Effect of core design on energy absorption and structural integrity of sandwich composites - A comprehensive review
Source abstract
Abstract
Sandwich composite structures (SWCs) are extensively used in structural, aerospace, marine, and automotive applications due to their high specific stiffness and specific strength, along with superior energy absorption capabilities. The ability to integrate diverse materials and geometric configurations enables the development of tailored, multifunctional engineering systems. This review examines the influence of geometric design parameters on the energy absorption (EA) response and overall mechanical performance of SWCs. Key parameters identified from the literature include core density, core thickness, number of core layers, foam-filled versus unfilled cores, cell size, and inter-core spacing. The selection of suitable core materials, combined with optimal core topology, is shown to significantly govern the synergistic structural behavior of SWCs. A comprehensive comparison of various core architectures—such as honeycomb (HC), modified honeycomb, resin-impregnated honeycomb, foam, corrugated, lattice, auxetic, and bio-inspired configurations—is presented, emphasizing the relative advantages and challenges. Furthermore, the effects of geometric variations, loading conditions, and material density on impact performance are systematically discussed. The findings provide consolidated insights and design guidelines for the development of high-performance SWCs in advanced engineering applications.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Cellular and Composite Structures · Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Composite Structure Analysis and Optimization
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering and Technology
Funding
Anusandhan National Research Foundation
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1108/AEAT-05-2023-012210.1108/AEAT-05-2023-0122 ↗
2. 10.3390/ma1416473110.3390/ma14164731 ↗
3. 10.1002/adem.20180003610.1002/adem.201800036 ↗
4. Hwalah SM, Hadi Obeid H, Zuheir Fadhel E. Study different core types of sandwich plate on the dynamic response under impact loading. J Eng Sci Technol 2020; 15(4): 2764–2780.
5. 10.1002/pc.2906410.1002/pc.29064 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e4121110.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41211 ↗
7. 10.1177/0892705725132518410.1177/08927057251325184 ↗
8. 10.1177/0954408923118960910.1177/09544089231189609 ↗
9. 10.3390/polym1408156610.3390/polym14081566 ↗
10. Hichem B, Abdelhak B, Rebai B, et al. Mechanical behavior analysis of sandwich composite structures with different core geometries under three-point bending. Stud Eng Exact Sci 2024; 5(2): e9923. https://doi.org/10.54021/seesv5n2-416
11. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2023.11009610.1016/j.compscitech.2023.110096 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.tws.2023.11073210.1016/j.tws.2023.110732 ↗
13. 10.1177/109963620910328710.1177/1099636209103287 ↗
14. 10.1177/109963621665258010.1177/1099636216652580 ↗
15. Griškevičius P, Zeleniakienė D, Leišis V, et al. Experimental and numerical study of impact energy absorption of safety important honeycomb core sandwich structures. Mater Sci 2010; 16(2): 119–123.
16. 10.1016/j.cad.2019.06.00710.1016/j.cad.2019.06.007 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.matdes.2015.09.15410.1016/j.matdes.2015.09.154 ↗
18. 10.1177/1099636225138433510.1177/10996362251384335 ↗
19. 10.1177/109963621665326710.1177/1099636216653267 ↗
20. Loganathan SB, Kambada Shivanand H. Effect of core thickness and core density on low velocity impact behavior of sandwich panels with PU foam core. J Miner Mater Char Eng 2015; 3(03): 164–170. https://doi.org/10.4236/jmmce.2015.33019
21. 10.1177/002199831456106910.1177/0021998314561069 ↗
22. 10.1007/s11223-017-9827-y10.1007/s11223-017-9827-y ↗
23. 10.1177/073168441349286710.1177/0731684413492867 ↗
24. Peysayyar R, Taghipoor H, Damghani Nouri M. Sandwich panel behavior under low-velocity impact with polyurethane core. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part L 2024; 238(7): 1311–1330. https://doi.org/10.1177/14644207231223490
25. 10.62520/fujece.151687910.62520/fujece.1516879 ↗
26. 10.1002/pc.2898110.1002/pc.28981 ↗
27. 10.36306/konjes.152460410.36306/konjes.1524604 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.dt.2023.07.01110.1016/j.dt.2023.07.011 ↗
29. Taghipoor H, Sefidi M. Energy absorption of foam-filled corrugated core sandwich panels under quasi-static loading. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part L 2023; 237(1): 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/14644207221110483
30. 10.30880/ijie.2022.14.06.00710.30880/ijie.2022.14.06.007 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.tws.2020.10715710.1016/j.tws.2020.107157 ↗
32. 10.1002/pc.3007110.1002/pc.30071 ↗
33. Alomarah A, Dalfi H, Al-Obaidi A, et al. Experimental and numerical study on failure mechanisms of sandwich composite structure: effect of auxetic core. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part L 2025: Onlinefirst. https://doi.org/10.1177/14644207251389622
34. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.11.05010.1016/j.compstruct.2018.11.050 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.tws.2022.10972310.1016/j.tws.2022.109723 ↗
