See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250196695

The compressive response of carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss

sandwich cores

Article  in  International Journal of Materials Research (formerly Zeitschrift fuer Metallkunde) · December 2007
DOI: 10.3139/146.101594

CITATIONS READS

122 428

All content following this page was uploaded by V.S. Deshpande on 12 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

K. Finnegan et al.: The compressive response of carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss sandwich cores
K. Finnegana, G. Kooistraa, H.N.G. Wadleya, V.S. Deshpandeb
a
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
The compressive response of carbon fiber
composite pyramidal truss sandwich cores
Dedicated to Professor A. G. Evans on the occasion of his 65th birthday
Pyramidal truss sandwich cores with relative densities 4q in
the range 1 – 10 % have been made from carbon fiber rein-
forced polymer laminates using a snap-fitting method. The
measured quasi-static uniaxial compressive strength in-
creased with increasing 4 q from 1 to 11 MPa over the rela-
tive density range investigated here. A robust face-sheet/
truss joint design was developed to suppress truss – face
sheet node fracture. Core failure then occurred by either (i)
Euler buckling (4 q < 2%) or (ii) delamination failure
(4
q > 2%) of the struts. Micro-buckling failure of the struts
was not observed in the experiments reported here. Analyti-
cal models for the collapse of the composite cores by Euler
bucking, delamination failure and micro-buckling of the
struts have been developed. Good agreement between the
measurements and predictions based on the Euler buckling
and delamination failure of the struts is obtained. The mi-
cro-buckling analysis indicates this mechanism of failure
is not activated until delamination is suppressed. The meas-
urements and predictions reported here indicate that com-
posite cellular materials with a pyramidal micro-structure
reside in a gap in the strength versus density material prop-
erty space, providing new opportunities for lightweight,
high strength structural design.
Keywords: Lattice materials; Composites; Micro-buckling
1. Introduction
Rigid foams made from polymeric materials have been
widely used for the cores of sandwich panel structures
[1]. Over the last 15 years, metallic foams have attracted
significant interest because of their potentially higher
strength [2]. These metal structures can be produced by the
introduction of gas bubbles into the melt. The random bub-
ble nucleation, expansion and subsequent melt drainage
processes lead to stochastic, closed cell structures. Open
cell structures with inter-connected struts can be made by
investment casting using reticulated polymer foam tem-
plates. However, minimization of surface energy during
the polymer precursor foaming process leads to a low nodal
connectivity, with typically three to four struts per joint.
The mechanical properties of these metal and polymer
foams are far from optimal because the cell walls deform
by local bending [2, 3]. This has led to a search for open-
cell microstructures with high nodal connectivities that de-
Int. J. Mat. Res. (formerly Z. Metallkd.) 98 (2007) 12
MK_mk101594 – 23.10.07/druckhaus köthen
A Applied
form by the stretching of constituent cell members, giving
a much higher stiffness and strength per unit mass.
Cellular solids known as lattice materials1 have recently
emerged as candidate stretch-dominated structures. They
have a stiffness and strength which scales linearly with rela-
tive density 4q (in contrast, the Young’s modulus and yield
strength of polymer and metallic foams scale with 4q2 and
4q3=2 respectively). At low relative densities, the lattice ma-
terials can therefore be more than an order of magnitude
stiffer and stronger than equivalent mass per unit volume
foams made from the same parent material, Fig. 1. Exam-
ples of lattice materials include the Octet-truss structure
with a face-centered cubic microstructure [4] and the Ka-
gome lattice [5]. The joint connectivity of the Octet truss
is 12, and this spatially periodic material has the feature that
the cell members deform by local stretching for all macro-
scopic loading states [3]. Consequently, the specific
mechanical properties (stiffness, strength, toughness and
energy absorption) of the Octet-truss far exceed those of
open-cell foams. Such materials are also expected to find
applications in lightweight, compact structural heat exchan-
gers [6]. Numerous variants of these lattice materials have
been developed over the past few years by several research
groups (see [7] for a review of this literature) including the
2D and 3D Kagome structure, the simpler to fabricate
pyramidal and tetrahedral lattices and various prismatic
topologies (diamond core, square honeycomb).
Examination of the modified Ashby material property
chart [8] shown in Fig. 1, indicates that aluminum foams
and lattices occupy the low density region of material
strength – density space. It also reveals a gap between the
strength of existing lattice materials and the unattainable
materials limit. Lattices fabricated from aluminum alloys
have begun to extend the range of cellular materials into
this gap in the material property space but it is clear that
there remains much room for further improvements.
Figure 1 also illustrates how the combination of opti-
mized lattice topology and parent material properties can
be combined to expand material property space by creating
new engineering materials. For instance, suppose compo-
sites containing fibers configured to provide high uniaxial
specific strengths were used for the trusses or webs of a lat-
tice structure. If buckling does not occur, the resulting lat-
1
We define lattice materials as periodic micro-architectured cellular
solids. They can be either closed cell or open cell.
1
A
Applied MK_mk101594 – 23.10.07/druckhaus köthen

