This study investigates a novel circular re-entrant star honeycomb (CRESH) auxetic core for its potential to enhance energy absorption and improve resistance to near-field blast loading in protective sandwich structures. A comparative analysis is conducted against four different auxetic and non-auxetic cores, and performance is evaluated for two different cases, namely, constant relative density and constant overall thickness, through numerical simulations using LS-DYNA. The sandwich structure is made up of AS3678-250 grade steel, and the piecewise linear plasticity model, incorporating the Cowper-Symonds strain rate formulation, was utilized to account for rate-dependent behaviour. Blast loading was modelled using the conventional weapons effects program (CONWEP). The comparative analysis exhibited the superior performance of the CRESH core and indicated that the CRESH core absorbs 13.34% more energy than the re-entrant star core and 18.88% more energy than conventional re-entrant core for the same relative density. Moreover, the CRESH core demonstrated significantly reduced deflection of the back plate, exhibiting a reduction of 58.7% as compared to the re-entrant star core and by 65.4% when compared to the traditional re-entrant core. Thereafter, parametric studies are conducted, which highlight the critical influence of geometrical parameters, the number of layers, and the effect of material properties of the core on the deflection and energy absorption characteristics of the sandwich structure. The boundary conditions significantly influence the energy absorption characteristics of the sandwich structure with the specified core configuration. Furthermore, new results for novel sandwich structures are presented, which can be used as benchmark solutions for the design of blast-resistant structures.
HoulstonRDesRochersCG. Nonlinear structural response of ship panels subjected to air blast loading. Comput Struct1987; 26(1–2): 1–15.
2.
LibrescuLNosierA. Response of laminated composite flat panels to sonic boom and explosive blast loadings. AIAA J1990; 28(2): 345–352.
3.
ZhouYXieYPanT, et al.Flexible materials and structures for mitigating combined blast and fragment loadings–A review. Int J Impact Eng2023; 181: 104759.
4.
BoharaRPLinforthSNguyenT, et al.Anti-blast and -impact performances of auxetic structures: a review of structures, materials, methods, and fabrications. Eng Struct2023; 276: 115377.
5.
RadfordDDMcShaneGJDeshpandeVS, et al.The response of clamped sandwich plates with metallic foam cores to simulated blast loading. Int J Solid Struct2006; 43(7–8): 2243–2259.
6.
DharmasenaKPWadleyHNGXueZ, et al.Mechanical response of metallic honeycomb sandwich panel structures to high-intensity dynamic loading. Int J Impact Eng2008; 35(9): 1063–1074.
7.
TekalurSAShuklaAShivakumarK. Blast resistance of polyurea based layered composite materials. Compos Struct2008; 84(3): 271–281.
8.
WangEGardnerNShuklaA. The blast resistance of sandwich composites with stepwise graded cores. Int J Solid Struct2009; 46(18–19): 3492–3502.
9.
Hoo FattMSPallaL. Analytical modeling of composite sandwich panels under blast loads. J Sandw Struct Mater2009; 11(4): 357–380.
10.
TekalurSABogdanovichAEShuklaA. Shock loading response of sandwich panels with 3-D woven E-glass composite skins and stitched foam core. Compos Sci Technol2009; 69(6): 736–753.
11.
AndrewsEWMoussaNA. Failure mode maps for composite sandwich panels subjected to air blast loading. Int J Impact Eng2009; 36(3): 418–425.
12.
JacksonMShuklaA. Performance of sandwich composites subjected to sequential impact and air blast loading. Composites Part B2011; 42(2): 155–166.
13.
GardnerNWangEShuklaA. Performance of functionally graded sandwich composite beams under shock wave loading. Compos Struct2012; 94(5): 1755–1770.
14.
GuptaSShuklaA. Blast performance of marine foam core sandwich composites at extreme temperatures. Exp Mech2012; 52(9): 1521–1534.
15.
LangdonGSVon KlempererCJRowlandBK, et al.The response of sandwich structures with composite face sheets and polymer foam cores to air-blast loading: preliminary experiments. Eng Struct2012; 36: 104–112.
16.
DharmasenaKPWadleyHNGWilliamsK, et al.Response of metallic pyramidal lattice core sandwich panels to high intensity impulsive loading in air. Int J Impact Eng2011; 38(5): 275–289.
