Fully bio-based composite and modular metastructures
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract The reliance on fossil-derived components in the design of metamaterials and metastructures presents sustainability and environmental challenges, prompting the development of alternative solutions. In response, this study proposes a fully bio-based and modular metastructure composed of rods extracted from the giant bamboo ( Dendrocalamus asper ) and plant-based polymeric joints derived from soybean ( Glycine max ) and castor oil ( Ricinus communis ), aiming to offer a sustainable alternative for load-bearing structural components. The research investigates the design, fabrication, and mechanical performance of a unit trussed cell (50 × 50 × 50 mm 3 ) engineered to exhibit auxetic-like chiral rotation and enhanced energy absorption under compressive loading. These cells are assembled into trussed beams (400 × 50 × 50 mm 3 ), and further into sandwich beams with 5 mm thick balsa wood skins. Material properties of the bamboo and polymer components are assessed via physical, chemical, and mechanical characterisation to asses their potential chemical-adhesion compatibility, density, and mechanical performance. Following the fabrication of the proposed structures, further experimental evaluation includes compression of the trussed cell and four-point bending of the beam configurations, while finite element analysis (FEA) is used to simulate elastic behaviour under torsional and cantilever loading. Results demonstrate that the metastructure trussed cell (with a mass of ~ 30 g) supports up to 700 kg in compression, achieving ~ 2 mm displacement, 4° rotation, and absorbing ~ 750 μJ/mm 3 of energy; it also exhibits a force–displacement slope of ~ 4,200 N/mm and an equivalent Poisson ratio near zero within the elastic regime (up to ~ 1 mm displacement). The trussed and sandwich beams exhibit equivalent densities of ~ 0.19 and ~ 0.21 g/cm 3 , respectively, while achieving bending loads of ~ 2000 N and ~ 3600 N, corresponding to maximum bending moments of ~ 103 and ~ 188 kN∙mm, and toughness values of ~ 158 and ~ 193 μJ/mm 3 , respectively. Simulated torsional response of the trussed cell indicates a torque of ~ 7,300 N∙mm per degree of twist, while FEA results for cantilever loading show a homogenised flexural modulus of the beams of ~ 623 MPa (trussed) and ~ 751 MPa (sandwich). These outcomes underscore a promising direction for developing renewable, high-strength, and lightweight composite structures, with applications ranging from civil construction to aerospace engineering. Graphical Abstract
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Bamboo properties and applications · Advanced Materials and Mechanics · Tree Root and Stability Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (91)
Show source-provided references
1. Park SJ et al (2024) Meta-structure of amorphous-inspired 65.1Co28.2Cr5.3Mo lattices augmented by artificial intelligence. Adv Comp Hybrid Mater 7(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42114-024-01039-610.1007/s42114-024-01039-6 ↗
2. Sarvestani HY et al (2018) 3D printed meta-sandwich structures: failure mechanism, energy absorption and multi-hit capability. Mater Des 160:179–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2018.08.06110.1016/j.matdes.2018.08.061 ↗
3. Yan S et al (2024) Bio-inspired mechanical metamaterial with ultrahigh load-bearing capacity for energy dissipation. Mater Today 77:11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2024.06.00310.1016/j.mattod.2024.06.003 ↗
4. Kong W et al (2023) Flexural performance of steel fiber reinforced concrete filled stainless steel tubular trusses. Compos Struct 303:116266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.11626610.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116266 ↗
5. Hunt CJ et al (2019) WrapToR composite truss structures: improved process and structural efficiency. Compos Struct 230:111467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.11146710.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111467 ↗
6. Poddar P et al (2022) Mechanical response of carbon composite octet truss structures produced via axial lattice extrusion. Polymers 14(17):3553. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym1417355310.3390/polym14173553 ↗
7. Sun L et al (2020) 3D-printed cellular tips for tuning fork atomic force microscopy in shear mode. Nat Commun 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19536-910.1038/s41467-020-19536-9 ↗
8. dos Santos AC et al (2022) Modification of short sugarcane bagasse fibres for application in cementitious composites: a statistical approach to mechanical and physical properties. Constr Build Mater 353:129072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.12907210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129072 ↗