K. Finnegan et al.: The compressive response of carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss sandwich cores

strated in Fig. 2a. Compression tests on specimens manu-

factured by this methods indicated that failure occurred by
truss push-out through the face sheet (Fig. 3a) as the core
strength increased. This failure mode could only be sup-
pressed by using very thick face sheets making this route
unfeasible for sandwich designs.
(b) The second approach utilized a water-jet cutting pro-
cess to fabricate single struts of the pyramidal trusses from
a unidirectional fiber reinforced laminate and adhesively
bonding the struts to the face sheets (Fig. 2b). The nodes
of the truss in this case failed by a shear mechanism
(Fig. 3b) associated with the weak transverse strength of
the composite laminate.
The third design suppressed these two weak failure
modes by manufacturing the pyramidal truss cores from

Fig. 1. An Ashby material strength versus density map for engineering

materials [8]. The map contains gaps between existing and unattainable
materials. The maximum theoretical strength of composite lattice
structures is shown by a dashed line which falls into the high specific
strength gap at low densities. The measured properties of the compo-
site pyramidal lattice materials investigated here are also shown.

tice structures have the anticipated compressive strengths

illustrated by the dashed line in Fig. 1. It is clear that topo-
logically structuring composite materials show promise for
filling gaps in the strength versus density map of all known
materials. The aim of the present study is to begin an inves-
tigation into the expansion of the strength – density material
space at low densities by using carbon fiber composites to
build lattice materials.
The outline of the paper is as follows. First the composite
laminates used to manufacture the truss cores are described
along with the route for fabricating the pyramidal truss
cores. This included an assessment of node failure mechan-
isms and development of a node design to suppress this
fracture mode. Second, the measured compressive response
of the cores is then described along with the observed fail-
ure modes. Next, analytical models are developed for the
elastic stiffness and collapse strengths of the composite
truss cores and these are compared with measured
strengths. Finally, the measured strengths of the composite
trusses are plotted on a map of density versus strength of Fig. 2. Methods for manufacturing CFRP pyramidal cores with uni-di-
all known materials in order to gauge the performance of rectional fiber-reinforced trusses. (a) Pultruded rod truss members are
these materials in terms of their strength to weight ratio. adhesively bonded to face sheets containing pre-drilled holes and ex-
cess material removed. (b) Truss patterns are cut from unidirectional
laminates and adhesively bonded into milled slots in the face sheets.
2. Sandwich panel fabrication

Composite pyramidal truss sandwich cores were manufac-

tured from pre-fabricated composite sheet materials. Three
manufacturing approaches were investigated in an attempt
to identify a compromise core design that exploited the
strength of the composite lay-up, ease of fabrication and
avoidance of nodal failure. The first two fabrication routes
were eventually rejected due to premature node failures
(see [9] for details). They are summarized in Fig. 2:
(a) The first approach sought to exploit the high com- Fig. 3. Node failure modes for the uni-directional fiber reinforced
trusses. (a) The pultruded rod core failed at the nodes by truss push-
pressive axial strength and low cost of pultruded, unidirec- out. (b) The unidirectional laminate cut-out truss core failed by shear-
tional, fiber reinforced composite rods. These were inserted ing of the node material in a region where the forces were transverse
in pre-drilled face sheets and adhesively bonded as illu- to the fiber direction.