17.
CuiXZhaoLWangZ, et al.Dynamic response of metallic lattice sandwich structures to impulsive loading. Int J Impact Eng2012; 43: 1–5.
18.
LiJQinQZhangJ. Internal blast resistance of sandwich cylinder with lattice cores. Int J Mech Sci2021; 191: 106107.
19.
LiXWangZZhuF, et al.Response of aluminium corrugated sandwich panels under air blast loadings: experiment and numerical simulation. Int J Impact Eng2014; 65: 79–88.
20.
YaziciMWrightJBertinD, et al.Experimental and numerical study of foam filled corrugated core steel sandwich structures subjected to blast loading. Compos Struct2014; 110: 98–109.
21.
LiangCCYangMFWuPW. Optimum design of metallic corrugated core sandwich panels subjected to blast loads. Ocean Eng2001; 28(7): 825–861.
22.
ZhangPChengYLiuJ, et al.Experimental and numerical investigations on laser-welded corrugated-core sandwich panels subjected to air blast loading. Mar Struct2015; 40: 225–246.
23.
TarlochanF. Sandwich structures for energy absorption applications: a review. Materials2021; 14: 4731.
24.
KaragiozovaDNurickGNLangdonGS. Behaviour of sandwich panels subject to intense air blasts – part 2: numerical simulation. Compos Struct2009; 91(4): 442–450.
25.
ZhuFWangZLuG, et al.Analytical investigation and optimal design of sandwich panels subjected to shock loading. Mater Des2009; 30(1): 91–100.
26.
NurickGNLangdonGSChiY, et al.Behaviour of sandwich panels subjected to intense air blast – part 1: experiments. Compos Struct2009; 91(4): 433–441.
27.
TheobaldMDLangdonGSNurickGN, et al.Large inelastic response of unbonded metallic foam and honeycomb core sandwich panels to blast loading. Compos Struct2010; 92(10): 2465–2475.
28.
LiXZhangPWangZ, et al.Dynamic behavior of aluminum honeycomb sandwich panels under air blast: experiment and numerical analysis. Compos Struct2014; 108: 1001–1008.
29.
LiSLiXWangZ, et al.Sandwich panels with layered graded aluminum honeycomb cores under blast loading. Compos Struct2017; 173: 242–254.
30.
EvansKEAldersonA. Auxetic materials: functional materials and structures from lateral thinking. Adv Mater2000; 12(9): 617–628.
31.
CoenenVLAldersonKL. Mechanisms of failure in the static indentation resistance of auxetic carbon fibre laminates. Phys Status Solidi B2011; 248(1): 66–72.
32.
ArgatovIIGuinovart-DíazRSabinaFJ. On local indentation and impact compliance of isotropic auxetic materials from the continuum mechanics viewpoint. Int J Eng Sci2012; 54: 42–57.
33.
WagnerMALumpeTSChenT, et al.Programmable, active lattice structures: unifying stretch-dominated and bending-dominated topologies. Extreme Mech Lett2019; 29: 100461.
34.
FaraciDDriemeierLComiC. Bending-dominated auxetic materials for wearable protective devices against impact. J Dyn Behav Mater2021; 7(3): 425–435.
35.
WangMWuHYangL, et al.Structure design of arc-shaped auxetic metamaterials with tunable Poisson’s ratio. Mech Adv Mater Struct2023; 30(7): 1426–1436.
36.
RenXShenJTranP, et al.Design and characterisation of a tuneable 3D buckling-induced auxetic metamaterial. Mater Des2018; 139: 336–342.
37.
GhaedizadehAShenJRenX, et al.Tuning the performance of metallic auxetic metamaterials by using buckling and plasticity. Materials2016; 9(1): 54.
38.
LinforthSNgoTTranP, et al.Investigation of the auxetic oval structure for energy absorption through quasi-static and dynamic experiments. Int J Impact Eng2021; 147: 103741.
39.
PlewaJPłońskaMLisP. Investigation of modified auxetic structures from rigid rotating squares. Materials2022; 15(8): 2848.
40.
GaoQGeCZhuangW, et al.Crashworthiness analysis of double-arrowed auxetic structure under axial impact loading. Mater Des2019; 161: 22–34.
41.
