It is a challenging task to advance the excellent strength and structural performance of sandwich structures, while continuing to reduce the weight and cost parameters. Thousands of researchers have studied and developed the core structural innovation with periodical achievements. This review paper concentrates on the core structural trends and impact response of sandwich panels, which highlights the novel design concepts and impact failure modes. Three kinds of core structures have been classified, which are foam-core, two- and three-dimensional periodic cores. It is shown that the core structure of sandwich panels plays a vital role in structural performance and applications. Three common types of loading conditions have been considered, i.e. compression, projectile impact and three-point bending. Examples of novel core structures are further studied and summarised under corresponding impact loadings. Recent applications of sandwich structures are briefly concentrated on aerospace, automotive, marine and civil engineering areas. Furthermore, future research and development prospect of sandwich structures are suggested and predicted.
NunesJSilvaJ. Sandwiched composites in aerospace engineering. In: Sohel R and Raul F (eds) Advanced composite materials for aerospace engineering. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp.129–174.
2.
KatuninA, et al.
Characterization of quasi-static behavior of honeycomb core sandwich structures. Modelowanie Inżynierskie2014;
22: 78–84.
3.
Di BellaGCalabreseLBorsellinoC.Mechanical characterisation of a glass/polyester sandwich structure for marine applications. Mater Des2012;
42: 486–494.
4.
XiongJMaLWuL, et al.
Fabrication and crushing behavior of low density carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss structures. Compos Struct2010;
92: 2695–2702.
5.
NoorAKBurtonWSBertCW.Computational models for sandwich panels and shells. Appl Mech Rev1996;
49: 155–199.
6.
RayjadeGRaoG.Study of composite sandwich structure and bending characteristics – a review. Int J Curr Eng Technol2015;
5: 797–802.
7.
VinsonJR. Sandwich structures: past, present, and future. In: Thomsen O, Bozhevolnaya E and Lyckegaard A (eds) Sandwich structures 7: advancing with sandwich structures and materials. Berlin: Springer, pp. 3–12.
TakedaNMinakuchiSOkabeY.Smart composite sandwich structures for future aerospace application-damage detection and suppression: a review. J Solid Mech Mater Eng2007;
1: 3–17.
10.
MohanKYipTHIdapalapatiS, et al.
Impact response of aluminum foam core sandwich structures. Mater Sci Eng A2011;
529: 94–101.
11.
PollienACondeYPambaguianL, et al.
Graded open-cell aluminium foam core sandwich beams. Mater Sci Eng A2005;
404: 9–18.
12.
StylesMCompstonPKalyanasundaramS.The effect of core thickness on the flexural behaviour of aluminium foam sandwich structures. Compos Struct2007;
80: 532–538.
13.
GiglioMGilioliAManesA.Numerical investigation of a three point bending test on sandwich panels with aluminum skins and nomex™ honeycomb core. Comput Mater Sci2012;
56: 69–78.
14.
BurlayenkoVNSadowskiT.Influence of skin/core debonding on free vibration behavior of foam and honeycomb cored sandwich plates. Int J Non Line Mech2010;
45: 959–968.
15.
LiuCZhangYYeL.High velocity impact responses of sandwich panels with metal fibre laminate skins and aluminium foam core. Int J Impact Eng2017;
100: 139–153.
16.
HaldarAZhouJGuanZ.Energy absorbing characteristics of the composite contoured-core sandwich panels. Mater Today Commun2016;
8: 156–164.
17.
GeorgeTDeshpandeVSWadleyHN.Mechanical response of carbon fiber composite sandwich panels with pyramidal truss cores. Compos Part A2013;
47: 31–40.
18.
LiuJLiuJMeiJ, et al.
Investigation on manufacturing and mechanical behavior of all-composite sandwich structure with Y-shaped cores. Compos Sci Technol2018;
159: 87–102.
19.
ZhouJGuanZCantwellW.Scaling effects in the mechanical response of sandwich structures based on corrugated composite cores. Compos Part B2016;
93: 88–96.
20.
HanB, et al.
Honeycomb–corrugation hybrid as a novel sandwich core for significantly enhanced compressive performance. Mater Des2016;
93: 271–282.
21.
YangX, et al.
Crashworthiness investigation of the bio-inspired bi-directionally corrugated core sandwich panel under quasi-static crushing load. Mater Des2017;
135: 275–290.
22.
YuYYingLHouW-B, et al.
Failure analysis of adhesively bonded steel corrugated sandwich structures under three-point bending. Compos Struct2018;
184: 256–268.
VillanuevaGRCantwellW.The high velocity impact response of composite and FML-reinforced sandwich structures. Compos Sci Technol2004;
64: 35–54.
25.
MeoMMorrisAJVignjevicR, et al.
Numerical simulations of low-velocity impact on an aircraft sandwich panel. Compos Struct2003;
62: 353–360.
26.
HerrmannASZahlenPCZuardyI. Sandwich structures technology in commercial aviation. In: Thomsen O, Bozhevolnaya E and Lyckegaard A (eds) Sandwich structures 7: advancing with sandwich structures and materials. Berlin: Springer, pp.13–26.
27.
AbbadiAKoutsawaYCarmasolA, et al.
Experimental and numerical characterization of honeycomb sandwich composite panels. Simul Modell Pract Theory2009;
17: 1533–1547.
28.
HeimbsSCichoszJKlausM, et al.
Sandwich structures with textile-reinforced composite foldcores under impact loads. Compos Struct2010;
92: 1485–1497.
