The bending behavior of two (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) sandwich beams that have a negative Poisson’s ratio (auxetic) and conventional honeycomb was investigated for different geometries, sheet thicknesses, and cell thicknesses. The re-entrant and solid specimens were produced with a stereolithographic (SLA) 3D printer and subjected to a three-point bending test under the conditions specified in the ASTM C393 standard. The data obtained from the tests were used to verify finite element analysis (FEA) results. The radius of curvatures was calculated for each specimen depending on the load step. In addition, Poisson’s ratio was calculated for each auxetic sample. As a result, the 3D arrowhead beam, with a cell thickness of 1 mm and a sheet thickness of 2 mm, exhibits peak force values that are 497.340% and 461.500% higher than re-entrant and missing rib beams, respectively. Besides, the maximum strain energy values of same 3D arrowhead specimens (596.120 mJ) are higher than re-entrant (101.032 mJ) and missing rib (108.201 mJ) specimens. It was determined that the arrowhead is the most durable structure compared to other auxetic structure geometries. Therefore, when arrowhead and honeycomb 3D beams are compared, it was observed that the maximum strain energy of arrowhead specimens was higher in both horizontal (84.310%) and perpendicular (131.910%) positioned specimens. Comparing the arrowhead and honeycomb 2D beams with the highest maximum strain energy, it can be concluded that the arrowhead beam absorbs 20.000% more energy.
GibsonLJAshbyMF. Cellular solids structure and properties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139878326.
2.
DengXQinSHuangJ. Crashworthiness analysis of gradient hierarchical multicellular columns evolved from the spatial folding. Mater Des2022; 215: 110435. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110435.
3.
XuWDongZMaP. Finite element analyses of auxetic warp-knitted fabric deformation behaviors under low-velocity impact loading. J Text Inst2020; 111(11): 1578–1586. DOI: 10.1080/00405000.2020.1714273.
4.
ZhangJLuG. Dynamic tensile behaviour of re-entrant honeycombs. Int J Impact Eng2020; 139: 103497. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2019.103497.
5.
LiKZhangYHouY, et al.Mechanical properties of re-entrant anti-chiral auxetic metamaterial under the in-plane compression. Thin-Walled Struct2023; 184: 110465. DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2022.110465.
6.
ChangYHuH. 3D fabrics with negative poisson’s ratio: a review. Appl Compos Mater2022; 29: 95–108. DOI: 10.1007/s10443-021-09931-w.
7.
BoharaRPLinforthSNguyenT, et al.Anti-blast and-impact performances of auxetic structures: a review of structures, materials, methods, and fabrications. Eng Struct2023; 276: 115377. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115377.
8.
ZhengXGuoXWatanabeI. A mathematically defined 3D auxetic metamaterial with tunable mechanical and conduction properties. Mater Des2021; 198: 109313. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2020.109313.
9.
FaraciDDriemeierLComiC. Bending-dominated auxetic materials for wearable protective devices against impact. J Dyn Behav Mater2021; 7(3): 425–435. DOI: 10.1007/s40870-020-00284-2.
10.
PadiaMSharmaP. Design and development of auxetic structure using a two-step hybrid optimization technique. Adv Mater Process Technol2022; 8: 1768–1784. DOI: 10.1080/2374068X.2021.1959089.
BoopathiBPonniahGBurelaRG. Realizing the impact and compressive strengths of an arrowhead auxetic structure inspired by topology optimization. Int J Adv Eng Sci Appl Math2021; 12(3): 211–217. DOI: 10.1007/s12572-021-00286-w.
13.
RadMSAhmadZAliasA. Computational approach in formulating mechanical characteristics of 3D star honeycomb auxetic structure. Adv Mater Sci Eng. 2015; 10: 1–11. DOI: 10.1155/2015/650769.
FarrugiaPSGattRMizziL, et al.Auxetic behavior obtained through the large deformations of variants of the rectangular grid. Mech Adv Mat Struct2021; 30(2): 262–271. DOI: 10.1080/15376494.2021.2012616.
16.
GuLXuQZhengD, et al.Analysis of the mechanical properties of double arrowhead auxetic metamaterials under tension. Text Res J2020; 90(21–22): 2411–2427. DOI: 10.1177/0040517520924850.
17.
DuttaSMenonHGHariprasadMP, et al.Study of auxetic beams under bending: a finite element approach. Mater Today Proc2021; 46: 9782–9787. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.479.
18.
DengXQinS. In-plane energy absorption characteristics and mechanical properties of novel re-entrant honeycombs. Compos Struct2023; 313: 116951. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.116951.
19.
LiXLiangBLiuP, et al.Experimental and numerical analysis of low-velocity impact damage of CFRP laminates with rubber protective layer. Compos Struct2022; 300: 116152. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116152.
20.
KhaliliSMRBotshekanan DehkordiMCarreraE, et al.Non-linear dynamic analysis of a sandwich beam with pseudoelastic SMA hybrid composite faces based on higher order finite element theory. Compos Struct2013; 96: 243–255. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.08.020.
21.
BirmanVKardomateasGA. Review of current trends in research and applications of sandwich structures. Compos Part B Eng2018; 142: 221–240. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.01.027.
22.
UspenskyBDereviankoIAvramovK, et al.Experimental and numerical study on fatigue of sandwich plates with honeycomb core manufactured by fused deposition modelling. Appl Compos Mater2022; 29: 2033–2061. DOI: 10.1007/s10443-022-10057-w.
23.
ZhangJYuanHLiJ, et al.Dynamic response of multilayer curved aluminum honeycomb sandwich beams under low-velocity impact. Thin-Walled Struct2022; 177: 109446. DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2022.109446.
24.