2 Int. J. Mat. Res. (formerly Z. Metallkd.) 98 (2007) 12

 MK_mk101594 – 23.10.07/druckhaus köthen
K. Finnegan et al.: The compressive response of carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss sandwich cores
0 – 908 laminate sheets and increasing the volume (and sur-
face area) of the joint between the faces-sheets and the core.
We note that in this design only half the fibers are aligned
with the load and thus the design does not exploit the intrin-
sic strength of fiber reinforced composites fully. However,
this design proved effective at suppressing node failure.
The pyramidal truss sandwich panels tested in this study
were manufactured from 0 – 908 laminate sheets of thick-
ness t ¼ 3 mm in three steps. First, truss patterns as shown
in Fig. 4a were water jet cut from the laminate sheets. Sec-
ond these patterns were then snap-fitted into each other
(Fig. 4b) to produce a pyramidal truss. Finally, the pyrami-
dal truss was bonded to 3 mm thick composite face-sheets
using an epoxy adhesive (Hysol EP-120). These composite
face-sheets had cruciform shaped slots of depth htab milled
into them at appropriate locations such that the nodes of
the pyramidal truss could be counter-sunk into the face-
sheets (Fig. 4d) providing both mechanical constraint and
adhesive contributions to the node strength.
The critical parameters describing the geometry of the
pyramidal core are sketched in Fig. 4c and include, the strut
length, l, the strut width t (which is equal to the laminate
sheet thickness and thus the struts have a square cross-sec-
tion) and the node width and thickness b and h, respec-
tively. The struts made an angle x with the horizontal plane
Fig. 4. Illustration of the manufacturing route for making the compo-
site pyramidal lattice core sandwich panels studied here. (a) Semi-con-
tinuous truss patterns are water jet cut from 0/908 laminate sheets. The
fiber directions are shown in this sketch and indicate that a half of the
fibers are in the truss axial direction. (b) The pyramidal lattice is as-
sembled by snap-fitting the truss patterns. (c) The geometry of the truss
pattern with relevant core design variables identified. (d) A schematic
illustration of a pyramidal lattice core sandwich panel. The composite
face-sheets utilized cruciform shaped slots into which the pyramidal
trusses were fitted and adhesively bonded.
Int. J. Mat. Res. (formerly Z. Metallkd.) 98 (2007) 12
A Applied
(Fig. 4c). The unit cell of the pyramidal core is sketched in
Fig. 5a and simple geometric considerations dictate that
the relative density of the core (defined as the density of
the “smeared-out” core to the density of the solid material
from which it is made) is given by
2ðlt þ hbÞt 2ðl4þ h4bÞ
4
4q ¼ 0 ð1aÞ
l sin xðl cos x þ bÞ 2
l4sin xðl4cos x þ bÞ
42
where the non-dimensional lengths l4 0 l=t, b4 0 b=t and
h4 0 h=t. In the limit of vanishing node volumes (b ¼
h ! 0), this expression reduces to
4
4q 9 42 ð1bÞ
l sin 2x cos x
2.1. Pyramidal core designs
All the pyramidal cores tested and manufactured in this
study had a strut angle x ¼ 45- . Thus, the angle included
between the struts was 908 and the patterns were cut from
the laminate sheets such that half the fibers of the 0 – 908
laminate were aligned along the axis of the struts of the py-
ramidal core (Fig. 4a). To explore the trade-off between
node surface area and core mass efficiency, two core de-
signs were investigated in this study (Fig. 6). These designs
differed in the design of their nodes with design 1 compris-
ing significantly smaller nodes compared to design 2: the
node dimensions for both designs 1 and 2 are listed in Ta-
ble 1. For each design four relative densities were investi-
Fig. 5. (a) Sketch of the unit cell of the pyramidal core. (b) Photograph
of the as-manufactured design 1 core (4 q = 3.4 %) in a sandwich panel
structure.
3
A
Applied MK_mk101594 – 23.10.07/druckhaus köthen

K. Finnegan et al.: The compressive response of carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss sandwich cores

mine the relevant Young’s modulus and compressive

strength of the parent material used to manufacture the pyr-
amidal cores. Column compression tests were conducted in
which the specimens were compressed between two flat,
parallel and rigid platens with no end-clamping of the lami-
nates. This provided the delamination strength of the lami-
nates and best simulated the loading conditions of the struts
in the pyramidal core. By contrast, Celanese compression
Fig. 6. Two node designs were investigated in the study. (a) Design 1 tests provide the micro-buckling failure strength of lami-
was intended to minimize node surface area. (b) Design 2 had a larger nates: it will be subsequently seen that the micro-buckling
node surface and volume which reduced the core mass efficiency. failure mode was not observed in the pyramidal core com-
pression experiments reported here and a majority of the
specimens failed by strut delamination. The tests were con-
Table 1. Node and strut dimensions in mm for both designs 1 and ducted on rectangular specimens of thickness 0.3 mm,
2 of the composite pyramidal sandwich cores manufactured and width 20 mm and gauge length 12 mm: the specimens were
tested in this study. The strut angle x ¼ 45- for both core de- sufficiently stocky to prevent Euler buckling of the speci-
signs.
mens. The applied load was measured via the load cell of
htab h w t c b the test machine while a laser extensometer was used to
measure the nominal axial strain in the specimens. A nom-
Design 1 1.50 3.05 3.00 3.00 3.82 6.35 inal applied strain rate of 10%3 s%1 was employed in these
Design 2 1.50 1.59 3.00 3.00 9.59 15.33 tests. The measured nominal stress versus strain curves of
laminates 1 and 2 are plotted in Fig. 7a: five repeat tests in
each case confirmed the reproducibility of the results. After
gated the relative density of the core was controlled by some initial “bedding-in”, the laminates display a linear
varying the strut length l while keeping all other geometric elastic response followed by delamination failure; see
parameters fixed for each core design. A photograph of the Fig. 7b. The unloading Young’s modulus was measured as
as-manufactured design 1 core (4 q ¼ 3:4%) is included in Es 9 25 GPa while the delamination failure strength
Fig. 5b. rdl 9 400 MPa, for both laminates.