29.
KintscherMKärgerLWetzelA, et al.
Stiffness and failure behaviour of folded sandwich cores under combined transverse shear and compression. Compos Part A2007;
38: 1288–1295.
30.
ParkK-JJungKKimY-W.Evaluation of homogenized effective properties for corrugated composite panels. Compos Struct2016;
140: 644–654.
31.
RejabMCantwellW.The mechanical behaviour of corrugated-core sandwich panels. Compos Part B2013;
47: 267–277.
32.
YooSChangSSutcliffeM.Compressive characteristics of foam-filled composite egg-box sandwich panels as energy absorbing structures. Compos Part A2010;
41: 427–434.
33.
HaldarAKGuanZWCantwellWJ, et al.
The compressive properties of sandwich structures based on an egg-box core design. Compos Part B2018;
144: 143–152.
34.
YooSHChangSH.An experimental study on energy absorbing structures made of fabric composites. Compos Struct2008;
86: 211–219.
35.
WangBWuLMaL, et al.
Mechanical behavior of the sandwich structures with carbon fiber-reinforced pyramidal lattice truss core. Mater Des2010;
31: 2659–2663.
36.
FanHYangLSunF, et al.
Compression and bending performances of carbon fiber reinforced lattice-core sandwich composites. Compos Part A2013;
52: 118–125.
37.
LiMWuLMaL, et al.
Mechanical response of all-composite pyramidal lattice truss core sandwich structures. J Mater Sci Technol2011;
27: 570–576.
38.
HeMHuW.A study on composite honeycomb sandwich panel structure. Mater Des2008;
29: 709–713.
39.
FischerSDrechslerKKilchertS, et al.
Mechanical tests for foldcore base material properties. Compos Part A2009;
40: 1941–1952.
40.
FischerS, et al. Sandwich structures with folded core: manufacturing and mechanical behavior. In: International SAMPE Europe conference, Paris, 19–22 October 2009.
41.
ChungJChangSSutcliffeM.Deformation and energy absorption of composite egg-box panels. Compos Sci Technol2007;
67: 2342–2349.
42.
KiyakBKamanMO.Mechanical properties of new-manufactured sandwich composite having carbon fiber core. J Compos Mater2019;
53: 3093–3109.
43.
HeimbsS, et al. Aircraft sandwich structures with folded core under impact load. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on sandwich structures, ICSS8, Porto, Portugal, 6–8 May 2008.
44.
ZupanMChenCFleckN.The plastic collapse and energy absorption capacity of egg-box panels. Int J Mech Sci2003;
45: 851–871.
45.
FinneganKKooistraGWadleyHNG, et al.
The compressive response of carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss sandwich cores. Int J Mater Sci2007;
98: 1264–1272.
46.
LeeB-CLeeK-WByunJ-H, et al.
The compressive response of new composite truss cores. Compos Part B2012;
43: 317–324.
47.
XiongJMaLVaziriA, et al.
Mechanical behavior of carbon fiber composite lattice core sandwich panels fabricated by laser cutting. Acta Mater2012;
60: 5322–5334.
48.
WeiZDeshpandeVSEvansAG, et al.
The resistance of metallic plates to localized impulse. J Mech Phys Solids2008;
56: 2074–2091.
49.
FanHYangWZhouQ.Experimental research of compressive responses of multi-layered woven textile sandwich panels under quasi-static loading. Compos Part B2011;
42: 1151–1156.
50.
BuitragoBLSantiusteCSánchez-SáezS, et al.
Modelling of composite sandwich structures with honeycomb core subjected to high-velocity impact. Compos Struct2010;
92: 2090–2096.
51.
GustinJJonesonAMahinfalahM, et al.
Low velocity impact of combination Kevlar/carbon fiber sandwich composites. Compos Struct2005;
69: 396–406.
52.
LiuJXiangLKanT.The effect of temperature on the bending properties and failure mechanism of composite truss core sandwich structures. Compos Part A2015;
79: 146–154.
53.
SteevesCAFleckNA.Collapse mechanisms of sandwich beams with composite faces and a foam core, loaded in three-point bending. Part II: experimental investigation and numerical modelling. Int J Mech Sci2004;
46: 585–608.
54.
YuJWangELiJ, et al.
Static and low-velocity impact behavior of sandwich beams with closed-cell aluminum-foam core in three-point bending. Int J Impact Eng2008;
35: 885–894.
55.
HeW, et al.
Residual flexural properties of CFRP sandwich structures with aluminum honeycomb cores after low-velocity impact. Int J Mech Sci2019;
161: 105026.
56.
HaldarAKCantwellWJLangdonG, et al.
The mechanical behaviour of spherical egg-box sandwich structures. Polym Test2019;
78: 105954.
57.
SchubelPMLuoJ-JDanielIM.Low velocity impact behavior of composite sandwich panels. Compos Part A2005;
36: 1389–1396.
58.
HazizanMACantwellW.The low velocity impact response of foam-based sandwich structures. Compos Part B2002;
33: 193–204.
59.
EdgrenFAspLEBullPH.Compressive failure of impacted NCF composite sandwich panels – characterisation of the failure process. J Compos Mater2004;
38: 495–514.
60.
UzalASonmezFOOzFE, et al.
A composite sandwich plate with a novel core design. Compos Struct2018;
193: 198–211.
61.
VaidyaU. Composites for automotive, truck and mass transit: materials, design, manufacturing. Lancester: DEStech Publications, Inc., 2011.
