by the honeycomb and exhibited large
in-plane and out-of-plane stiffness under compressive loads, which
meant low energy dissipation ability. Based on the geometric features
of hexagonal honeycomb unit cell, re-entrant honeycomb unit cell
was generated by folding the four opposite sides of the hexagonal
honeycomb inward and utilized to absorb more energy compared with
conventional hexagonal honeycomb unit cell.
Deformation and damage mode, negative Poisson’s ratio (NPR)
effect and energy characteristic of auxetic re-entrant honeycomb struc-
ture were extensively studied by researchers. Xiao et al. [13] theo-
retically and numerically studied the dynamic compression behavior
of the metallic re-entrant honeycomb structure under low and high
compressive velocities. The result demonstrated that the stress–strain
curve underestimated the effect of the structural NPR effect on the
crush stress. Shao et al. [14] studied the compressive performance of
metallic gradient auxetic re-entrant honeycomb structure under quasi-
static and different compressive velocity. Meanwhile, the calculation

∗ Corresponding author at: School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China.
E-mail address: liujiayi@hust.edu.cn (J. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2023.110721
Received 5 December 2022; Received in revised form 19 February 2023; Accepted 19 March 2023
Available online 31 March 2023
0263-8231/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Yu, Z. Liu, X. Cao et al. Thin-Walled Structures 187 (2023) 110721

method of structural Poisson’s ratio was defined. The result demon- Table 1
Geometric parameters of the re-entrant honeycomb unit cell.
strated that the graded configuration had an apparent effect on the
energy dissipation capacity of the re-entrant honeycomb structure. Xiao Category Value

et al. [15] researched the compressive behaviors of the unidirectionally- Overall height h 16 mm
Half the length of connecting bar l 12 mm
graded and bidirectionally-graded re-entrant honeycomb structures
Inclined angle of inclined bar 𝜃 45◦
under quasi-static compression load. The result indicated that the Length of the horizontal bar b 24 mm
horizontal shrink deformation and gradient distribution had a great
influence on the crush stress and Poisson’s ratio. Dong et al. [16]
researched the effect of the thickness of cell wall on the quasi-static
compressive response by experiment and numerical simulation. The
results demonstrated that deformation modes were highly affected by
the wall thickness. Usta et al. [17] studied the energy absorption
performance and failure modes of polyurethane foam core sandwich
structure and 3D printing auxetic re-entrant honeycomb cores sandwich
structure. The results demonstrated that the re-entrant honeycomb
structure had better resistance to bending deformation due to its NPR
deformation feature. Zhao et al. [18] experimentally and numeri-
cally discussed the compressive performance of aluminum-foam-filled
re-entrant honeycomb structures at different loading directions. The
results indicated that loading direction had a great impact on the
energy absorption of re-entrant honeycomb structures. Usta et al. [19]
studied the anti-impact performance of composite sandwich structure
with auxetic and no-auxetic core. The results indicated that auxetic
configuration had obvious advantages to resist large deformation.
Due to the great designability of re-entrant honeycomb core, the
geometric optimization design of re-entrant honeycomb core was uti-
lized to strengthen the mechanical properties and energy absorption
capacity of the structure by researchers. On the basis of the research
of Xiao et al. [13], Jiang et al. [20] proposed novel concentric aux-
etic re-entrant honeycomb. Due to the existence of plastic hinge and
enhancement of the deformation coupling, this novel structure ex-
Fig. 1. Geometric feature and configuration of composite auxetic re-entrant honeycomb
hibited higher plateau stress and energy absorption compared with
sandwich structure: (a) Geometric feature of unit cell, (b) Configuration of composite
traditional auxetic re-entrant honeycomb structure. Tan et al. [21] auxetic re-entrant honeycomb structure.
studied the energy absorption performance of regular-arranged and
cross-arranged auxetic re-entrant honeycomb structure under quasi-
static and different compressive velocities. The results indicated that
feature of three types of composite re-entrant honeycomb structures
the regular triangle configuration had the better energy dissipation
under quasi-static compressive loads were studied and discussed. Com-
performance due to more plastic hinge compared with hexagon con-
bined with the experiment and numerical calculation, the effect of the
figuration. Tatlier et al. [22] proposed a circle-embedded re-entrant
gradient configuration on the compressive performance of composite
core unit cell and studied the effect of the angle and thickness of
re-entrant honeycomb structure was demonstrated under quasi-static
cell wall on the improvement of the in-plane stiffness. The results
compression.
proved that embedded circle had a positive effect on the bearing
capacity and energy dissipation capacity. Qi et al. [23] theoretically
and numerically researched the compressive performance of 3D re- 2. Model and methodology
entrant honeycomb structure under different compression velocities.
The results indicated that geometric parameter had a great influence 2.1. Structure feature
on the structure performance at different compression velocities. Zhan
et al. [24] manufactured novel re-entrant honeycombs by 3D-printed The unit cell of auxetic re-entrant honeycomb core is presented as
technology and studied their mechanical performances. By refining the shown in Fig. 1(a). The geometric parameter of the auxetic re-entrant
geometric configuration of re-entrant honeycomb unit cell, the defor- honeycomb unit cell are listed in Table 1. The relative density of this
mation mechanism of whole structure was overturned. In addition, the unit cell is able to be calculated by following equation [25].
mechanical performance including strength, stiffness and stability had 2𝑡 𝑏 sin 𝜃
( ℎ + 1)
been extensively improved. 𝜌= ℎ
(1)
In conclude, a great deal of scholars researched the quasi-static 2𝑏 sin 𝜃
ℎ
− cos 𝜃
and dynamic mechanical performances of metallic auxetic re-entrant
where 𝑡 represents the thickness of the unit cell wall, 𝑏 represents the
honeycomb structure. Moreover, the geometric optimization and para-
length of the platform, ℎ represents the height of the unit cell, and 𝜃
metric design were also applied to enhance the mechanical perfor-
represents the inclined angle.
mance and energy characteristic of metallic auxetic re-entrant honey-
comb structure. Considering the excellent specific strength and specific
modulus of carbon/epoxy and outstanding energy absorption perfor- 2.2. Fabrication processes
mance of re-entrant honeycomb structure, this structure had profound
potential to resist the dynamic loads, such as projectile impact, un- In this paper, the auxetic re-entrant honeycomb structures includes
derwater blast and others. In order to better analyze the dynamic two face sheets and six layer cores as shown in Fig. 1(b). The material
performance of composite re-entrant honeycomb structure, it was nec- used to fabricate the sandwich structure is carbon/epoxy T700 prepreg.
essary to study the quasi-static compression properties of structures. In The material properties of carbon/epoxy prepreg are listed in Table 2.
this paper, the deformation behaviors, energy characteristics and NPR The epoxy resin adhesive was used to bond the re-entrant honeycomb

