journal article·2026-02

Effect of design parameters of auxetic structure core on quasi-static and low-velocity impact response of glass fiber reinforced polymer composite sandwich structures

Ali İmran Ayten, Bekir Keskin, Ameen Topa

Publisher page

Abstract

This study explores the effect of auxetic unit cell geometry and wall thickness on the energy absorption performance of sandwich composites under quasi-static and low-velocity impact (LVI) loading. Four auxetic geometries reentrant, arrowhead, starshaped, and kiteshaped were 3D-printed using ABS material and first evaluated through quasi-static compression tests with three wall thicknesses (0.44, 0.62, and 0.80 mm). Results showed that thinner-walled specimens exhibited higher initial peak forces but more brittle collapse, while thicker-walled designs provided smoother force responses. The arrowhead geometry with 0.44 mm wall thickness exhibited the highest peak crushing force (6.413 kN) while 0.44 mm starshaped geometry showed the maximum specific energy absorption (SEA) value of 6.226 J/g. Based on these results, representative auxetic cores were embedded into GFRP/epoxy sandwich panels and tested under 100 J LVI using a drop-weight setup. Among the tested configurations, the reentrant core exhibited the highest peak contact force (16.96 kN), while the arrowhead core achieved the highest absorbed energy (87.30 J) and SEA (1.89 J/g), indicating a more progressive deformation. The kiteshaped core provided the longest impact duration and smoothest deceleration profile, suggesting superior energy distribution. Finite element simulations in LS-DYNA correlated well with quasi-static compression experimental results, capturing the deformation mechanisms and validating the structural response. The findings highlight the critical role of unit cell topology and wall thickness in tailoring the impact performance of auxetic core sandwich structures for lightweight and energy-absorbing applications.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Cellular and Composite Structures · Structural Response to Dynamic Loads · High-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Yalova University

Universiti Malaysia Terengganu

References (57)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.3390/jcs703010210.3390/jcs7030102 ↗
2. 10.1177/109963621665081910.1177/1099636216650819 ↗
3. 10.22441/sinergi.2023.1.00310.22441/sinergi.2023.1.003 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2024.10829010.1016/j.engfailanal.2024.108290 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.tws.2021.10872410.1016/j.tws.2021.108724 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.11657810.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.116578 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2006.06.02210.1016/j.compositesa.2006.06.022 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.matdes.2018.11.00210.1016/j.matdes.2018.11.002 ↗
9. Raut PAP, Ameen T, Yashwant M, et al. Numerical simulation of low-velocity impact test on PALF/epoxy bio-composite laminates. Mater Phys Mech 2022; 50: 126–140.
10. 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.10156310.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.101563 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.11537710.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115377 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.10418610.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.104186 ↗
13. 10.1177/0954406224127731010.1177/09544062241277310 ↗
14. 10.1088/1361-665X/ab47c910.1088/1361-665X/ab47c9 ↗
15. Günaydin K Eren Z Scarpa F. Experimental investigation of auxetic structures subjected to quasi static axial load. In: 2017 8th International Conference on Recent Advances in Space Technologies (RAST) Istanbul Turkey 19-22 June 2017 pp. 7–10.10.1109/RAST.2017.8002986 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.11594510.1016/j.compstruct.2022.115945 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.tws.2021.10773810.1016/j.tws.2021.107738 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.tws.2020.10691110.1016/j.tws.2020.106911 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2024.10641010.1016/j.jmbbm.2024.106410 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.10.02410.1016/j.compstruct.2018.10.024 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.tws.2020.10662310.1016/j.tws.2020.106623 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.11731810.1016/j.engstruct.2023.117318 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.11606610.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116066 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.addma.2020.10178310.1016/j.addma.2020.101783 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.10419310.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.104193 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2019.03.00210.1016/j.ijimpeng.2019.03.002 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2024.10521610.1016/j.ijimpeng.2024.105216 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2023.10460610.1016/j.ijimpeng.2023.104606 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.10447710.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.104477 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2021.10399110.1016/j.ijimpeng.2021.103991 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2024.10494310.1016/j.ijimpeng.2024.104943 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2022.10805410.1016/j.ijmecsci.2022.108054 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.istruc.2022.02.03310.1016/j.istruc.2022.02.033 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.tws.2023.11072110.1016/j.tws.2023.110721 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.tws.2022.10966510.1016/j.tws.2022.109665 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.11183810.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111838 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.tws.2022.10943410.1016/j.tws.2022.109434 ↗
38. 10.1002/pssb.20160001510.1002/pssb.201600015 ↗
39. 10.1177/004051752092485010.1177/0040517520924850 ↗
40. 10.1177/1099636224125787110.1177/10996362241257871 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.istruc.2022.09.09110.1016/j.istruc.2022.09.091 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.eml.2020.10116410.1016/j.eml.2020.101164 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2025.12004710.1016/j.engstruct.2025.120047 ↗
44. 10.1080/15376494.2024.241735810.1080/15376494.2024.2417358 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.11477310.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114773 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2024.11880310.1016/j.compstruct.2024.118803 ↗
47. 10.1177/0021998324123393310.1177/00219983241233933 ↗
48. 10.1177/1465801124123155110.1177/14658011241231551 ↗
49. Doan T, Le D, Topa A, et al. Improving the crashworthiness of bi-tubular architectures with ABS cores under axial loading: experimental and numerical investigation. P I Mech Eng L-J Mat 2025; 239: 512–527.
50. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.11639710.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116397 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2024.11863310.1016/j.compstruct.2024.118633 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2025.11018910.1016/j.ijmecsci.2025.110189 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2025.10955910.1016/j.engfailanal.2025.109559 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.tws.2024.11250410.1016/j.tws.2024.112504 ↗
55. 10.1016/j.rineng.2025.10466710.1016/j.rineng.2025.104667 ↗
56. 10.1016/j.nxmate.2024.10035610.1016/j.nxmate.2024.100356 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.rinma.2024.10052810.1016/j.rinma.2024.100528 ↗