2.2. Composite laminate materials 3. Measurements of the compressive response of the

Carbon fiber laminate sheets sourced from two suppliers,
Graphitestore2 and McMaster-Carr3, were used to manufac-
ture the pyramidal sandwich core designs 1 and 2, respec-
tively and are subsequently referred to as laminates 1 and
2, respectively. In both cases, the laminate sheets had a
thickness t ¼ 0:3 mm and comprised 65 % by volume of
228 GPa (33 Msi) carbon fibers in a vinylester matrix. Plies
comprising unidirectional fibers were laid-up alternating at
08 and 908 to build an orthotropic laminate. Laminates 1
and 2 comprised 24 and 14 plies, respectively. The density
of both laminate materials was qs ¼ 1440 kg m%3 .
Both the laminate materials were tested in uniaxial com-
pression along one of the fiber directions in order to deter-
2 were tested and five repeat tests were conducted in each
GraphiteStore.com Inc., 1348 Busch Parkway Buffalo Grove,
IL 60089 USA.
3
McMaster-Carr, 6100 Fulton Industrial Blvd. Atlanta, GA 30336-
2852, USA.
pyramidal core
Pyramidal sandwich core specimens comprising at least
four pyramidal unit cells were employed in the compression
tests. The face-sheets of the sandwich specimens were
bonded to the platens of the test machine in order to prevent
the relative sliding of the two face-sheets. The compression
tests were conducted using a screw-driven test machine
with the measured load cell force used to calculate the nom-
inal stress and a laser extensometer used to measure the re-
lative approach of the two face-sheets from which the nom-
inal applied strain was inferred. The compression tests were
conducted at a nominal applied strain rate of 10%3 s%1 and
typically unloading-reloading cycles were conducted prior
to the onset of failure in order to determine the elastic mod-
ulus of the specimens. Four relative densities of each design
case to gauge the variability in the test measurements.
The measured compressive nominal stress versus strain
curves of designs 1 and 2 of the pyramidal sandwich cores

Fig. 7. (a) The measured compressive stress

versus strain response of the laminate materi-
als used to manufacture cores with the two de-
signs. The compressive response was meas-
ured along one of the fiber directions of these
0/908 unidirectional ply laminates. (b) Photo-
graphs of the specimens after delamination
failure.

4 Int. J. Mat. Res. (formerly Z. Metallkd.) 98 (2007) 12

 MK_mk101594 – 23.10.07/druckhaus köthen
K. Finnegan et al.: The compressive response of carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss sandwich cores
are plotted in Fig. 8a and b, respectively for four values of 4q
in each case. For the sake of clarity the unloading – reload-
ing cycles performed during the measurements are removed
from these figures. In all cases an initial linear response is
observed followed by a regime where the stress versus
strain response is nonlinear. Typically the peak stress oc-
curs at the point when failure of the trusses is first observed
as marked by the arrows in Fig. 8. Subsequently, the stres-
ses decrease with increasing strain with the serrations in
the stress versus strain curve associated with a series of fail-
ure events in the pyramidal core specimens. The significant
nonlinear behavior prior to attainment of the peak stress
Fig. 8. The measured compressive stress versus strain curves of (a) de-
sign 1 and (b) design 2 of the composite pyramidal cores. Four relative
densities of each design were tested. The instant of the first detectable
failure are indicated by arrows on each of the plots.
Fig. 9. The measured modulus of core designs 1 and 2. The error bars
indicate the maximum and minimum values obtained from five sepa-
rate tests. The micromechanical predictions of the modulus for the
two designs are also included.
Int. J. Mat. Res. (formerly Z. Metallkd.) 98 (2007) 12
A Applied
suggest that strut delamination rather than micro-buckling
is the failure mode in most of the tests.
The measured unloading moduli E of both the designs of
the pyramidal cores are plotted in Fig. 9 while the measured
peak strengths rp of designs 1 and 2 of the pyramidal cores
are included in Fig. 10a and b, respectively. The error bars
in these plots indicate the maximum and minimum values
of the measurements obtained from the five repeat tests
conducted in each case. We observe that both the initial
modulus and peak strength increase with increasing 4q.
Within the variability of the experimental data, the modulus
increases approximately linearly with 4q though rp does not
seem to exhibit a linear scaling with 4q.
3.1. Modes of failure of the pyramidal truss cores
Two failure modes were observed in the compression tests
reported above: (i) Euler buckling and (ii) delamination of
the struts. Photographs of these observed failure modes are
included in Fig. 11. The peak stress for the 4q ¼ 0:01 pyra-
midal core (design 1) occurs before any visible failure is ob-
served (Fig. 8a) and is associated with the large bending de-
formations of the struts that precedes the onset of buckling.
Fig. 10. The measured peak strength of (a) design 1 and (b) design 2 of
the composite pyramidal cores. The error bars indicate the maximum
and minimum values obtained from the five tests. The predictions of
the strength for the two designs are also included based on the Euler
buckling, inter-ply delamination and micro-buckling failure modes of
the struts.
5
A
Applied MK_mk101594 – 23.10.07/druckhaus köthen

K. Finnegan et al.: The compressive response of carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss sandwich cores

Fig. 11. Photographs of the compressive fail-

ure modes for the composite pyramidal cores.
(a) Euler buckling of the 4 q = 1 % design 1 lat-
tice, (b) delamination failure of the 4q = 3.5 %
design 1 lattice and (c) delamination failure of
the 4
q = 5 % design 2. Delamination failures ty-
pically initiated near the truss “ankle”.

