journal article·2025-08Open access

Fully bio-based composite and modular metastructures

Rodrigo José da Silva, Bárbara Lana de Resende, Gianni Comandini, Jacopo Lavazza, Pedro P. Camanho, Fabrizio Scarpa, Túlio Hallak Panzera

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 ↗