2
S. Yu, Z. Liu, X. Cao et al. Thin-Walled Structures 187 (2023) 110721

Table 2 Table 3
Mechanical properties of carbon/epoxy T700 unidirectional lamina. The ply stacking sequence for different thickness core layers and face sheet.
Mechanical properties Symbol Value Category Stacking sequence Lay-up diagram
Longitudinal modulus (MPa) 𝐸11 100000
Transverse modulus (MPa) 𝐸22 8000
Out-of-plane modulus (MPa) 𝐸33 8000
Poisson’s ratio 𝑣12 , 𝑣13 , 𝑣23 0.21, 0.21, 0.3
Shear modulus (MPa) 𝐺12 , 𝐺13 , 𝐺23 4000, 4000, 3000
Shear strength (MPa) 𝑆12 , 𝑆13 , 𝑆23 104, 104, 86
Longitudinal tensile strength (MPa) 𝑋𝑇 2100
Longitudinal compressive strength (MPa) 𝑋𝐶 700
Transverse tensile strength (MPa) 𝑌𝑇 42
Face sheet [0◦ ∕90◦ ∕0◦ ]𝑠
Transverse compressive strength (MPa) 𝑌𝐶 160
Out-of-plane tensile strength (MPa) 𝑍𝑇 42
Out-of-plane compressive strength (MPa) 𝑍𝐶 160
Density (kg/m3 ) 𝜌 1500

core layers. For the selection of the adhesive, the effect of the thick-
ness, adhesion strength and curing temperature of the adhesive on the
mechanical performance of the structure will be considered. Unlike Thin core layer [0◦ ∕90◦ ]𝑠
the forming method of metal structure, the structure forming in this
paper adopted the hot-pressing mold forming method. The fabrication
processes of composite auxetic re-entrant honeycomb structure were
divided into the following three stages as shown in Fig. 2. (I) The
manufacture processes of core layers were demonstrated as Fig. 2(a).
Above all, on the basis of the designed stack sequence, the prepreg
was cut into strips with certain size and assembled into the moulds
according to the sequence of the mould assembly. The end of the strips Medium thickness core layer [0◦ ∕90◦ ∕0◦ ]𝑠
was embedded into the face sheets during the preparation of the top
and bottom core layers. More elaborate procedures of mould assembly
and prepreg laying were able to obtain from previous literature [26].
Subsequently, the prepreg in the mould was heated and cured at curing
temperature. After curing, the moulds were removed from the re-
entrant core layer. (II) The size of the specimen fabricated from stage
(I) was slightly larger than the design size, and excess part of the
specimen would be cut off along the cutting lines by CNC as shown
in Fig. 2(b). After cutting the redundant part, the rough surface was
polished using the abrasive papers. (III) Due to the complexity of this Thick core layer [(0◦ ∕90◦ )2 ]𝑠
multi-layer sandwich structure, the entire re-entrant honeycomb struc-
ture was manufactured by the secondary forming technique as shown
in Fig. 2(c). The auxetic re-entrant honeycomb core layers were bonded
layer with different graded configuration were listed in Table 3. The
using epoxy resin adhesive and then cured. In this experiment, there are
schematic diagram of the compression experiment was demonstrated
five re-entrant honeycomb cores in each core layer and the surface size
in Fig. 4(d). Considering the quasi-static condition and height of the
of the face sheet is 160 mm × 160 mm. The compressive experiments
specimen, the loading rate of the indenter was set to 1 mm/min, which
are implemented under the guidance of ASTM C365. The compressive
met the requirements of quasi-static loading.
specimens of composite auxetic re-entrant honeycomb structure are
shown in Fig. 3.
2.4. Finite element analysis
2.3. Compression experiment
The compressive responses and failure behaviors of composite aux-
In order to compare the effect of the gradient forms on the mechan- etic re-entrant honeycomb structure were simulated by commercial
ical performance, three types of composite auxetic re-entrant honey- finite element analysis software Abaqus/Explicit. The numerical model
comb sandwich structure were tested as shown in Fig. 4(a)–(c), and of composite auxetic re-entrant honeycomb structure under compres-
they are respectively named as average auxetic honeycomb (AAH), sive loads was created as shown in Fig. 5. In consideration of the
unidirectionally graded auxetic honeycomb (UGAH) and bidirectionally symmetric geometry features and boundary conditions (BCs), symmet-
graded auxetic honeycomb (BGAH). For core layers, the differences rical model of half structure was established and symmetric boundary
among them were stacking sequence, stacking angle and quantity of conditions was applied in the cross profile of the fixtures and re-
stacking layers. Three colors were used to distinguish different cell entrant honeycomb structure. The upper and lower fixtures were set
wall thicknesses in Fig. 4. The thicknesses of cell walls from low to as rigid bodies during analysis. The motion of the upper fixture was
high were respectively 4 plies (green), 6 plies (pink) and 8 plies (gray). consistent with the upper reference point and the lower fixture was
For entire re-entrant honeycomb sandwich structures, UGAH and BGAH constrained in all degree of freedom. Due to the requirement of quasi-
had the same quantity of corresponding core layers with same stacking static simulation, the smooth amplitude load curve was utilized to
sequence, and the difference between them was that the assembly control the displacement of the upper fixture. The constitution model
sequence of the same core layers was diverse. In addition, in order of carbon/epoxy uni-directional fiber-reinforced material was described
to compare the mechanical performance between graded configuration by engineering constant in ABAQUS. Hashin criteria and Yeh criterion
and average configuration, AAH was set as a contrast and researched at were respectively utilized to judge the in-plane material failure be-
approximately the same relative density. The stacking sequences of core havior and interlaminar failure behavior. As the compression process

3
S. Yu, Z. Liu, X. Cao et al. Thin-Walled Structures 187 (2023) 110721

Fig. 2. Fabrication processes of composite auxetic re-entrant honeycomb structure: (a) Initial fabrication stage, (b) Precise cutting stage, (c) Secondary curing stage.