62.
TarlochanFRameshS.Composite sandwich structures with nested inserts for energy absorption application. Compos Struct2012;
94: 904–916.
63.
AshbyM.The properties of foams and lattices. Phil Trans R Soc A2006;
364: 15–30.
64.
LiebscherAProppeCRedenbachC, et al.
Stochastic multiscale modeling of metal foams. Proc IUTAM2013;
6: 87–96.
65.
HutchinsonRGFleckNA.The structural performance of the periodic truss. J Mech Phys Solids2006;
54: 756–782.
66.
ZhuFLuGRuanD, et al.
Plastic deformation, failure and energy absorption of sandwich structures with metallic cellular cores. Int J Protect Struct2010;
1: 507–541.
67.
WadleyHN.Multifunctional periodic cellular metals. Phil Trans R Soc A2006;
364: 31–68.
68.
GibsonLJAshbyMF.Cellular solids: structure and properties.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999.
69.
San MarchiCMortensenA.Deformation of open-cell aluminum foam. Acta Mater2001;
49: 3959–3969.
70.
AlzoubiMAl-HallajSAbu-AyyadM.Modeling of compression curves of flexible polyurethane foam with variable density, chemical formulations and strain rates. J Solid Mech2014;
6: 82–97.
71.
AshbyMF, et al. Metal foams: a design guide.
Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 2000.
BanhartJ.Manufacturing routes for metallic foams. JOM2000;
52: 22–27.
74.
García-MorenoF.Commercial applications of metal foams: their properties and production. Materials2016;
9: 85.
75.
JingLWangZNingJ, et al.
The dynamic response of sandwich beams with open-cell metal foam cores. Compos Part B2011;
42: 1–10.
76.
CrupiVMontaniniR.Aluminium foam sandwiches collapse modes under static and dynamic three-point bending. Int J Impact Eng2007;
34: 509–521.
77.
CrupiVEpastoGGuglielminoE.Comparison of aluminium sandwiches for lightweight ship structures: honeycomb vs. foam. Marine Struct2013;
30: 74–96.
78.
JingLWangZZhaoL.The dynamic response of sandwich panels with cellular metal cores to localized impulsive loading. Compos Part B2016;
94: 52–63.
79.
PetroneGD’AlessandroVFrancoF, et al.
Numerical and experimental investigations on the acoustic power radiated by aluminium foam sandwich panels. Compos Struct2014;
118: 170–177.
80.
KabirKRVodenitcharovaTHoffmanM.Structural response of aluminium foam hybrid sandwich panels under three-point bending loading. Int J Mod Phys B2009;
23: 1733–1738.
81.
CrupiVEpastoGGuglielminoE.Computed tomography analysis of damage in composites subjected to impact loading. Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale2011;
5: 32–41.
82.
BanhartJ.Manufacture, characterisation and application of cellular metals and metal foams. Prog Mater Sci2001;
46: 559–632.
83.
RamamurtyUPaulA.Variability in mechanical properties of a metal foam. Acta Mater2004;
52: 869–876.
84.
VesenjakMVeyhlCFiedlerT.Analysis of anisotropy and strain rate sensitivity of open-cell metal foam. Mater Sci Eng2012;
541: 105–109.
85.
RajaneeshASridharIRajendranS.Relative performance of metal and polymeric foam sandwich plates under low velocity impact. Int J Impact Eng2014;
65: 126–136.
86.
ShenJLuGRuanD, et al.
Lateral plastic collapse of sandwich tubes with metal foam core. Int J Mech Sci2015;
91: 99–109.
87.
LinulEMarsavinaLKováčikJ.Collapse mechanisms of metal foam matrix composites under static and dynamic loading conditions. Mater Sci Eng2017;
690: 214–224.
88.
ShunmugasamyVCMansoorB.Aluminum foam sandwich with density-graded open-cell core: compressive and flexural response. Mater Sci Eng2018;
731: 220–230.
89.
XiangCQinQWangM, et al.
Low-velocity impact response of sandwich beams with a metal foam core: experimental and theoretical investigations. Int J Impact Eng2019;
130: 172–183.
90.
RaeisiSKadkhodapourJTovarA.Mechanical properties and energy absorbing capabilities of Z-pinned aluminum foam sandwich. Compos Struct2019;
214: 34–46.
91.
ViotPBeaniFLatailladeJ-L.Polymeric foam behavior under dynamic compressive loading. J Mater Sci2005;
40: 5829–5837.
92.
CollocaMDorogokupetsGGuptaN, et al.
Mechanical properties and failure mechanisms of closed-cell PVC foams. Int J Crashworthiness2012;
17: 327–336.
93.
MouritzAP.Introduction to aerospace materials.
Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 2012.
94.
OkolieochaCRapsDSubramaniamK, et al.
Microcellular to nanocellular polymer foams: progress (2004–2015) and future directions – a review. Eur Polym J2015;
73: 500–519.
95.
RizovVShipshaAZenkertD.Indentation study of foam core sandwich composite panels. Compos Struct2005;
69: 95–102.
96.
ZenkertDBurmanM.Tension, compression and shear fatigue of a closed cell polymer foam. Compos Sci Technol2009;
69: 785–792.
97.
KabirMESahaMJeelaniS.Tensile and fracture behavior of polymer foams. Mater Sci Eng2006;
429: 225–235.
98.