These bending deformations cause the struts to fail at ap- tions dictate that the top end of the strut is only free to move
proximately mid-span (Fig. 11a). Photographs of delamina- along the x3 -direction. For an imposed displacement d in the
tion failure of designs 1 and 2 of the pyramidal cores are x3 -direction the axial and shear forces in the strut are given
shown in Fig. 11b and c, respectively. Delamination of the by elementary beam theory as
composite struts was the failure mode for design 2 for all
values of 4q tested. Typically the delamination initiates in d sin x
FA ¼ Es t 2 ð2aÞ
the vicinity of the nodes and propagated along the struts by l
a combination of delamination and micro-cracking.

4. Analytical predictions of the composite pyramidal

truss core response

We proceed to derive analytical expressions for the “effec-

tive” transverse compressive stiffness and strength of the
composite pyramidal cores, sandwiched between two rigid
face-sheets. The pyramidal trusses are made from 0 – 908
laminates such that one set of fibers are aligned with the ax-
ial direction of the struts of the pyramidal truss (Fig. 4a).
We define a local Cartesian co-ordinate system ðe1 % e2 Þ
aligned with the orthogonal set of fibers (Fig. 4a). The
Young’s modulus and compressive plastic micro-buckling
strengths of the laminate in either the e1 or e2 directions
are Es and rc , respectively while sY is the longitudinal shear
strength of the matrix material of the laminate. The delami-
nation strength of the composites along the e1 or e2 direc-
tions is denoted by rdl .

4.1. Elastic properties

Analytical expressions for the compressive elastic modulus

E of the pyramidal core are obtained in terms of the core
geometry and the elastic properties of the solid material by
first analyzing the elastic deformations of a single strut of
the pyramidal core and then extending the results to evalu-
ate the effective properties of the core.
Consider an edge clamped strut of length l and square Fig. 12. (a) Sketch of the deformation of a single strut of the pyramidal
cross-section of side t as shown in Fig. 12. This represents core under uniaxial compression and (b) the free-body diagram of a
a single strut of the pyramidal core. Symmetry considera- strut loaded in a combination of compression and shear.

6 Int. J. Mat. Res. (formerly Z. Metallkd.) 98 (2007) 12

 MK_mk101594 – 23.10.07/druckhaus köthen

K. Finnegan et al.: The compressive response of carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss sandwich cores
A Applied

