In recent years, impact-resistant structures are highly sought after in various fields such automotive and aerospace applications as they proved notable performances, garnering significant success. The aim of this study is to assess the behavior of the 3D-printable honeycombs subjected to low velocity impact, for providing insights into absorbed energy for different core designs: hexagonal, auxetic, and rectangular, considering an equal number of cells across all designs. This work reports the computational and experimental studies conducted for sandwich structures under different impact loading. The experimental impact tests are carried out using a drop weight impact-testing machine. The examined specimen comprises two face-sheets and architected cell core fabricated through the Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) process made of polylactic acid (PLA). Variations in the geometric design of the cells result in the formation of cores with auxetic and non-auxetic topologies. Uniaxial tensile tests are performed to identify the mechanical properties of the involved biopolymer. The second attempt consists on comparing three architectural core structures under impact test using experimental and computational methods. Our findings highlight the specific influence of core topology on energy absorption in 3D-printed sandwich structures. Results indicate that while all three configurations (hexagonal, re-entrant, and rectangular) demonstrate comparable energy absorption values, the specific mechanisms and efficiencies vary, with re-entrant cores exhibiting distinct behaviors under impact.
WangHXiaoWZhaoM, et al. Dynamic response and energy absorption of aluminum foam sandwich under low-velocity impact. J Sandwich Struct Mater2024; 26(4): 507–523.
2.
MarsJSaidLBWaliM, et al. Elasto-plastic modeling of low-velocity impact on functionally graded circular plates. Int J Appl Mech2018; 10(04): 1850038.
3.
LiTWangL.Bending behavior of sandwich composite structures with tunable 3D-printed core materials. Compos Struct2017; 175: 46–57.
4.
SchaedlerTACarterWB.Architected cellular materials. Annu Rev Mater Res2016; 46(1): 187–210.
5.
ToubiaEAElmushyakhiA.Influence of core joints in sandwich composites under in-plane static and fatigue loads. Mater Des2017; 131: 102–111.
6.
Yazdani SarvestaniHAkbarzadehAHNiknamH, et al. 3D printed architected polymeric sandwich panels: Energy absorption and structural performance. Compos Struct2018; 200: 886–909.
7.
Yazdani SarvestaniHAkbarzadehAHMirbolghasemiA, et al. 3D printed meta-sandwich structures: Failure mechanism, energy absorption and multi-hit capability. Mater Des2018; 160: 179–193.
8.
AraújoHLeiteMRibeiroA, et al. The effect of geometry on the flexural properties of cellular core structures. Proc IMechE, Part L: J Materials Design and Applications2018; 233(3): 338–347.
9.
MaheshVMaheshVPonnusamiSA.FEM-ANN approach to predict nonlinear pyro-coupled deflection of sandwich plates with agglomerated porous nanocomposite core and piezo-magneto-elastic facings in thermal environment. Mech Adv Mater Struct2024; 31(19): 4551–4574.
10.
Shahverdi MoghaddamHKeshavanarayanaSYangC, et al. Anisotropic hyperelastic constitutive modeling of in-plane finite deformation responses of commercial composite hexagonal honeycombs. J Sandwich Struct Mater2022; 24(1): 5–34.
11.
KalubadanageDRemennikovANgoT, et al. Close-in blast resistance of large-scale auxetic re-entrant honeycomb sandwich panels. J Sandwich Struct Mater2021; 23(8): 4016–4053.
12.
HamrouniARebiereJLEl MahiA, et al. Experimental and finite element analyses of a 3D printed sandwich with an auxetic or non-auxetic core. J Sandwich Struct Mater2023; 25(4): 426–444.
13.
ScarpaFBlainSLewT, et al. Elastic buckling of hexagonal chiral cell honeycombs. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2007; 38(2): 280–289.
14.
SinghGSinghJSinghN, et al. Effect of unit cell shape and structure volume fraction on the mechanical and vibration properties of 3D printed lattice structures. J Thermoplastic Compos Mater2024; 37(5): 1858.
15.
JiangHZieglerHZhangZ, et al. Mechanical properties of 3D printed architected polymer foams under large deformation. Mater Des2020; 194: 108946.
16.
WangPZhangYChenH, et al. Broadband radar absorption and mechanical behaviors of bendable over-expanded honeycomb panels. Compos Sci Technol2018; 162: 33–48.
EvansKEAldersonA.Auxetic materials: functional materials and structures from lateral thinking!Adv Mater2000; 12(9): 617–628.
19.
LakesRSElmsK.Indentability of conventional and negative Poisson's ratio foams. J Compos Mater1993; 27(12): 1193–1202.
20.