YueZWangXHeC, et al.Elevated shock resistance of all-metallic sandwich beams with honeycomb-supported corrugated cores. Compos Part B2022; 242: 110102. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2022.110102.
25.
ZhangJLiuHXiangY, et al.Large deflection of foam-filled Y-shape sandwich beams under lateral loading. Mech Adv Mat Struct2023; 31: 3020–3032. DOI: 10.1080/15376494.2023.2169419.
26.
YuanHZhangJSunH. The failure behavior of double-layer metal foam sandwich beams under three-point bending. Thin-Walled Struct2022; 180: 109801. DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2022.109801.
27.
XinLKianiY. Vibration characteristics of arbitrary thick sandwich beam with metal foam core resting on elastic medium. Structures2023; 49: 1–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2023.01.108.
28.
ZhangFXuJEstherB, et al.Effect of shear span-to-depth ratio on the mechanical behavior of composite sandwich beams with GFRP ribs and balsa wood core materials. Thin-Walled Struct2020; 154: 106799. DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2020.106799.
29.
GuoZHuGSorokinV, et al.Low-frequency flexural wave attenuation in metamaterial sandwich beam with hourglass lattice truss core. Wave Motion2021; 104: 102750. DOI: 10.1016/j.wavemoti.2021.102750.
30.
WeiLZhaoXYuQ, et al.In-plane compression behaviors of the auxetic star honeycomb: experimental and numerical simulation. Aero Sci Technol2021; 115: 106797. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2021.106797.
31.
PelinskiKSmardzewskiJ. Bending behavior of lightweight wood-based sandwich beams with auxetic cellular core. Polymers. 2020; 12. DOI: 10.3390/polym12081723.
32.
LakkalaPMunnangiSRBandariS, et al.Additive manufacturing technologies with emphasis on stereolithography 3D printing in pharmaceutical and medical applications: a review. Int J Pharm2023; 5: 100159. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpx.2023.100159.
NajafiMAhmadiHLiaghatGH. Investigation on the flexural properties of sandwich beams with auxetic core. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng2022; 44(2): 61. DOI: 10.1007/s40430-022-03368-3.
35.
ZhaoXWeiLWenD, et al.Bending response and energy absorption of sandwich beams with novel auxetic honeycomb core. Eng Struct2021; 247: 113204. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113204.
36.
LiTWangL. Bending behavior of sandwich composite structures with tunable 3D-printed core materials. Compos Struct2017; 175: 46–57. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.05.001.
37.
BoharaRPLinforthSGhazlanA, et al.Performance of an auxetic honeycomb-core sandwich panel under close-in and far-field detonations of high explosive. Compos Struct2022; 280: 114907. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114907.
38.
ZhangXGJiangWZhangY, et al.Bending performance of 3D re-entrant and hexagonal metamaterials. Thin-Walled Struct2023; 188: 110829. DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2023.110829.
39.
QuanCHanBHouZ, et al.3D printed continuous fiber reinforced composite auxetic honeycomb structures. Compos Part B Eng2020; 187: 107858. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.107858.
40.
EaseyNChuprynyukDMusaWMSW, et al.Dome-shape auxetic cellular metamaterials: manufacturing, modeling, and testing. Front Mater2019; 6: 1–13. DOI: 10.3389/fmats.2019.00086.
41.
GuoYZhangJChenL, et al.Deformation behaviors and energy absorption of auxetic lattice cylindrical structures under axial crushing load. Aero Sci Technol2020; 98: 105662. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2019.105662.
42.
IndreșAIConstantinescuDMMocianOA. Bending behavior of 3D printed sandwich beams with different core topologies. Mat Design Process Comms2021; 3(4): 1–8. DOI: 10.1002/mdp2.252.
43.
ShenJLiuKZengQ, et al.Design and mechanical property studies of 3D re-entrant lattice auxetic structure. Aero Sci Technol2021; 118: 106998. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2021.106998.
44.
LanXMengLZhaoJ, et al.Mechanical properties and damage characterizations of 3D double-arrowhead auxetic structure with high-relative-density realized via selective laser melting. Eur J Mech A/Solids2021; 90: 104386. DOI: 10.1016/j.euromechsol.2021.104386.
45.
WuXSuYShiJ. In-plane impact resistance enhancement with a graded cell-wall angle design for auxetic metamaterials. Compos Struct2020; 247: 112451. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112451.
46.
KoudelkaPJiroušekOFílaT, et al.Compressive properties of auxetic structures produced with direct 3D printing. Mater Tehnol2016; 50(3): 311–317. DOI: 10.17222/mit.2014.204.
47.
BoharaRPLinforthSNguyenT, et al.Dual-mechanism auxetic-core protective sandwich structure under blast loading. Compos Struct2022; 299: 116088. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116088.
48.
ChenYYeL. Designing and tailoring effective elastic modulus and negative Poisson’s ratio with continuous carbon fibres using 3D printing. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2021; 150: 106625. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2021.106625.
49.
LiGChenYWeiG. Continuous fiber reinforced meta-composites with tailorable Poisson’s ratio and effective elastic modulus: design and experiment. Compos Struct2024; 329: 117768. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.117768.
50.
AlomarahARuanDMasoodS, et al.An investigation of in-plane tensile properties of re-entrant chiral auxetic structure. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2018; 96(5–8): 2013–2029. DOI: 10.1007/s00170-018-1605-x.
51.
ZhuangZZhuL. In-plane compression behavior of meta-tetrachiral and common auxetic structures. Phys Scr2024; 99(2): 025946. DOI: 10.1088/1402-4896/ad1a04.
52.
LiCShenHSWangH. Nonlinear bending of sandwich beams with functionally graded negative Poisson’s ratio honeycomb core. Compos Struct2019; 212: 317–325. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.01.020.