CompstonPStylesMKalyanasundaramS.Low energy impact damage modes in aluminum foam and polymer foam sandwich structures. J Sandwich Struct Mater2006;
8: 365–379.
99.
Flores-JohnsonELiQ.Experimental study of the indentation of sandwich panels with carbon fibre-reinforced polymer face sheets and polymeric foam core. Compos Part B2011;
42: 1212–1219.
100.
ZhouJHassanMZGuanZ, et al.
The low velocity impact response of foam-based sandwich panels. Compos Sci Technol2012;
72: 1781–1790.
101.
ZhangGWangBMaL, et al.
Energy absorption and low velocity impact response of polyurethane foam filled pyramidal lattice core sandwich panels. Compos Struct2014;
108: 304–310.
102.
ZhangPChengYLiuJ, et al.
Experimental study on the dynamic response of foam-filled corrugated core sandwich panels subjected to air blast loading. Compos Part B2016;
105: 67–81.
103.
YangPShamsSSSlayA, et al.
Evaluation of temperature effects on low velocity impact damage in composite sandwich panels with polymeric foam cores. Compos Struct2015;
129: 213–223.
104.
CaliskanUApalakMK.Low velocity bending impact behavior of foam core sandwich beams: experimental. Compos Part B2017;
112: 158–175.
105.
FangYChenPHuoR, et al.
Hygrothermal ageing of polymeric sandwich structures used in structural engineering. Construct Build Mater2018;
165: 812–824.
106.
SenolKShuklaA.Dynamic response of closed cell PVC foams subjected to underwater shock loading. Int J Impact Eng2019;
130: 214–225.
107.
Hassanpour RoudbenehFLiaghatGSabouriH, et al.
Experimental investigation of impact loading on honeycomb sandwich panels filled with foam. Int J Crashworthiness2019;
24: 199–210.
108.
LiuTHouSNguyenX, et al.
Energy absorption characteristics of sandwich structures with composite sheets and bio coconut core. Compos Part B2017;
114: 328–338.
109.
TemenoffJSMikosAG.Injectable biodegradable materials for orthopedic tissue engineering. Biomaterials2000;
21: 2405–2412.
110.
OkerekeMAkpoyomareABingleyM.Virtual testing of advanced composites, cellular materials and biomaterials: a review. Compos Part B2014;
60: 637–662.
111.
ChakravartyUK.An investigation on the dynamic response of polymeric, metallic, and biomaterial foams. Compos Struct2010;
92: 2339–2344.
112.
JardinR, et al.
Static and dynamic mechanical response of different Cork agglomerates. Mater Des2015;
68: 121–126.
113.
ZhuangJGhaffarSHFanM, et al.
Restructure of expanded Cork with fumed silica as novel core materials for vacuum insulation panels. Compos Part B2017;
127: 215–221.
114.
WalshJKimH-ISuhrJ.Low velocity impact resistance and energy absorption of environmentally friendly expanded Cork core-carbon fiber sandwich composites. Compos Part A2017;
101: 290–296.
115.
TagarielliVDeshpandeVFleckN.The high strain rate response of PVC foams and end-grain balsa wood. Compos Part B2008;
39: 83–91.
116.
Da SilvaAKyriakidesS.Compressive response and failure of balsa wood. Int J Solids Struct2007;
44: 8685–8717.
117.
VuralMRavichandranG.Dynamic response and energy dissipation characteristics of balsa wood: experiment and analysis. Int J Solids Struct2003;
40: 2147–2170.
118.
VuralMRavichandranG.Microstructural aspects and modeling of failure in naturally occurring porous composites. Mech Mater2003;
35: 523–536.
119.
GamaNFerreiraABarros-TimmonsA.Polyurethane foams: past, present, and future. Materials2018;
11: 1841.
120.
XiongJDuYMousanezhadD, et al.
Sandwich structures with prismatic and foam cores: a review. Adv Eng Mater2019;
21: 1800036.
121.
KimBChristensenRM.Basic two-dimensional core types for sandwich structures. Int J Mech Sci2000;
42: 657–676.
122.
KapaniaRKSolimanHEVasudevaS, et al.
Static analysis of sandwich panels with square honeycomb core. AIAA J2008;
46: 627–634.
LiuLWangHGuanZ.Experimental and numerical study on the mechanical response of nomex honeycomb core under transverse loading. Compos Struct2015;
121: 304–314.
125.
RoyRParkS-JKweonJ-H, et al.
Characterization of nomex honeycomb core constituent material mechanical properties. Compos Struct2014;
117: 255–266.
126.
ZhouHXuPXieS, et al.
Mechanical performance and energy absorption properties of structures combining two nomex honeycombs. Compos Struct2018;
185: 524–536.
127.
LiraCInnocentiPScarpaF.Transverse elastic shear of auxetic multi re-entrant honeycombs. Compos Struct2009;
90: 314–322.
128.
WuYLiuQFuJ, et al.
Dynamic crash responses of bio-inspired aluminum honeycomb sandwich structures with CFRP panels. Compos Part B2017;
121: 122–133.
129.
ZhangYLuMWangCH, et al.
Out-of-plane crashworthiness of bio-inspired self-similar regular hierarchical honeycombs. Compos Struct2016;
144: 1–13.
130.
WadleyHNGDharmasenaKPO'MastaMR, et al.
Impact response of aluminum corrugated core sandwich panels. Int J Impact Eng2013;
62: 114–128.
131.