MohsenizadehSAlipourRShokri RadM, et al. Crashworthiness assessment of auxetic foam-filled tube under quasi-static axial loading. Mater Des2015; 88: 258–268.
21.
HouSLiuTZhangZ, et al. How does negative Poisson’s ratio of foam filler affect crashworthiness?Mater Des2015; 82: 247–259.
LiraCScarpaFRajasekaranR.A gradient cellular core for aeroengine fan blades based on auxetic configurations. J Intell Mater Syst Struct2011; 22(9): 907–917.
24.
MurrayGJGandhiF.Auxetic honeycombs with lossy polymeric infills for high damping structural materials. J Intell Mater Syst Struct2013; 24(9): 1090–1104.
25.
StrekTJopekHNienartowiczM.Dynamic response of sandwich panels with auxetic cores. Phys Status Solidi B2015; 252(7): 1540–1550.
26.
BoldrinLHummelSScarpaF, et al. Dynamic behaviour of auxetic gradient composite hexagonal honeycombs. Compos Struct2016; 149: 114–124.
27.
RenXDasRTranP, et al. Auxetic metamaterials and structures: a review. Smart Mater Struct2018; 27(2): 023001.
28.
HouSLiTJiaZ, et al. Mechanical properties of sandwich composites with 3d-printed auxetic and non-auxetic lattice cores under low velocity impact. Mater Des2018; 160: 1305–1321.
29.
NovakNBiasettoLRebesanP, et al. Experimental and computational evaluation of tensile properties of additively manufactured hexa- and tetrachiral auxetic cellular structures. Addit Manuf2021; 45: 102022.
30.
ZamaniMHHeidari-RaraniMTorabiK.A novel graded auxetic honeycomb core model for sandwich structures with increasing natural frequencies. J Sandwich Struct Mater2022; 24(2): 1313–1339.
31.
JishiHZUmerRCantwellWJ.The fabrication and mechanical properties of novel composite lattice structures. Mater Des2016; 91: 286–293.
32.
WuQMaLWuL, et al. A novel strengthening method for carbon fiber composite lattice truss structures. Compos Struct2016; 153: 585–592.
33.
FinneganKKooistraGWadleyHNG, et al. The compressive response of carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss sandwich cores. Int J Mater Res2007; 98(12): 1264–1272.
34.
WangQYangZLuZ, et al. Mechanical responses of 3D cross-chiral auxetic materials under uniaxial compression. Mater Des2020; 186: 108226.
35.
EssassiKRebiereJLEl MahiA, et al. Investigation of the static behavior and failure mechanisms of a 3D printed bio-based sandwich with auxetic core. Int J Appl Mech2020; 12(05): 2050051.
36.
MathurKKabirSMFSeyamAFM. Tensile properties of 3D printed continuous fiberglass reinforced cellular composites. J Text Inst2022; 113(1): 60–69.
37.
GohGDYapYLAgarwalaS, et al. Recent progress in additive manufacturing of fiber reinforced polymer composite. Adv Mater Technol2019; 4(1): 1800271.
38.
BaghaeiBSkrifvarsMBerglinL.Manufacture and characterisation of thermoplastic composites made from PLA/hemp co-wrapped hybrid yarn prepregs. Composites2013; 50: 93–101.
39.
YuWSunLLiM, et al. FDM 3D printing and properties of PBS/PLA blends. Polymers2023; 15(21): 4305.
40.
BhagiaSBornaniKAgrawalR, et al. Critical review of FDM 3D printing of PLA biocomposites filled with biomass resources, characterization, biodegradability, upcycling and opportunities for biorefineries. Appl Mater Today2021; 24: 101078.
41.
MilovanovićASedmakAGrbovićA, et al. Comparative analysis of printing parameters effect on mechanical properties of natural PLA and advanced PLA-X material. Procedia Struct Integr2020; 28: 1963–1968.
42.
LiuZLeiQXingS.Mechanical characteristics of wood, ceramic, metal and carbon fiber-based PLA composites fabricated by FDM. J Mater Res Technol2019; 8(5): 3741–3751.
43.
AllouchMBen FrajBDhouiouiM, et al. Mechanical, microstructural and numerical investigations of 3D printed carbon fiber reinforced PEEK. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science2024; 238(6): 2139.
44.
MarsJChebbiEWaliM, et al. Numerical and experimental investigations of low velocity impact on glass fiber-reinforced polyamide. Composites2018; 146: 116–123.
45.
GawełAKucielSLiber-KnećA, et al. Examination of low-cyclic fatigue tests and Poisson’s ratio depending on the different infill density of polylactide (PLA) produced by the fused deposition modeling method. Polymers2023; 15(7): 1651.