and for a composite comprising inextensional fibers and a

12Es Id cos x rigid – ideally plastic matrix of shear strength sY . Kinking
FS ¼ ð2bÞ initiates from a local region of fiber misalignment of angle
l3
4. It is assumed that the micro-buckle band is transverse to
u
respectively, where I 0 t4 =12 is the second moment of area the axial fiber direction e1 , such that the angle b between
of the strut cross-section; see Fig. 12b. The total applied the normal to the band and the fiber direction vanishes.
force F in the x3 -direction then follows as Now consider the case where the remote stress state con-
> 9 t :2 ? sists of an in-plane shear stress s1 in addition to a compres-
Es t 2 d
F ¼ FA sin x þ FS cos x ¼ sin2 x þ cos2 x ð3Þ sive stress parallel to the fibers. Then, Budiansky and Fleck
l l
[12] have shown that the micro-buckling stress is given by
Now consider the unit cell of the pyramidal core sketched in sY % s1
Fig. 5a. The through-thickness nominal stress r and strain e rc ¼ ð8Þ
applied to the pyramidal core are related to the force F and 4
u
displacement d via Prior to the micro-buckling of the struts, the struts are elas-
8F tic and the analysis of Section 4.1 applies. Thus, from
r0 ð4aÞ Eqs. (2) and (8) it follows that the axial stress rc required
ð2l cos x þ 2bÞ2 to initiate micro-buckling in the inclined strut sketched in
and Fig. 12 is given by
sY rmax
d rc ¼ > 9 t :2 ? ¼ > 9 t :2 ? ð9Þ
e0 ðbÞ
l sin x 4 þ cot x
u cot
1 þ u4 x
l l
respectively. The effective Young’s modulus E 0 r=e of
the pyramidal core then follows from Eqs. (3) and (4) as where rmax is the micro-buckling strength of the laminate
> ? for loading in the e1 -direction in the absence of remote
E 2l4sin x 2 cos2 x shear. Recall that the normal force F per strut follows from
¼ sin x þ 42 ð5Þ
Es lð 4 l4cos x þ bÞ42 l Eq. (2) and (3) as
> 9 t :2 ?
where l4 0 l=t and b4 0 b=t are non-dimensional geometric 2
F ¼ rc t sin x 1 þ cot x2
ð10aÞ
parameters of the core. In the limit of negligible node vol- l
umes (i. e. b4 ¼ h4 ! 0), the modulus E is related to the rela- Then, taking into account that the unit cell of the pyramidal
tive density 4q of the core via core comprises four such struts, the nominal through thick-
> ? ness compressive strength of the pyramidal core follows
E 2 sin x 2 cos2 x
9 42 sin x þ from Eq. (4a) as
Es l cos2 x l42
2rc sin x½l42 þ cot2 x,
4q2 3 rp 0 ð10bÞ
¼ 4q sin4 x þ sin x cos4 x ð6Þ l42 ðl4cos x þ bÞ
42
2
The first and second terms in Eq. (6) represent the contribu- Combining Eqs. (9) and (10b), the strength of the pyramidal
tions to the stiffness of the pyramidal core due to the core in terms of the micro-buckling strength rmax of the
stretching and bending of the struts, respectively. laminate is given by
rp 2 sin x½l42 þ cot2 x,
4.2. Collapse strength ¼ > ? ð11Þ
rmax 4 2 l42 þ cot x
ðl4cos x þ bÞ
We consider the three critical collapse mechanisms for the 4
u
pyramidal core: (i) plastic micro-buckling of the composite In the limit of vanishing node volume, the above expression
struts; (ii) delamination failure of the struts and (iii) elastic reduces to
Euler bucking of the struts. The operative failure mode will
be the one associated with the lowest value of the collapse rp 2 sin x½l42 þ cot2 x,
9 > ?
strength. Typically polymer matrices of fiber composites rmax 42 2 42
cot x
display non-linear behavior [10] and thus elastic micro- l cos x l þ
4
u
buckling is not an operative failure mode and not consid-
ered in the collapse calculations presented here. > ?
sin2 x4q 4q cos4 x
¼> ? 1þ ð12Þ
(i) Plastic micro-buckling of the composite struts 4q cos3 x 2
1þ
24
u
It is generally accepted that fiber micro-buckling of compo-
sites is an imperfection-sensitive, plastic buckling event in-
volving the non-linear longitudinal shear of the composite (ii) Delamination failure of the struts
within a narrow kink band. Argon [11] argued that the com-
pressive strength rmax is given by In this mode we neglect the shear stresses in the struts and
sY consider them as pin-jointed at their ends. An upper bound
rmax ¼ ð7Þ work calculation then gives the strength of the pyramidal
4
u
core in terms of the delamination failure stress rdl of the

Int. J. Mat. Res. (formerly Z. Metallkd.) 98 (2007) 12 7

A
Applied MK_mk101594 – 23.10.07/druckhaus köthen

K. Finnegan et al.: The compressive response of carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss sandwich cores