GaoQLiaoWHWangL. On the low-velocity impact responses of auxetic double arrowed honeycomb. Aero Sci Technol2020; 98: 105698.
42.
TangCLiLWangL, et al.Numerical and experimental studies on the deformation of missing‐rib and mixed structures under compression. Phys Status Solidi B2020; 257(10): 2000150.
43.
WuWHuWQianG, et al.Mechanical design and multifunctional applications of chiral mechanical metamaterials: a review. Mater Des2019; 180: 107950.
44.
NovakNVesenjakMTanakaS, et al.Compressive behaviour of chiral auxetic cellular structures at different strain rates. Int J Impact Eng2020; 141: 103566.
45.
RafsanjaniAPasiniD. Bistable auxetic mechanical metamaterials inspired by ancient geometric motifs. Extreme Mech Lett2016; 9: 291–296.
46.
HarrisJAMcShaneGJ. Impact response of metallic stacked origami cellular materials. Int J Impact Eng2021; 147: 103730.
47.
HarrisJAMcShaneGJ. Metallic stacked origami cellular materials: additive manufacturing, properties, and modelling. Int J Solid Struct2020; 185–186: 448–466.
48.
BianchiMScarpaFLSmithCW. Stiffness and energy dissipation in polyurethane auxetic foams. J Mater Sci2008; 43(17): 5851–5860.
49.
YangWLiZMShiW, et al.Review on auxetic materials. J Mater Sci2004; 39(10): 3269–3279.
50.
RenXDasRTranP, et al.Auxetic metamaterials and structures: a review. Smart Mater Struct2018; 27(2): 023001.
51.
WangZLuanCLiaoG, et al.Progress in auxetic mechanical metamaterials: structures, characteristics, manufacturing methods, and applications. Adv Eng Mater2020; 22(10): 2000312.
52.
ZhangJLuGYouZ. Large deformation and energy absorption of additively manufactured auxetic materials and structures: a review. Composites Part B2020; 201: 108340.
53.
DuncanOShepherdTMoroneyC, et al.Review of auxetic materials for sports applications: expanding options in comfort and protection. Appl Sci2018; 8(6): 941.
54.
MirMAliMNSamiJ, et al.Review of mechanics and applications of auxetic structures. Adv Mater Sci Eng2014; 2014: 1–17.
55.
JinXWangZNingJ, et al.Dynamic response of sandwich structures with graded auxetic honeycomb cores under blast loading. Composites Part B2016; 106: 206–217.
56.
QiCPeiLZRemennikovA, et al.Parametric study and optimization of the protect system containing a re-entrant hexagon cored sandwich panel under blast impact. Compos Struct2020; 252: 112711.
57.
KalubadanageDRemennikovANgoT, et al.Experimental study on damage magnification effect of lightweight auxetic honeycomb protective panels under close-in blast loads. Thin-Walled Struct2022; 178: 109509.
58.
YanZLiuYYanJ, et al.Anti-blast performance of 3D-printed sandwich panels with auxetic hexagonal and regular hexagonal honeycomb cores. Eng Struct2022; 272: 114996.
59.
ImbalzanoGLinforthSNgoTD, et al.Blast resistance of auxetic and honeycomb sandwich panels: comparisons and parametric designs. Compos Struct2018; 183: 242–261.
60.
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.
61.
LanXFengSHuangQ, et al.A comparative study of blast resistance of cylindrical sandwich panels with aluminum foam and auxetic honeycomb cores. Aero Sci Technol2019; 87: 37–47.
62.
WangHLuZYangZ, et al.A novel re-entrant auxetic honeycomb with enhanced in-plane impact resistance. Compos Struct2019; 208: 758–770.
63.
GuoM-FYangHMaL. Design and characterization of 3D AuxHex lattice structures. Int J Mech Sci2020; 181: 105700.
64.
QiCJiangFRemennikovA, et al.Quasi-static crushing behavior of novel re-entrant circular auxetic honeycombs. Composites Part B2020; 197: 108117.
65.
WangYZhaoWZhouG, et al.Analysis and parametric optimization of a novel sandwich panel with double-V auxetic structure core under air blast loading. Int J Mech Sci2018; 142–143: 245–254.
66.
LanXHuangQZhouT, et al.Optimal design of a novel cylindrical sandwich panel with double arrow auxetic core under air blast loading. Def Technol2020; 16: 617–626.