NilssonPAl-EmraniM. Industrialized light-weight steel bridge concept using corrugated core steel sandwich plates. In: Proceedings of the 19th IABSE congress, Stockholm, 21–23 September 2016. pp. 543–551.
132.
HeWLiuJTaoB, et al.
Experimental and numerical research on the low velocity impact behavior of hybrid corrugated core sandwich structures. Compos Struct2016;
158: 30–43.
133.
RoyRNguyenKHParkYB, et al.
Testing and modeling of nomex™ honeycomb sandwich panels with bolt insert. Compos Part B2014;
56: 762–769.
134.
AminandaYCastaniéBBarrauJ-J, et al.
Experimental analysis and modeling of the crushing of honeycomb cores. Appl Compos Mater2005;
12: 213–227.
135.
AktayLJohnsonAFKröplinB-H.Numerical modelling of honeycomb core crush behaviour. Eng Fract Mech2008;
75: 2616–2630.
136.
ZhangYLiuTTizaniW.Experimental and numerical analysis of dynamic compressive response of nomex honeycombs. Compos Part B2018;
148: 27–39.
137.
AliaRAAl-AliOKumarS, et al.
The energy-absorbing characteristics of carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy honeycomb structures. J Compos Mater2019;
53: 1145–1157.
138.
YangWLiZ-MShiW, et al.
Review on auxetic materials. J Mater Sci2004;
39: 3269–3279.
139.
PrawotoY.Seeing auxetic materials from the mechanics point of view: a structural review on the negative Poisson’s ratio. Comput Mater Sci2012;
58: 140–153.
140.
LiuYHuH.A review on auxetic structures and polymeric materials. Sci Res Essays2010;
5: 1052–1063.
141.
GrimaJNAldersonAEvansK.Auxetic behaviour from rotating rigid units. Phys Stat Sol2005;
242: 561–575.
142.
HouYNevilleRScarpaF, et al.
Graded conventional-auxetic kirigami sandwich structures: flatwise compression and edgewise loading. Compos Part B2014;
59: 33–42.
143.
IngroleAHaoALiangR.Design and modeling of auxetic and hybrid honeycomb structures for in-plane property enhancement. Mater Des2017;
117: 72–83.
144.
JinXWangZNingJ, et al.
Dynamic response of sandwich structures with graded auxetic honeycomb cores under blast loading. Compos Part B2016;
106: 206–217.
145.
QiCRemennikovAPeiL-Z, et al.
Impact and close-in blast response of auxetic honeycomb-cored sandwich panels: experimental tests and numerical simulations. Compos Struct2017;
180: 161–178.
146.
SpadoniARuzzeneMScarpaF, et al.
Local linear buckling behavior of a chiral cellular structure. Phys Stat Sol2005;
242: 695–709.
147.
ScarpaFBlainSLewT, et al.
Elastic buckling of hexagonal chiral cell honeycombs. Compos Part A2007;
38: 280–289.
148.
MillerWSmithCWScarpaF, et al.
Flatwise buckling optimization of hexachiral and tetrachiral honeycombs. Compos Sci Technol2010;
70: 1049–1056.
149.
AldersonAAldersonKLAttardD, et al.
Elastic constants of 3-, 4-and 6-connected chiral and anti-chiral honeycombs subject to uniaxial in-plane loading. Compos Sci Technol2010;
70: 1042–1048.
150.
XiangJDuJLiD, et al.
Numerical analysis of the impact resistance in aluminum alloy bi-tubular thin-walled structures designs inspired by beetle elytra. J Mater Sci2017;
52: 13247–13260.
151.
ZhangXXieJChenJ, et al.
The beetle elytron plate: a lightweight, high-strength and buffering functional-structural bionic material. Sci Rep2017;
7: 4440.
152.
SabahSAKuehAAl-FasihM.Comparative low-velocity impact behavior of bio-inspired and conventional sandwich composite beams. Compos Sci Technol2017;
149: 64–74.
153.
ZaidNRejabMMohamedN.Sandwich structure based on corrugated-core: a review. Matec Web Conf2016;
74: 00029.
154.
BoonkongTShenYOGuanZW, et al.
The low velocity impact response of curvilinear-core sandwich structures. Int J Impact Eng2016;
93: 28–38.
155.
ZhangZ, et al.
Out-of-plane compressive performance and energy absorption of multi-layer graded sinusoidal corrugated sandwich panels. Mater Des2019;
178: 107858.
156.
WeiK, et al.
Fabrication and mechanical properties of lightweight ZrO2 ceramic corrugated core sandwich panels. Mater Des2014;
64: 91–95.
157.
BiagiRBart-SmithH.In-plane column response of metallic corrugated core sandwich panels. Int J Solids Struct2012;
49: 3901–3914.
158.
LiuJHeWXieD, et al.
The effect of impactor shape on the low-velocity impact behavior of hybrid corrugated core sandwich structures. Compos Part B2017;
111: 315–331.
159.
ZhangPLiuJChengY, et al.
Dynamic response of metallic trapezoidal corrugated-core sandwich panels subjected to air blast loading – an experimental study. Mater Des2015;
65: 221–230.
160.
ZaidNZMRejabMRMJusohAF, et al.
Effect of varying geometrical parameters of trapezoidal corrugated-core sandwich structure.MATEC Web Conf2017;
90: 01018.
161.
RubinoVDeshpandeVFleckN.The dynamic response of end-clamped sandwich beams with a Y-frame or corrugated core. Int J Impact Eng2008;
35: 829–844.
162.