9. Vial ED et al (2023) Glass and aramid fibre-reinforced bio-based polymer composites manufactured by vacuum infusion: a statistical approach to their physical and mechanical properties. Appl Compos Mater. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10443-023-10142-810.1007/s10443-023-10142-8 ↗
10. Kieling AC et al (2023) Epoxy-based hybrid composites reinforced with Amazonian Tucumã endocarp and kaolin: a statistical approach to mechanical properties. Materialia 30:101808–101808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtla.2023.10180810.1016/j.mtla.2023.101808 ↗
11. Assis EG et al (2023) Water aging effects on the flexural properties of fully biobased coir fiber composites. Polym Eng Sci. https://doi.org/10.1002/pen.2647910.1002/pen.26479 ↗
12. Bernardo G et al (2024) Double-arrowhead castor oil biobased polyurethane foam metamaterials. Ind Crops Prod 218:118828–118828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2024.11882810.1016/j.indcrop.2024.118828 ↗
13. Sala B et al (2022) Creep behaviour of eco-friendly sandwich composite materials under hygrothermal conditions. Compos B Eng 247:110291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2022.11029110.1016/j.compositesb.2022.110291 ↗
14. Oliveira PR et al (2020) Eco-friendly sandwich panel based on bottle caps core and sustainable components: static and dynamic characterisation. Composites Part C Open Access 3:100069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomc.2020.10006910.1016/j.jcomc.2020.100069 ↗
15. Oliveira LA et al (2020) A novel sandwich panel made of prepreg flax skins and bamboo core. Composites Part C Open Access 3:100048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomc.2020.10004810.1016/j.jcomc.2020.100048 ↗
16. Wicks N, Hutchinson JW (2004) Performance of sandwich plates with truss cores. Mech Mater 36(8):739–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2003.05.00310.1016/j.mechmat.2003.05.003 ↗
17. Xiong J et al (2012) Shear and bending performance of carbon fiber composite sandwich panels with pyramidal truss cores. Acta Mater 60(4):1455–1466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2011.11.02810.1016/j.actamat.2011.11.028 ↗
18. Yang J et al (2013) Vibration and damping characteristics of hybrid carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss sandwich panels with viscoelastic layers. Compos Struct 106:570–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.07.01510.1016/j.compstruct.2013.07.015 ↗
19. Ding Y et al (2015) Progress on the use of satellite technology for gravity exploration. Geodes Geodyn 6(4):299–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geog.2015.05.00810.1016/j.geog.2015.05.008 ↗
20. Li X et al (2016) Effect of temperature on the compressive behavior of carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss cores sandwich panels with reinforced frames. Theor Appl Mech Lett 6(2):76–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taml.2016.02.00210.1016/j.taml.2016.02.002 ↗
21. Djama K et al (2020) Numerical modelling of a truss core sandwich panel: Influence of the connectors’ geometry and mechanical parameters on the mechanical response. Compos Struct 245:112335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11233510.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112335 ↗
22. Wang Y, Ma L (2021) Sound insulation performance of pyramidal truss core sandwich structure with frame. J Sandwich Struct Mater 24(2):1245–1269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1099636221102889910.1177/10996362211028899 ↗
23. Wang B et al (2023) Manufacturing and mechanical testing of woven lattice truss C-sandwich radome composites. Compos Struct 308:116675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.11667510.1016/j.compstruct.2023.116675 ↗
24. Cveticanin L, Kraljevic S (2022) Mechanical metastructure in structural engineering: a short review. Mech Mach Sci 459–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88465-9_4410.1007/978-3-030-88465-9_44 ↗
25. Xu Z et al (2022) Design of hourglass-lattice metastructure with near-zero thermal expansion using structural optimization method. Eng Struct 277:115374–115374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.11537410.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115374 ↗
26. Nian Y et al (2024) Nature-inspired 3D printing-based double-graded aerospace negative Poisson’s ratio metastructure: design, fabrication, investigation, optimization. Compos Struct 348:118482–118482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2024.11848210.1016/j.compstruct.2024.118482 ↗
27. Contreras N et al (2023) Application of elastic metamaterials/meta-structures in civil engineering: a review. Compos Struct 327:117663–117663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.11766310.1016/j.compstruct.2023.117663 ↗