4
S. Yu, Z. Liu, X. Cao et al. Thin-Walled Structures 187 (2023) 110721

Fig. 3. The compressive specimens of composite auxetic re-entrant honeycomb structure: (a) Outer core layer and face sheet, (b) Middle core layer, (c) Assembly of face sheets
and core layers, (d) Specimens with different graded configuration.

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram for different graded configuration: (a) AAH, (b) UGAH, (c) BGAH, (d) Experimental equipment and compressive test.

went on, the material points of finite element model were progressively
failure. In this paper, a failure criterion based on the dimensionless
failure strain was applied to assess the material point status. Once
the failure criterion was satisfied, the stiffness matrix of elements was
progressively degraded and stress distribution of elements was updated
at each increment. The running process of user subroutine VUMAT in
this simulation was depicted as Fig. 6. Tie constrain was applied to
define the contact model between core layers and face sheets due to
there was no debonding failure mode in the experiment. In addition, in
order to avoid the result distortion caused by sliding between the face
sheets and fixture, penalty was applied to define the contact behavior
between them. The mesh independence of the numerical model was
verified by the convergence of the load–displacement curve in ABAQUS
and the mesh size was finally set to 4 mm.

5
S. Yu, Z. Liu, X. Cao et al.
Fig. 5. Finite element model of composite auxetic re-entrant honeycomb structure under compressive loads.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Deformation and failure modes
The deformation modes of composite auxetic re-entrant honeycomb
structures are generally divided into three stages: linear elastic defor-
mation stage, plateau stress stage and entire densification stage. The
experimental and numerical deformation modes of composite auxetic
re-entrant honeycomb structures under quasi-static compressive loads
were demonstrated in Figs. 7–9.
The deformation and failure modes of UGAH were demonstrated as
Fig. 7. At the beginning of compression, an approximately symmetric
deformation mode was observed for the weakest core layers at the
nominal strain of 0.09. Due to NPR effect of re-entrant honeycomb unit
cells, the first two core layers of UGAH tended to shrink towards the
middle at the nominal strain of 0.19. After the collapse and densifica-
tion of the weakest core layers, the structure showed the deformation
mode of double ‘‘V’’ mode at the nominal strain of 0.33. After the
compaction of the weakest core layers, the relative thick core layers and
thickest core layers exhibited the global deformation when the nominal
compressive strain was 0.41. Local densifications of middle core layers
were observed at the nominal strain of 0.49. As the compression process
continued, most of re-entrant honeycomb cores were compacted at the
nominal strain of 0.63. The reason for these deformation processes
was that the relative thick core layers (6 plies) was liable to deform
compared with the thickness core layers (8 plies) after the densification
of the weakest core layers. The whole structure was almost densified
at the nominal strain of 0.71. There existed discrepancies between
the experimental results and numerical results. The reasons for these
phenomenon were that the fiber continuity at the corner would be
inevitably destroyed in the process of sample preparation and failure
of the weakest core layer had a great influence on the subsequent
deformation mode.
The deformation and failure modes of BGAH were demonstrated as
Fig. 8. The middle core layers deformed symmetrically at the nomi-
nal strain of 0.13. The middle cells of the thinnest two core layers
collapsed, and the edge cells contracted and piled up towards the
middle, while the other core layers had no obvious changes. Local
deformation with ‘X’ mode was presented at the nominal strain of
0.19, and the overall structure began to show an obvious NPR effect.
6
Thin-Walled Structures 187 (2023) 110721
Local densification of the weakest core layers occurred at the nominal
strain of 0.34 and 0.41. As the nominal strain continued to increase
to 0.49, the four core layers in the middle were almost completely
compacted, and only the thickest core layers continued to deform, and
the overall NPR effect were gradually limited. The reasons for these
deformation processes were that the deformation capacity of the core
layers connected to the face sheets was limited by the face sheets,
and the failure and densification of the weaker core layers may lead
to the shrinkage deformation of the stronger core layers. When the
nominal compressive strain reached 0.64, the thickest core layer began
to collapse. The whole core layers were densified at the nominal strain
of 0.74. Due to the geometrical symmetry of BGAH, the experimental
results were in good agreement with the numerical simulation results.
The deformation and failure modes of AAH were depicted in Fig. 9.
At the beginning of compression, double ‘‘V’’ mode was observed in the
middle core layers at the nominal strain of 0.09. As the compression
process continued, the cells on the left side of the sample showed
overall shrinkage deformation to the middle, while the shrinkage of
the core layer on the right side was not obvious. When the nominal
compressive strain reached 0.41, the second and fourth core layers
showed obvious local compaction of single cells, and the right end of
the middle core layer also showed a tendency to collapse. When the
compressive nominal strain reached 0.49, the two middle core layers
were almost completely compacted, and the second and fifth core layers
were mostly compacted. When the nominal compressive strain reached
0.63, the middle four core layers were almost completely compacted,
and the auxetic properties of the structure were almost limited. The
reasons for this deformation process were that the mechanical property
of the core layers was same and the shrinkage deformation of the end
core layer connected to the panel was limited by the panel compared
with the middle core layers. The whole core layers were densified at the
nominal strain of 0.69. There were some differences in the deformation
process between experiment and simulation due to the inconsistencies
in damage to the left and right cores during compressive experiment.
According to the deformation processes of UGAH, BGAH and AAH
in Figs. 7–9, the similarity and difference of the deformation mech-
anism of these structure were explicitly observed and summarized.
Compared with the deformation processes of graded structures and
average structure, the deformation mechanism of graded structure was
mainly affected by the strength of the core layers, and that of average
S. Yu, Z. Liu, X. Cao et al.
Fig. 6. Damage evolution of composite material in Abaqus/Explicit user subroutine
VUMAT.
structure was related to the deformation of distal and middle core
layers. For example, the core layers shrank towards the weakest core
layers for UGAH and BGAH, and the core layers connected with the face
sheets deformed after the global deformation of middle core layers.
3.2. Stress–strain curve and plateau stress
Plateau stress generally occurs in the following three deformation
circumstances [27]: (I) stable deformation of entire structure after
elastic phase, (II) stable deformation of entire structure after global
