Turtle shells have evolved over millions of years, developing exceptional mechanical properties such as high relative strength and toughness, rendering them highly effective in resisting impacts. This study delves into the impact resistance of bionic turtle shell structures with various suture shapes. This article analyzes the low-velocity impact of carbon fiber epoxy resin prepreg (CF/EP) composite sandwich panels with a suture interface by using the finite element simulation. The simulations encompass closed and unclosed models featuring bonded and unbonded tips, each with diverse trapezoidal geometries (triangular, trapezoidal, anti-trapezoidal, and rectangular). The findings reveal that sandwich structures with suture interfaces demonstrate significantly enhanced impact resistance compared to those lacking sutures, displaying 3–9 times greater deformation capacity and 20–30 times higher energy absorption capacity. The impact resistance of the triangular suture interface exceeded that of other bioinspired suture shapes, with trapezoidal and anti-trapezoidal sutures also enhancing stiffness, strength, and toughness. Additionally, a 6° bonded tip angle resulted in optimal performance for the triangular suture interface across all analyzed perspectives. The simulation study in this paper provides comprehensive and reliable data on low-velocity impact results, offering fundamental insights for researchers to design composite material structures that meet specific mechanical requirements effectively. Additionally, it offers novel ideas for the connection of protective structures, such as artificial armor.
WeiJPanFPingH, et al.Bioinspired additive manufacturing of hierarchical materials: from biostructures to functions. Research2023; 6: 0164. DOI: 10.34133/research.0164.
StanoGOvySMAIPercocoG, et al.Additive manufacturing for bioinspired structures: experimental study to improve the multimaterial adhesion between soft and stiff materials. 3D Print Addit Manuf2023; 10: 1080–1089. DOI: 10.1089/3dp.2022.0186.
4.
SharmaAShuklaNKBelarbiM-O, et al.Bio-inspired nacre and helicoidal composites: from structure to mechanical applications. Thin-Walled Struct2023; 192: 111146. DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2023.111146.
5.
ZhangJAnB. Contribution of energy dissipation to dynamic fracture resistance of the turtle carapace. Eng Fract Mech2023; 290: 109505. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2023.109505.
6.
NiYBaiHWangZ, et al.Bio-inspired, metal additive manufacturing interlocked structures: geometrically design and fracture performance analysis. Compos Struct2023; 321: 117220. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.117220.
7.
XuMAnB. Dynamic crack propagation in the turtle carapace. Mech Mater2020; 151: 103614. DOI: 10.1016/j.mechmat.2020.103614.
8.
AmpawEOwoseniTADuF, et al.Compressive deformation and failure of trabecular structures in a turtle shell. Acta Biomater2019; 97: 535–543. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.07.023.
9.
JongpairojcositNJearanaisilawongP. Mechanical properties and numerical simulation of sulcata tortoise carapace. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2017; 72: 261–267. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.04.012.
10.
ChenMHuNZhouC, et al.The hierarchical structure and mechanical performance of a natural nanocomposite material: the turtle shell. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp2017; 520: 97–104. DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2017.01.063.
11.
AnBWagnerHD. Protection mechanisms of the carapace of a box turtle. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2017; 71: 54–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.02.026.
12.
ChenIHYangWMeyersMA. Leatherback sea turtle shell: a tough and flexible biological design. Acta Biomater2015; 28: 2–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2015.09.023.
13.
PengZFengWHuangJ, et al.Three-dimensional hierarchical microstructures of the suture of turtle shell and its effect on the mechanical properties. Eng Fract Mech2023; 285: 109302. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2023.109302.
14.
LinELiYWeaverJC, et al.Tunability and enhancement of mechanical behavior with additively manufactured bio-inspired hierarchical suture interfaces. J Mater Res2014; 29: 1867–1875. DOI: 10.1557/jmr.2014.175.
15.
LiYOrtizCBoyceMC. Stiffness and strength of suture joints in nature. Phys Rev E - Stat Nonlinear Soft Matter Phys2011; 84: 062904. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.84.062904.
16.
NagashimaHKurakuSUchidaK, et al.On the carapacial ridge in turtle embryos: its developmental origin, function and the chelonian body plan. Development2007; 134: 2219–2226. DOI: 10.1242/dev.002618.
17.
HosseiniMSCordiscoFAZavattieriPD. Analysis of bioinspired non-interlocking geometrically patterned interfaces under predominant mode I loading. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2019; 96: 244–260. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.04.047.