28. An X et al (2023) Design of Kagome lattice composite sandwich metastructures with high load bearing and low frequency vibration reduction properties. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 174:107716–107716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2023.10771610.1016/j.compositesa.2023.107716 ↗
29. Xu X et al (2023) Cushioning performance design of meta-sandwich structures inspired by Kirigami. Virtual Phys Prototyp 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2023.228589410.1080/17452759.2023.2285894 ↗
30. Han S et al (2023) Bamboo-inspired strong, tough and stable composites derived from renewable bamboo. Ind Crops Prod 194:116292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.11629210.1016/j.indcrop.2023.116292 ↗
31. Dwivedi AK et al (2019) Bamboo as a complementary crop to address climate change and livelihoods – insights from India. Forest Policy Econ 102:66–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.02.00710.1016/j.forpol.2019.02.007 ↗
32. Chen X et al (2024) Bamboo as a naturally-optimized fiber-reinforced composite: interfacial mechanical properties and failure mechanisms. Compos Part B Eng 279:111458–111458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2024.11145810.1016/j.compositesb.2024.111458 ↗
33. Boity AK et al (2022) Bamboo as a sustainable building construction material. Mat Today Proc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.09.21810.1016/j.matpr.2022.09.218 ↗
34. da Silva RJ et al (2024) Natural composite rods extracted from the proximal section of the giant bamboo: statistical assessment of physical and mechanical properties. Compos Part B Eng 112081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2024.11208110.1016/j.compositesb.2024.112081 ↗
35. Anjani K (2010) Extra-early maturing germplasm for utilization in castor improvement. Ind Crops Prod 31(1):139–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2009.09.01610.1016/j.indcrop.2009.09.016 ↗
36. Zhang M et al (2021) A MODIS-based scalable remote sensing method to estimate sowing and harvest dates of soybean crops in Mato Grosso, Brazil 7(7):e07436–e07436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e0743610.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07436 ↗
37. Uyama H (2018) Functional polymers from renewable plant oils. Polym J 50(11):1003–1011. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41428-018-0097-810.1038/s41428-018-0097-8 ↗
38. Chakraborty I, Chatterjee K (2020) Polymers and composites derived from castor oil as sustainable materials and degradable biomaterials: current status and emerging trends. Biomacromol 21(12):4639–4662. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.0c0129110.1021/acs.biomac.0c01291 ↗
39. Borrega M, Gibson LJ (2015) Mechanics of balsa (Ochroma pyramidale) wood. Mech Mater 84:75–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2015.01.01410.1016/j.mechmat.2015.01.014 ↗
40. Barbirato GHA et al (2022) Sandwich OSB trapezoidal core panel with balsa wood waste. Waste Biomass Valorization 13(4):2183–2194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-021-01660-210.1007/s12649-021-01660-2 ↗
41. Galos J et al (2022) Review of balsa core sandwich composite structures. Mater Des 221:111013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.11101310.1016/j.matdes.2022.111013 ↗
42. Villegas L et al (2019) Combined culm-slat Guadua bamboo trusses. Eng Struct 184:495–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.11410.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.114 ↗
43. Quaranta G et al (2019) Experimental dynamic characterization of a new composite glubam-steel truss structure. J Build Eng 25:100773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.10077310.1016/j.jobe.2019.100773 ↗
44. Li Z et al (2019) Experimental study of an unsymmetrical prefabricated hybrid steel-bamboo roof truss. Eng Struct 201:109781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.10978110.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109781 ↗
45. Pradhan NPN et al (2022) Simulation and experimental verification of an original full-scale bamboo truss. Eng Struct 256:113965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.11396510.1016/j.engstruct.2022.113965 ↗
46. Ma R et al (2024) Experimental and theoretical investigation into flexural performance of thin-walled steel-laminated bamboo lumber truss beam. Thin-Wall Struct 199:111841–111841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2024.11184110.1016/j.tws.2024.111841 ↗
47. Wang Z et al (2024) Study on bending performance of laminated bamboo sandwich panels with different lattice core layers: cleaner production of green material. Case Stud Construct Mater 20:e03379–e03379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e0337910.1016/j.cscm.2024.e03379 ↗