67.
NovakNStarčevičLVesenjakM, et al.Blast response study of the sandwich composite panels with 3D chiral auxetic core. Compos Struct2019; 210: 167–178.
68.
ChenCHeYXuR, et al.Dynamic behaviors of sandwich panels with 3D-printed gradient auxetic cores subjected to blast load. Int J Impact Eng2024; 188: 104943.
69.
BoharaRPLinforthSNguyenT, et al.Dual-mechanism auxetic-core protective sandwich structure under blast loading. Compos Struct2022; 299: 116088.
70.
QiCJiangFRemennikovA, et al.Quasi-static crushing behavior of novel re-entrant circular auxetic honeycombs. Composites Part B2020; 197: 108117.
71.
ZhuFZhaoLLuG, et al.Deformation and failure of blast-loaded metallic sandwich panels—Experimental investigations. Int J Impact Eng2008; 35(8): 937–951.
72.
HassanMZGuanZWCantwellWJ, et al.The influence of core density on the blast resistance of foam-based sandwich structures. Int J Impact Eng2012; 50: 9–16.
73.
BrekkenKAReyesABerstadT, et al.Sandwich panels with polymeric foam cores exposed to blast loading: an experimental and numerical investigation. Appl Sci2020; 10(24): 9061.
74.
WangELiQSunG. Computational analysis and optimization of sandwich panels with homogeneous and graded foam cores for blast resistance. Thin-Walled Struct2020; 147: 106494.
75.
QiCRemennikovAPeiLZ, et al.Impact and close-in blast response of auxetic honeycomb-cored sandwich panels: experimental tests and numerical simulations. Compos Struct2017; 180: 161–178.
76.
LiSLiXWangZ, et al.Finite element analysis of sandwich panels with stepwise graded aluminum honeycomb cores under blast loading. Compos Part Appl Sci Manuf2016; 80: 1–12.
77.
JiangFYangSQiC, et al.Blast response and multi-objective optimization of graded re-entrant circular auxetic cored sandwich panels. Compos Struct2023; 305: 116494.
78.
BoydSD.Acceleration of a plate subject to explosive blast loading - trial results. DSTO Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory. 2000.
79.
QiCJiangFYangS, et al.Dynamic crushing response of novel re-entrant circular auxetic honeycombs: numerical simulation and theoretical analysis. Aero Sci Technol2022; 124: 107548.
80.
WeiLZhaoXYuQ, et al.In-plane compression behaviors of the auxetic star honeycomb: experimental and numerical simulation. Aero Sci Technol2021; 115: 106797.
81.
GalehdariSAKadkhodayanM. Collapse of honeycomb cell as a result of buckling or plastic hinges, analytical, numerical, and experimental study. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng2019; 41(3): 154.
82.
WangEShuklaA. Blast performance of sandwich composites with in-plane compressive loading. Exp Mech2012; 52(1): 49–58.
83.
LSTC. LS-DYNA: keywors user’s manual I. LSTC.
84.
HallquistJO. LS-DYNA theory manual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation, 2006.
85.
KingeryCNBulmashG. Airblast parameters from TNT spherical air burst and hemispherical surface burst, ARBRLTR-02555. MD: US army ballistic research laboratory. Aberdeen Proving Ground. 1984; 1344.
86.
UddinN. Blast protection of civil infrastructures and vehicles using composites. Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2010.
87.
ChenWHaoH. Numerical study of a new multi-arch double-layered blast-resistance door panel. Int J Impact Eng2012; 43: 16–28.
88.
StoutMGFollansbeePS. Strain rate sensitivity, strain hardening, and yield behavior of 304L stainless steel. J Eng Mater Technol1986; 108(4): 344–353.
89.
ZhuFZhaoLLuG, et al.A numerical simulation of the blast impact of square metallic sandwich panels. Int J Impact Eng2009; 36(5): 687–699.
90.
YuanSWeiYGongJ, et al. Compressive behavior of improved star-shaped honeycomb multi-cell structures: experiments and simulations. Mech Adv Mater Struct. 2025; 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2025.2457126
91.
LvWLiDDongL. Study on blast resistance of a composite sandwich panel with isotropic foam core with negative Poisson's ratio. Int J Mech Sci2021; 191: 106105.