36. 10.1177/2041419622107936610.1177/20414196221079366 ↗
37. 10.1080/15376494.2021.194815110.1080/15376494.2021.1948151 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.11698110.1016/j.compstruct.2023.116981 ↗
39. 10.1007/s11665-019-03982-810.1007/s11665-019-03982-8 ↗
40. 10.1177/1099636221103701210.1177/10996362211037012 ↗
41. 10.36922/msam.175310.36922/msam.1753 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.10352010.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103520 ↗
43. 10.1617/s11527-026-02984-y10.1617/s11527-026-02984-y ↗
44. 10.1016/j.matdes.2021.10993110.1016/j.matdes.2021.109931 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.eml.2016.11.00910.1016/j.eml.2016.11.009 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.tws.2023.11085210.1016/j.tws.2023.110852 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.11320410.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113204 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11263110.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112631 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.tws.2020.10732610.1016/j.tws.2020.107326 ↗
50. 10.1177/1099636221103701510.1177/10996362211037015 ↗
51. 10.1088/2053-1591/acfb6010.1088/2053-1591/acfb60 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.tws.2023.11137610.1016/j.tws.2023.111376 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.11443910.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114439 ↗
54. 10.1007/s11223-021-00268-010.1007/s11223-021-00268-0 ↗
55. 10.3390/polym1502045610.3390/polym15020456 ↗
56. 10.1177/0021998324124610910.1177/00219983241246109 ↗
57. 10.1177/109963621560369210.1177/1099636215603692 ↗
58. 10.1080/17445302.2024.232986410.1080/17445302.2024.2329864 ↗
59. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.405-408.281010.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.405-408.2810 ↗
60. 10.1088/2053-1591/aafef810.1088/2053-1591/aafef8 ↗
61. 10.3390/ma1601045310.3390/ma16010453 ↗
62. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2023.10814910.1016/j.ijmecsci.2023.108149 ↗
63. 10.3390/buildings1411357310.3390/buildings14113573 ↗
64. 10.1177/1099636222110022510.1177/10996362221100225 ↗
65. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.11.00110.1016/j.compstruct.2009.11.001 ↗
66. 10.3390/machines1008066510.3390/machines10080665 ↗
67. Heimbs S. Fold core sandwich structures and their impact behaviour: an overview. In: Dynamic failure of composite and sandwich structures. Springer, 2012, pp. 491–544.
68. Tomblin J Lacy T Smith B et al. Review of damage tolerance for composite sandwich airframe structures. No. DOTFAAAR9949. 1999.
69. 10.1088/1742-6596/2856/1/01201910.1088/1742-6596/2856/1/012019 ↗
70. 10.1007/978-981-19-7331-4_2010.1007/978-981-19-7331-4_20 ↗
71. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.11.00710.1016/j.compstruct.2017.11.007 ↗
72. 10.1016/j.tws.2021.10872410.1016/j.tws.2021.108724 ↗
73. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.11672110.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116721 ↗
74. 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2023.10653110.1016/j.mtcomm.2023.106531 ↗
75. 10.1016/j.tws.2023.11137810.1016/j.tws.2023.111378 ↗
76. 10.3390/jcs702004410.3390/jcs7020044 ↗
77. 10.1002/pc.2749310.1002/pc.27493 ↗
78. 10.1515/mt-2023-002410.1515/mt-2023-0024 ↗
79. 10.1016/j.mechrescom.2022.10390010.1016/j.mechrescom.2022.103900 ↗
80. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.12199610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121996 ↗
81. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/SSP.136.11510.4028/www.scientific.net/SSP.136.115 ↗
82. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.10568110.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.105681 ↗
83. 10.1177/172988142092132710.1177/1729881420921327 ↗
84. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11217110.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112171 ↗
85. 10.1016/j.ast.2020.10607310.1016/j.ast.2020.106073 ↗
86. Araújo H, Leite M, Ribeiro AR, et al. The effect of geometry on the flexural properties of cellular core structures. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part L 2019; 233(3): 338–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464420718805511
87. 10.1177/109963621879271710.1177/1099636218792717 ↗
88. 10.4186/ej.2022.26.6.2710.4186/ej.2022.26.6.27 ↗
89. 10.1016/j.nxmate.2026.10192410.1016/j.nxmate.2026.101924 ↗
90. Manalo A. Fibre reinforced polymer composites sandwich structure: recent developments and applications in civil infrastructure. Int Res J Innov Eng Sci Technol 2015; 1(1): 01–08.
91. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2026.14562910.1016/j.conbuildmat.2026.145629 ↗
92. 10.3390/jcs703010210.3390/jcs7030102 ↗
93. 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.10091810.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.100918 ↗
94. 10.1007/1-4020-5370-3_910.1007/1-4020-5370-3_9 ↗
95. 10.1080/17445302.2018.147374510.1080/17445302.2018.1473745 ↗
96. 10.1016/j.jcomc.2020.10000410.1016/j.jcomc.2020.100004 ↗
97. 10.1260/2041-4196.1.4.50710.1260/2041-4196.1.4.507 ↗
98. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.11852510.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.118525 ↗
99. 10.1016/j.matdes.2019.10785810.1016/j.matdes.2019.107858 ↗
100. 10.1177/002199832199073410.1177/0021998321990734 ↗