DunlopJWCWeinkamerRFratzlP. Artful interfaces within biological materials. Mater Today2011; 14: 70–78. DOI: 10.1016/s1369-7021(11)70056-6.
20.
ShelefYBar-OnB. Surface protection in bio-shields via a functional soft skin layer: lessons from the turtle shell. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2017; 73: 68–75. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.01.019.
21.
AchraiBWagnerHD. Micro-structure and mechanical properties of the turtle carapace as a biological composite shield. Acta Biomater2013; 9: 5890–5902. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2012.12.023.
22.
KraussSMonsonego-OrnanEZelzerE, et al.Mechanical function of a complex three-dimensional suture joining the bony elements in the shell of the red-eared slider turtle. Adv Mater2009; 21: 407–412. DOI: 10.1002/adma.200801256.
LiuLHuCChenL, et al.Photodynamic therapy for symptomatic circumscribed choroidal hemangioma in 22 Chinese patients: a retrospective study. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther2018; 24: 372–376. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.06.013.
25.
GaoCLiY. Mechanical model of bio-inspired composites with sutural tessellation. J Mech Phys Solid2019; 122: 190–204. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmps.2018.09.015.
26.
MiroshnichenkoKLiuLTsukrovI, et al.Mechanical model of suture joints with fibrous connective layer. J Mech Phys Solid2018; 111: 490–502. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmps.2017.11.014.
27.
LinELiYOrtizC, et al.3D printed, bio-inspired prototypes and analytical models for structured suture interfaces with geometrically-tuned deformation and failure behavior. J Mech Phys Solid2014; 73: 166–182. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmps.2014.08.011.
28.
AchraiBDaniel WagnerH. The red-eared slider turtle carapace under fatigue loading: the effect of rib-suture arrangement. Mater Sci Eng C2015; 53: 128–133. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2015.04.040.
29.
BargmannSAlheitBReddyBD. Dynamic mechanical behaviour of suture interfaces as inspiration for architectured hierarchical interlocking composites. J Mech Phys Solid2021; 157: 104620. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmps.2021.104620.
AchraiBWagnerHD. The turtle carapace as an optimized multi-scale biological composite armor – a review. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2017; 73: 50–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.02.027.
32.
LiuLJiangYBoyceM, et al.The effects of morphological irregularity on the mechanical behavior of interdigitated biological sutures under tension. J Biomech2017; 58: 71–78. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.04.017.
33.
JearanaisilawongPJongpairojcositNGlunrawdC. Dynamic behaviors and protection mechanisms of sulcata tortoise carapace. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2021; 24: 1450–1462. DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2021.1892661.
34.
AchraiBBar-OnBWagnerHD. Biological armors under impact--effect of keratin coating, and synthetic bio-inspired analogues. Bioinspiration Biomimetics2015; 10: 016009. DOI: 10.1088/1748-3190/10/1/016009.
35.
ChenYYeLFuK, et al.Transition from buckling to progressive failure during quasi-static in-plane crushing of CF/EP composite sandwich panels. Compos Sci Technol2018; 168: 133–144. DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2018.09.017.
BenzeggaghMKMKenaneM. Measurement of mixed-mode delamination fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites with mixedmode bending apparatus. Compos Sci Technol1996; 56: 439–449.
38.
CamanhoPPDavilaCGde MouraMF. Numerical simulation of mixed-mode progressive delamination in composite materials. J Compos Mater2016; 37: 1415–1438. DOI: 10.1177/0021998303034505.
39.
LiYOrtizCBoyceMC. A generalized mechanical model for suture interfaces of arbitrary geometry. J Mech Phys Solid2013; 61: 1144–1167. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmps.2012.10.004.
40.
YangBWangZZhouL, et al.Study on the low-velocity impact response and CAI behavior of foam-filled sandwich panels with hybrid facesheet. Compos Struct2015; 132: 1129–1140. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.07.058.
41.
KayaaslanMCoskunTUnluUM, et al.Effects of thickness, fibre orientation and fabric textile on the low-velocity impact performances of thermoset and thermoplastic composites. J Thermoplast Compos Mater2023; 36: 4408–4429. DOI: 10.1177/08927057231158536.
42.
HuoXSunGZhangH, et al.Experimental study on low-velocity impact responses and residual properties of composite sandwiches with metallic foam core. Compos Struct2019; 223: 110835. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.04.007.
43.
MohanKYipTHIdapalapatiS, et al.Impact response of aluminum foam core sandwich structures. Mater Sci Eng: A2011; 529: 94–101. DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2011.08.066.