48. Wang M (2012) Experimental research on mechanical properties of sandwich wall panels with bamboo shear connection. Appl Mech Mater 166–169:914–918. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.166-169.91410.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.166-169.914 ↗
49. Zhang Z et al (2022) Bamboo-inspired, simulation-guided design and 3D printing of light-weight and high-strength mechanical metamaterials. Appl Mater Today 26:101268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2021.10126810.1016/j.apmt.2021.101268 ↗
50. Wu J et al (2023) A hybrid architectural metamaterial combing plate lattice and hollow-truss lattice with advanced mechanical performances. Addit Manuf 76:103764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2023.10376410.1016/j.addma.2023.103764 ↗
51. Sharma P (2022) Derivation of ‘n = 2j–3’ statically determinant spatial truss formula by modified Chebychev–Grübler–Kutzbach criterion. Mater Today Proc 54:575–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.09.14610.1016/j.matpr.2021.09.146 ↗
52. Hibbeler RC (2020) Structural analysis. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, United Kingdom
53. Liu R, Huang Y, Su M, Li C, Liang B, Wang C (2024) A Kresling origami metamaterial with reprogrammable shock stiffness. Theor Appl Mech Lett 14(4):100546–100546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taml.2024.10054610.1016/j.taml.2024.100546 ↗
54. Zang S, Misseroni D, Zhao T, Paulino GH (2024) Kresling origami mechanics explained: experiments and theory. J Mech Phys Solids 188:105630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2024.10563010.1016/j.jmps.2024.105630 ↗
55. da Silva RJ et al (2022) A core rigidity classifier method and a novel approach to account for geometric effects on the elastic properties of sandwich structures. Compos Struct 282:115075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.11507510.1016/j.compstruct.2021.115075 ↗
56. da Silva RJ et al (2024) Enhanced core rigidity classifier method (RJS 2.0): a comprehensive approach to properly measure elastic properties of sandwich structures. Compos Struct 117981–117981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2024.11798110.1016/j.compstruct.2024.117981 ↗
57. ASTM C393/C393M-20 [Standard] Test method for core shear properties of sandwich constructions by beam flexure. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://www.astm/10.1520/c0393_c0393m-20. Accessed Feb 2025
58. ASTM D7250/D7250M-20 [Standard] Practice for determining sandwich beam flexural and shear stiffness. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://www.astm/10.1520/d7250_d7250m-20. Accessed Feb 2025
59. Napolitano F et al (2023) Sandwich panels made of aluminium skins and gapped-bamboo ring core. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 45(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-023-04140-x10.1007/s40430-023-04140-x ↗
60. Lopes, Silva et al (2023) Statistical evaluation of three-point bending properties of sustainable aluminium sandwich panels with arched-core geometry. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464420723121964710.1177/14644207231219647 ↗
61. dos Santos JC et al (2024) Sandwich structures of aluminium skins and egg-box-shaped cores made with biobased foam and composites. J Build Eng 109099–109099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.10909910.1016/j.jobe.2024.109099 ↗
62. Yu X et al (2024) The bending of 3D-printed bio-inspired sandwich panels with wavy cylinder cores. Thin-Wall Struct 205:112538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2024.11253810.1016/j.tws.2024.112538 ↗
63. Smardzewski J, Wojciechowski KW (2025) Auxetic effect of irregularly corrugated cores of wood-based cosinecomb panels. Thin-Wall Struct 112989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2025.11298910.1016/j.tws.2025.112989 ↗
64. dos Santos JC et al (2024) Impact performance of egg-box core sandwich panels made from sisal fibers and castor-oil-based polymer. Polym Compos. https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.2912310.1002/pc.29123 ↗
65. Napolitano F et al (2024) Moisture ageing effects on the mechanical performance of eco-friendly sandwich panels made of aluminium skins, bamboo ring core and bio-based adhesives. Adv Bamboo Sci 100115–100115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bamboo.2024.10011510.1016/j.bamboo.2024.100115 ↗
66. SOLIDWORKS® SP3.1 (2022). [Computer software]. Waltham, MA: Dassault Systèmes. (www.solidworks.com). Accessed Feb 2025
67. Lee GZX et al (2022) A reconnaissance study on tensile strength of bamboo based on global database. Mater Today Proc 64:1109–1115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.06.04710.1016/j.matpr.2022.06.047 ↗
68. Taylor D et al (2014) The biomechanics of bamboo: investigating the role of the nodes. Wood Sci Technol 49(2):345–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00226-014-0694-410.1007/s00226-014-0694-4 ↗