buckling deformation and (III) stable deformation of local substructure
with slightly large stress fluctuations. The value of the plateau stress
and width of the plateau region are utilized to characterize the sta-
ble load-bearing capacity and energy absorption ability [28–30]. The
plateau stress can be calculated by the following expression.
𝜀 nominal strain of AAH, UGAH and BGAH was demonstrated in Fig. 13.
∫0 𝐷 𝜎(𝜀)𝑑𝜀
𝜎𝑝 =
𝜀𝐷
The stress–strain curve of UGAH, BGAH and AAH sandwich struc-
tures were demonstrated as Figs. 10–12. On the basis of the initial
linear stage of stress–strain curve, Young’s modulus, first plateau stress
and densification strain were listed in Table 4. In terms of multi-layer
graded structure, several stress plateau regions were explicitly existed
Thin-Walled Structures 187 (2023) 110721
during the compressive processes due to the differences in strength and
buckling stress between core layers with different cell wall thickness.
The stress–strain curve and plateau stress were discussed as follows by
combining the deformation and failure processes.
The relationship between the nominal strain and nominal stress
of UGAH was revealed in Fig. 10. There existed four plateau stresses
during the compressive process and each plateau stress was accom-
panied by stable deformation modes, densification of core layer and
local damage. The corresponding compression situation around the
plateau stresses of UGAH and corresponding compressive strain were
indicated in Fig. 10(i)–(iv). The first plateau stress occurred at the
stable deformation of the weakest core layers. The second plateau stress
emerged at the stable NPR deformation after the local failure of several
re-entrant honeycomb cores. The third plateau stress appeared after
the densification of the weakest core layers, and other core layers
demonstrated a deformation trend towards the center re-entrant hon-
eycomb core of UGAH. The fourth plateau stress occurred in the local
compaction of the relative thick and thickest core layers. The thickest
core layers fractured at the nominal strain of 0.69 and stress–strain
curve experienced obvious downward trend, as shown in Fig. 10(v).
Among them, the first plateau stress of UGAH was approximately 0.07
MPa due to local buckling deformation and material failure after linear
elastic stage. The fluctuation near the plateau stress in the stress–strain
curve was mainly due to the continuous failure of the material. The
maximum of crushing stress was 1.24 MPa with the fracture of the
middle thickest core layer before overall densification. The core layers
of UGAH was densified at the nominal strain of 0.71, as shown in
Fig. 10(vi).
The stress–strain curve and plateau stress of BGAH were demon-
strated, as shown in Fig. 11. The corresponding compression situation
around the plateau stresses of BGAH was indicated in Fig. 11(i)–(v).
There were more plateau stresses compared with that of UGAH. The
first plateau stress of BGAH occurred after the fracture of the middle
weakest core layers. The value of the first plateau stress of BGAH was
0.11 MPa due to the stable deformation of the weakest core layers.
The second plateau stress appeared after densification of the middle
re-entrant honeycomb core and buckling of the re-entrant honeycomb
cores at either end of the weakest core layers. After the densification
of the weakest core layers, the third plateau stress and fourth plateau
stress emerged at the stable deformation of relative thick core layers.
The fifth plateau stress arose at the densification of the relative thick
core layers. The fluctuation around the fifth plateau stress was mainly
due to the fracture of the relative thick core layers. The thickest core
layer of UGAH fractured at the nominal strain of 0.70 and densified at
the nominal strain of 0.74, as shown in Fig. 11(vi).
The relationship between the nominal stress and nominal strain of
AAH were exhibited, as shown in Fig. 12. The corresponding com-
pression situation around the plateau stresses of AAH was indicated in
Fig. 12(i)–(iv). Compared with UGAH and BGAH, the first plateau stress
of AAH underwent a longer nominal strain range due to the identical
mechanical properties of the relative thick core layers. The value of the
first plateau stress of AAH was approximately 0.36 MPa. The second
plateau stress occurred after densification of the core layers except the
core layers that connecting the front face sheets. The fluctuation of the
stress–strain curve at the second plateau stress attributed to the fracture
of the middle core layers. All core layers of AAH were compacted at the
nominal strain of 0.69, as shown in Fig. 12(iv).
The comparison of the relationship between the nominal stress and
(2) At the stage of the linear elastic stage, AAH had a larger scope in the
stress–strain curve compared with UGAH and BGAH. The reason for this
phenomenon was that the fracture and local buckling deformation of
the weakest core layers occurred at the initial elastic stage of UGAH and
BGAH. After the linear elastic stage, the stress–strain curves of UGAH,
BGAH and AAH all presented a plateau stage. The reasons for this trend
was stable deformation of the weakest core layers for UGAH and BGAH.
7
S. Yu, Z. Liu, X. Cao et al.
Fig. 7. Deformation and failure modes of UGAH at special nominal strains.
However, the reason for this trend was that the stable deformation of
the relative thick core layers was observed for AAH. With the gradual
failure and densification of the weakest core layers, the stress level
of graded structure gradually increased to the same level as that of
AAH. Due to the fracture and densification of the relative thick core
layers, the relationship of the nominal stress and nominal strain of
UGAH, BGAH and AAH had similar changing trends at the nominal
strain from 0.35 to 0.6. At the later stages of the compression processes,
the trend of the stress–strain curve depended on the deformation mode
and thickness of the core layer. In a word, more strain energy was
absorbed by AAH during the quasi-static compression process due to
the stress–strain curve enclosed a larger area with the 𝑥-axis.
3.3. Poisson’s ratio
In general, Poisson’s ratio [31] is originally utilized to characterize
the deformation behavior of a material when the standard samples
under uniaxial force and defined as the ratio of the transverse strain
8
Thin-Walled Structures 187 (2023) 110721
𝜀𝑦 and axial strain 𝜀𝑥 .
𝜀𝑦
𝜈=− (3)
𝜀𝑥
For a common material, a shrink deformation tendency along the
transverse direction will arise if the standard sample under axial tensile
force. This phenomenon is widely known and called as Poisson’s ratio
effect. According to the definition of Poisson’s ratio in above equation,
the value of Poisson’s ratio will remain positive value for conventional
material. However, based on the macroscopic definition of Poisson’s
ratio, negative Poisson’s ratio performance can be achieved by special
structural design, such as auxetic re-entrant honeycomb structure [30,
32].
In this study, seven pairs of measuring points of each specimen
with UGAH, BGAH and AAH configuration are adopted in Fig. 7(a)–
(c). The horizontal strain and vertical strain of 𝑖th(𝑖 = 1, 2, … , 7) pair of
measuring points are calculated by Eqs. (4)–(5) [13,14].
𝜀𝑥𝑖 = (𝐴0 𝐵0 − 𝐴𝑖 𝐵𝑖 )∕𝐴0 𝐵0 (4)
𝜀𝑦𝑖 = 𝜀𝑛𝑜 min 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 (5)
S. Yu, Z. Liu, X. Cao et al. Thin-Walled Structures 187 (2023) 110721