JiHSSongWMaZJ.Design, test and field application of a GFRP corrugated-core sandwich bridge. Eng Struct2010;
32: 2814–2824.
163.
YaziciMWrightJBertinD, et al.
Experimental and numerical study of foam filled corrugated core steel sandwich structures subjected to blast loading. Compos Struct2014;
110: 98–109.
164.
KavermannSWBhattacharyyaD.Experimental investigation of the static behaviour of a corrugated plywood sandwich core. Compos Struct2019;
207: 836–844.
165.
TaghizadehSAFarrokhabadiALiaghatG, et al.
Characterization of compressive behavior of PVC foam infilled composite sandwich panels with different corrugated core shapes. Thin Wall Struct2019;
135: 160–172.
LeekitwattanaMBoydSShenoiR.Evaluation of the transverse shear stiffness of a steel bi-directional corrugated-strip-core sandwich beam. J Construct Steel Res2011;
67: 248–254.
168.
HouZTianXZhangJ, et al.
3D printed continuous fibre reinforced composite corrugated structure. Compos Struct2018;
184: 1005–1010.
169.
SchneiderCKazemahvaziSZenkertD, et al.
Dynamic compression response of self-reinforced poly (ethylene terephthalate) composites and corrugated sandwich cores. Compos Part A2015;
77: 96–105.
170.
WadleyHNFleckNAEvansAG.Fabrication and structural performance of periodic cellular metal sandwich structures. Compos Sci Technol2003;
63: 2331–2343.
171.
SmithMCantwellWJGuanZ, et al.
The quasi-static and blast response of steel lattice structures. J Sandwich Struct Mater2011;
13: 479–501.
172.
TianJKimTLuTJ, et al.
The effects of topology upon fluid-flow and heat-transfer within cellular copper structures. Int J Heat Mass Transf2004;
47: 3171–3186.
173.
KimTHodsonHLuT.Fluid-flow and endwall heat-transfer characteristics of an ultralight lattice-frame material. Int J Heat Mass Transf2004;
47: 1129–1140.
SmithMGuanZCantwellW.Finite element modelling of the compressive response of lattice structures manufactured using the selective laser melting technique. Int J Mech Sci2013;
67: 28–41.
176.
HuYLiWAnX, et al.
Fabrication and mechanical behaviors of corrugated lattice truss composite sandwich panels. Compos Sci Technol2016;
125: 114–122.
177.
WangBWuL-ZMaL, et al.
Low-velocity impact characteristics and residual tensile strength of carbon fiber composite lattice core sandwich structures. Compos Part B2011;
42: 891–897.
178.
ZhangGMaLWangB, et al.
Mechanical behaviour of CFRP sandwich structures with tetrahedral lattice truss cores. Compos Part B2012;
43: 471–476.
179.
KooistraGWDeshpandeVSWadleyHN.Compressive behavior of age hardenable tetrahedral lattice truss structures made from aluminium. Acta Mater2004;
52: 4229–4237.
180.
QueheillaltDTWadleyHN.Pyramidal lattice truss structures with hollow trusses. Mater Sci Eng2005;
397: 132–137.
181.
DharmasenaKPWadleyHNGWilliamsK, et al.
Response of metallic pyramidal lattice core sandwich panels to high intensity impulsive loading in air. Int J Impact Eng2011;
38: 275–289.
182.
SongZ-zChengSZengT, et al.
Compressive behavior of C/SiC composite sandwich structure with stitched lattice core. Compos Part B2015;
69: 243–248.
183.
LiuJChenTZhangY, et al.
On sound insulation of pyramidal lattice sandwich structure. Compos Struct2019;
208: 385–394.
184.
HuBWuL-ZXiongJ, et al.
Mechanical properties of a node-interlocking pyramidal welded tube lattice sandwich structure. Mech Mater2019;
129: 290–305.
185.
YinSWuLMaL, et al.
Pyramidal lattice sandwich structures with hollow composite trusses. Compos Struct2011;
93: 3104–3111.
SunYGaoL.Structural responses of all-composite improved-pyramidal truss sandwich cores. Mater Des2013;
43: 50–58.
188.
LiSFengYWangM, et al.
Mechanical behavior of natural fiber-based bi-directional corrugated lattice sandwich structure. Materials2018;
11: 2578.
189.
XuG-DYangFZengT, et al.
Bending behavior of graded corrugated truss core composite sandwich beams. Compos Struct2016;
138: 342–351.
190.
FengL-JWuL-ZYuG-C.An hourglass truss lattice structure and its mechanical performances. Mater Des2016;
99: 581–591.
191.
WangBHuJLiYQi, et al.
Mechanical properties and failure behavior of the sandwich structures with carbon fiber-reinforced X-type lattice truss core. Compos Struct2018;
185: 619–633.
192.
ZhangQHanYJieChenC, et al.
Ultralight X-type lattice sandwich structure (I): concept, fabrication and experimental characterization. Sci China Ser E2009;
52: 2147–2154.
193.
YinSLiJLiuB, et al.
Honeytubes: hollow lattice truss reinforced honeycombs for crushing protection. Compos Struct2017;
160: 1147–1154.
194.
LebéeASabK.Transverse shear stiffness of a chevron folded core used in sandwich construction. Int J Solids Struct2010;
47: 2620–2629.
195.
BarangerEGuidaultP-ACluzelC.Numerical modeling of the geometrical defects of an origami-like sandwich core. Compos Struct2011;
93: 2504–2510.