69. CHITUBOX® V1.9.4 (2022). [Computer software]. Shenzhen, China: CHITUBOX. (www.chitubox.com). Accessed Feb 2025
70. Schneider CA et al (2012) NIH image to imageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9(7):671–675. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.208910.1038/nmeth.2089 ↗
71. Silva RJ (2022) Tensile/compression tests: a Matlab® script to calculate mechanical properties of materials from force-displacement data measured by universal testing machines. [Computer Software]. Patent number BR 51 2022 001232-4. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.726230010.5281/zenodo.7262300 ↗
72. Silva RJ (2022) Flexural tests: a Matlab® script to calculate mechanical properties and plot bending diagrams of materials from force-displacement data measured by universal testing machines. [Computer Software]. Patent number BR 51 2022 001410-6. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.727186710.5281/zenodo.7271867 ↗
73. MATLAB® R2022a (2022). [Computer software]. Natick, MA: The Mathworks, Inc. (www.mathworks.com). Accessed Feb 2025
74. Minitab® 20 Statistical Software (2021). [Computer software]. State College, PA: Minitab, Inc. (www.minitab.com). Accessed Feb 2025
75. ASTM D4761–19 [Standard] Test methods for mechanical properties of lumber and wood-based structural materials. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://www.astm/10.1520/d4761-19. Accessed Feb 2025
76. ASTM D638–14 [Standard] Standard test method for tensile properties of plastics. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://www.astm/10.1520/D0638-14. Accessed Feb 2025
77. Malek S, Gibson LJ (2017) Multi-scale modelling of elastic properties of balsa. Int J Solids Struct 113–114:118–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2017.01.03710.1016/j.ijsolstr.2017.01.037 ↗
78. ASTM D3163–01 (2014) [Standard] Standard test method for determining strength of adhesively bonded rigid plastic lap-shear joints in shear by tension loading. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://www.astm/10.1520/D3163-01R14. Accessed Feb 2025
79. da Silva RJ (2022) Equations for flexural tests: three- and four-point bending. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.730189610.5281/zenodo.7301896 ↗
80. ABAQUS™ CAE (2017) [Computer software]. San Diego, CA: Dassault Systèmes, Simulia Corp. (www.3ds.com). Accessed Feb 2025
81. Gibson LJ, Ashby MF (1997) Cellular solids: structure and properties, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978113987832610.1017/CBO9781139878326 ↗
82. Hibbeler RC (2017) Mechanics of materials, 10th edn. Pearson, Boston
83. dos Santos JC et al (2018) Effects of sodium carbonate on the performance of epoxy and polyester coir-reinforced composites. Polym Testing 67:533–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.03.04310.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.03.043 ↗
84. Braga GG et al (2024) Life cycle assessment of fibre metal laminates: an ecodesign approach. Compos Part C Open Access 13:100435–100435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomc.2024.10043510.1016/j.jcomc.2024.100435 ↗
85. 1200-O Aluminum MakeItFrom.com [Online]. Available: https://www.makeitfrom.com/material-properties/1200-O-Aluminum. Accessed Jan 2025
86. Hanifehzadeh M, Mousavi MMR (2019) Predicting the structural performance of sandwich concrete panels subjected to blast load considering dynamic increase factor. J Civil Eng Sci Technol 10(1):45–58. https://doi.org/10.33736/jcest.1067.201910.33736/jcest.1067.2019 ↗
87. Oliveira P et al (2021) Numerical and experimental investigations on sandwich panels made with eco-friendly components under low-velocity impact. J Sandwich Struct Mater 24(1):419–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/1099636221102042810.1177/10996362211020428 ↗
88. Ávila L et al (2021) Experimental and numerical assessment of sustainable bamboo core sandwich panels under low-velocity impact. Constr Build Mater 292:123437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.12343710.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123437 ↗
89. Kueh ABH et al (2022) Impact resistance efficiency of bio-inspired sandwich beam with different arched core materials. Steel Compos Struct 44(1):Art 1. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2022.44.1.10510.12989/scs.2022.44.1.105 ↗
90. Ribeiro Filho SLM et al (2022) Multi-objective optimisation of aluminium skins and recycled/perforated PET foams sandwich panels subjected to impact loads. Structures 43:1750–1765.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.07.07110.1016/j.istruc.2022.07.071 ↗
91. Kueh ABH et al (2023) Repeated impact response of bio-inspired sandwich beam with arched and honeycomb bilayer core. Struct Eng Mech 85(6):Art 6. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2023.85.6.755.10.12989/sem.2023.85.6.755 ↗