Fig. 8. Deformation and failure modes of BGAH at special nominal strains.

where 𝐴0 𝐵0 represents the original length between two measuring strain of each core layer were depicted, as shown in Fig. 15(a)–(c).
points, and 𝐴𝑖 𝐵𝑖 denotes the distance between two measuring points. Moreover, the results of Poisson’s ratio of core layers with same stack-
The horizontal strain of each core layer is determined by four ing sequences were exhibited, as shown in Fig. 15(d). The gradient
measuring points of distal re-entrant cores of each core layer as shown layer 1, gradient layer 2 and gradient layer 3 represented the weakest
in Fig. 14. The calculation method of horizontal strain of each core core layers, relative thick core layers and the thickest core layers,
layer is defined in Eq. (6). The Poisson’s ratio of a core layer can be respectively.
calculated by averaging the sum of Poisson’s ratios of cores with same The results of the horizontal strain of UGAH were demonstrated in
thickness in Eq. (7) [15]. Fig. 15(a). The horizontal strain of the first two core layers showed
𝜀 an obvious trend of increasing first and then decreasing, and remained
𝑣𝑖 = − 𝑥𝑖 (6)
𝜀𝑦𝑖 unchanged at last. The reason for this phenomenon was that the
weakest core layers were compressed and densified, then these core
1∑ 1∑ 1∑
3 5 7
𝑣𝑈 𝐺−1 = 𝑣𝑖 , 𝑣𝑈 𝐺−2 = 𝑣𝑖 , 𝑣𝑈 𝐺−3 = 𝑣 layers did not deform significantly. The amplitude of the horizontal
3 𝑖=1 3 𝑖=3 3 𝑖=5 𝑖
strain of the second core layer was larger than that of the first core
1∑ 1∑ 1∑
3 5 7
layer due to the core deformation limitation by face sheet and the
𝑣𝐵𝐺−1 = 𝑣𝑖 , 𝑣𝐵𝐺−2 = 𝑣𝑖 , 𝑣𝐵𝐺−3 = 𝑣 (7)
3 𝑖=1 4 𝑖=2 4 𝑖=4 𝑖 coupled deformation between the second core layer and third core
layer. The middle two core layers mainly experienced the trend of
1∑
7
𝑣𝐴𝐴 = 𝑣 first increasing, then decreasing, and finally continuing to increase. The
7 𝑖=1 𝑖 reason for this phenomenon was that the deformation of the second
where the subscript numbers 1, 2, and 3 of Poisson’s ratio v repre- core layer affected the horizontal deformation of the third core layer in
sent respectively the thinnest core layer, relative thick core layer and the early deformation stage. The remain two core layers showed a trend
thickest core layer. of gradual increase with fluctuations. The reason for this phenomenon
In these compressive experiments, the deformation processes of was that the remaining two core layers were the strongest core layers,
UGAH, BGAH and AAH were recorded, and the horizontal strain of each and other core layers could hardly deform horizontally because they
core layer could be calculated by Eq. (5). The curves of the horizontal were compacted entirely.