196.
HeimbsSMiddendorfPKilchertS, et al.
Experimental and numerical analysis of composite folded sandwich core structures under compression. Appl Compos Mater2007;
14: 363–377.
197.
SchenkMGuestSDMcShaneGJ.Novel stacked folded cores for blast-resistant sandwich beams. Int J Solids Struct2014;
51: 4196–4214.
198.
GattasJYouZ.The behaviour of curved-crease foldcores under low-velocity impact loads. Int J Solids Struct2015;
53: 80–91.
199.
NowpadaSChirwaECMylerP, et al.
Egg-box’ panel for commercial vehicle front–compressive loading tests. Int J Crashworthiness2010;
15: 59–70.
200.
LiZChenWHaoH.Functionally graded truncated square pyramid folded structures with foam filler under dynamic crushing. Compos Part B2019;
177: 107410.
201.
XuG-DWangZ-HZengT, et al.
Mechanical response of carbon/epoxy composite sandwich structures with three-dimensional corrugated cores. Compos Sci Technol2018;
156: 296–304.
202.
XiongJVaziriAGhoshR, et al.
Compression behavior and energy absorption of carbon fiber reinforced composite sandwich panels made of three-dimensional honeycomb grid cores. Extreme Mech Lett2016;
7: 114–120.
203.
VeleaMNWennhagePLacheS.Out-of-plane effective shear elastic properties of a novel cellular core for sandwich structures. Mater Des2012;
36: 679–686.
204.
XuG-dZhaiJ-jZengT, et al.
Response of composite sandwich beams with graded lattice core. Compos Struct2015;
119: 666–676.
205.
SunG, et al.
Experimental and numerical study on honeycomb sandwich panels under bending and in-panel compression. Mater Des2017;
133: 154–168.
206.
ChenYZhangLZhaoY, et al.
Mechanical behaviors of C/SiC pyramidal lattice core sandwich panel under in-plane compression. Compos Struct2019;
214: 103–113.
207.
JiangSSunFZhangX, et al.
Interlocking orthogrid: an efficient way to construct lightweight lattice-core sandwich composite structure. Compos Struct2017;
176: 55–71.
208.
XiongJMaLWuL, et al.
Mechanical behavior and failure of composite pyramidal truss core sandwich columns. Compos Part B2011;
42: 938–945.
209.
XiongJZhangMStocchiA, et al.
Mechanical behaviors of carbon fiber composite sandwich columns with three dimensional honeycomb cores under in-plane compression. Compos Part B2014;
60: 350–358.
210.
LiuYZhouCCenB, et al.
Compression property of a novel lattice sandwich structure. Compos Part B2017;
117: 130–137.
211.
JayaramRNagarajanVVinod KumarK.Compression and low velocity impact response of sandwich panels with polyester pin-reinforced foam filled honeycomb core. J Sandwich Struct Mater2019;
21: 2014–2030.
212.
VaidyaUK. Impact response of laminated and sandwich composites. In: Abrate S (ed) Impact engineering of composite structures. Berlin: Springer, 2011, pp. 97–191.
213.
NaikNShriraoP.Composite structures under ballistic impact. Compos Struct2004;
66: 579–590.
214.
ArslanKGunesR.Experimental damage evaluation of honeycomb sandwich structures with Al/B4C FGM face plates under high velocity impact loads. Compos Struct2018;
202: 304–312.
215.
SunGChenDWangH, et al.
High-velocity impact behaviour of aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels with different structural configurations. Int J Impact Eng2018;
122: 119–136.
216.
YungwirthCJWadleyHNGO’ConnorJH, et al.
Impact response of sandwich plates with a pyramidal lattice core. Int J Impact Eng2008;
35: 920–936.
217.
HeWLiuJWangS, et al.
Low-velocity impact behavior of X-frame core sandwich structures – experimental and numerical investigation. Thin Wall Struct2018;
131: 718–735.
218.
MeoMVignjevicRMarengoG.The response of honeycomb sandwich panels under low-velocity impact loading. Int J Mech Sci2005;
47: 1301–1325.
219.
HouWZhuFLuG, et al.
Ballistic impact experiments of metallic sandwich panels with aluminium foam core. Int J Impact Eng2010;
37: 1045–1055.
220.
ChenYHouSFuK, et al.
Low-velocity impact response of composite sandwich structures: modelling and experiment. Compos Struct2017;
168: 322–334.
221.
CrupiVEpastoGGuglielminoE.Collapse modes in aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels under bending and impact loading. Int J Impact Eng2012;
43: 6–15.
222.
WangZLiZXiongW.Numerical study on three-point bending behavior of honeycomb sandwich with ceramic tile. Compos Part B2019;
167: 63–70.
223.
WuXYuHGuoL, et al.
Experimental and numerical investigation of static and fatigue behaviors of composites honeycomb sandwich structure. Compos Struct2019;
213: 165–172.
224.
HwangJ-SChoiT-GLeeD, et al.
Development of a bendable pyramidal kagome structure and its structural characteristics. Compos Struct2016;
142: 87–95.
225.
YanL, et al.
Three-point bending of sandwich beams with aluminum foam-filled corrugated cores. Mater Des2014;
60: 510–519.
226.
ZhangJSupernakPMueller-AlanderS, et al.
Improving the bending strength and energy absorption of corrugated sandwich composite structure. Mater Des2013;
52: 767–773.
227.