composite struts as
rp 2 sin x
¼ ð13Þ
rdl ðl4cos x þ bÞ
42

In the limit of vanishing node volume, the above expression

reduces to
rp 2 sin x 4q
9 ¼ sin2 x ð14Þ
rdl l42 cos2 x 2

(iii) Euler buckling of the struts

Under through-thickness compression the pyramidal core

may collapse by the elastic buckling of the constituent
struts. Recall that the Euler buckling load of an end-
clamped strut subjected to an axial load is given by
4p2 Es I
PE ¼ ð15Þ
l2
Thus, the nominal compressive collapse strength of the pyr-
amidal core due to the elastic buckling of the constituent
struts is given by
rp 2p2 E4s sin x½l42 þ cot2 x,
¼ ð16Þ
rmax 3l44 ðl4cos x þ bÞ
42
where E4s 0 Es =rmax . Note that here we have assumed that
the buckling load (13) is unaffected by the transverse shear
loading of the strut. In the limit of vanishing node volume,
the above expression reduces to
rp 2p sin x½l42 þ cot2 x,
2
9 E4s
rmax 3l44 cos2 x
> ?
4 p2 cos2 x sin3 x4
q2 q cos4 x
4 take x ¼ 45- and Es ¼ 25 GPa for both core designs. The
¼ Es 1þ ð17Þ
6 2
In order to illustrate the optimal performance of the com-
posite pyramidal cores, the predicted normalized peak
strength of the composite pyramidal core rp =ð4 qrmax Þ is
plotted in Fig. 13 as a function of relative density 4q consid-
ering only the micro-buckling and Euler buckling failure
mechanisms of the struts. Predictions are shown in Fig. 13
for three selected values of E4s representative of uni-
directional (E4s ¼ 167), laminated (E4s ¼ 116) and woven
(E4s ¼ 50) carbon fiber composites. For the purposes of
illustration, in Fig. 13 we have neglected the volume of the
nodes and thus employed Eqs. (12) and (17) for the micro-
buckling and Euler buckling collapse strengths, respec-
tively with the choices x ¼ 45- and u 4 ¼ 2- : most experi-
mental evidence [10] suggests that the imperfection angle
cannot be reduced below 2- in practical designs. The nor-
malized strength rp =ð4 qrmax Þ is a measure of the efficiency
of the topology in terms of its structural strength with
rp =ð4qrmax Þ 4 1: rp =ð4
qrmax Þ ¼ 1 corresponds to a cellular
material that attains the Voigt upper bound. We note:
(a) The normalized strength rp =ð4 qrmax Þ peaks at a 4q val-
ue at which the failure modes transition from Euler buck-
ling to micro-buckling. Designs at this transition value of 4q
are most efficient in terms of their strength to weight ratio.
Fig. 13. Predictions of the variation of the normalized peak strength
qrmax Þ with relative density 4
rp =ð4 q for three selected values of the nor-
malized laminate modulus E4s . The predictions assume that the node
volume is negligible.
This is rationalized by noting that in the Euler buckling re-
gime the structural efficiency increases with increasing 4q
as the struts become more stocky resulting in an increase
in their Euler buckling loads. By contrast, in the micro-
buckling regime, with increasing 4q the shear forces on the
struts increase resulting in a decrease in their micro-buck-
ling stress as per Eq. (8).
(b) The maximum value of rp =ð4qrmax Þ for the pyramidal
cores increases with increasing E4s with the transition from
Euler buckling failure to micro-buckling then occurring at
lower values of 4q.
4.3. Comparison with measurements
The analytical predictions (Eq. 5) of the modulus E for both
designs of the pyramidal core are included in Fig. 6 along
with the measurements. In the analytical predictions we
model in general under-predicts the measured values of the
modulus by about 20 % especially for high values of 4q. We
attribute this to (i) the simple beam theory employed in the
analytical predictions becoming less accurate for stubby
beams (i. e. for l=t < 8) resulting in the model under-pre-
dicting the measurements at large 4q and (ii) errors in the
measurement of the Young’s modulus of the laminate in
the column compression tests: small misalignments in these
tests are expected to give large reductions in the measured
modulus.
Comparisons between the peak strength measurements
and predictions (Eqs. (13) and (16) for the collapse
strengths by the delamination and Euler buckling modes,
respectively) are included in Fig. 10a and b for core de-
signs 1 and 2, respectively. In line with measurements, the
Young’s modulus and delamination strengths for both lami-
nates are taken as Es ¼ 25 GPa and rdl ¼ 400 MPa, respec-
tively (Fig. 7a). Good agreement is observed between the
measurements and predictions based on the Euler buckling
and delamination failure modes. For comparison purposes,
the predictions of the collapse strength due to the micro-
buckling failure of the struts are also included in Fig. 10.
Here we have assumed that the micro-buckling strength
rmax ¼ 2 GPa and u 4 ¼ 2- , consistent with a wide body of
experimental data for polymer matrix fiber composites [10].