9
S. Yu, Z. Liu, X. Cao et al.
Fig. 9. Deformation and failure modes of AAH at special nominal strains.
The horizontal strain versus nominal strain of BGAH were depicted,
as shown in Fig. 15(b). An increasing trend was observed in the
horizontal strain of whole six core layers and the horizontal strain of
two core layers with the same cell wall thickness had similar values
and changing trends. This phenomenon was mainly attributed to the
following two reasons. On the one hand, it was due to the symme-
try of the core layer configuration in BGAH as shown in Fig. 4(c).
Furthermore, the structure exhibited a symmetric deformation during
the compressive process. Moreover, the value of the horizontal strain
decreased as the increase of the strength of the core layers, which
meant that the weakest core layers had the best NPR performance and
the thickest had the worst one.
The relationship between the horizontal strain and nominal strain
of AAH was depicted, as shown in Fig. 15(c). The horizontal strain
of six core layers of AAH increased first and then decreased. Base
on the results of the horizontal strain of core layers of AAH, there
existed an apparent discrepancy between the middle core layers and
distal core layers during the compressive process. The horizontal strain
curves of the two core layers connected to the panel and the four core
layers in the middle showed coincidence respectively. The reason for
this phenomenon was that the deformation of the end core layers was
limited by the face sheets. Combined with the horizontal strain curves
10
Thin-Walled Structures 187 (2023) 110721
of UGAH, BGAH and AAH, the third and fourth core layer maintained
larger horizontal strain compared with other core layers.
In order to compare the NPR feature of core layers with same stack
sequences, the mean values of the Poisson’s ratio of the core layers were
calculated by Eq. (7) and depicted as Fig. 15(d). For composite auxetic
re-entrant honeycomb sandwich structure with graded core layers, the
gradient layer 1 with the weakest cell wall exhibited the best NPR effect
regardless of their structural configuration, and the gradient layer 3
with the thickest cell wall demonstrated the worst. In addition, the
gradient layer 2 of BGAH revealed the best NPR effect in all gradient
layers of UGAH, BGAH and AAH.
3.4. Energy characteristic
Comparing with common structural form, the outstanding advan-
tage of NPR structural form lies in the energy absorption during the
deformation process [33,34]. For the sake of characterizing the energy
absorption mechanism of re-entrant honeycomb structure during the
quasi-static compressive process, the energy efficiency is defined as the
ratio of the strain energy at specific nominal strain 𝜀 and corresponding
nominal stress 𝜎(𝜀) in Eq. (8) [35].
𝜀
∫0 𝜎(𝜀)𝑑𝜀
𝜂 (𝜀) = (8)
𝜎(𝜀)
S. Yu, Z. Liu, X. Cao et al.
Fig. 10. The stress–strain curve and core densification processes of UGAH.
As the nominal strain increasing, the maximal energy efficiency will
arise when the vertical strain of the specimen reaches the densification
strain 𝜀𝐷 , which is given by Eq. (9). The densification strain can be de-
termined by the maximum of the energy efficiency in experiment [36].
𝑑𝜂 (𝜀) |
| =0 (9)
𝑑𝜀 |𝜀=𝜀𝐷
Energy efficiency is utilized to compare the energy absorption be-
tween different structures, whereas it does not consider the effect of
structure mass on its energy absorption capacity. In order to highlight
the energy absorption advantage of lightweight material, the specific
energy absorption (SEA) is presented to describe the energy absorption
performance with unit mass and defined as the ratio of the exter-
nal work and total mass [37]. The corresponding expression can be
demonstrated from the following equation:
𝛿 to evaluate the energy absorption capacity of structures. Therefore, the
∫0 𝐹 (𝛿)𝑑𝛿 𝑊𝑉
𝑆𝐸𝐴(𝛿) = = (10)
𝑀 𝜌
where 𝛿 denotes the compressive displacement of the fixture, and 𝑀
denotes the total mass of the specimen. 𝑊𝑉 represents the work of unit
volume, and 𝜌 represents the material density.
The results of the energy efficiency of UGAH, BGAH and AAH
during compression were depicted in Fig. 16. Compared with UGAH
11
Thin-Walled Structures 187 (2023) 110721
and BGAH, the energy efficiency of AAH was larger than that of UGAH
and BGAH before the nominal strain reached 0.55. In addition, the
fluctuation of the energy efficiency of graded structures was observed
before this nominal strain. The reason for this fluctuation was that
the sudden failure of the weakest core layers (4 plies) led to the
drop of the compressive stress. The maximums of energy efficiency of
UGAH, BGAH and AAH occurred around the compressive strain of 0.7,
which meant the core layers were densified. Among three structural
configurations, BGAH had the highest energy efficiency with the value
of 44%. Furthermore, the maximum of the SEA of three types of sand-
wich structure were listed in Table 4. The results indicated that AAH
had an excellent energy absorption capacity with unit mass compared
with graded structures. As the reference literature [38] proposed, the
maximal plateau stress, densified strain and curve fluctuation were used
fluctuation of the stress–strain curve caused by the failure of the core
layers may affected the energy absorption capacity of the structure to
a greater extent. In other words, although the graded structure UGAH
and BGAH had greater densification strain, AAH still had better energy
absorption capacity due to better stability of the stress–strain curve of
AAH. In addition, the ratio of the strain energy of face sheets and core
layers at the densification strain were extracted in numerical results
S. Yu, Z. Liu, X. Cao et al. Thin-Walled Structures 187 (2023) 110721

Fig. 11. The stress–strain curve and core densification processes of BGAH.

and demonstrated in Fig. 17. For graded structures, the increase of the Table 4
thickness of the cell wall would increase the ratio of strain energy under Young’s modulus, plateau stress, densification strain and SEA of UGAH, BGAH and AAH.

quasi-static compression. By observing the strain energy ratio of the UGAH BGAH AAH

face sheets, the face sheets of AAH occupied larger proportion com- Mass/g 653 674 675

pared with that of graded structures, which meant that the existence of Young’s modulus/MPa 3.78 4.08 9.07
weak core layer would limit the deformation of the face sheet. 𝜎P1 0.07 0.11 0.35
𝜎P2 0.14 0.24 1.09
Plateau stress/MPa 𝜎P3 0.38 0.40 –
4. Conclusion 𝜎P4 0.93 0.49 –
𝜎P5 – 0.95 –
Densification strain 0.71 0.74 0.69
In this paper, the quasi-static compression behaviors of composite
Maximal energy efficiency 0.42 0.44 0.38
auxetic re-entrant honeycomb structures were discussed experimentally
SEA/(J/g) 1.23 1.17 1.53
and numerically. The deformation and failure modes, Young’s modulus,
plateau stress, Poisson’s ratio and energy absorption characteristic of
UGAH, BGAH and AAH under compression load were analyzed and
discussed.

12
S. Yu, Z. Liu, X. Cao et al. Thin-Walled Structures 187 (2023) 110721

Fig. 12. The stress–strain curve and core densification processes of AAH.

1. The structural configuration had a great effect on the deformation

Fig. 13. Comparison of the stress–strain curve of composite auxetic re-entrant
honeycomb structures.
and failure modes of composite auxetic re-entrant honeycomb struc-
ture. For graded structures UGAH, BGAH and average structure AAH,
the deformation and failure modes of whole structures were largely
affected by the deformation and failure modes of weakest core layers.
2. Combined with the deformation processes and stress–strain curves
of UGAH, BGAH and AAH, Young’s modulus mainly depended on
the performance and deformation mode of the weakest core layers.
The stress of UGAH and BGAH would decrease when the failure of
the weakest core layers occurred and stress of AAH did not decrease
significantly before the failure of core layers.
3. The first plateau stress depended on the mechanical properties of
the weakest core layers. For the graded structures, the second plateau
stress was approximately twice of the first plateau stress. The final
plateau stress of UGAH, BGAH was approximately similar due to the
similar core layer type. In addition, the final plateau stress of AAH
was larger than that of graded structure, which meant the final plateau
stress was related to the global configuration of the structure.
4. By comparing the results of the horizontal strain and Poisson’s
ratio of UGAH, BGAH and AAH, the weakest core layer of graded
structures had the most apparent NPR effect during the compression
processes. Among six core layers, the fourth core layer exhibited the
most conspicuous NPR effect regardless of the structural configuration.

