Honeycombs Across Material Classes: A Mechanism‐Based Review of Design Strategies

Honeycomb cores and related lattice and triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS) structures provide lightweight load support, energy absorption, recovery, and multifunctionality, but their performance can degrade when material, manufacturing route, interfaces, or component boundaries change. This review examines how cell‐wall bending, buckling, folding, self‐contact, and load transfer interact across service conditions. Studies of conventional, auxetic, chiral, graded, hierarchical, and folded honeycombs, sandwich panels, and related lattice and TPMS structures made from polymers, polymer composites, metals, and ceramics are compared at three levels: cell‐scale mechanisms, progressive‐collapse control, and structural integration. Geometry biases the available deformation modes, while constitutive behavior, rate sensitivity, fracture, viscoelasticity, reinforcement, interfaces, and manufacturing defects influence the active mode and collapse sequence. Curvature, grading, hierarchy, folding, multimaterial design, and reinforcement can redistribute deformation and delay localization, subject to initial peak force, densification strain, joint integrity, and process variability. Transfer from cells to components requires characterization of as‐manufactured geometry, defects, face‐core load transfer, environmental exposure, repeated loading, and service‐level validation. The review therefore separates geometry‐driven improvements from manufacturing effects and specifies a qualification path from material coupons and cells to panels and components.