8 Int. J. Mat. Res. (formerly Z. Metallkd.) 98 (2007) 12

 MK_mk101594 – 23.10.07/druckhaus köthen
K. Finnegan et al.: The compressive response of carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss sandwich cores
The collapse strengths based on the micro-buckling failure of
the struts significantly overpredict the measurements over
most of the relative density range investigated here.
It is worth noting that the analytical model predicts that
the peak strength of the design 2 core decreases with in-
creasing relative density for 4 q > 0:05. This is rationalized
by noting that with increasing 4 q an increasing fraction of
the composite material is present in the nodes of the pyram-
idal core and thus not contributing to the overall load carry-
ing capacity of the core. Moreover, the shear stresses in the
struts also increase with increasing 4 q. These two factors to-
gether result in the peak strength decreasing with increasing
4
q above a critical value of 4q. Note that since the nodes of the
design 1 are about half the size of the nodes of the design 2
cores, the critical density above which rp decreases with in-
creasing 4q is significantly higher and outside the scale of
Fig. 10a.
5. Filling of material property space
The measured peak strengths of designs 1 and 2 of the com-
posite pyramidal cores are included in Fig. 1. The density of
the cores is given as q ¼ 4 qqs with qs ¼ 1440 kg m%3 .
Clearly, the composites cores investigated here begin to fill
a gap in the known material property space in that they have
a strength greater than most known materials with densities
less 100 kg m%3 . However, the current designs of these
composite pyramidal cores do not achieve the full potential
of composite lattice materials primarily due to the ineffi-
cient utilization of material in the nodes: the node volume
in the current designs is excessively large. Also included
in Fig. 1 is the theoretical prediction of the maximum
strength of the pyramidal core based on the micro-buckling
failure mode of the struts Eq. (17) with an assumed compo-
site micro-buckling strength rmax ¼ 2 GPa, u 4 ¼ 2- and sol-
%3
id material density qs ¼ 1440 kg m (i. e. the prediction
included in Fig. 13 but with elastic buckling of the struts ne-
glected). These theoretical predictions clearly reveal the
potential of composite lattice materials in filling gaps in
the material property space. This potential can be achieved
by appropriately designing composite truss cores such that
(i) the delamination failure mode is eliminated via suitable
node designs; (ii) the Euler buckling strength is increased
by enhancing the second moment of area of the struts of
the pyramidal core by say employing composite tubes
rather than solid members as the core struts and (iii) opti-
mizing the volume of material in the nodes so as to prevent
node failure at a minimum node volume.
6. Concluding remarks
A preliminary investigation of the use of pyramidal lattice
core sandwich structures fabricated from carbon fiber rein-
forced polymers has been conducted. Pyramidal truss sand-
wich cores with relative densities 4 q in the range 1 – 10 %
have been manufactured from carbon fiber reinforced poly-
mer laminates by employing a snap-fitting method. The
measured quasi-static uniaxial compressive strength varied
in the range 1 – 11 MPa; increasing with increasing 4q. Two
failure modes were observed: (i) Euler buckling of the
struts and (ii) delamination failure of the struts.
Analytical models have been developed for the elastic re-
sponse and collapse strengths of the composite cores. In
Int. J. Mat. Res. (formerly Z. Metallkd.) 98 (2007) 12
View publication stats
A Applied
general good agreement between the measurements and
the predictions is obtained. We have demonstrated that
composite cellular materials with a pyramidal micro-struc-
ture begin to fill a gap in the strength versus density materi-
al property space. However, current designs of the pyrami-
dal cores have not optimized the node design and thus use
material rather inefficiently. Moreover, the current designs
undergo delamination failure of the struts and thus do not
achieve the full potential of composite cores as predicted
by the micro-buckling analysis presented here.
We are grateful to the Office of Naval Research (ONR) for funding of
this project under grant number N00014-01-1-1051 (Program manager,
Dr. David Shifler).
References
[1] L.J. Gibson, M.F. Ashby: “Cellular Solids: Structure and Proper-
ties”, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997).
[2] M.F. Ashby, A.G. Evans, N.A. Fleck, L.J. Gibson, J.W. Hutchin-
son, H.N.G. Wadley (Eds.): Butterworth Heinemann, Metal
foams: A design guide (2000).
[3] V.S. Deshpande, M.F. Ashby, N.A. Fleck: Acta. Mater. 49 (2001)
1035 – 1040.
[4] V.S. Deshpande, N.A. Fleck, M.F. Ashby: J. Mech. Phys. Solids.
49 (2001) 1747 – 1769.
[5] R.G. Hutchinson, N.A. Fleck: J. Mech. Phys. Solids. 54 (2006)
756 – 782.
[6] J. Tian, T.J. Lu, H.P. Hodson, D.T. Queheillalt, H.N.G. Wadley:
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer. 50 (2007)
2521 – 2536.
[7] H.N.G. Wadley, N.A. Fleck, A.G. Evans: Compos. Sci. Technol.
63 (2003) 2331 – 2343.
[8] M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Bréchet: Acta Mater. 51 (2003) 5801 – 5821.
[9] K. Finnegan: “Carbon fiber composite pyramidal lattice struc-
tures” Masters Thesis, Department of Engineering Physics. Uni-
versity of Virginia, 2007.
[10] N.A. Fleck (Ed.): Compressive Failure of Fiber Composites. Ad-
vances in Applied Mechanics, Vol 33. Cambridge University
Academic Press (1997).
[11] A.S. Argon (Ed.): “Fracture of composites” Treatise of Material
Science and Technology. Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York
(1972) 79 – 114.
[12] B. Budiansky, N.A. Fleck: J. Mech. Phys. Solids. 41 (1993) 183 –
211.
(Received June 22, 2007; accepted October 2, 2007)
Bibliography
DOI 10.3139/146.101594
Int. J. Mat. Res. (formerly Z. Metallkd.)
98 (2007) 12; page & – &
# Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co. KG
ISSN 1862-5282
Correspondence address
H. N. G. Wadley
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
395 McCormick Road
Wilsdorf Hall, P.O. Box 400745
Charlottesville, VVA 22904
Tel.: +1 434/982 5671
Fax: +1 434/982 5677
E-mail: haydn@virginia.edu
You will find the article and additional material by enter-
ing the document number MK101594 on our website at
www.ijmr.de
9