13
S. Yu, Z. Liu, X. Cao et al. Thin-Walled Structures 187 (2023) 110721

Fig. 14. Distribution schematic diagram of measuring points for different graded configuration: (a) UGAH, (b) BGAH, (c) AAH.

Fig. 15. Horizontal strain: (a) UGAH, (b) BGAH, (c) AAH, (d) Poisson’s ratio.

14
S. Yu, Z. Liu, X. Cao et al.
Fig. 16. Comparison of energy efficiency of UGAH, BGAH and AAH.
Fig. 17. The ratio of the strain energy of face sheets and core layers at the densification
strain.
5. The structural configuration had a great influence on the energy
efficiency and SEA of UGAH, BGAH and AAH. There existed no sig-
nificant difference in energy efficiency among UGAH, BGAH and AAH
in linear elastic phase. However, the energy efficiency of the average
structure is obviously higher than that of the gradient structure in the
stage of plateau stress. In addition, AAH exhibited better SEA character
compared with graded structure.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sheng Yu: Writing – original draft, Investigation, Data curation.
Zhikang Liu: Writing – review & editing. Xiaoming Cao: Writing –
review & editing, Data curation. Jiayi Liu: Supervision, Resources,
Funding acquisition. Wei Huang: Writing – review & editing, Vali-
dation, Supervision, Funding acquisition. Yangwei Wang: Writing –
review & editing, Data curation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
15
Thin-Walled Structures 187 (2023) 110721
Acknowledgments
The present work are supported by National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China under Grant Nos. 12172140 and 12272147 and Na-
tional Key Laboratory Foundation of Science and Technology on Mate-
rials under Shock and Impact under Grant No. WDZC2022-11.
References
[1] B. Castanie, C. Bouvet, M. Ginot, Review of composite sandwich structure in
aeronautic applications, Compos. Part C: Open Access 1 (2020) 100004, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomc.2020.100004.
[2] S. Yin, H.Y. Chen, Y.B. Wu, Y.B. Li, J. Xu, Introducing composite lattice core
sandwich structure as an alternative proposal for engine hood, Compos. Struct.
201 (2018) 131–140, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.06.038.
[3] G.Y. Ye, H.J. Bi, Y.C. Hu, Compression behaviors of 3D printed pyramidal
lattice truss composite structures, Compos. Struct. 233 (2020) 111706, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111706.
[4] Y. Gao, Z.G. Zhou, H. Hu, J. Xiong, New concept of carbon fiber reinforced
composite 3D auxetic lattice structures based on stretching-dominated cells,
Mechan. Mater. 152 (2021) 103661, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2020.
103661.
[5] X.Y. Wei, D.F. Li, J. Xiong, Fabrication and mechanical behaviors of an all-
composite sandwich structure with a hexagon honeycomb core based on the
tailor-folding approach, Compos. Sci. Technol. 184 (2019) 107878, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2019.107878.
[6] H. Tankasala, V.S. Deshpande, N.A. Fleck, The in-plane elastic–plastic response
of an incompressible, filled hexagonal honeycomb, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 155
(2021) 104536, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2021.104536.
[7] J. Mei, P.H. Tan, F. Bosi, T. Zhang, J.Y. Liu, B. Wang, W. Huang, Fabrication
and mechanical characterization of CFRP X-core sandwich panels, Thin-Walled
Struct. 158 (2021) 107144, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2020.107144.
[8] J. Mei, Y.L. Ao, W.M. Jiang, J.Y. Liu, Z.G. Zhou, W. Huang, Investigation on the
shear behaviors of carbon fiber composite sandwich panels with the X-core, Mar.
Struct. 77 (2021) 102897, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2020.102897.
[9] J. Mei, J.Y. Liu, W. Huang, Three-point bending behaviors of the foam-
filled CFRP X-core sandwich panel: Experimental investigation and analytical
modelling, Compos. Struct. 284 (2022) 115206, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
compstruct.2022.115206.
[10] J.L. Liu, Z.P. He, J.Y. Liu, W. Huang, Bending response and failure mechanism
of composite sandwich panel with Y-frame core, Thin-Walled Struct. 145 (2019)
106387, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2019.106387.
[11] J.L. Liu, T. Zhang, W.M. Jiang, J.Y. Liu, Mechanical response of a novel
composite Y-frame core sandwich panel under shear loading, Compos. Struct.
224 (2019) 111064, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111064.
[12] W.C. Yang, R.X. Huang, J.Y. Liu, J.X. Liu, W. Huang, Ballistic impact responses
and failure mechanism of composite double-arrow auxetic structure, Thin-Walled
Struct. 174 (2022) 109087, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2022.109087.
[13] D.B. Xiao, X. Kang, Y. Li, W.W. Wu, J.R. Lu, G.P. Zhao, et al., Insight into the
negative Poisson’s ratio effect of metallic auxetic reentrant honeycomb under
dynamic compression, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 763 (2019) 138151, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.msea.2019.138151.
[14] Y.J. Shao, J.X. Meng, G.H. Ma, S. Ren, L. Fang, X.F. Cao, et al., Insight into
the negative Poisson’s ratio effect of the gradient auxetic reentrant honeycombs,
Compos. Struct. 274 (2021) 114366, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.
2021.114366.
[15] D.B. Xiao, Z.C. Dong, Y. Li, W.W. Wu, D.N. Fang, Compression behavior of the
graded metallic auxetic reentrant honeycomb: Experiment and finite element
analysis, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 758 (2019) 163–171, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.msea.2019.04.116.
[16] Z.C. Dong, Y. Li, T. Zhao, W.W. Wu, D.B. Xiao, J. Liang, Experimental and
numerical studies on the compressive mechanical properties of the metallic
auxetic reentrant honeycomb, Mater. Des. 182 (2019) 108036, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108036.