BanghaiJZhibinLFangyunL.Failure mechanism of sandwich beams subjected to three-point bending. Compos Struct2015;
133: 739–745.
228.
SunYGuoL-CWangT-S, et al.
Bending strength and failure of single-layer and double-layer sandwich structure with graded truss core. Compos Struct2019;
226: 111204.
229.
ZhangYYanLZhangW, et al.
Metallic tube-reinforced aluminum honeycombs: compressive and bending performances. Compos Part B2019;
171: 192–203.
230.
FengL-JXiongJYangL-H, et al.
Shear and bending performance of new type enhanced lattice truss structures. Int J Mech Sci2017;
134: 589–598.
231.
MoradaGVadeanABoukhiliR.Failure mechanisms of a sandwich beam with an ATH/epoxy core under static and dynamic three-point bending. Compos Struct2017;
176: 281–293.
232.
PaczosPWichniarekRMagnuckiK.Three-point bending of sandwich beam with special structure of the core. Compos Struct2018;
201: 676–682.
233.
PalombaGCrupiVEpastoG.Collapse modes of aluminium honeycomb sandwich structures under fatigue bending loading. Thin Walled Struct2019;
145: 106363.
234.
ZhangXZhouHShiW, et al.
Vibration tests of 3D printed satellite structure made of lattice sandwich panels. AIAA J2018;
56: 4213–4217.
235.
VignjevicRCampbellJHughesK, et al.
Soft body impact resistance of composite foam core sandwich panels with unidirectional corrugated and tubular reinforcements. Int J Impact Eng2019;
132: 103320.
236.
GattasJMYouZ.Geometric assembly of rigid-foldable morphing sandwich structures. Eng Struct2015;
94: 149–159.
237.
CherniaevATelichevI.Weight-efficiency of conventional shielding systems in protecting unmanned spacecraft from orbital debris. J Spacecraft Rockets2017;
54: 75–89.
238.
SuzukiTAokiTOgasawaraT, et al.
Nonablative lightweight thermal protection system for mars aeroflyby sample collection mission. Acta Astronaut2017;
136: 407–420.
239.
ZhuLLiNChildsP.Light-weighting in aerospace component and system design. Propul Power Res2018;
7: 103–119.
ZinnoAFuscoEProtaA, et al.
Multiscale approach for the design of composite sandwich structures for train application. Compos Struct2010;
92: 2208–2219.
243.
BelingardiGCavatortaMDuellaR.Material characterization of a composite – foam sandwich for the front structure of a high speed train. Compos Struct2003;
61: 13–25.
244.
ChoJGKooJSJungHS.A lightweight design approach for an EMU carbody using a material selection method and size optimization. J Mech Sci Technol2016;
30: 673–681.
245.
SaklyALaksimiAKebirH, et al.
Experimental and modelling study of low velocity impacts on composite sandwich structures for railway applications. Eng Fail Anal2016;
68: 22–31.
246.
KhanMASyedAKIjazH, et al.
Experimental and numerical analysis of flexural and impact behaviour of glass/PP sandwich panel for automotive structural applications. Adv Compos Mater2018;
27: 367–386.
ZhangKShiDWangW, et al.
Mechanical characterization of hybrid lattice-to-steel joint with pyramidal CFRP truss for marine application. Compos Struct2017;
160: 1198–1204.
249.
ShenWLuoBYanR, et al.
The mechanical behavior of sandwich composite joints for ship structures. Ocean Eng2017;
144: 78–89.
250.
FattMSHSirivoluD.Marine composite sandwich plates under air and water blasts. Marine Struct2017;
56: 163–185.
251.
SutherlandLS.A review of impact testing on marine composite materials: part I – marine impacts on marine composites. Compos Struct2018;
188: 197–208.
252.
SutherlandL.A review of impact testing on marine composite materials: part II – impact event and material parameters. Compos Struct2018;
188: 503–511.
253.
SutherlandL.A review of impact testing on marine composite materials: part III – damage tolerance and durability. Compos Struct2018;
188: 512–518.
254.
SutherlandL.A review of impact testing on marine composite materials: part IV – scaling, strain rate and marine-type laminates. Compos Struct2018;
200: 929–938.
255.
HopkinsPMNorrisTChenA.Creep behavior of insulated concrete sandwich panels with fiber-reinforced polymer shear connectors. Compos Struct2017;
172: 137–146.
256.
TabatabaiefarHRMansouryBKhadivi ZandMJ, et al.
Mechanical properties of sandwich panels constructed from polystyrene/cement mixed cores and thin cement sheet facings. J Sandwich Struct Mater2017;
19: 456–481.
257.
GarridoMCorreiaJRKellerT, et al.
Creep of sandwich panels with longitudinal reinforcement ribs for civil engineering applications: experiments and composite creep modeling. J Compos Constr2017;
21: 04016074.
258.
ChróścielewskiJMiśkiewiczMPyrzowskiŁ, et al.
A novel sandwich footbridge – practical application of laminated composites in bridge design and in situ measurements of static response. Compos Part B2017;
126: 153–161.
259.
GrünewaldJParlevlietPAltstädtV.Manufacturing of thermoplastic composite sandwich structures: a review of literature. J Thermoplast Compos Mater2017;
30 : 437–464.
260.
ParandoushPLinD.A review on additive manufacturing of polymer-fiber composites. Compos Struct2017;
182: 36–53.
261.
YangL, et al.
Hybrid lattice-core sandwich composites designed for microwave absorption. Mater Des2013;
50: 863–871.