[17] F. Usta, H.S. Türkmen, F. Scarpa, High-velocity impact resistance of doubly
curved sandwich panels with re-entrant honeycomb and foam core, Int. J. Impact
Eng. 165 (2022) 104230, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.104230.
[18] C.F. Zhao, K.L. Goh, H.P. Lee, C. Yin, K.B. Zhang, J.L. Zhong, Experimental
study and finite element analysis on energy absorption of carbon fiber reinforced
composite auxetic structures filled with aluminum foam, Compos. Struct. 303
(2023) 116319, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116319.
[19] F. Usta, H.S. Türkmen, F. Scarpa, Low-velocity impact resistance of composite
sandwich panels with various types of auxetic and non-auxetic core structures,
Thin-Walled Struct. 163 (2021) 107738, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2021.
107738.
[20] H.Y. Jiang, Y.R. Ren, Q.D. Jin, G.H. Zhu, Y.S. Hu, F. Cheng, Crashworthiness
of novel concentric auxetic reentrant honeycomb with negative Poisson’s ratio
biologically inspired by coconut palm, Thin-Walled Struct. 154 (2020) 106911,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2020.106911.
S. Yu, Z. Liu, X. Cao et al.
[21] H.L. Tan, Z.C. He, E. Li, X.W. Tan, A.G. Cheng, Q.Q. Li, Energy absorption
characteristics of three-layered sandwich panels with graded re-entrant hier-
archical honeycombs cores, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 106 (2020) 106073, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2020.106073.
[22] M.S. Tatlıer, M. Öztürk, T. Baran, Linear and non-linear in-plane behaviour of
a modified re-entrant core cell, Eng. Struct. 234 (2021) 111984, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.111984.
[23] C. Qi, L.Z. Pei, A. Remennikov, S. Yang, F. Jiang, Numerical and theoretical
analysis of crushing strength of 3D re-entrant honeycomb, Thin-Walled Struct.
182 (2023) 110140, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2022.110140.
[24] C. Zhan, M.Z. Li, R. McCoy, L.D. Zhao, W.Y. Lu, 3D printed hierarchical
re-entrant honeycombs: Enhanced mechanical properties and the underlying
deformation mechanisms, Compos. Struct. 290 (2022) 115550, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.115550.
[25] W.M. Jiang, J.M. Zhou, J.Y. Liu, M.G. Zhang, W. Huang, Free vibration
behaviours of composite sandwich plates with reentrant honeycomb cores, Appl.
Math. Model. 116 (2023) 547–568, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2022.12.
004.
[26] W. Zeng, W.M. Jiang, J.Y. Liu, W. Huang, Fabrication method and dynamic
responses of composite sandwich structure with reentrant honeycomb cores,
Compos. Struct. 299 (2022) 116084, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.
2022.116084.
[27] B. Li, H. Liu, Q. Zhang, X.F. Yang, J.L. Yang, Crushing behavior and energy
absorption of a bio-inspired bi-directional corrugated lattice under quasi-static
compression load, Compos. Struct. 286 (2022) 115315, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.compstruct.2022.115315.
[28] D.Q. Sun, W.H. Zhang, Y.B. Wei, Mean out-of-plane dynamic plateau stresses of
hexagonal honeycomb cores under impact loadings, Compos. Struct. 92 (2010)
2609–2621, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.03.016.
[29] X.L. Zhang, H.N. Hao, R.L. Tian, Q. Xue, H.T. Guan, X.W. Yang, Quasi-static
compression and dynamic crushing behaviors of novel hybrid re-entrant auxetic
metamaterials with enhanced energy-absorption, Compos. Struct. 288 (2022)
115399, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.115399.
16
Thin-Walled Structures 187 (2023) 110721
[30] H. Lu, X.P. Wang, T.N. Chen, Design and quasi-static responses of a hierarchical
negative Poisson’s ratio structure with three plateau stages and three-step
deformation, Compos. Struct. 291 (2022) 115591, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
compstruct.2022.115591.
[31] R.S. Lakes, Negative-Poisson’s-ratio materials: Auxetic solids, Annu. Rev.
Mater. Res. 47 (2017) 63–81, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-matsci-
070616-124118.
[32] R. Yu, W. Luo, H. Yuan, J.X. Liu, W.T. He, Z.X. Yu, Experimental and numerical
research on foam filled re-entrant cellular structure with negative Poisson’s ratio,
Thin-Walled Struct. 153 (2020) 106679, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2020.
106679.
[33] J.M. Feng, Q.X. Liang, Y. Dou, J. He, Y.T. Wu, T.N. Chen, Higher stiffness
hierarchical embedded strengthening honeycomb metastructure with small neg-
ative Poisson’s ratio reduction, Thin-Walled Struct. 179 (2022) 109651, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2022.109561.
[34] J.Y. Liu, H.T. Liu, Energy absorption characteristics and stability of novel bionic
negative Poisson’s ratio honeycomb under oblique compression, Eng. Struct. 267
(2022) 114682, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114682.
[35] S. Linforth, T. Ngo, P. Tran, D. Ruan, R. Odish, Investigation of the auxetic oval
structure for energy absorption through quasi-static and dynamic experiments,
Int. J. Impact Eng. 147 (2021) 103741, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.
2020.103741.
[36] Y. Pan, X.G. Zhang, D. Han, W. Li, L.F. Xu, Y. Zhang, W. Jiang, S. Bao,
X.C. Teng, T. Lai, X. Ren, The out-of-plane compressive behavior of auxetic
chiral lattice with circular nodes, Thin-Walled Struct. 182 (2023) 110152, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2022.110152.
[37] J.L. Liu, W.C. Yang, J.Y. Liu, J.X. Liu, W. Huang, Ballistic impact analyses
of foam-filled double-arrow auxetic structure, Thin-Walled Struct. 182 (2023)
110173, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2022.110173.
[38] P. Zhang, D.X. Qi, R. Xue, K. Liu, W.W. Wu, Y. Li, Mechanical design and
energy absorption performances of rational gradient lattice metamaterials, Com-
pos. Struct. 277 (2021) 114606, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.
114606.